1924-05-22

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Do the Canadian National transcontinental trains numbers 1 and 2 carry mail in either direction from coast to coast ?
2.	If so, what are the revenues received therefrom?
3.	Does mail from stations in the vicinity of Jasper Park go through to Vancouver when westbound?
4.	If not, what is the routing practised, and what railway company carry the mail?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (for the Postmaster General):: 1.	Mails are carried on these trains between the following points: Halifax, N.S., and Montreal, P.Q.; Cochrane, Ont.; and Winnipeg, Man.; Winnipeg, Man.; and Melville, Sask.; Lucerne, B.C.; and Kamloops, B.C.
2.	$270,094.62 per annum.
3.	Yes, but- not direct.
4.	By Canadian National Railway train 3 to Lucerne, B.C.; Canadian National Railway train 1 Lucerne to Kamloops, B.C.; Canadian Pacific Railway train Kamloops to Vancouver, B.C.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank


ARMENIAN IMMIGRATION
Mr. ELLIOTT (Waterloo):: 1.	Is the government discouraging Armenian immigration into Canada?
2.	If so, why?
3.	How many Armenians have entered Canada since January 1st, 1924?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	The immigration regulation impose upon Armenians as well as upon immigrants of many other nationalities an occupational test and also upon Armenians as well as upon other Asiatics the money test. The occupation test restricts immigration from Armenia to, (a) farmers and farm labourers coming to settle on the land; (b) women coming to engage in housework; and (c) the wife and minor children of any person legally resident in Canada. The money test is $250 and Asiatic immigrants are required to be in possession of $250 as a condition of landing. This, however, does not apply to a wife or minor children. As Armenians seldom farm in Canada, it naturally follows that the application of the immigration regulations reduces Armenian immigration to a small number annually.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Incomplete returns to the end of April give the number of admissions as 163.


HOME BANK
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Did the officials of the Home Bank approach the Finance department of the government in 1923 to obtain an advance or advances under the Finance Act?
2.	If so, on -what date or dates, and for what
amounts?
3.	If a refusal was made, what reasons were given for same?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1. No fresh advances were applied for.
2 and 3. Prior to May 1st, on which date all loans under the Finance Act became due, the bank made formal application for the authorization of a standing credit up to $3,000,000 against securities acceptable to the Treasury Board, including the renewal of an outstanding loan of $220,000 secured by Dominion bonds of a like amount. This application was approved, but the bank did not submit any additional securities or avail itself of the provision apart from the renewal of the existing loan.


HON. MR. MURDOCK AND HOME BANK
Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to move a resolution which affects not only the public interest but the honour of this House. It affects more particularly, in fact very particularly, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). I have
taken occasion, Sir, to notify him of my intention, and I have also supplied him with a copy of the resolution. I have received a reply from him that the action about to be taken by me is satisfactory to him.
The matter concerned is the relation of and' dealings by the hon. minister, in his personal capacity and as minister of the Crown, with the defunct Home Bank, these dealings being confined to the day or two prior to its failure. It had been my intention to bring this matter before the House at an earlier date, but unfortunately I did not find an opportunity of doing so.
In presenting what I have to say in this connection I have no desire whatever to express a personal opinion or to comment upon the facts. I desire only to bring the facts as they have been disclosed to me to the attention of the House for such action as the House may see fit to take in the circumstances. I can only undertake to state, in addition to the facts as they have been disclosed to me, certain principles and rules of parliament which, the evidence has convinced me, have been infringed by the hon. minister.
In moving this resolution I hope that my intentions will not be misconstrued or my language misapprehended. I have no personal quarrel with the hon. minister; in fact I have no personal acquaintance with the hon. gentleman further than to have met him occasionally in the corridors of the House. I have no quarrel with him as minister of the department over which he presides or as a representative of that * class of people with whose interests he is most intimately connected. I have no Home Bank depositors or shareholders, so far as I know, in the riding which I have the honour to represent in this House. I have no political feeling in the matter; I have tried as best I can to divest myself of any feeling of that character, and I only desire and hope that what I may say in connection with this matter may be received 'by the House in that spirit. My only desire, my only intention in moving this resolution is that the dignity and the honour of parliament may be preserved, that its rights, its privileges and its traditions may not be infringed upon either by the hon. minister who is here charged or by any other hon. member. It is just as important that the honour and integrity of a member of the House or the government should at all times be sustained as it is that the honour of the House should be sustained, and it is with that double view that I take this action. Without that preservation of the integrity of ministers of the Crown particularly, and of members of the House in general, it would

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
be impossible to carry on with any degree of safety the affairs of government. A disregard of the honour and traditions of parliament can only bring condemnation to any government, and it must in the end bring not only utter failure but disgrace upon the government of Canada. The importance, therefore, of the maintenance of the honour of a member of parliament or of a member of the government is evident.
I find, not only from my own recollection of political affairs, but upon searching the public records of Canada, that the Canadian government has been singularly free from lapses of public rectitude. There are only a few cases on record, and I find that in all those cases-and it is only what might have been expected-neither the parliament nor the public of Canada were slow in applying punishment where the conduct of a minister or of a member called for it. In all my searching, which has been somewhat extensive, I have not found a case where upon conduct being alleged such as I intend to charge here, the investigation asked for was refused by parliament. It is therefore with a great deal of confidence that I bring this motion before the House, believing, as I do, that the precedent established by parliament will be followed in this case and that an investigation of the charges I am about to make will be granted, in order not only that the honour of parliament may be vindicated and the traditions of parliament maintained, but, that the integrity, honesty and faithfulness to office and duty on the part of the minister will be established.
The matter to which I particularly refer came to the public knowledge as long ago as the 20th. of February, 1924, in an article published in the Ottawa Journal, in which the minister was charged with the same offence, if I may so designate it-charged with the same thing that I am about to charge him with to-day. In the Mail and Empire of the 29th February he was similarly charged I do not propose to read those articles, because I do not think it wTould be fair or just, nor do I believe that newspaper articles are competent or sufficient evidence. I only mention these charges made through the public press to indicate to the House that the public, and that includes the minister and the government, became aware of them at that time.
The British parliament, which we are all glad to look to as our example in connection with the preservation of the dignity of parliament, the proper conduct of public affairs and many other matters, has always been very careful in preserving the dignity i of that
	,
House and in seeing that the conduct of ministers of the Crown is in accord with the principles that they have laid down and have always, I believe, succeeded in following. That is one of the principles-the principle laid down by the British parliament-that I am invoking here to-day. Let me quote the words of a very eminent minister of the British government, Sir Rufus Isaacs, then Solicitor General, in this connection. He said:
If a minister should use any information which he obtains as a minister for the purpose of furthering his own interests, he is deserving of censure.
Further he says:
Whether the minister was personally wicked is not the point. The question is whether the precedent which he sets up is a bad one.
And further:
Apart from all personal motives and personal considerations, whether the facts as known to the public establish a precedent which he can safely allow to stand.
The British parliament, so far as I have been able to discover, has never undertaken to define in so many words, or in any one particular rule, what conduct shall, or what conduct shall not, constitute an infringement of that rule. It is, as has been stated in some of the discussions, a matter of the honour of a member and of the dignity of parliament, which alone is in the keeping and charge of parliament itself. No one could possibly imagine exactly what line of conduct might come before parliament in a matter of that character, and so I take it that it has been impossible, or if not impossible, that it was at least considered inadvisable, that parliament should lay down any particular rule within the four corners of which a minister or a member must come in order to merit condemnation for any action that he might be guilty of. Sir Rufus Isaacs, to whom I have referred, was himself charged with a breach of his duty as a minister of the Crown, and I might say also that in that he was charged jointly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on that occasion when the matter came before parliament on a direct charge against these two ministers of the Crown, Sir Rufus Isaacs used this further language:
No minister should use any information which he obtains as a minister for the purpose of furthering his private interests.
And Mr. Asquith, when Prime Minister of Great Britain, on that same occasion used this language:
No minister is justified under any circumstances in using official information that has come to him as a minister for his own profit or for that of his friends-

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
He adds this further, broadening out the rule and seeing that it is not too much confined:
-or as* to which from their position and their special means of early br confidential information, they have or may have an advantage over other people.
Now with those principles established on the authority to which I have referred, and which principles I invoke, I would like for a few moments to direct the attention of the House to the position that a minister of the Crown occupies, in his duty to the Crown, his duty to the public, and his personal interests. As a minister of the Crown I think it is apparent, and will at once be acknowledged, that he becomes a trustee for the Crown. His election to parliament makes him necessarily a trustee for the people, and his position as a minister makes him more so perhaps, if the obligation can be increased, than if he were an ordinary member of parliament. His personal interests are, at once upon his election to the honourable position of a minister of the Crown, subordinated to his obligations as such trustee. His obligations as a trustee for the Crown and as a trustee for all the people are far and away superior to any rights that he may personally enjoy. The general law of trusts, which is founded, as we all know, by centuries of practice on what is just and right, applies with all its force, to a member or a minister who occupies the position of a trustee. I do not think it will require any elaboration or argument on my part to establish that point. May I add that if a trustee in any capacity uses his position as trustee to gain some advantage to himself or in his own personal right, that is a breach of the very first obligation, and the greatest obligation that a trustee can possibly assume.
Now may I ask the House to assume, and only for the moment to illustrate my argument, that the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) did receive as a minister of the Crown, information as to the financial condition of the Home Bank. Could he go out on the street and divulge to the public the information that he received? The very obligation of his office would prevent his doing that. If he could not do that and give the public, those for whom he is a trustee, the benefit of his knowledge, let me ask, in all decency, could a minister of the Crown use that knowledge that he was denying and was bound to deny to the public, for his own personal knowledge? I have only to state the case, I think, to convince hon. members of this House that such conduct would merit the condemnation not only of parliament but of the people as a whole.
I had occasion to read a synopsis of the evidence given by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) before the Home Bank Commission just a few days ago, and I was very glad to see that the right hon. gentleman himself took the very position that I am-I was going to say urging on the House to-day, but I do not need to urge it, I need only mention it-the Prime Minister himself took the position I have mentioned, for he stated that his obligations of office precluded him from making any statement to the Home Bank Commissioner as to what had taken place in cabinet meetings, and he even went so far as to say that he could not-and he did not-disclose the names of members of the government who were present at a meeting of the cabinet.
Now, when the minister (Mr. Murdock) became aware of the charges contained in newspaper reports, and that his honour was impugned, it seems to me the obligation devolved upon him at that time to rise in his place in the House and clear the matter up, and disavow if he could those charges. The course was open to him to rise in his place and deny the charges that had been made. He could then have furnished proper and sufficient evidence, if such was available, giving all the particulars in regard to his withdrawal of his funds from the Home Bank at that particular time. Had he done that, parliament and the public might have been satisfied and the matter might not have gone any further. But the hon. minister did not do that. He prefered to remain silent, preferred to make no answer to parliament at all; and the charges made stand to-day so far as parliament and the public are concerned.
Then the matter came up incidentally in this House on the 27th March. I say "incidentally" because the questions put at that time were not of a direct character. On the date referred to the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) questioned the Prime Minister as follows:
Will the hon. Prime Minister give us now, if he has them, the representations made by the directors who were here begging government assistance? He has got them.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I do not know what representations my hon. friend has reference to, but any representations made to the government will be placed before the commission, whatever they are and wherever they are.
The Prime Minister has been before the commission, "whatever they are and wherever they are" and I fail to find in his evidence anywhere that that information was placed before them.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I may say to
my hon. friend that as soon as the commission

Mr. Murdoch and Home Bank
was appointed I forwarded to it the representations that were made to the government.


Edward Guss Porter: That does not appear in
the public records.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It appears in the records of the commission.


Edward Guss Porter: What I am stating is that there was an opportunity for the Prime Minister at that time to make a statement in a public way and not by private letter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was a
public letter.


Edward Guss Porter: In giving his evidence he
had the opportunity of meeting what I am alleging here. On the occasion in question the discussion proceeded:
Sir Henry Drayton: What I am referring to I think my hon. friend understands.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I do not.
Sir Henry Drayton: I refer to the representations made 'by the directors who came to Ottawa for the purpose of acquainting the government with the situation, and the statements made by them, the action taken by the government in allowing the bank to go, and the reasons for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those are the very matters I referred to the commission, not privately but publicly.


Edward Guss Porter: I am not saying there was not a reference made to the commission. What I am stating, and reiterating, is that there was an oportunity for the Prime Minister to make a statement at that time but he did not do it. Therefore I think I am perfectly justified in saying that not only has the Minister of Labour had ample opportunity to disavow these charges, but the Prime Minister has also had the opportunity, if he desired to do so, to state before parliament what took place. The Prime Minister had the second opportunity of making such a statement when he was before the commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is my
hon. friend referring to now? Is he saying there were representations made to the government in reference to the very charges he is preferring at the present time?


Edward Guss Porter: Not to the charges but to
the facts upon which the charges were based.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There have
been no representations made to the government in this matter. The hon. member is at the present moment making the first representation that has been made on this subject.


Edward Guss Porter: My right hon. friend does not understand me, apparently.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I certainly do not.


Edward Guss Porter: I thought I had made it
quite plain. The Prime Minister was asked by the hon. member for West York to state what representations were made by the directors of the Home Bank. My right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) has never made any statement as to what the representations were.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have made
the statement over and over again, that I would transfer to the commission all representations that were made to the government, and I have done so.


Edward Guss Porter: I am bound to accept the
Prime Minister's statement but the public is not aware of that fact.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it is.


Edward Guss Porter: I cannot find in the evidence any statement of such a character at all. Now, what the Prime Minister said was that any representations made to the government would be placed before the commission, "whatever they are and wherever they are." Ample opportunity has been given for the Prime Minister to inform the House and the public just what was brought before the cabinet, or members of the government, in connection with this matter and he has not taken advantage of that opportunity. Neither has the minister (Mr. Murdock) made any statement which would satisfy the public and clear his own reputation, and the fact of his not having done so 'leaves the public and this House in a condition of suspense and suspicion which might otherwise not obtain.
These considerations, and the fact that neither the minister nor the Prime Minister have seen fit to avail themselves during the many weeks of opportunity offered for explaining, have urged me to move this resolution in order that the facts may become known, and the honour of parliament and the honour of the minister too may be vindicated, and it is only from that motive that I have done it.
May I now. as briefly as I can, invite the attention of the House to the facts as they have been disclosed to me and upon such reliable authority as I will be able to produce upon an investigation and evidence, which, so far as I am personally concerned, I have not the slightest doubt was honestly given to me, and that I will be able to establish these facts, as follows:
(1)	That the Home Bank on the 14th day of August, 1923 held a meeting of its directors in Toronto, when it was made evident that

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
the bank must fail unless it received assistance, and this position apparently was known for some time before.
(2)	On the same day, about ten or eleven o'clock at night, certain directors of the Home Bank having proceeded to Ottawa by order of its directorate, to consult the government with regard to obtaining assistance, one or more of the directors met the Prime Minister (Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King), the . Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and other members of the cabinet at the Prime Minister's house, when the disclosure of the bank's affairs was made in such a manner and to such fearful purpose as to leave the Prime Minister aghast, and under the impression that if demands were made upon the bank within the next few days the bank could not meet them; and assistance was positively and absolutely refused-on which date the government became fully aware of the serious financial condition of the bank, and on that date the members of the government became aware by the statement of the directors themselves as to what the financial condition of the bank was. There was no pleading want of knowledge after that.
(3)	On the following day, the 15th of August, the cabinet held a meeting having all this knowledge before it, which was doubtless fully discussed. I do not think I need even to state that undoubtedly such an important matter as this would be fully discussed.
(4)	Not obtaining assistance from the government the directors and the Acting Finance Minister proceeded to Montreal on the evening of the same day, the 15th of August, and consulted financial interests there for the purpose of obtaining help. The interests consulted in Montreal could not give answer until the following morning the 16th of August, and when they did so, no help being forthcoming, the directors returned to Toronto, and I presume the Acting Finance Minister returned to Ottawa.
(5)	The next day, the 17th of August, the bank failed and closed its doors, and I need only mention the sickening trail of suffering, poverty, hardship and alleged crime left in its wake.
(6)	The Hon. James Murdock had a deposit in the Home Bank, Ottawa branch, to savings account, of several thousand dollars from about the 1st of July, 1923 to the 15th of August, 1923, the day of the cabinet meeting at which the financial condition of the Home Bank was fully known and doubtless was discussed, and on the same day and very shortly after the cabinet meeting adjourned, and just before the close of banking hours, the Hon. James Murdock withdrew from his deposit in
the Home Bank, Ottawa, having knowledge as such minister of its financial condition, thousands of dollars, and leaving only a small sum remaining to his credit, and from which he made further withdrawal, leaving only the infinitesimal sum of 889 there when the bank failed. I think that is the amount he stated.
(7)	That in making such withdrawal the Hon. James Murdock refused to accept a marked cheque in the usual course of business, and demanded cash or legals for the amount of his withdrawal, and it being near the close of banking hours, the strong box of the bank had to be re-opened to obtain the cash which was paid over to the minister.
(8)	That immediately after such withdrawal the Hon. James Murdock re-deposited the same cash or legals he had withdrawn into another bank in Ottawa to his credit.
(9)	That on the following day, 16th of August, the same legals -withdrawn by the Hon. James Murdock from the Home Bank were returned to it by the Royal Bank through the clearing house at Ottawa.
(10)	That the Hon. James Murdock did not use the said withdrawal at that time for any purpose, but deposited it in another bank.
(11)	That thousands of depositors in the Home Bank lost their deposits, entailing poverty, hardship and ruin. Many of them lost all they had in the world.
(12)	The Hon. James Murdock saved his deposit, thus profiting to the extent of thousands of dollars by making use of knowledge confidentially obtained as a minister of the Crown, through the means aforesaid; and in breach of his obligation as a minister of the Crown, and in violation of the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament.
The hon. minister had saved his deposit and profited to that extent, because had his money remained in the Home Bank, as did the money of these thousands of other depositors to whom I have referred, he would have lost that money. By his action he profited to the extent of thousands of dollars that he withdrew from the bank.
Now I challenge that this was in breach of his obligation as minister of the Crown and in violation of the honour, dignity and tradition of this parliament; and for these reasons I desire to move the following resolution, seconded by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie):
That E. Guss Porter, a member representing the electoral riding of West Hastings, in this House, having declared from his seat in the House, that he is credibly informed and that he -believes he is able to establish by satisfactory evidence that:
The Honourable James Murdock, Minister of Labour, did withdraw from the Home Bank, at its Ottawa branch, on the 15th day of August, 1923, two days before such

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
bank's failure, thousands of dollars on deposit therein, to his credit, using certain information he had received as such minister, of the likely immediate failure of said bank, and had received advantage and profit to himself to the extent of such withdrawal, contrary to his obligations as such minister, and in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament:
That it be referred to the select standing committee on Privileges and Elections of this House to inquire fully into the said allegations with power to send for Persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath or affirmation, and that the said committee do report in full the evidence taken before them, and all other proceedings on th,e reference, and the result of their inquiries to this House for such action thereon as this House may determine.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am under an
obligation to the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) for having advised me yesterday that he was going to bring this matter up to-day in the resolution that he has moved. I indicated to the hon. member that his proposed action was quite agreeable to me. I am not going to make any extended remarks in regard to this matter, leaving that for the members of the House. I am as much interested as the hon. member in maintaining the honour and dignity of this House, and I have an additional concern,
4 p.m. namely, my personal integrity and honour in the matter. May I refer to one charge that seems to be made against me. The hon. member charges that I made no attempt to clear up the charges that were made against me in the press as early as 20th February last. I should like to say in all seriousness that my experience has been that if I attempted to clear up all the charges that are made against me in the press, I might not have time to do much else.
I am going to read some correspondence that speaks for itself and deals with this matter. This is the first letter:
Home Bank of Canada,
Head Office,
Toronto, May 7, 1924.
Hon. James Murdock,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Murdock,-The statement has been made to Mr. Weldon and myself, as liquidators, of the Home Bank of Canada, that withdrawals of funds from the Home Bank of Canada were made just prior to the suspension of the bank, and in some cases after its suspension, by various persons who received knowledge or an intimation of the condition of its affairs. The matter has come before the creditors' committee and counsel for the bank, who inform us that it is our duty-as we believe it is-to take steps to have these withdrawals returned. We have already in a number of cases dealt with the matter and received returns.
In going over the reports we notice the withdrawal by you from the Ottawa branch, of some $4,000, and the statement made to us is that this money was withdrawn after banking hours. The contention is that you received a preference, which the statute would not allow if the facts as stated to us are correct. Under these circumstances I have felt that I should write to vou about rMr. Porter.!
the matter and ask whether you are prepared to return the money and rank as a creditor against the estate, receiving the 25 per cent dividend that has already been paid in the connection. I shall appreciate it if you will be kind enough to let me hear from you as to whether you are willing to do so or not, or whether on the contrary you would prefer to have the matter brought before the referee for adjudication.
Yours truly,
G. T. Clarkson-.
I replied to that as follows:
Ottawa, May 14, 1924.
Dear Mr. Clarkson:
I have your letter of the 7th instant, relative to my withdrawals of moneys from the Home Bank of Canada.
On August 15 last I withdrew from the Home Bank, Ottawa branch, $4,050 and made this withdrawal in the ordinary course of business.
In view, however, of what is set forth in your letter, and of what has been disclosed in connection with the bank's transactions in recent weeks, I propose to return the money which I then drew out.
I may say that I do not think that I am under any legal obligation to do so, but no depositor of the Home Bank will suffer through any act of mine, and especially so in my position as a minister of the Crown.
I enclose to-day my cheque for $1,050 and hope within a few days more to send you the balance, namely, $3,000. If, however, I am entitled to the benefit of the 25 per cent dividend already paid to depositors I would understand that I should only have to pay $2,000 more.
I might add that although I had already a balance of $80.24 or so there, and had filed my claim, I received no dividend on that.
Yours truly,
Mr. G. T. Clarkson,
15 Wellington St., W., Toronto.
James Murdock.
Yesterday morning, just before I received the notification from my hon. friend that he was going to deal with this matter to-day, I received the following letter:
Toronto, May 10, 1924.
Hon. James Murdock,
Ottawa, Canada.
Be Home Bank of Canada
Dear Sir:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 14th instant for which I am obliged. I send you herewith a statement of the amount which, under my computations, it will be necessary for you to refund. From it you will see that the 25 per cent dividend paid can be credited against the withdrawal and that the net amount only will be refunded.
Your truly,
G. T. Clarkson.
Accompanying that was this statement dated May 20, 1924:
Memo for Hon. James Murdock, Ottawa, Ont.
James Murdock Withdrawal Account
August 15-Charge	$4,050	bal. $4,050	debitMay 16-Refunded	
1,050	bal. 3,000	debit
May 16-25 per cent dividend on bal. ($4,140.89) 1,035 22 bal. 1,964 73 debit Interest 5 per cent Aug.
15, 1923-May 16, 1924..	150 30 bal. 2,115 08
That leaves a balance due, as claimed on this statement, of $2,115.08, which I might add, will go forward shortly.

Mr. Murdock ana Home Bank


Edward Guss Porter: What is the date of that?


James Murdock: The letter which accompanied the statement is dated May 16; the statement itself is dated May 20. The postmark on the envelope shows that the letter was posted at 8.30 p.m. on May 20.
So, Mr. Speaker, that is all which it would seem necessary for me to say at the present time. I leave the matter entirely in the hands of the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, with all
that the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) has said respecting the importance of maintaining the honour, the dignity and integrity of parliament, of members of parliament, and particularly of ministers of the Crown, I am, and I believe every hon. member of this House is in most hearty accord. The hon. member was careful to state when he made his presentation to the House that he was doing so, to use his own words, "in the light of facts as they have been disclosed to me". Since he has made his statement he has had further facts disclosed to him; he has now that full information before him which hon. members would wish to have in judging matters of this kind, and I leave it to him to say whether in the light of the full knowledge which he now has he thinks he will be maintaining the dignity, integrity and honour of this House by pressing his motion to a division.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to this particular matter any necessity for an inquiry by a select standing committee of parliament is unnecessary in view of action which the government has already taken. My hon. friend said that he hoped the government would permit an investigation of the charge which he had made. Possibly he has forgotten that quite early in the session, after the government had announced to parliament that Mr. Justice McKeown had been appointed to investigate representations which had been made to the government with regard to the interests of the depositors of the Home Bank, some hon. members drew attention to the fact that the commission appeared to be limited in the matter of time, and did not extend up to the moment of the bank's failure nor did it go back to the time when the bank itself was established. Rather than have it appear-quite erroneously, certainly-that the government was in any way seeking to circumscribe the extent of the inquiry, and in order to demonstrate our desire for the fullest possible investigation into all phases of the bank's failure, the order
in council originally passed was amended on the 17th March last. I laid on the Table a copy of this amended order at the time, and I will now read it to the House in order that its terms may be incorporated as part of the record. It is as follows:	*
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 11th March, 1924, from the Hon. G. P. Graham, for the Prime Minister, submitting that since the publication of the order in council of the 23rd February, 1924 (P.C. 306), providing for an investigation into the affairs of the Home Bank of Canada, representations have been made to the government, in the House of Commons and from other quarters, as to the advisability of extending the inquiry.
It was explained by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister that, in referring to a commissioner allegations prepared and presented to the government by the. depositors of the bank, the government were possibly going as far as the depositors would think it necessary or advisable, but that in view of the representations now made, tfie government was prepared to have the fullest possible investigation made and to authorize the commissioner to investigate the affairs of the said bank from the issue of its charter down to the date of its failure.
The Committee of the Privy Council therefore advise that the powers of the commissioner under the said order in council be not limited to the specific years 1915, 1916 and 1918 referred to in the petition of the depositors, but should extend to an investigation of the affairs of the said bank during the whole interval between the issue of the bank's charter and the failure of the said bank, including any representations made to the government of the day, as to its condition, any action taken by any of the Ministers of Finance upon such representations as may have been made, and the effect on the position of the depositors of any audit under section 56a of the Bank Act if made at any time in consequence of such representations.
In view of additional representations which have been made to the government that at divers times while the said bank was in existence deposits were made and afterwards withdrawn by various depositors, under conditions which might require explanation, the Committee of the Privy Council further advise that the attention of the commissioner be especially directed to this feature in the course of his investigation.
So, Mr. Speaker, on the 17th March last this government had already by order in council referred to the commissioner who has been, and is still, taking evidence, any "representations which have been made that at divers times while the said bank was in existence deposits were made and afterwards withdrawn by various depositors under conditions which might require explanation." The commissioner has completed one part of the inquiry. The government have asked him not to continue to the end, but rather to hasten the part of his report which is of most concern to the depositors, and to present this to the government as quickly as possible so that we can deal with it this session. It has of course, been assumed that the commissioner would continue his work after he had made an interim report on the one phase he has been inquiring into and take

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
up other matters which still remain to be investigated and which are included in the amended order. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this particular matter ds fully covered by the amended order and can be brought before the commissioner by any person who may desire so to do, and that there is no necessity for the committee on Privileges and Elections to make a further inquiry. If, however, my hon. friend or those who are associated with him on the other side of the House feel that any right and proper purpose for maintaining the honour, dignity and integrity of this House or of any member or of any minister will be served by having the further investigation which he now suggests, then on behalf of the government I wish to say that we will be only too ready to have this motion pass.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is an occasion and this is a subject which do not afford pleasure to any hon. member on any side of the House. It is very rarely indeed that questions of personal propriety as respects ministers or members come before parliament. Only once or twice in our history has it happened. On this occasion the proper course undoubtedly has been pursued by the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter). He has made allegations of conduct against a minister of the Crown, conduct inconsistent with the traditions and honour of parliament, conduct designated as improper in every case where similar questions have arisen in this or in the British House. He has taken the full responsibility, and in a speech temperate in tone and very fair in every aspect has laid his charges and made his motion. The motion is the right motion. The Privileges and Elections committee historically is the committee which always deals with any contested question affecting the privileges of parliament. There has never been a case in our history where, a charge being formally laid, the full responsibility being taken and a reference to this committee asked for, such a request or such a resolution has been negatived.
It is solemnly important on an occasion of this sort-it is indeed, imperative-that in this discussion the utmost fairness be manifested toward the minister accused-important because of the nearness of the whole subject to the fortunes of his career, to his personal selfrespect; important also because he is necessarily and rightly absent during the debate.
I take the Prime Minister's attitude to be not one of criticism of the method pursued but rather one of request to the mover of the motion that in view of two things the motion be withdrawn. The first fact upon which he 
bases his request is that the accused minister has now returned the money, or purposes returning in full the money, which he wrongfully withdrew.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
quite correct.


Arthur Meighen: Which it is alleged he wrongfully withdrew.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; my point is this: The hon. member said in presenting his motion that he was doing so, to use his own words, in the light of facts as they had been disclosed to him. My point now is that he has before him facts which he had not at the time he introduced the resolution and that in the light of those facts he might possibly not desire to press it.


Arthur Meighen: That is exactly what I intended to say; the first of these further facts being the fact of the return, or prospective return, of the money, in response to a request from the liquidator of the bank. The second basis of the request is that, as claimed by the Prime Minister, there has been a commissioner sitting looking into Home Bank matters for certain purposes and that under the terms of the reference to that commissioner the hon. member might have gone to him, or might yet go, if he so desires, to press his case.
Dealing with the request and the double basis therefor, I want to draw to the attention of the House a very remarkable circumstance. We are here in the presence of a charge definitely made of misconduct, of personal impropriety on the part of a minister of the Crown; we have heard the statement of the minister, which statement, so far as I gathered from his words, contained no denial of the charge at all. This is a most extraordinary situation. The charge, mark you, is one undoubtedly of grave misconduct, misconduct that never can be cured by subsequent repentance or restitution; it was either wrong or it was not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think I should let my right hon. friend's statement that the minister admitted some charge made against him go unchallenged.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say he admitted it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He denied it
in his letter. He said clearly in his reply to the liquidator that his action was in the ordinary course of business.


Arthur Meighen: That is not a denial to
this House. Whether the minister intended

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
to deny it or not, he did not deny it, and if he intended to it is most unfortunate that he did not. In all fairness to him I think an opportunity should be given him even yet to deny in toto the allegations of the hon. member. There was no specific admission on his part, but within the four corners of his address he never disputed the allegation that he obtained information as a minister of the Crown and as a trustee of this nation, and that of this information he made use to his own advantage, made a use which others for whom he was trustee could not possibly make.


Mr MACKENZIE KING:: How could my
right hon. friend say that he made use of this information for his own advantage? I think he made it quite clear that the money he returned was his own money and that he paid SI50 odd in interest in addition to that.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the Prime Minister is quite fair or well-advised in thus interrupting me. I did not say that he had done it; I said such was the charge against him, namely, that he had used information so secured for his own advantage by withdrawing a large sum of money and thereby saving three-quarters of that money. Now, this is the allegation definitely made. That such conduct is wrong there can be no dispute, and I cannot appreciate the attitude of the Prime Minister-I hope he really does not persist in it- that conduct fundamentally wrong in itself is altered if subsequently the minister returns the money. Such a course does not alter the original conduct at all. I do not say it is not to the credit of the minister that he returns the money, but it does not alter the character of the initial conduct in the least; it does not change its colour in any sense at all. So that the minister stands now in the position of being charged with a grave impropriety and of leaving that charge unchallenged before his withdrawal from this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Assuming for
the moment that what is alleged here were being considered there is, to my mind, a very great difference between doing a thing for the purpose of gain and taking a course which, "without injury or injustice to third parties," avoids loss in regard to one's own affairs.


Arthur Meighen: I make no objection to
that interruption, because the Prime Minister now is directly on the point. The allegation is that the information obtained as minister was used for his own advantage-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And profit to himself.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister intimates that while it may be wrong for a minister to use information obtained as such to make a profit over and above the money he already has, it is quite right-at least he says it is a different thing-for him to use the same information to avoid a loss of the money he has. I do not think the Prime Minister on reflection will urge that contention; I do not think he can sustain it in his own mind. Where is the difference in the moral position? Not the slightest. It may be that some six months or a month before, this money was worth its whole weight. At the time the money was withdrawn, or just before, it was not; it was worth three-quarters, but it was raised to one hundred per cent of its par value by the action of the minister. But the authorities are all so clear. If the Prime Minister will read the expressions of Mr. Balfour, now Lord BMfour; of Mr. Cave, now Lord Cave; of Sir Rufus Isaacs, himself, the accused; of Mr. Lloyd George, himself, jointly accused; of Mr. Asquith, at the time Prime Minister; of Sir Edward Grey,-of every one who took any part in the debate on a question of alleged impropriety exactly similar to this, he will find that in every case they laid down the dictum that no minister for his own advantage, whatever it might be- and it is as much advantage to save what you have as to make more-may use information which he secured as a minister of the Crown.
No, there is no disputing what the rule is. There is no disputing that on all sides of all politics, in all times in the history of the British Parliament and wherever a question has arisen in our own, it has constantly been held that no minister can use information gained as such to gain any advantage for himself. Why, if this rule is to be looked upon lightly, or is to be shaded, as suggested by the Prime Minister, what is going to be the effect on, say, the rest of the servants of this Dominion? Constantly in the practice of departments, deputy ministers, heads of branches and others in positions of trust, necessarily receive information as such which they could use to their own advantage, but which if they did they would be held accountable to the head of the department, and if rightly held accountable, would find their positions gone. If ministers are to be permitted to do these things and their conduct go unchallenged by this House, how can we ever after hold accountable those who, under ministers are put in equal temptation and to whom the same conduct is open? No, as to the rule and its inexorable necessity there is no doubt.

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank
Now, are we to be told that the government will not accede to the motion, or at least that the hon. member for West Hastings should not push the motion, because the hon. the minister has since returned, at the request of the liquidator, the money which we say he should not have withdrawn? If the accused minister will state that the allegations of fact set forth in the resolution and set forth in the formal statement of facts preceding it, are not wrong, that the hon. member for West Hastings is not in the position of having falsely accused a fellow member of this House, then I see no reason at all to press the motion further. But as the case stands now if the motion is not pressed, then the hon. member for West Hastings is in the position of having put forward claims and allegations against a fellow-member which stand unsustained. It is owing to the hon. member for West Hastings to give him an opportunity to establish his allegations if they are denied by the hon. minister; but if they are not denied, of course, there is no object in going any farther.
Now the Prime Minister says, as well: Oh, the member for West Hastings could have gone, or he could go yet, to Judge Mc-Keown; others'have been. Judge McKeown's is not the tribunal before whom the honour of a minister of the Crown should be tested in a matter affecting the privileges of parliament. Why, it is so absurd as almost to defy argument, the suggestion that because within the powers of a commission, which commission was appointed for a distinctly different purpose-* to find out whether or not the government of Canada or the parliament of Canada should recoup depositors of the Home Bank-because within the general sweep of its powers, all impliedly for that purpose, all impliedly to be exercised in order to ascertain what shall be his report on that single question, the commission might track down the circumstances now before us therefore the regular procedure of this House is to be reversed and the committee on Privileges and Elections is not to have the opportunity of performing its duty. No, this suggestion does not admit of argument at all. The motion in your hands, Mr. Speaker, embodies the proper procedure, and when charges are formally laid the committee on Privileges and Elections is the proper tribunal. Consequently, I do not see how the hon. member for West Hastings can be asked to retreat from the position he has taken, a position which on all fours is right, and which I think the government should accept.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to inform
the House, on the Orders of the Day, that on Monday next I purpose to lay on the Table of the House by agreement with the British government certain of the papers respecting the Lausanne Conference and the Lausanne Treaty. They will be laid on the Table of the House in the Commons in London at the same time they are laid on the Table here. As I assume that members of the House will wish to have the opportunity of perusing this correspondence, I will take steps immediately to have it printed, assuming that the House will be willing to order the printing of a number of copies after the treaty has been laid on the Table.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
3. Resolved, That Schedule A to The Customs Tariff, 1907, as amended by chapter twenty-six of the statutes of 1914, chapter nineteen of the statutes of 1922 and chapter forty-two of the statutes of 1923, be further amended by striking thereout tariff items: 275, 445, 445a, 446, 446a, 446b, 447a, 447b, 448, 448a. 448c, 449, 450, 453b, 591, 663, 682, the several enumerations of goods respectively, and the several rates of duties of customs, if any, set opposite each of said items, and to provide that the following items, enumerations and rates of duty be inserted in Schedule A:-
On item 445:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I would ask
the minister, in connection with this resolution, whether the statement made, I think, by the Minister of Agriculture, that the manufacturers of agricultural implements were to have restored to them the Crowsnest pass rates, was or was not correct.


Mr. ROBB:: I submit to my hon. friend
that that has nothing whatever to do with the resolution under consideration now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It has a very
profound influence upon the effect of these reductions on that industry. Their market is the western market, and it has been used before as an argument against reducing at all the customs tariff. In this budget debate, unless I am entirely mistaken in my recollection, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) made that statement. Is there any mystery about it?


James Alexander Robb: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, is it true?


James Alexander Robb: Hansard will show whether
or not the hon. member made that statement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not asking whether he said it. Supposing he did say it; is it true? Is that the arrangement, that the manufacturers of agricultural implements are to have returned to them the Crowsnest pass rates?


James Alexander Robb: I must ask my hon. friend
to raise that point when the Minister of Railways is before him with his estimates. I submit to my hon. friend, who is an old parliamentarian, that that question has absolutely nothing to do with the question now under consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I really do not know what the mystery or the difficulty is in this matter. It seems to me that if I were a party to an arrangement I would not be ashamed of it, and' if I were not a party I would frankly say so. I really cannot understand the trouble here, nor do I understand the point raised that this question is not relevant. Why, the basis of an argument made from the government benches in this very debate was that it was relevant.


Mr. FORKE:: What arrangement does my hon. friend refer to?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will state it again:	That the manufacturers of agricultural
implements were to have restored to them the Crowsnest pass rates.


Robert Forke: The hon. gentleman knows that no arrangement is' necessary for that purpose; the rates would go into effect automatically.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not say
whether it is necessary or not.


Robert Forke: There is no arrangement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. gentleman is very quick at rushing to the rescue when any issue uncomfortable to hon. gentlemen opposite has been raised, he does that all the time and I expect it from him. He may not be as wise as hon. gentlemen opposite but he is certainly more courageous, there is no doubt about that. However I do not think such action on his part is wise. We all know that previously parliament suspended those rates, and it is equally true that if parliament does not suspend them again the lower rates will come into effect. But I am just trying to find out what the fact is- whether the arrangement or understanding of
the manufacturers is that the Crowsnest pass rates on agricultural implements are to be allowed to go into effect.


Robert Forke: May I ask another question?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us see if we can get my question answered first.


Robert Forke: All right. I was just going to ask-


Henry Lumley Drayton: One minute. Let us hear what the minister has to say.


James Alexander Robb: While I do not like to press my genial friend so far as to ask for the ruling of the Chair, I appeal to him as an old parliamentarian and a man of common sense if the question he has just raised has anything whatever to do with the matter now being considered in connection with this resolution.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Questions of
costs, questions of marketing, questions of the difficulty of carrying on business would have to be looked into in seriously considering any tariff-at any rate I would have thought so. And one of the chief elements of costs in doing business to-day is transportation rates. Now the effect of allowing, by a total absence of government action, the Crowsnest pass rates to go into effect will make a decrease in connection with rakes, binders and mowers, a decrease ranging from 20 to 24 per cent in the cost of transportation to western Canada, which is something which enters vitally into the question. That is, of course, if these questions are approached from a business standpoint to some small degree and not entirely from a political standpoint. If we are considering the business effect of tariff changes we have to bear in mind these very matters that I have referred to-expense to carry on business or manufacturing, the expense of marketing, and so on. Does my hon. friend say that railway rates h-ve nothing to do with the expense of marketing?


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We had better do what the minister suggests, allow the Chair to rule without further discussion.


James Alexander Robb: I am satisfied.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
suggests, Mr. Chairman, that you should rule upon the materiality of my request.


George Newcombe Gordon: No point of order has been raised. When it is raised I will rule.
2412	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think the minister would be serious in raising such a point of order. Manifestly my request is in order. Why should we not have the information? Why should we not know-in connection with the changes in tariff rates on agricultural implements-whether that change is to be so tempered as that this large reduction in the cost of transportation, largely at the expense of the Canadian ratepayer generally, will come? Now why should we not have the information?


Mr ROBB:: Do I infer from the last sentence of my hon. friend's observations that he is opposed to the Crowsnest pass agreement coming into force?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have spoken more than once in connection with the Crows* nest pass agreement. I am absolutely opposed to a system that differentiates among Canadians as to the railway rates they shall pay. I believe in having railway rates honestly and fairly fixed by the body appointed for that purpose. I further realize that the basis of railway rates varies from time to time and that changes either up or down have to be made. My position is no secret. The whole secret here is, that apparently my hon. friend does not want to give 'any information in connection with an absolutely vital question-the question of carrying on this business under the present tariff.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why should my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) make any statement that will bind the freedom of this House in any respect in regard to railway matters when he is discussing a question connected with the tariff? Until the last day of this session the House will have the right to take whatever action it may think best in regard to railway matters when railway matters are under consideration. At present we are discussing the tariff which is an entirely different subject.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course I fully appreciate the point my right hon. friend makes. I fully appreciate the position he takes, -that matters of public policy are to be fixed- by this House, that the government is not to be responsible for them. I am not disputing that -position of the government's for one minute. But in this very debate, as showing that the agricultural implement manufacturers could carry on and will carry on, a member of the government stated that they would get the benefit of the Crowsnest pass rates. Now, I am merely trying to find out whether the government has so stated or

merely an individual member of it; whether on the question of any such arrangement, the government has any mind at all.


Mr. CALDWELL:: 
Mr. CHAPLIN:: When was this?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In 1921. He gave the
evidence last year before the committee on agricultural conditions. He gave the date and the price.


James Dew Chaplin: Twenty-five per cent
higher, with a duty of ten per cent.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think you will find
that on potato machinery there was a much heavier duty. We do not use a binder to grow potatoes.


Mr. STEVENS:: You are talking about
binders.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No. We use binders
too, and there would not be so much difference in binders. We will all admit that. He was asked about the price of land, and he said it was cheaper in New Brunswick than in Maine, although here is this block of country about the shape of a big serving platter, one hundred miles long and possibly fifty miles wide, with the American boundary running through it lengthwise, and the soil exactly the same on each side of the boundary and weather conditions certainly the same. The only difference is that our fertilizer costs the farmer from $8 to $10 a ton more in New Brunswick than in Maine, due to the tariff. This gentleman was asked if he did not purchase both Maine and New Brunswick potatoes and he said yes. He purchases them and ships them all out of New Brunswick. His warehouse is in New Brunswick close to the boundary line. He is allowed to buy American potatoes, haul them across to New Brunswick and ship them out as American potatoes, because they really are American potatoes. He must keep them in separate warehouses. He was asked the difference in price and he said he paid the Maine farmer 85 cents to $1 more per barrel that he paid the New Brunswick man who was on the same siding, simply because potatoes 153
were grown across the line, and therefore could be shipped to the American market without paying duty. Hon. gentlemen can imagine the effect of this on the farmers in New Brunswick. This condition has had the effect-and I want to give a concrete illustration-of depopulating the province of New Brunswick and populating the state of Maine. In the potato belt in the Maine section one-third of the farmers are men who have been raised in New Brunswick, and who either abandoned their farms, or sold them for whatever they could get, went to Maine and bought farms at a very high price. A neighbour of mine, who lived very close to me some years ago, sold 105 acres- of as good land as there is in Maine with good buildings, for $1,750. This farm was about four miles from the American boundary on the Canadian side in the potato belt, and about two miles from a railway, very advantageously situated for potato growing. Of course you must be near a railway in order to market potatoes, because it requires a good deal of hauling to get them to a railroad. He went over to the state of Maine, to a point about four miles from the boundary line, about two miles from a railway, and bought land in the district, and I think if you dropped a man in the middle of one farm, and then dropped him in the middle of the other farm, he could not tell by the soil or crop which farm he was on. He bought 55 acres of land in Maine with no better buildings, and paid $7,500, simply because he could buy fertilizer and machinery cheaper, and his help would cost no more; but he could get 85 cents to $1 more per barrel for his potatoes. That has had the effect of driving people from New Brunswick to the state of Maine. About one-third of the farmers in that potato belt in the state of Maine are New Brunswick men who migrated to the States on account of these conditions.
I thought I should not let this opportunity pass without showing the other side of the picture. I sincerely hope that putting fertilizer on the free list, reducing the duty on machinery as well as removing the sales tax

which by the way the Maine farmer does not have to pay-will improve conditions. These things possibly account for the difference in price of machinery being even greater than the duty on machinery, because they do not pay any sales tax in the United States on farm machinery, or on anything else. I do not think they have any sales tax.
These are the conditions, and I hope these reductions will stop the flow of people from

2414	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
New Brunswick into the state of Maine, because we certainly have as good a soil and the same climate.
We have individual potato growers in New Brunswick who produce enough potatoes to feed the largest city in New Brunswick along with their home market, and they export all their output except what the farmers eat themselves. We have few large towns in New Brunswick. I doubt if we ever will have very many because our geographical situation will never tend to develop large industries or large cities in the Maritime provinces.


Mr. TOLMIE:: What protection does the American farmer get on his potatoes?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Fifty cents per hundred pounds. Our farmer is also protected with a duty of 20 to 30 cents per hundred pounds.


Mr. HUGHES:: Twenty-five.
Mr. CALDW'ELL:	It would not make
any difference if they were free, because potatoes will not go from a market that will pay a dollar a barrel more than the grower can get at home. Therefore we have no fear of competition because there are no potatoes coming our way.


Mr. BROWN:: You would not like the protection raised to fifty cents?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That would not matter because nobody in our country is importing potatoes. With the exception of the people in a few towns that are supplied by the farmers immediately surrounding those towns, we are all producers of potatoes. The price in the home market is fixed by the price for export.


John Livingstone Brown: You do not suggest, as some of our friends do, that our duty should be the same as that in the United States?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I should like to quote from a clipping to show that a high protective tariff has not made the farmers rich in the United States. This is from the Montreal Gazette of January 24, 1924, and is contained in Mr. Coolidge's address to Congress:
Mr. Coolidge told Congress that these were measures by which without undue alarm or agitation, but nevertheless promptly and effectively, we can bring to bear on a serious, though happily a localized emergency, every resource of the federal government, and all the assistance which the business and farming community can render.
The economic situation in certain wheat-growing sections of the northwest, the president said in his message, is reaching a stage that requires organized co-operation on the part of the federal government and the local institutions of that territory for its solution.

Great numbers of individual farmers are so involved in debt, both on mortgages and to merchants and to banks, that they are unable to preserve the equity of their property.
If more evidence were needed than what I have given, this will show that high protection does not benefit the farmer, especially in a country that is growing vast quantities of farm produce, more than can be consumed in that country, because in that event, the natural law of supply and demand has this result, that the price in the home market is set by the price that can be obtained for your export, especially when your exports are much greater than what is used for home consumption. I could not let this opportunity pass withou presenting the other side of the picture.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know what other side of the picture my hon. friend is referring to. I was referring to the concession which was said to have been given to the manufacturer, and we shall try to get back to what we have been speaking about. I just want to point out to the minister that this is something which cannot be
5 p.m. got rid of just by a laugh or by saying that it has nothing to do with the question. It has everything to do with the question. It may have a good deal to do with the question which the hon. gentleman thought was of such importance, namely, the announcement of the company as to reductions.
In connection with these very rates in 1922, I gave the House-and I am going to show the minister the size of this concession-information as to rates on agricultural implements. I showed how trifling was the question of duties in influencing costs as against railroad rates and that statement was never controverted. It cannot be controverted. I will take the same examples that were given at that time for the purpose of saving time. The first article that was given was a sixteen marker western drill with single disc attachment. This drill with its single disc attachment weighs complete 1,260 pounds. The freight as then paid was $16.82 and the shipment was from Hamilton to a good characteristic point in western Canada, namely, Moose Jaw. No one ever complained that that did not represent the actual movement. It did. No one ever complained that the two points selected were not fair. They were.


James Alexander Robb: Is my hon. friend quoting carload rates?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. The rate given is $16.82, and that was under the reduced rate that was negotiated by Sir Thomas White in connection with his former budget.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
I mention this fact merely to show how closely interrelated these matters are, so that at that $16.82 rate, it was entirely out of line; but if the Crowsnest pass rate is put in, the rate will be $12.47, a reduction of $4.35, or a reduction on the implement of 25.S6 per cent.
The next item was a ten-foot horse rake weighing 460 pounds. The then existing freight rate was $6.14 for the same movement, Hamilton to Moose Jaw. The Crowsnest pass rate wrill reduce that to $4.55, a reduction of $1.59 or 25.89 per cent.
The third instance given was a six-foot binder with bundle carrier and transport attachments, weighing 1,560 pounds. I give the weights so that my hon. friend can easily check these calculations from the rates, because the rate is so much per hundred pounds. The rate is $20.83. The Crowsnest pass rate is $15.44, or a reduction of $5.39. Surely my hon. friend must see how material this question is. I again ask: Was the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), when he said, in connection with this debate or used words to this effect, that these people that manufactured these implements would get the benefit of the Crowsnest pass rate? Is that the situation?


James Alexander Robb: Did he say that they would get it or that the western farmer would get it? Who does my hon. friend think would get it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will not play with words with my hon. friend. I am not playing at catch words at all.


Robert Forke: It makes a great difference to the farmer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We do not gain time by senseless interruptions. I am asking a question as to a matter of fact. If my hon. friend says that it is not a matter of moment to the eastern manufacturer to be able to ship his machines in at a much lower rate to western consuming territory than his American competitor can, I will take his answer, but it will be very much at the peril of my personal opinion of his good sense. He knows very well that that is a matter of the greatest importance to every trade. It is idle to play with words. Cannot we get the truth somewhere in this matter? What is the reason for the delay in answering a perfectly plain question? Why are we not entitled to the information?


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Is my hon. friend in favour of the reduction?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are we making these reductions? Of course, I know the 153i
policy of the government is to throw responsibility on everybody and anybody except themselves. But unfortunately we are not running things. I have already said what I think about it. Is there any necessity for my saying it again?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: We would like to have an answer to the question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not
changed my mind in this brief time, and whatever answer I give will make not the slightest difference to the question of the veracity of the Minister of Agriculture's (Mr. Motherwell's) statement.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I thought my hon. friend was in favour of giving assistance to the manufacturers; apparently he was very anxious to protect them on the duty. This is something that will help them if it goes into effect. He is surely also in favour of helping the consumer in the West. What is his position? We would like to have the logic of his argument.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just at present I am not arguing at all, I am trying to get facts-the truth-if it is possible; it may be impossible to get this information, but I intend to go on trying. So far as helping the manufacturer or anybody else at the expense of unfair and privileged railway rates is concerned I am not in favour of it, and I have said so many times. What is the use of my repeating it? I have said it plainly enough I should think to get into anybody's head. Am I to get an answer to a question which is absolutely pertinent to these very items and is being considered from time to time in connection with them:	Is it true that there
is an understanding between the manufacturers of agricultural implements and the government that the old Crowsnest pass rates will foe allowed to again come into effect?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman,if there was before the committee a question as to the price at which agricultural implements had been sold and were to be sold in western Canada, I could understand the argument of my hon. friend. That is not the question under consideration at all. It is purely a question of readjustment of the customs tariff, and my hon. friend is only delaying the information which he seeks, because the government will be prepared in due course to announce its stand upon the question of freight rates. But this is not the proper time to discuss freight rates. Let me remind my hon. friend, who was not in the House at the time, that I was a member of the opposition and had some-
2416	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
thing to do at least with keeping members in the House while the legislation was being enacted and I recall distinctly when Sir Thomas White introduced the legislation reducing freight rates on agricultural implements to western Canada points, and I can assure my hon. friend that at that time there was no obstruction on the part of the Liberal party to that small concession being given to the western farmers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose Sir Thomas White told the truth at once. If the opposition could get that, there was no necessity for obstruction.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has referred to interruptions preventing him from getting along with the business of the House. It is very difficult for an ordinary member to interject even a few remarks when the hon. gentleman is engaged in a disputation. Althought I do not want to interrupt, I certainly want an opportunity to speak once in a while during the debate. We have occupied pretty nearly an hour discussing a simple question which the hon. member has asked the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and which apparently he is not going to answer, yet the hon. member has plied the same question backwards and forwards for at least half an hour anyway. I wonder who is wasting the time of the house. I have got on my feet scarcely half a dozen times but members to my right have remarked about my obtuseness and the difficulty of getting anything into my head. But that does not hurt me when I consider where it comes from. Indeed I think it a slight personal tribute that those hon. gentlemen take the trouble to make such remarks. I should like some information on this change of tactics by my hon. friends to my right during the last day or two. For weeks we listened here to their woeful tales of the way in which our manufacturers in Toronto, Brantford and Hamilton were going to be mined, in fact they were already going out of business; now it seems that these hon. members have completely turned around and are of opinion that those very manufacturers whose misfortunes they so much deplored are getting too many good things altogether. I do not know what has happened to bring about this change of front. I think it is pretty well recognized in the House to-day that the success of our manufacturing industry depends to a very large extent on the prosperity of the prairie provinces. As everyone admits that without further argument why so much disputation if there is any chance of a little reduction in freight rates on agricultural imple-
ments? Such a reduction will help everyone -manufacturers and others-all along the line. I think we all realize that the great question before the country to-day is cheaper transportation, and unless freight rates are brought within reach of the western producer, we are not going to see very prosperous times in Canada for some time to come. I am very pleased to know that there may be a chance of a reduction in freight rates on agricultural implements to the West, but I am quite willing to wait until the proper time comes for that announcement to be made by the government. I do not see what is to be gained by having the question asked so repeatedly all this afternoon. Let us get on with the business of the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In answer to
the last remark of my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) as to whether there is an understanding between the government and the implement makers that the Crowsnest pass rates will go into full effect, I might say there is no such understanding. The only understanding between the government and the implement makers is contained in the records that have already been brought down.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is all the information I have been asking for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I wanted to make clear when I spoke a moment ago was that parliament is free to deal with the question of freight rates as it may think best and has up to the end of the session to take action. If my hon. friend asks me whether there is an understanding in respect to freight rates, I tell him there is no understanding. The really important thing, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Forke) has said, is: How in fact is the budget affecting the industries which it is intended to affect; how is it affecting them and of what advantage is it going to be to the country? I happen to have in my hand a letter which is quite pertinent on this point. It comes from the sales manager of the John Deere Manufacturing Company, Limited, and has been sent out to their agents. It is as follows:
Welland, Ont., May 14, 1924.
Dear Sir:
He Price Revision Effective by the Budget of April 11.
We are now able to pass on to the trade the benefits that the new budget will enable us to do, as set out in the schedule of price reductions attached hereto. There is every reason to face this new price situation with great enthusiasm because we are able to give the consumer this price reduction that he has been looking forward to. This now imposes the responsibility upon the user of farm implements to allow no further postponement of buying more freely what he requires in farm implements, enabling himself to produce at lower cost, and to once more enable

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
the manufacturer to set his wheels going, and which is hound to help increase consumption for the products of the farm.
We will depend upon every dealer in John Deere implements to stimulate his trade, which you are now in position to go ahead and do.
Yours very truly,
John Deere Manufacturing Co., Limited. Jno. W. Kottmeier,
Sales Manager.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are the figures
given?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not the attached schedule.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would be
very interesting to have that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no
doubt that I could get it for my hon. friend. The point I wanted to make clear is this, that the manufacturers of implements found it was not necessary for them to wait to see what action parliament would take on railway rates before determining what their reduction should be. They indicate that already they are prepared, with the reductions in duties that have been proposed, to make very substantial price reductions.


Arthur Meighen: "Reductions in duties"
is good in that connection-really good.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Duties and
sales tax.


Arthur Meighen: I felt rather sorry at
the cruel rebuke embodied in the Prime Minister's remark to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), though I knew he would not accept it that way.


Robert Forke: I would not bother about
that if I were you.


Arthur Meighen: I knew he would not
accept it that way. Here was a question to which he had been trying for an hour to get an answer, but in vain; now it is answered, and the responsibility for the whole of that would be obvious to the hon. member.


Robert Forke: I am glad that the right
hon. gentleman came to the rescue of the hon. member for West York.


Arthur Meighen: No, the Prime Minister
came to the rescue, apparently to the discomfiture of my hon. friend.


Robert Forke: Oh, I am quite happy.


Arthur Meighen: It would look as though, from the letter read, the John Deere Company have confidence that they can rely upon this Crowsnest return. I do not know what they rely upon. I will accept the Prin.e
Minister's statement that there is no understanding; I fancy, though, that some of them will wonder whether they have misunderstood things. Now, this letter says that by reason of these changes there will be reductions, but until we know the reduction we do not know what to attribute it to. So far as we know now we have had a reduction which is scarcely the amount of the sales tax reduction.
I wonder if it demonstrates to hon. members just what the effect of the duty reduction was? Does any hon. member think that there would be the slightest particle of difference now in the price of these goods to the consumer had the duty never been touched? Does any hon. member think that the price would not be exactly what it is now had the sales tax alone been removed? Does not the John Deere letter precisely indicate that?
I fancy that the schedule would wholly confirm it. However, hon. gentlemen just wanted some excuse to be able to say, "We got these reduced." But I would advise them always to carry with them the schedule of prices to the consumer of December, 1921, before this government got at elevating the sales tax and tinkering with the duty. Let them do that and then put beside it the schedule of prices to-day.


Robert Forke: Would my hon. friend allow me to make a remark in regard to these prices?


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, I am very
generous to the hon. member.


Robert Forke: I think I mentioned on a
previous occasion about pricing a double disc drill at Pipestone when I was home. The Massey-Harris agent told me at that time that he was authorized to state that any further reductions that could be made when the changes proposed in parliament came into effect would be made. He was allowed to make that statement.


Arthur Meighen: I should think he would be. I do not think it was a very world-shaking statement. All the man said was that any that could be made would be made. Yes, and what could be made have been made.


Robert Forke: They are not the final
figures. They may be lower yet.


Arthur Meighen: They may? "Hope
springs eternal in the human breast," especially in the breast of a Liberal-Progressive with respect to a Liberal government's budget. The whole thing is so plain that I should think a child could understand it. All this performance, all this trumpeting, all these manifestoes about duty reductions, all this do-

nays and Means-Customs Tariff
liberate unfairness to a long line of industries I am not thinking now of implement industries has resulted in what? In saving not a single cent to a farmer. Nobody is hurt by the sales tax reduction except the treasury, but all the rest has been demonstrated to have had no result at all. But of course hon. gentlemen to my left, being co-partners in this scheme with the government, always have to smile, always have to try to convince somebody of their great achievement-and the poor farmer is in the position of paying more for his implements than he was paying when they came down here and started at their task. That is the position he is in.


Robert Forke: It is very discouraging.


Arthur Meighen: Well, it is the fact.


Mr. EVANS:: What is that owing to?


Arthur Meighen: Well, certainly there is no decrease to be owing to anything, that is sure.


John Evans: The prices of raw material increased.


Arthur Meighen: They have been reducing the duties on the raw material, and I should think the prices would come down by that reduction. I thought that living costs were coming down under this government, and one would think that raw material would come down with living costs. What is dearer?


John Evans: Steel is dearer the world over.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, I do not know that it is. Has the hon. gentleman compared the price of steel now with the price of steel in December, 1921? I did not have that impressed upon me by any one with whom I reviewed the subject. I do not think the hon. member is correct. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) would know about that.


James Dew Chaplin: There has been no increase in steel since 1921.


Arthur Meighen: Again the straw seems to have escaped which the hon. member was clinging to. The fact is that except for the political effect, whatever hon. gentlemen may dream that is, the whole thing is a total failure, all this tinkering with the duties.


John Evans: Does the right hon. gentleman infer that if implements were on the free list there would still be no difference?


Arthur Meighen: If implements were on
the free list I would expect to happen what happened with glass-the foreign manufacturer, having us in his grip, would make us pay the price.


John Evans: Then why the calamity howling?


Arthur Meighen: I would howl if the
foreign manufacturer had me in his grip and I think the hon. gentleman would very soon howl. The effect on his understanding would be excellent, because he has a good understanding. Had he not come here prejudiced by the teachings of his boyhood he would never be talking as he does to-day at all; he would have learned from experience. No, this reading of letters and reading of statements, this telling about the reduction and trying to get some one to believe that it is due to reduction of duty when it is due entirely to the taking off of sales tax, most of which this government put on-well, it will not appeal to the understanding of very many people in the country, and apparently does not.


James Dew Chaplin: The average price of steel in Canada in 1921 was $352 per hundredweight, and the average price in 1924 was $292.


Arthur Meighen: Come again.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: After I sat down, an
hon. member, who had too much regard for my bashfulness to put a question to me while I was on my feet, asked a question which led me to believe that I had not sufficiently elaborated the subject of men leaving New Brunswick and going to Maine, and I would just like to complete my statement. He asked, why the great difference in the price of land as between areas so near to each other? The point had evidently not been made plain to him, and I want to make it plain by this statement. Suppose two men, one on each side of the line, plant 50 acres of potatoes-and that would be a small planting in that potato belt. They get 100 barrels an acre. The price was from 85 cents to $1 more to the American than to the Canadian, and on that basis the farmer in Maine would receive $4,250 more for his 5,000 barrels of potatoes than the farmer in New Brunswick would receive, although there is only an imaginary line between the two farms. So you can readily see why a man would go over to Maine and1 pay what seems to us fabulous prices for land. I want to make this statement in connection with the one case I spoke of. The man who sold his farm in New Brunswick for $1,750 had been on that farm for ten years, and had not got it paid for; he still owed about $300 on it. He went into Maine with $1,500 and an old pair of horses as his whole capital, and bought 55 acres of land for $7,500, and in four years he had paid

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
for his farm and was driving as nice a car as any man in Maine, and he had it paid for. That just illustrates the difference.


James Dew Chaplin: All done under a good
duty on potatoes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I want to add that
this man struck four years as good as could be experienced. There have been years when they did not make big money in Maine. But whether they make big money or small, the New Brunswick farmer is getting $4,250 less for every 5,000 barrels of potatoes than his Maine neighbour, and this is enough to induce him to pay five and six times more for land in Maine than he can sell his land in New Brunswick for. We would be thought stupid if we did not go into Maine under those circumstances; and the wonder is that we have any farmers left in New Brunswick; it is only our great patriotism that has kept us at home. We have the most patriotic people in the whole country, and we are practically living on our patriotism. However, we hope this reduction in duty will add to our wealth.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 445a:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Can my hon.
friend give me the same information as to the old rates?


James Alexander Robb: The old rates were 15, 17i
and 17i per cent. The proposed rates are 5, 6 and 6 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
James Alexander Robb: No, the proposed rate is 5,
6 and 6 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: According to
the printing I have here, the proposed rate is 7i, 7i and 7J per cent.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has
only the second budget; the third budget changes that, and we are not through yet.


James Alexander Robb: H my hon. friend will refer
to the resolutions of Wednesday, April 30-


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are getting badly mixed up, because I thought we were considering the resolutions of April 10. Is this an amendment we have not got yet? We have had distributed to the committee this sheet headed "Ways and Means Resolutions-Resolutions of 10th April, 1924."
That is in this type, and here is another one which Mr. Russell has, with a different heading and in different type. Had we not better confine ourselves to the sheet before we go on? I would ask the Chairman what resolution he has in his hand.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil):: It is
dated the 10th of April.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What duties
are shown in that resolution?


George Newcombe Gordon: For item 445a, the
duties are 7i, 7\ and 7i per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what
has been distributed to the members. Perhaps we had better get right before we get any further wrong. I do not think the hon. member for Brandon can say it is my fault this time; I did not give the Chairman that print. It is an awful thing to think he cannot find fault with me.
Mr, CALDWELL: Is this sheet a supplement to the other, or a substitution?


James Alexander Robb: There are three 6ets of resolutions. I am not sure which of them was called.


Arthur Meighen: Maybe the minister has
been changing his policy too fast for the printer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would it not be a good
thing to have these four or five sets of resolutions all brought into one pamphlet, so that we could have them all before us? I think the committee should rise, so that the minister could have that done.


James Alexander Robb: We can correct the items
as we go along.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Apparently what the
Chairman has been reading from yesterday and to-day are not the resolutions that should be passed at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have had
another one put into my hand. It is just the same as the one I have, 7i, 7i and 7\ per cent.


James Alexander Robb: Hon. gentlemen will find the
amended resolutions in the Votes and Proceedings of April 30.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we
had better get it into the hands of the Chairman.


James Alexander Robb: He must have it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In order to
save the time of the House as much as we
2420	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
can, perhaps the minister would inform me as to what the duties were on imports under the British preferential tariff under this item, 445a?


James Alexander Robb: The imports all came in under the general tariff.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No imports under the British preferential tariff, none under the intermediate tariff, all under the American or general? What was the amount of imports?


James Alexander Robb: It was $95,918.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What will the
loss of duty be?


James Alexander Robb: We collected $16,785.79 in
duty, and we estimate the loss in duty at $11,030.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What rebate was given on this raw material on which $16,000 was paid?


James Alexander Robb: I would not have that information before me now.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That would be a very important thing to know.


James Alexander Robb: Nothing under mowers, binders and reapers. Forty per cent was rebated on the others.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Steel bars that enter into mowers, reapers and 'binders are free-they were free anyway.


James Alexander Robb: Ninety-nine per cent rebate.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was not that material on the free list when it entered into the manufacture of binders, mowers and sowing machines?


James Alexander Robb: It is on the free list now.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But before?


James Alexander Robb: There was ninety-nine per cent rebate.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then we should have
the amount rebated under the old system. The minister might bring that down later.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Cannot the hon. gentleman give us a list of all the articles he is exempting from duty? His expert will have the information in front of him.


James Alexander Robb: There are a number of articles which enter into the cost of manufacture of agricultural implements and: which are to be entered at the rate of duty specified.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That does not give us very much more information. I am 
asking the minister what the articles are that he is exempting from duty, what the specific articles are. Surely the government know what they are exempting?


James Alexander Robb: This is rolled iron and rolled steel.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Ah! but there is more than that. Does my hon. friend say that only rolled iron and steel are affected.


Mr. WHITE:: What is the item under consideration?


Charles Marcil: The item is 445a.


Richard Smeaton White: That does not concern rolled iron or steel.


George Newcombe Gordon: The resolution we are
considering is the amending resolution brought down on April 30, and which reads as follows:
2. That said resolution be amended by striking out tariff items 445a, 445b, 533b, the several enumerations of goods respectively and the several rates of duties of customs, set opposite each of said items, if any, and by substituting therefor the following items, enumerations and rates of duty:
Tariff item 445a. Articles which enter into the cost of the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 445, 446, 446b, 447b, 448 and 591, when imported by manufacturers of such goods for use only in the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 445, 446, 446b, 447b, 448 and 591. Provided that goods which are entitled to free entry or a lower rate of duty than is mentioned in this item shall not be entered at the rate specified in this item. British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 6 per cent; General tariff, 6 per cent.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend was asking
what items were affected?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I was asking what the articles are.


James Alexander Robb: The articles that are affected?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly.


James Alexander Robb: The articles that go into the manufacture such as bolts, nuts, malleable castings, rubber belting, canvass-anything entering into the manufacture of implements.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think my hon. friend is doing himself justice. There is a very large list of articles. My hon. friend surely knows what he is doing. But he cannot know what he is doing unless he knows each and everyone of these articles, and will tell the committee that no other articles enter into the manufacture and should come under these items.


James Alexander Robb: All the articles that go into
the manufacture of the machine-all the component parts of the machine will be affected.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Lumley Drayton: Ah! But there
is a great deal of material used.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I admit that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And this large
quantity of material is made up in different places and under different conditions.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And the circumstances as to the production of one part may not have anything to do with the circumstances under which another part is produced. Surely the minister will agree with me that it is important that we should get this information and should know-that is if we are looking at the question from the point of view of business and not from the point of view of politics-just what articles are affected. At present we do not know what the articles are. I should have thought the minister would have had that information.


James Alexander Robb: I can give my hon. friend a list of some of the articles. For instance there will be canvass, rubber belting, castings, bolts, nuts, paint possibly-articles going into the manufacture of tools that go with the machine. My hon. friend will quite understand that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know if the information I have here is correct, so I hesitate to give it. My hon. friend referred to malleable castings.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are certainly one of the things.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Grey iron castings.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I have just mentioned
castings.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But I am taking the different classes of castings, because they are under a different tariff. Grey iron castings are covered?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Core compound. Is that covered?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I should say that would be covered.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Core oil?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I should think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do chisels come under this item or not?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, if used as tools with the machine.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is how
they would be used, would they not?


James Alexander Robb: They might be, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend will see he has not got very much information.


James Alexander Robb: I am following my hon.
friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose
chisels might come under the low rate. Now cotter pins-that is steel cotter pins and wooden cotter pins-and steel crucibles.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see my hon.
friend nods his head but Hansard cannot record a nod. Now, dowel-rods and dowels?


James Alexander Robb: I should think if they were
part of the machine they would come under it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should think
they would but my hon. friend ought to know what he is doing, whether he is hitting the dowel people or not. This is the subject matter of his resolution, surely he is the one to know, not me. What is the answer?


James Alexander Robb: We will admit they are going in as farm machinery.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want to be unfair to my hon. friend. If he does not know, it is unfair for me to go on establishing facts, because he may be stating something which is not correct. I only want the truth, and I want to know what we are legislating about. I suggest to my hon. friend that he should bring down a list of all the articles entering into the manufacture of articles which will be covered by these reductions. He will have it right then.


James Alexander Robb: That would involve a long delay.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have a statement here, but I do not know whether it is correct or not, and I do not want to use anything which is not right. This gives a long list. I will let my hon. friend have it, and I am not going to delay the House by going over this tremendous list. H he will say that he will have it checked up and let us know what the facts are, we can put it on Hansard and save time. If he will acquiesce in my suggestion I will desist.
2422	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


James Alexander Robb: I would suggest that my hon. friend send the list to some reputable manufacturing firm and have it checked up. I am not a manufacturer of agricultural implements.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But you have an expert adviser here. Surely the minister will not take the position that he does not know what he is legislating about.


James Alexander Robb: Oh, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the position unless you tell us what articles are going to be affected. It must be so. I am quite content to take the answer of the minister. If he will admit that the government does not know what it is doing-


James Alexander Robb: I will be quite content to take the list and have the customs authorities who are to administer the act, look carefully into it and check it over.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will put it on Hansard, and then the minister can have it checked. My instructions are that these are only some of the things.


James Alexander Robb: 
Robert Forke: We have certain numbers following 445a. Do those numbers correspond with the numbers in the customs tariff here?


James Alexander Robb: We are striking out 'these numbers, putting in new numbers and reclassifying the items. I think my hon. friend will be able to follow it more intelligently when we are going through the tariff.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) wishes to ask: Is this item numbered 446. in this circular to take the place of 446 which is being struck out?


James Alexander Robb: It strikes out the old number.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And it will follow the corresponding number in here. I think that is the point.


Robert Forke: Yes, that is the point. Item 445a in the customs tariff reads:
Malleable iron castings when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories in the manufacture of mowing machines, harvesters, binding attachments and reapers.


James Alexander Robb: That will be struck out and the new item will take its place.


Mr. HARRIS:: Would the minister go one step further, and say to the House that the ingredients which go to make up the core compounds will be admitted to the country free of duty?


James Alexander Robb: The Customs department will determine that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You do not
think the customs tariff should be left, as to the making of a rate per se, a matter of customs regulation? If anything would be absolutely improper and objectionable, it would be that tariff rates should be a matter of administration to be dealt with by a man who is here to-day and gone to-morrow and not settled by the House. It should not be done.


James Alexander Robb: The rates are established
under the tariff.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But there is a plain question: Are the ingredients which go to make up the core compounds covered by the reductions? My hon. friend says that would be administered by the Customs.


James Alexander Robb: If they can establish to the satisfaction of the Customs department that they enter into the cost, then the rate will apply.
[Sir Henry Drayton.J

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister surely is not right in that statement. Take the case of a firm in the constituency of my hon. friend who asked the question, an importer or maker of core compounds which he sells to implement manufacturers, or to any other kind of manufacturer for general use; he cannot import his ingredients free. He pays 15 and 17V or 25 per cent on the ingredients of this compound; but an implement manufacturer can import the finished article, the core compound under this item at 7V or 5 per cent British preferential, while the manufacturer has not the advantage of bringing his material in free.


James Alexander Robb: I will admit the provision is
that the implement manufacturer has the right solely to import; but you must admit that these compounds might be used for other purposes where the product enjoys a higher tariff. Would it be fair under those circumstances to make them free to all?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Here is a manufacturer
who is making core compounds. We will say his output is 100 tons; it does not matter what figure you take. He sells half of that to the implement manufacturer. You are now virtually removing the duty upon it or reducing it to a very small amount The implement manufacturer brings his core compound from the United States or from Great Britain. The Canadian manufacturer of that core compound is deprived of half his market, and he has not the privilege of a corresponding reduction, to enable him to manufacture and meet the foreign competition.


James Alexander Robb: But I would remind my hon.
friend that he has been fairly well protected.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But only for half of his
output.


James Alexander Robb: That will have to be established.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We must take hypothetical figures, because we have not the exact figures. As a matter of fact some manufacturers sell a great deal more than half of their output to the implement manufacturers. The same thing applies to iron rods nuts and such like. You are giving to the implement manufacturer a reduction in his raw materials. In doing so you are depriving the other manufacturer in respect of something like 225 articles, if I recall it correctly, of a market which has been his for so long, and not giving to him -the reduction you are giving to implement manufacturers who are importing the raw material.


James Alexander Robb: I will admit that there may be cases where there will have to be a readjustment along certain lines, but that happens in revisions of all tariffs. In all such revisions you must leave it to the government, and there is power under the act to make the readjustment. It is not the desire of the government to hurt or injure any person, but it is their desire to bring about such conditions as will enable the manufacturer of agricultural implements, or implements used in the development of the mines or the forests of this country, to sell at a lower coat-, so as to develop those industries. That is what we started out to do and we propose to carry it out, but we do not propose to work an injury to any industry in this country if that can be avoided The Customs Act is flexible enough to empower the government, as questions are brought before them and established, to make adjustments, and these adjustments later on wiil be brought to another session of parliament for confirmation. I think my hon. friend, understands that.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the minister be good enough to -go a little further?


James Alexander Robb: Do not ask me to go too far.


Joseph Henry Harris: Just keep going until we get you where we want you. There are many hundreds of tons of concentrate of core compounds in stock in Canada on which these duties have been paid. What disposition will be made of requests which have come for relief in connection with duties that have been paid on these particular stocks?


James Alexander Robb: I have observed, through an experience of some years in parliament, that when reductions in duties take place, there is always some person coming to dip into the government chest for rebates, but I have never known any person, when there was an increase of duty, to come forward and offer to pay the balance into the treasury.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On item 446:
James Alexander Robb: Might I suggest to my hon. friend that we would save time by passing this resolution striking these items out, and he will have ample time to debate the other items when we come to them?


Henry Lumley Drayton: But we are getting rid of them as we are going along. What are the present rates of duty?


James Alexander Robb: Ten per cent, 12V per cent and 12J per cent. It is proposed to make them free, 7V per cent, 7V per cent. The estimated reduction of revenue is $10,277. There was imported for consumption during the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1923, $205,000 worth.
2426	COMMONS
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much under [DOT]the British preference?


James Alexander Robb: Sixteen dollars' worth.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much under the intermediate?


James Alexander Robb: None.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much under the general?


James Alexander Robb: The total is $205,554. From that you deduct the amount imported under the British and the intermediate tariffs, which is a nominal amount. I will give the information as we come to the other items.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
knows pretty well what information. Perhaps he could have prepared during recess a list giving the schedule with that information.


James Alexander Robb: I would suggest that we pass resolution No. 3 down to the words "schedule A", and I will get the information for my hon. friend.


Robert Forke: I would suggest that before we rise the minister should try to get this straightened out a little. It has been a puzzle ever since we started.


James Alexander Robb: We will when we get to the resolutions.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I submit that resolution No. 3 is not carried because that includes all the items of the new duties.


James Alexander Robb: It is carried just down to the words "schedule A".
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


George Newcombe Gordon: Clause 3 carried.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Clause 3 carried?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes; but not the
schedules attached.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a matter of fact, I did not see the minister in his seat and' I did not know you were going on, Mr. Chairman.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am going to report
this to the Chair and leave it where it stood at six o'clock.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You are not declaring it carried?


George Newcombe Gordon: No, I am leaving it where it stood at six o'clock.
Progress reported.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I may bf wholly wrong in my understanding, but J understood we were reporting progress on resolution No. 3.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Two or three items were carried before 455, I think, striking out clause 2; those have been agreed to. Then we passed on to clause 3 at six o'clock, and Ways and Means stands just as it was when we took recess.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Health of animals (administration and enforcement of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act).. .	$2,000,000
George Newcombe Gordon: This item stood over from the last sitting of supply.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee will recall that when this vote was under consideration last week the question of the retirement of Dr. Torrance was discussed. Some of the files I had not with me at the time, and I think it was the request of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) that when this matter was again before the committee I should bring the balance of my files. I have done so. Inasmuch as the letter written by Dr. Mohler of Washington has already been read to the committee by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), I do not purpose to place it on Hansard again unless requested so to do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Mohler letter that we asked for was another letter.


William Richard Motherwell: In reply to a letter from Dr. Torrance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, another letter that the minister said he had, casting certain reflections upon Dr. Torrance. I read the official letter from Dr. Mohler.


William Richard Motherwell: There is only one that I know of.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. minister intimated there was another letter from Dr. Mohler reflecting upon the action of Dr. Torrance.


William Richard Motherwell: No, there is just the one communication, which my hon. friend placed on Hansard.


Mr. MANION:: I distinctly remember the minister suggesting that Dr. Mohler had reflected upon Dr. Torrance. I should like to

Supply-Agriculture
know what he based that suggestion on if there is no further letter from Dr. Mohler.


William Richard Motherwell: If the hon. member will wait-he asked me for my files-he shall have everything in consecutive order. The next letter I have that I think will be of interest deals with the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner). He took the ground that he did not think Dr. Torrance had been quite fairly dealt with in the matter of his annuity, in that he had been led to believe that he would get $1,500 based upon seventeen or eighteen years' service, whereas he was allowed only $900 based on eleven years' service. I think it is quite obvious that we could not make any such arrangement inasmuch as the amount of annuity is governed by statute, and I believe I can show that I made this quite plain to Dr. Torrance in my correspondence. Here is my letter in reply to Dr. Torrance, which I think clearly indicates the nature of his letter to me, and therefore in order to expedite matters I will not read his letter unless the committee so request. I have all the orders in council that were passed in connection with this matter, but I do not want to clutter up Hansard with all these documents. On August 29, 1923, I wrote to Dr. Torrance as follows:
Dear Doctor,-
On my return to the city this morning I find your favour of the 22nd instant awaiting my attention. Replying, I note what you say with respect to the decision of those having authority in such matters, that your retiring annuity under the terms of the Calder Act would be approximately $900 instead of $1,500 as anticipated.
When you decided to retire under the terms of the Calder Act you and I could not possibly come to any agreement as to the definite amount of the annuity, as that was, as I understood it, determined by the act itself which I had not then consulted.
What I did agree to was that I would recommend to my colleagues that, in addition to any annuity you might be entitled to, you would also receive six months' leave of absence (including the legal two months) with pay, and that I have done. This was subsequently authorized and is now being paid. But this recommendation was discretionary on my part, while the Calder Act, like most other legislation, was mandatory and therefore obviously beyond my power to change or depart from.
Regretting any misunderstanding you may have experienced respecting the amount of annuity connected with your retirement, I am,
Yours very truly.
Then later Dr. Grisdale had some correspondence with him. On January 8, Dr. Grisdale wrote to Dr. Torrance as follows:
Dear Dr. Torrance,-
I have your letter of the 5tli instant, in regard to your retirement, and as you will note if you read the order in council, a copy of which was sent to you- the minister did recommend that your period of service should be counted from 1906, and his report to council along these lines was signed and submitted, but representations were made to the Treasury Board by the Auditor General, and it was upon these representations that the period of service, and, consequently the amount of the annuity was reduced. I can assure you that as far as the minister, the department and the Civil Service Commission were concerned, all possible steps were taken to have your annuity based on the seventeen years service, but in view of the criticisms of the Ayditor General, the Treasury Board saw fit to modify the recommendation.
Yours very truly,
To that Dr. Torrance replied from Guelph on January 14, as follows:
Dear Dr. Grisdale,-
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8th inst. and am glad to know that both the minister and yourself did what you could to have my annuity based on seventeen years' service as I was led to expect.
I regret that your efforts and those of t he minister were unsuccessful.
Yours sincerely,
Now, that is the end of the correspondence.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there a letter in the file dated January 5?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, from Dr. Torrance to Dr. Grisdale. Does my hon. friend wish me to read that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: It is as follows:
Dear Dr. Grisdale,-
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd inst. enclosing cheque for a gratuity of two months' salary and a copy of the order in council respecting my retirement.
I regret that the government has not seen fit to carry out the terms of my retirement as stated to me by Hon. Mr. Motherwell as it appears to me to be a distinct breach of faith not to have done so. I was induced to retire on certain statements of his in regard to the matter and I had no doubt that they would be honourably carried out.
Yours sincerely,
I have already quoted the letter from Dr. Grisdale indicating to Dr. Torrance that my recommendation in the matter had corresponded with Dr. Torrance's expectations but that the Audit Board would not let it go through. Now what information had the Audit Board on which to base their decision? This is information, I may say, that I had not at the beginning, neither had I the Calder Act before me to make a computation, even had I known the number of years that Dr. Torrance claimed his retirement should have been based upon. Here is a letter written by Mr. Jarvis to the secretary of the Civil Service Commission, dated August 21, 1914, on the question of the length of time the Audit Board and the Auditor General thought should be counted as continuous service on the part of Dr. Torrance. The letter reads:
Supply-Agriculture

Dear Sir,-Replying to your letter of the 18th instant, re the retirement of Dr. F. Torrance, I have to advise you that Dr. Torrance was appointed a veterinary inspector under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, by order in council of March 1st, 1906, appointment to be effective from January 1st, of the same year.
From the Auditor-General's reports, it would appear that payment's made to Dr. Torrance during the period of 1906-12 were as follows:-
This was the period that was under dispute, the period which Dr. Torrance thought should count in working out his annuity. The rest of the letter indicates the length of time he was employed between 1906 and 1912, when he became Veterinary Director General and continued as such up to his retirement. The letter points out that in 1905-6 he received in payment of his services $339.29 as salary and expenses, period not available. In 1906-7 he received $150. In 1907-8 he was not employed, and in 1908-9 he was not employed. In 190910 he received $150 salary for ten days' work. I assume it is all based on a rate of $15 a day. so that it is easy to figure out the length of his employment on that basis. In 1906-7 at $15 a day he would have been employed ten days. There are three consecutive years in two of which he was not employed at all and in one of which he was employed for only ten days. .Then in 1910-11 he got $60 in salary, and that was apparently at a lower rate, for some reason, for it covered a period of six days. Then in 1911-12 his total salary and expenses amounted to $172.70, period not available. From August first, 1912, up to the time of his retirement was the period of continuous employment, and the Auditor General and the Audit Board took the ground that only that period could count, because during the previous years his service was of an intermittent nature. In view of the fact that in two of those previous years he had not been employed at all and in one of them for only ten days, I do not see how anybody could strain his generosity to the extent of calling that consecutive employment. That may be a matter of difference of opinion. But so far now as I understand justice and continuous employment I feel that the Auditor General was perfectly justified in taking the ground that the whole period could not be regarded as continuous employment.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Was the intermittent nature of the employment not due to the lack of disease at that particular time? Was he not that class of veterinary who worked under fees rather than on general salary, being engaged only when there was work for him but still being in the employ of the department all this time, his name appearing on the files at Ottawa as a regular inspector?


William Richard Motherwell: We have no information of that nature. Such information as we have just came to us incidentally; it is not on file. He was busily employed at the Agricultural College at Winnipeg, but we have no information that there was no disease prevalent and that that was the reason he was not employed. He was paid on a per diem basis; we have one or two on that basis yet, but not very many and that is in cases where the amount of work to be performed is so small as not to justify an annual engagement. The veterinary is just employed on a per diem basis as some outbreak occurs, whether it is glanders, T.B., or whatever it is, and I presume Dr. Torrance was employed the same way. Of course, a man on a per diem basis must be employed before he is warranted in getting the pay. If Dr. Torrance had got an annuity based on seventeen years' service, as I first recommended, I think I would have had far more difficulty in defending that than I would have in defending what he has got based on the estimate of the Audit Board and the Auditor General. I scarcely think, Mr. Chairman, that the point that the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) brings up would affect the case.


Robert James Manion: I asked the minister when he began to read his file what he based his statement upon that Dr. Mohler had condemned Dr. Torrance's action. That was the impression that he left with the committee, if he did not state it in so many words.


William Richard Motherwell: I would prefer not to be discussing Dr. Mohler. He is not a resident of Canada. We have his communication. I have already read one letter, and there is nothing to be gained by unnecessarily repeating it.


Robert James Manion: But the minister did not hesitate the other day to make that statement. He certainly left the impression with the committee-and I think the statement is here on Hansard-that Dr. Mohler had condemned Dr. Torrance's action, so I do not see why he should be so particular about it now.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
recalls the incident the other day. I had been asked by an hon. member, I forget whom at the moment, if I had any additional-reasons. The question was, why did I wait six or seven months before Dr. Torrance was retired? Well, I was busy, the session was approaching, in fact, the session was on during part of that period, and I was willing to let matters run on and see if Dr. Torrance would

Supply-Agriculture
get over his resentment, because I believe he was resentful over the fact that he was not sent overseas; in fact, I know he was; he told me so himself; I had a conversation with him. Then what were the supplementary reasons I had? Well, I had a memorandum here. It has nothing to do with the letter upon which I base my justification for asking for his retirement. The right hon. leader of the opposition was so vociferous in demanding that I should read the memorandum that I did read part of it, and then he was equally vociferous in condemning me because I did read from a memorandum that had no name to it, and that is where it stood. I think I have recited the incident correctly.


Mr. KNOX:: I do not wish to change the trend of the discussion, but I want to draw to the attention of the committee a rather peculiar situation. The committee on Agriculture has been called for 8.15 this evening, and the Minister of Agriculture has now his estimates before the House. A good many members of this group are members of that committee, and I have no doubt that some of us who are here intend to go to that meeting. It is rather peculiar that these two committees dealing with agriculture should conflict.


William Richard Motherwell: What is the suggestion?


Andrew Knox: I was not suggesting an3'-
thing. I think it is all right for the minister to go ahead with his estimates, but it is rather a peculiar situation that two committees should meet at the same time, dealing with agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: I think this is the way it happened. The estimates of the Minister of Customs were supposed to be taken up first, then Agriculture, then Trade and Commerce. In the absence of the Minister of Customs, I naturally followed with my estimates. I must confess that I entirely forgot about the meeting of the Agricultural committee. My duty now as I see it, is to carry on.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I listened with a good deal of interest to the debate on Friday last concerning the dismissal of Dr. Torrance, the late Veterinary Director General. While I regret to criticise the action of the Minister of Agriculture, I think the whole House agreed that the dismissal was a very harsh one, that Dr. Torrance had not been given a reasonable chance. Time to resign was not afforded him. He was called into the minister's office and told that the minister was finished with his


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
services, and his resignation was demanded on the spot. He was threatened that if he did not put in his resignation at once he would be dismissed and have no opportunity to receive any retiring allowance. These are the exact facts as they have been given to me.
I claim that if his offence was serious enough to get rid of him in that way, he should not have been given the opportunity to put in his resignation at all, but should have been discharged forthwith. But having been asked for his resignation, in view of the prominent position which he held at the head of a very important branch of the Department of Agriculture, a position that he had filled with great success for a period of ten years, he should have been given an opportunity to resign in a proper way. Here was a civil servant sixty-four years old, with only one year more to go, and without being given time to thing over his resignation, kicked out in this disgraceful manner. He requested the minister to give him until the following Tuesday to consider his resignation before putting it in, but he was compelled to sign it on the spot, the minister passing him paper and ink with which to do the work. Now when we consider the spirit of the Civil Service Act, an act that, while perhaps not working perfectly, has certainly been the greatest protection that the Civil Service of this country has had, it is obvious that such drastic action is not in keeping with what was intended to be the spirit of that act when it was put on the statute books.
Dr. Torrance was a man of particularly high qualifications, a university graduate before he took up the veterinary profession, a man who had worked for the Health of Animals branch intermittently before he took up the position of Veterinary Director General, a man who at that time was very highly recommended and was selected from a field of a number of other applicants for the position, and was considered the very best man then in sight. I perhaps have had a rather better opportunity to judge him than many others, for the reason that I worked for him for a numr ber of years in the capacity of chief inspector of the Health of Animals branch for the province of British Columbia, Dr. Torrance being my chief during that period. Later on, when I became Minister of Agriculture, he still continued in the position of Veterinary Director General, and I think he has rendered very excellent service to this country. He certainly cannot be condemned on the score of inefficiency, because in Canada we have held for a long time the high record of maintaining the healthiest herds of live stock in the world, herds that are practically free from contagious

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
disease. This was the condition when he left the department. During the time of the cattle embargo inquiry in London in 1921 there was no stronger argument that we could offer to the commission to induce them to give a verdict in our favour than the fact that we were maintaining our herds in a way that no other country in the world was able to do.
Then, too, Dr. Torrance during his period of office has made history in the veterinary line in Canada. In the first place we had mange for twenty-five years in a district in southern Alberta and in southwestern Saskatchewan covering an area larger than Scotland. This whole area was under quarantine. You could not move a hoof out of that district without inspection. Dipping was carried on from time to time, and the whole thing was a great nuisance to the farmers and also a source of great expense. In 1919 the eradication of this disease was undertaken. Plans were carefully laid during the fall and winter months and in the summer of 1920 I think some 220,000 head of cattle were subjected to a lime and sulphur bath twice, a very big job indeed, and the work was so perfectly done that at the end of that year we were able to cancel the quarantine in that area for the first time in a quarter of a century, all this being done at the time Dr. Torrance was Veterinary Director General. I am not going to say that he did not receive excellent assistance from his very efficient staff during that period -he certainly did.
Just at this particular point I might refer to one of the charges against Dr. Torrance which was brought in a letter presented by the minister. It was not a charge on which the dismissal of Dr. Torrance was based but it was one of the charges mentioned-about his taking his golf sticks out to Calgary when he went out there to attend the cattlemen's meeting at that time. This is surely a joke. I do not see that there is anything in the regulations to prohibit an official from carrying his golf sticks with him as long as he attends to his business. Surely there was no harm in carrying golf sticks both ways, more particularly when the railway company does not charge anything extra for doing so. Dr. Torrance also handled very skilfully the outbreak of dourine in southern Alberta. This disease appeared among horses and threatened to become very serious indeed. During one year it cost this country about $46,000 in compensation alone. The work of eradicating it was undertaken during the period that Dr. Torrance was Veterinary Director General and, with the 
co-operation of his able assistants, it was entirely wiped out.
In the United States in 1914-15 there was a very serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease which manifested itself in some twenty-two states, a number of which are contiguous to Canada's southern border. Although this outbreak cost the Americans some $10,000,009 our veterinary service along that boundary line was so efficient that not one single case of foot and mouth disease appeared in Canada. I am only mentioning this to show that Dr. Torrance could not be blamed on the score of inefficiency. He maintained the cleanest herds in the world, showed himself to be a gentleman in every way and a man of ability. He could be sent anywhere and win appreciation. He was frequently invited to speak in the United States at large gatherings, 'and was well known all over this continent for his ability. Under those conditions I do not think his dismissal was fair. Here was a man holding a high and important position discharged as though he was a mere nobody. I do not care how lowly a man's position in the Civil Service may be he is at least entitled to fair play and decent treatment from his superior officers, and more particularly from his minister.
The minister says that Dr. Torrance was a little disappointed at not having been included in the commission which went over to Great Britain to fix the regulations with the British government for the entrance of store cattle into Great Britain. Why should he not be? Was he not one of the proper officers to have gone? It was quite right to have taken the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, a man of ability, a man whose ability is recognized all over this country; but when on earth did Duncan Marshall graduate as a veterinary surgeon? When it comes down to a matter of regulation every veterinary who has had experience in administering the regulations of the Health of Animals Branch must appreciate the difficulties that are continually arising in connection with those regulations. I -know when appearing before the Embargo Commission on several occasions cases came up and questions were raised which only a veterinary surgeon could intelligently answer; and in that particular connection I claim that Dr. Torrance should have been included in the body that went over to Great Britain at that time. Why should he not have been? Seeing that he was at the head of the Health of Animals branch in this country, and that he felt his responsibilities very keenly why should he not have been included immediately it was

Supply-Agriculture
suggested to lower the quarantine period on cattle entering this country from Great Britain.
I remember when the period of quarantine was discus ed in London in 1921, it was claimed by one of the commissioners that Canada should be ready to deal with Great Britain on a fifty-fifty basis in regard to the quarantine period. I pointed out in the strongest possible way that that would be unfair, for the reason that we had had no foot and mouth disease in Canadian herds since 1884. During that year two shipments of cattle arrived from Great Britain-one on a steamer called the Mississippi, and the other on the steamer Oxenholme. One arrived in the month of May and the other in the month of June. Foot and mouth disease was discovered in these two shipments, but they were stopped at Point Levis station in Quebec and dealt with there. Both of these shipments, I repeat came from Great Britain. I pointed out to the British commissioners on the occasion referred to that in Great Britain during that particular year they had had twenty-two outbreaks within the first six months of the year, showing that the conditions in Canada and in Great Britain were not equal on the point of disease; and that while it was necessary to have a quarantine for a period of thirty days against the British cattle owing to the danger of foot and mouth disease, there was not the need for the same long quarantine period on cattle going to Great Britain from this country.
Now, let me make this particular point very clear:	In the regulations that at present
prevail between Canada and the United States for the handling of cattle crossing the boundary north and south we have a very satisfactory arrangement. This arrangement has been based very largely on the regulation of Canada guarding the entrance of cattle from other countries. In the same way the United States has adopted a similar system as a precaution in the matter of cattle or other live stock coming from outside countries. The result is that in accepting each other's conditions we are able to make regulations that are mutually satisfactory to both countries. If the quarantine period on breeding cattle from Great Britain had been lowered in Canada to a period of less than thirty days, the Americans would have become interested immediately. Why? Because letting in those cattle on a shorter quarantine than had been in existence certainly would increase the danger of American herds being infected by the infection of Canadian herds through this particular source. For that reason Dr. Torrance had every cause to feel the gravest
154i
possible alarm at any suggestion along those lines, and it was only to be expected that he should bring this matter to the notice of the minister.
It has been stated that Dr. Torrance in his correspondence with Dr. Mohler, chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, used the word "political." What if he did? Does the minister say himself that he has never been troubled with political interference since he took office, or any of his officials? Although I was Minister of Agriculture for a period of two years only I had that experience on several occasions, and I think it is the experience of almost everyone who holds the position of minister in this country.
Referring to the letter to Dr. Mohler, let me say that these two men occupy similar positions, one guarding the health of animals in the United States and the other guarding the health of animals in Canada. They were on ve y familiar terms. They met every year at the annual meeting of the American Veterinary Association held on either side of the boundary. They were on the closest of terms, and these familiar relations between these two officers have been of great benefit to this country on many occasions. In my own experience I have known shipments of mangy cattle, although carefully inspected before leaving Alberta, to develop the disease at South St. Paul and in Chicago. At the particular period I am speaking of now there was a great agitation springing up in the United States to keep out Canadian cattle. Hon. gentlemen will remember in 1919 we sent over something like 540.000 or 550.000 head of cattle, and in 1920 we sent over something like 365,000 head, with the result that the Americans were becoming somewhat alarmed at the Canadian competition, and whenever any mange would appear in any shipment, there was a hue and cry to keep out Canadian cattle. The good relations existing between the two officials were useful in getting over any difficulty which might arise. On every-occasion Dr. Mohler has acted in a fair way in dealing with his Canadian friend in cases of that kind, with the result that no further restrictions were placed on our cattle. In the discussion last Friday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is reported at page 2238 of Hansard as saying.
Let us get back to the document itself. I say with all respect that I have never seen an officer in any department, and certainly have never had anything to do with one, who would write a letter of that character, especially to a foreign government in whose files it would be kept. There is no question that all the members of the staff would know about it.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
I would like to call special attention to that. He continued:
And as a matter of fact, word came back to us that they were astonished at Washington that we should keep in our employ a man who would write such a letter.
Make a note of that. Then the discussion continues as follows:
Mr. Meighen:	Who said that? Will the minister
tell us who is responsible for the statement that the officials in Washington had expressed astonishment at the fact that, as he puts it, we should have kept such a man in our employ?
Mr. Motherwell: It came through Dr. Mohler.
Mr. Meighen: Very well; but who said it?
Mr. Motherwell:	I understand it came from Dr.
Mohler.
Mr. Meighen:	Did Dr. Mohler say that he was
astonished ?
Mr. Motherwell: Yes.
It appears to be very clear that this statement was credited .to Dr. Mohler, chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry in the United States. I am rather surprised that the minister should make any such statement, particularly considering the friendly feeling in that country. We are doing a large trade in live stock with the United States, and it is necessary that we should be on the most friendly relations with them. I wrote Dr. Mohler quoting these portions of Hansard, and sent him a copy, so that he would have everything before him very clearly. My letter reads as follows:
Ottawa, May 17, 1924.
Dr. J. R. Mohler,
Chief of Bureau of Animal Industry,
Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Dr. Mohler,-I have had the pleasure of meeting you on one or two occasions in Chicago, being introduced by the late Dr. J. G. Rutherford. You will perhaps remember me too as Minister of Agriculture for Canada during the latter part of the late administration.
I am forwarding to you herewith Hansard containing report of the proceedings in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon, May 16th. You will note that a debate was on concerning the retirement of Dr. Fred. Torrance, late Veterinary Director General.
During the debate (on page 2238) Honourable Mr. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture, made the following statement-"and as a matter of fact word came back to us that they were astonished at Washington that we should keep in our employ a man who would write such. ..." On being further questioned you will notice that Mr. Motherwell stated "it came through Dr. Mohler." The question was then put, "Did Dr. Mohler say that he was astonished?" Mr. Motherwell replied "Yes".
In justice to Dr. Torrance I think this matter should be cleared up and I would ask you to be good enough to let me have a letter at your earliest convenience clearly outlining what happened. The debate in Hansard is rather lengthy but you are particularly referred to on pages 2311, 2312, 2316 and 2332 all of which I have marked in the enclosed copy.
With kind regards, I am,
Yours faithfully.
Dr. Mohler replied to that letter as follows:
Dr. S. F. Tolmie,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Dr. Tolmie-Replying to your letter of May 17, I wish to inform you that the statements referred to in Hansard of May 16, 1924, page 2323# as coming either "through" me or "from" me are incorrect. I neither made such statements nor have I ever held such views. In fact, my opinion of Dr. Torrance is expressed in my letter to him of July 20, 1923, copy attached, and I have had no reason since then to change those views. You will note in that letter that I did express surprise but my letter shows clearly that the surprise was regarding the news of the change in the administrative head of the Health of Animals branch. Likewise in my letter to Dr. Hilton of July 20, 1923, copy attached, I again state that "the farewell of Dr. Torrance to the members of the staff was read with surprise and deep regret." However, this expression of surprise with its context should give no one a basis for claiming "that they were astonished at Washington that we should keep in our employ a man who would write such a letter."
Neither is it accurate to say that all of the members of my staff knew about this letter of October 28, 1922, from Dr. Torrance. His letter was marked 'confidential" and has been so held up to the present time. The only persons that have seen it are my secretary to whom I dictated my reply of October 31, 1922, and my file clerk who takes care of such correspondence. This morning I have asked seven of my division chiefs about their knowledge of this letter and of course no one had ever heard of it before, nor did they know the reason of Dr. Torrance's resignation. Two of these men were educated ia Canadian colleges and one of them is a Canadian by birth. In concluding I trust you know me well enough to realize that I would not be so indiscreet as to pass judgment on matters of this kind pertaining to a sister organization.
J. R. Mohler.
Under date of July 20, 1923 Dr. Mohler writes to Dr. Frederick Torrance, as follows:
„	July 20, 1923.
Personal.
Dr. F. Torrance,
c/o Health of Animals Branch,
Department of Agriculture^
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. *
Dear Dr. Torrance-The July summary of the Health of Animals Branch of the Canadian Department of Agriculture came to my desk this morning containing your farewell to the members of the staff.
The news of this change in the administrative head of the Health of Animals Branch came as a surprise and it is needless to tell you that I personally and also your many friends in this bureau sincerely regret to learn that you have severed your official connection with the department.
I want to congratulate you on the enviable record you have made as Veterinary-Director General and to thank you for the official courtesy and consideration which this bureau has always received from your office. The official relations between the Canadian Health of Animals Branch and this bureau have always been very cordial and it is expected that they will continue under your successor. You have my best wishes for continued success in whatever activities you may engage.
Cordially,
J. R. Mohler,
Chief of Bureau.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-A gricul lure
The next letter is dated July 20, 1923, addressed to Dr. George Hilton, Acting Director Veterinary General, Health of Animals branch.
July 20, 1923.
Dr. George Hilton,
Acting Veterinary Director-General,
Health of Animals Branch,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Dear Dr. Hilton,-The July summary of the Health of Animals branch of the Canadian Department of Agriculture which came to my desk this morning contains the announcement of Dr. Torrance's retirement and of your appointment of Acting Veterinary Director-General.
The farewell of Dr. Torrance to the members of the staff was read with surprise and deep regret. The official relations between this bureau and your branch have always been very cordial and it is expected that they will continue so under your administration. I want' to congratulate you on being selected to fill the [DOT]vacancy and to assure you that it would be pleasing to myself and your friends in this bureau to see the appointment made permanent.
Wishing you success in the position of responsibility to which you have been assigned, I remain,
Cordially yours,
J. R. Mohler,
Chief of Bureau.
That clearly indicates that some of these statements attributed to Dr. Mohler are, to say the least, very inaccurate. They were given expression to, perhaps, without due care, and I am glad to place Dr. Mohler in a true light before the stockmen of this country. I was quite sure from the very beginning, knowing this gentleman, that he would never be guilty of making any such statements concerning a high official in a neighbouring country.
With regard to the whole situation, I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that the treatment of Dr. Torrance in this matter has been very unfair. I regret to make this criticism; but it seems to be forthcoming, to be deserved, and I think Dr. Torrance's dismissal will go down as one of the most cruel and harsh dismissals in the history of the Civil Service of this country.	.
William Richard Motherwell: No one is more
pleased than I am to learn that Dr. Mohler did not make those statements. What I said to the committee was that we heard he had. Furthermore, it came to us, and it was not any surprise to us that it came to us.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who gave it to the minister?


William Richard Motherwell: Never mind. I did not require that as supplementary evidence; I based my justification for the retirement of Dr. Torrance on this letter of his to Dr. Mohler, and I am going to stick to that tonight. As some members of the committee
were not here the other night, at the risk of repeating myself I am going to point out once more that when two of my colleagues, as well as Dr. Grisdale and Mr. Marshall, were overseas in conference with the British authorities with respect to the lifting of the embargo, I had an interview with Dr. Torrance and I suggested to him, in the event of any changes being made in these quarantine regulations-there was a possibility of changes being made, but as a matter of fact no changes have been made since-that he should write a diplomatic, friendly letter to Dr. Mohler inquiring what effect it would have on our relations with them if the quarantine period were shortened. That was all that he was asked to do. Instead of doing that and stopping there, he writes a letter such as the one I have in my hand and begins complaining about political considerations.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He does not say that.


William Richard Motherwell: We will see what he does say:
I am strongly of the opinion that quarantine regulations should be based upon scientific knowledge of the diseases against which we desire protection, of the conditions surrounding the traffic in animals, the freedom from disease of the country from which the cattle are exported, and the time occupied in ocean travel.
Then he goes on:
If political considerations are to be introduced into the consideration of the question of quarantine it places the scientific advisers of the respective governments in a very anomalous position, and I feel that where we have to undertake the responsibility of carrying out any regulations that are made we should also have a decided influence in the planning of th^e regulations.
In other words, this is an officer who undertakes to dictate how these things shall be done. Although he is under instructions to write a letter of the form I have described, he goes on to formulate a policy and to make complaints. Then he goes on:
Should political pressure force me to accept a shortened period of quarantine...
When I asked him to come and give me an explanation, he said it was the British government he was complaining about, not the Canadian government. I may be quite wrong; but I have handled men in a public way for nearly twenty years, and I have never before seen a letter like 9 p.m. this written to any officer, even in our own country, about a government by an officer of the government, and much less to an officer of a foreign government. That is what I base my action on. Anybody who has had any experience in asking for the retirement of an officer knows

Supply-Agriculture
that it is not an easy or pleasant task to perform. As far as I can recollect, I have done this only four times in nearly twenty years, only once since I came to Ottawa. While I regret the necessity of it, I take the full responsibility of it. I hope a similar occasion will not occur again; or if it does, I shall be predisposed to take the advice of the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) and not give any five or six months recess or time to reflect, but simply dismiss the official summarily. I think that would have been better. I think I can be charged with over-generosity, particularly with regard to the retiring annuity. There was absolutely no justification for the claim that there was consecutive, continuous employment, when for two years out of six he did not work an hour and for four years out of the six he worked only sixteen days, or an average of four days to the year. In the other two years the most he worked was less than a month, in one case, less than that. That gives the committee an idea how difficult it is to please Dr. Torrance. Because he was not allowed that claim, he thinks he has a grievance against me. I may say that, at the beginning, I did not understand the regulations, and he left the impression on me that he was only technically short of being the full time in those six years. There was some technical reason why it could not be called consecutive, but the technical nature of the matter was that he was not employed at all for two years and for two other years he was employed sixteen days. That wdll give the committee some idea just how difficult it Is to please some people. I think I can corroborate nearly all the hon. member for Victoria City has said with regard to Dr. Torrance. I have no particular complaint about his work. He sometimes made it awkward for me; but that is neither here nor there, and I do not want any person to detract from the real issue by talking about golf sticks and such like. I notice in reading an extract from the Hamilton Herald there was a long recital of comparatively trifling matters, but no reference to the real reason of Dr. Torrance's retirement. That is the reason why I am going to nail myself down to this, because the moment I discuss anything but the primary reason, somebody or another, who has the knack of prevarication in the newspaper world, seems to get it going that some trivial matter was at stake and that was all. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member from Victoria to the fact that, while he was overseas and did excellent work-and I am always prepared to give and do now give him credit for it-in

the year prior to the election, either 1920 or 1921,-and I would gather from the statement which he has just made that the quarantine regulations were under consideration then-I notice that he did not take Dr. Torrance with him when he went on the occasion in question.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I should like to call the
minister's attention to the fact that I am a veterinary surgeon and we had another veterinary surgeon over there as well.


William Richard Motherwell: That is quite right, but the fact remains that the hon. member went himself; he did not take Dr. Torrance with him, and while he does not say that Dr. Grisdale and Duncan Marshall did not do good work there, he says that they should have been supplemented by Dr. Torrance. In that event I would have been accused of piling up a great deal of unnecessary expense. As a matter of fact, we sent the right men, and they delivered the goods. That is the main thing. As far as I am concerned I am sorry that the occasion arose for Dr. Torrance's retirement; but the occasion having arisen, I take full responsibility for retiring him. The next time such an event occurs I will follow the advice of the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) and not delay taking action.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is Duncan
Marshall a veterinary surgeon?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is Dr. Grisdale a veterinary surgeon?


William Richard Motherwell: No. After thirty
years of endeavour the embargo was removed on that occasion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have to-night-


William Richard Motherwell: I do not object
to interruptions, but I was not quite through.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will wait until the
minister is through.


William Richard Motherwell: I was going to
finish the notations I have in regard to the hon. member for Victoria City. We hope to maintain our friendly relations with Dr. Mohler. But, mark this, I do not think the correspondence with Dr. Mohler should have been made public, but inasmuch as my hon. friends insisted that I read it, and Dr. Torrance had already supplied them with copies, there was no way of avoiding its publication. We have been working very satisfactorily with the United States, the two veterinary

Supply-Agriculture
branches in team play notifying each other when there has been any danger on the horizon with respect to the health of animals. With regard to this work under Dr. Torrance, I have nothing to say. At the present time the work is equally satisfactorily done under Dr. Hilton. I think the fitness or unfitness of Mr. Duncan Marshall and^ Dr. Grisdale for the work is a matter of judgment. What talks is results, and the result in this case was the removal of the embargo.
I do not know how Dr. Torrance or a hundred veterinarians could have done more. And the quarantine regulations were not introduced into the negotiations, Mr. Chairman. Now I will ask my hon. friend for his excuses:


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, we have
the spectacle to-night of a minister of the Crown, who upon unimpeachable evidence is shown to have made a statement reflecting most seriously upon the honour, the integrity and the respectability of a citizen of this country who is held in the highest esteem by all who know him, a minister who, in spite of the fact that evidence is adduced here to-night that absolutely refutes the statement he made the other day, stands in his place and brazenly reasserts his position, with perhaps one modification-he does not reiterate the absolutely inaccurate and unfounded statement that he made the other night. Now, the least the minister could have done, even though he has doggedly persisted in his attitude regarding the letter-which I shall review again as I did the other day the least he could have done was to have admitted that he was altogether wrongly informed, and to have offered his apologies to Dr. Mohler.	.
I am going to direct my appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to-night. This situation has developed in such a manner that I feel confident it will appeal to his good sense and to the good sense of hon. gentlemen opposite, as well as of hon. gentlemen in other parts of the House, that Dr. Torrance should be cleared of all aspersions, and if the Prime Minister and the House will follow me a moment I shall endeavour to deal with some of these points. Let me deal with the last first. I refer to the very serious aspersion cast upon Dr. Torrance, inferentially, through the mouth of Dr. Mohler. On page 2238 of Hansard the hon. Minister of Agriculture is reported to have made certain statements-which he did. I am going to quote only those that are material to the case. He said:
.There is no question that all the members of the staff would know about it.
That is, the staff in Washington.
And as a matter of fact, word came back to us
that they were astonished at Washington that we should keep in our employ a man who would write such a letter.	,
The "man" being Dr. Torrance. Now, this is not just an utterance in a moment of passion and made without thought. Let me ask the attention of hon. members to what follows:
Mr. Meighen:	Who said that? Will the minister tell us who is responsible for the statement that the officials in Washington had expressed astonishment at the fact that, as he puts it we should have kept such a man in our employ?
Mr. Motherwell:	It came through Dr. Mohler.
Mr. Meighen:	Very well; but who said it?
Mr. Motherwell: I understand it came from Dr. Mohler.
Mr. Meighen:	Did Dr. Mohler, say that he
was astonished ?
Mr. Motherwell:	Yes.
Here we have Dr. Mohler, the head of the corresponding branch in the United States, a man who stands very high in his profession over there, alleged to have written to this department, or to have conveyed to it and to the minister, the fact that he was astonished that Canada would retain in its employ a man of the calibre of Dr. Torrance who made a statement of this character.


William Richard Motherwell: Will'my hon. friend pardon me. If he will start at the beginning of that conversation with the right hon. leader of the opposition he will find I said that we had heard of it, that word came to us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have read the exact words from Hansard.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not make any decided statement. How could I know?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister said:
It came through Dr. Mohler.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the word
that came to us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Allow me to continue this extract from Hansard.
Mr. Meighen: Very well, but who said it?
He is trying to get exact information.
Mr. Motherwell: I understand it came from Dr. Mohler.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: "I understand".


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now, shall we stop there? I do not intend to. I am going to take another step.
Mr. Meighen: Did Dr. Mohler say that he was astonished?
Now, there is no ambiguity about that question.
Mr. Motherwell: Yes.
Supply-A griculture


William Richard Motherwell: You have got to take the whole together. I never met the gentleman in my life.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says to-night: "Oh, don't take one part of my statement; it incriminates me. Just take the part that does not incriminate me." But that is not all. Let us go a little further. My hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) was a little anxious to get proof-I am not surprised-so towards six o'clock he said:
Mr. Manion: Before the clock strikes six, may I make a suggestion? There were a number of letters that the minister did not have on the file. I presume that this matter will go on this evening, and I suggest that he bring the remainder of the file with him.
The excuse having been made that the file was not here.
Mr. Motherwell:	The hon. gentleman means the
letter from Dr. Mohler and the correspondence with Dr. Torrance? I shall be pleased to produce those.
I ask the Prime Minister to note this:
Mr. Meighen: And particularly, produce the evidence that Dr. Mohler expressed the opinion that we should not retain an official who would write that letter.
Mr. Motherwell: Oh, he would not put that on file.
Mr. Meighen: No, I do not think he would put it on file or on his lips or anywhere else, and never did.
That was Mr. Meighen's opinion at that time.
Mr. Motherwell: Oh, yes.
Mr. Meighen: It is merely a pipe dream on the par* of the minister.
Mr. Motherwell: I will guarantee that there was not an officer in Washington in the department concerned by whom this was not a subject of conversation.
This is not a joke; it is not a jesting phrase. The minister says, "I will guaranteedoes that mean anything at all, or is it just a passing phrase of an indifferent character? Let me repeat it:
I will guarantee that there was not an officer in Washington in the department concerned by whom this was not a subject of conversation, and just of the nature I have suggested.
I cannot read the English language if I do not gather from this statement that there was a reflection upon Dr. Torrance on the part of Dr. Mohler.- I do not know whether the Prime Minister was in the chamber when the letter from the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) to Dr. Mohler was read. The hon. member for Victoria City wrote to Dr. Mohler sending a copy of Hansard with the statements marked that I have quoted, statements which' reflect upon the character and the standing of Dr. Torrance, a man whom I and every one who has ever had any-
thing to do with him hold in the highest regard. Dr. Mohler wrote back this letter, which I am going to read again because the Prime Minister is here, and I make no apologies for reading it the second time. It is dated May 20, 1924, and reads:
Dear Dr. Tolmie,-Replying to your letter of May 17, I wish to inform you that the statements referred to in Hansard of May 16, 1924, page 2238, as coming either "through" me or "from" me are incorrect. I neither made such statements nor have I ever held such views. In fact, my opinion of Dr. Torrance is expressed in my letter to him of July 20, 1923, copy attached, and I have had no reason since then to change those views. You will note in that letter that I did express surprise but my letter shows clearly that the surprise was regarding the news of the change in the administrative head of the Health of Animals Branch. Likewise in my letter to Dr. Hilton of July 20, 1923, copy attached, I again state that "The farewell of Dr. Torrance to the members of the staff was read with surprise and deep regret." However, this expression of surprise with its context should give no one a basis for claiming "that they were astonished at Washington that we should keep in our employ a man who would write such a letter."
Neither is it accurate to say that all of the members of my staff knew about this letter of October 28, 1922, from Dr. Torrance.
I bring back to the Prime Minister's attention the statement of the minister that he would guarantee that every member of the staff knew all about this letter-and I intend to deal with that letter in a moment. Dr. Mohler says that is absolutely incorrect; then he goes on:
This morning I have asked seven of my division chiefs about their knowledge of this letter and of course no one had ever heard of it before, nor did they know the reason of Dr. Torrance's resignation. Two of these men were educated in Canadian colleges and one of them is a Canadian by birth.
Then he says further that this letter from Dr. Torrance was marked "confidential,"-the letter as I read it the other day in the House. He says that it went on his private file and that practically on one else read it. In the face of this letter from Dr. Mohler, in the face of this absolute denial, the minister dare not repeat his former statement, yet he fails in common courtesy, in common justice, to Dr. Torrance in not withdrawing that part of his remarks which are wholly without foundation. Not only that, but he stands in the House to-night and brazenly tells us he would take the same course again.
Now I come to another phase of this question. The minister a moment ago read certain letters. He selected-I am going to put it that way-certain letters in an endeavour to show the House that Dr. Torrance had been treated with a great deal of courtesy and consideration when he was dismissed. The facts of the matter are these: Dr. Torrance was called into the minister's office on

Supply-Agriculture
July 7, without the slightest indication that there was anything wrong about this letter that had been written more than six months before, without any indication that the minister desired to discuss an important matter with him, and he was told that a letter had been written which was offensive and that if he did not resign he would be discharged and would receive no retiring allowance. As I said the other night, here is a gentleman of sixty-four years of age, a gentleman who has stood at the very pinnacle of his profession in Canada for many years, who earned for himself an international reputation in his calling and who brought credit to himself and to the Canadian government service-* this gentleman finds himself faced, without any alternative, without any hearing, with the demand, "Write your resignation now-here is pen and paper, or you step out of here without a cent, dismissed and disgraced." I ask the Prime Minister very frankly, and I hope kindly, what man placed in that position would have forfeited all opportunity of the meagre pension that was coming to him and stepped out without any hope at all? He asked the minister-and I direct the Prime Minister's attention to this-"Will you give me twenty-four hours to think it over?" The minister says, "No, you will write it now or be dismissed." Is that the kind of treatment to hand out to any person, much less to one against whom the minister to-night says he has nothing except this letter, which we will discuss in due course?


William Richard Motherwell: No; excuse me, I did not say that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I am at a loss to know what the minister did say, then. But never mind the minister; I appeal to every member of this House; I appeal to anybody who knows Dr. Torrance to say whether there is anything against him. Not a word, not a whisper; yet that was the situation.
But that is not quite all. While they were in this room together and when Dr. Torrance was absolutely refused an opportunity for a hearing, refused an investigation or even twenty-four hours to consider the matter, a discussion arose in this way: Dr. Torrance said, "Well what am I going to do about retiring allowance?" Now we have documentary evidence, and I am going to read it, that the honour and the word and the authority of the minister himsdlf and of the Civil Service Commission was stamped upon an arrangement or agreement to give Dr. Torrance $1,500 a year retiring allowance, the proper percentage of his last three years' salary. That was denied him, and the allowance was reduced to eight or nine hundred
dollars. And now let me read the letters- not selected letters carefully picked out here and there to boost the case of the minister.


William Richard Motherwell: I offered to read them all if hon. members would ask for them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister offered us a lot of things. I myself directed his attention to one letter which he reluctantly read, contrary to what he had been reading before.


William Richard Motherwell: There was nothing in it but something about forwarding a cheque to Dr. Torrance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It contradicted a letter the minister read previously. I am going to read some letters now.


William Richard Motherwell: If the committee is willing I will put the whole file on Hansard.
M.r STEVENS: I will read them. I am going to indulge myself in that pleasure.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Make sure of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It might be very nice to put the whole file on Hansard, but hon. members will probably not read every letter that is on the file. Now. I ask the House to be good enough to hear this case on behalf of Dr. Torrance. Dr. Torrance then wrote his resignation as follows:
I desire to express my wish to resign and retire under the Calder Act, understanding that I would now be entitled to a retiring allowance of fourteen hundred dollars per annum.
That was the understanding arrived at between the minister and himself, and it was the understanding upon which Dr. Torrance wrote and handed in this resignation. It was a written statement of a verbal agreement, a verbal agreement binding the honour of the parties to the agreement. I might as well read the rest of the letter:
In view of my service of over ten years and the fact that during that time I have received no increase in salary with the exception of forty dollars ($40) at the reclassification of the service, may I ask that a gratuity of six months' salary be granted to me on leaving.
Then we have a letter from the minister to Dr. Torrance dated July 10:
I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 7, and to advise you that the Civil Service Commission is being requested to take the necessary steps to retire you under the Public Service Retirement Act. I note your request to be granted a gratuity of six months' salary, and am requesting the authority of the Governor in Council for the allowance of four months' leave of absence with pay, your retirement to take effect from that date, which would be November 30, 1923. The conditions of retirement provide for a gratuity of two months' salary, which would make up the six months which you request.
Supply-Agriculture

In regard to this letter I want to submit to the right hon. the Prime Minister that frequently, and properly so, he appeals to the proper authority of the Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Act, and very frequently pleads that as an excuse for not doing a certain thing. I am not criticising that stand, but I ask him to see that he and his government are consistent in that matter. Now I have here a letter from Mr. Foran, the secretary of the Civil Service Commission, to Dr. Torrance:
I am in receipt of a communication from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture in which it is recommended that your retirement should be effected under the terms of the Public Service Retirement Act from November 30, 1923. Since you will be sixty-four years of age and will have been in the public service seventeen years and eleven months you will be entitled to receive upon retirement an annual retiring allowance of 18/60ths of your average salary for the last three years (18/60ths of $5,040) i.e. an approximate annuity of $1,512. In addition to this your deputy minister has recommended that you be granted two months' salary gratuity in lieu of notice.
The letter goes on to ask for a sworn statement as to age and so forth, and the statement follows:
Dr Torrance-Veterinary Director General
Agp. 63; Service, temporary, January, 1906; permanent. December 1, 1912; 17 years and 6 months.
Date of retirement. July 10. 1923. Salary on retirement. $5,040. Average, $5,040. Retirement annuity 18/60ths of $5,040=11.512.
Then we have another letter from Dr. Torrance to the secretary of the Civil Service Commission, admitting the correctness of that statement. Then follows a letter from the secretary of the Civil Service Commission dated July 17, in which he refers to the terms set forth in the letter of July 11, which I have just read. Now this indicates, I submit to the Prime Minister, two things: A distinct bargain with the minister regarding his retirement, and secondly, an acknowledgement by the Civil Service Commission of the justice of it. The minister comes to-night, having been put to a great deal of inconvenience to justify his course in this matter, and says: Oh, I find that Dr. Torrance was not employed for two or three years prior to 1912. that he did not do permanent work before that date. Now the statement never suggested that; the statement to the Civil Service Commission never suggested that. Everybody knew that Dr. Torrance was on temporary employment from 1906 to 1912. But this is what I want to put to the Prime Minister: Dr. Torrance was a man standing high in his profession. The late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Minister of Agriculture of that day, the late Hon. Sydney A. Fisher, employed E)r. Torrance They did not put him on the temporary staff
TMr. Stevens.)
for any political reasons, but they put him on there, as far as anybody knows, and there is no contradiction of this, because be was an outstanding veterinarian; and the succeeding government of Sir Robert Borden retained him in office as such and made him permanent. Everybody appreciates that. Everybody appreciates also the high standing of Dr. Torrance.


William Richard Motherwell: May I ask a question? Does my hon. friend take the ground that for two years during which Dr. Torrance did not work one hour for the government he should be allowed an annuity?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I take the ground that it is within the right and power of the government and the Civil Service Commission to grant Dr. Torrance an annuity under the act of $1,512, and the order in council prepared, a copy of which 1 have under my hand, and which I might as well read, shows that. It reads:
Ottawa, September 4. 1923.
[To His Excellency the Governor General in Council.]
The undersigned has the honour of approving and submitting the following report from the Civil Service Commission:
The Civil Service Commission has received a report from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, setting forth that owing to advanced age, it is desirable to retire from the public service Dr. F. Torrance, Veterinary Director General, Ottawa, under the provisions of the Public Service Retirement Act 1920 as amended 1921, 1922 and 1923, and the Civil Service Commission concurs in this recommendation.
As required by the said act Dr. Torrance has been duly notified of the intention to retire him from the public service and has acquiesced therein.
Dr. Torrance was born July 13. 1859, and is consequently sixty-four years of age; he was appointed as veterinary inspector by order in council of March 1, 1906, and acted intermittently in this capacity until December 1, 1912, when he was appointed Veterinary Director General, since which time his service has been continuous. Although Dr. Torrance's service was intermittent he was retained under the authority of the order in council and was liable to be called upon for service during any of this time.
In other words, he was retained in a professional capacity. To continue:
For this reason the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the Civil Service Commission are of the opinion that Dr. Torrance's service should be considered as continuous from the 1st March, 1906 for the purposes of calculating his annuity, making a total service of seventeen years and nine months on the 1st December, 1923, the date upon which his retirement is recommended to be effected. The deputy minister further reports that in the event of this retirement being effected the vacancy caused thereby will require to be filled.
The Civil Service Commission therefore recommends that authority be granted under the provisions of the said act for the retirement of Dr. F. Torrance, Veterinary Director General of the Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, from December 1, 1923; and that in lieu of one month's notice and one month's salary gratuity he shall receive two months' salary grat-

Supply-Agriculture
uity as provided in section 3 (1) of the Public Service Retirement Act 1920 as amended 1921, 1922 and 1923; and that furthermore because Dr. Torrance was retained as veterinary inspector by authority of order in council from the 1st March, 1906, and in view of the meritorious service rendered by him, authority should be granted to pay him a retiring annuity based on a service of seventeen years and nine months, under section 3 (6) of the said act.
Then there is a schedule giving his age, which I have already referred to, service, annual salary, average salary, two months gratuity and annuity on retirement $1,512, and so on, and the order concludes:
By order of Civil Service Commission
W. J. Roche, Chairman.
M. G. Larochei.le, Commissioner.
Now we have this continuous story.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do I understand that my hon. friend feels Dr. Torrance should have been allowed what the Civil Service Commission suggests?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I contend first-and
perhaps I should have substantiated this part of my argument but I intend to do it before I sit down-there was absolutely no ground for his dismissal; secondly, the manner of his dismissal was unwarranted and unparalleled for its crudity and for its almost-I was going to say-brutality having in mind the age of the gentleman; and I contend-


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: What about 1919?


Henry Herbert Stevens: And I contend further
that inasmuch as this resignation was secured by a distinct verbal agreement with the minister-


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister told us
that the other day.


William Richard Motherwell: I deny that absolutely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well I will read the
resignation again given under an agreement which should be observed. I say further that the meritorious services of Dr. Torrance are of a character, just as this order in council drafted by the minister himself or by his department sets forth, that wholly warrants the payment of the gratuity. Now let me read the resignation again. The minister may deny the agreement but I have it here in his resignation that the minister receives and acknowledges in writing, there is no gainsaying that:
I desire to express my wish to resign and retire under the Calder Act, understanding that I would now be entitled to a retiring allowance of fourteen hundred dollars per annum.
The exact figures were not worked out until later. Now I turn from that to what the minister says to-night and to the memorandum. The minister takes refuge in a certain position. The Prime Minister was not in his seat the other day and I regret that very much because I think we would have had a different story by now had he been here. The other day the minister stood up in his place and read a certain letter and said "I have had this letter in my possession for some months" -I think it was six or seven or eight months. He said "I was satisfied to retire him under this letter but I was looking for corroborative evidence, and I think I have corroborative evidence in my hands." And he held up a memorandum with a gesture that savoured of the melodrama. He of course was fishing but we did not fall for his bait. AVe insisted that he should not bluff this House. The minister said "It, reflects on Dr. Torrance therefore I do not read it". What more mean, contemptible method of besmirching the character of a man than to hold something before the public and say "I have something here that reflects on his character but while he is at outs with me now I am so courteous and jealous of this man's reputation that I prefer to keep this secret, but I have it here". I say what more contemptible methotf of besmirching an innocent man's character than to do that. And what did we do? We said to the minister "You are not going to get away with a cowardly act of that kind. If there is anything wrong in the memorandum, if there is anything detrimental to the character of Dr. Torrance we want to hear it, and the world wants to hear it, in ju-.tification of his dismissal." And vrhat did we get? We got a memorandum and the minister says "I would not have revealed these petty things if it -had not been for the fact that my hon. friends opposite insisted upon it." Now let us review these things for a moment, let us look the situation over. The minister got a memorandum and denied knowing anything about it. He would not tell us who wrote it, he said he did not know who the writer was. In the memorandum it is stated that he used the frank of a deputy minister for his personal mail and the personal mail of his family. Every Monday morning he brought his mail to the office and handed it to the messenger to be franked, and the Postmaster General wrote to him asking him in regard to the matter. Now, we have from
Supply-A griculture

Dr. Torrance an absolute denial of any conscious violation of any regulations regarding the franking act. Let me say to the minister that Dr. Torrance had as much right to frank a letter for his family as the minister has to frank a letter for his family. Has the minister never franked a letter for any member of his family?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Never?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, a Daniel has come to judgment.


William Richard Motherwell: My family pay
postage on their letters.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am very glad to hear it, but I will venture to say looking around this House that there are not many members but will frank a letter for their wife, son, daughter, or sweetheart. I will say to the House I have franked some myself.


William Richard Motherwell: I think a minister is entitled to do it if he desires.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think there is very much wrong with it.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And I think the civil
servants of Canada very frequently frank their letters. I admit that perhaps it may be well once in a while to bring up and demand a strict enforcement of the regulations, but I venture to say there is not a member of the House who can tell me what the exact terms of the regulations are. I am sure I do not know and I think I keep well within bounds. I am not aware of having franked a letter within the last five years for any one other than myself but I am conscious at some time in my thirteen or fourteen years' service in this House of having violated the rule as it is interpreted now. Is there anything in that worthy ol' even reference? There certainly is not. A kindly courteous word from the minister to any officer would at once end everything of that kind.


William Richard Motherwell: The dismissal was not based on that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know it was not but it was trotted out as corroborative evidence. Then the memorandum goes on to say that Dr. Torrance went to Calgary and took his golf clubs with him. This iniquitous memorandum which the minister said he could not and would not vouch for-he did not know Who wrote it, his deputy would' not tell 
him, and he would not tell the House although we asked him to do so-says that Dr. Torrance went to Calgary on official business, spent about fifteen minutes there on official business, and for the rest of the time he was there played golf. Now, we have a statement from Dr. Torrance that he never played golf in Calgary then or at any other time. Yet the minister comes into the House-and this is what angers me-and reads this memorandum impugning the honour and the integrity of this civil servant without a scintilla of evidence to back it up. The minister did not even take the trouble to ascertain who wrote this memorandum. Just think of it, the minister besmirching in a most iniquitous and picayune manner the character of a man, and he never himself tried to find out whether there was a scintilla of truth in his charges.
Now let me turn to this famous letter we hear so much about. The letter that Dr. Torrance wrote to Dr. Mohler. I wonder if the Prime Minister will bear with me while I read this letter again. I read it the other day. The minister was confronted with irrefutable proof that he was absolutely wrong with regard to the charge made last Friday and he says to-night "I stand to-night on this letter and if I had the thing to do over again I would not wait five months, I would dismiss him c.n the spot." He reiterates that.


William Richard Motherwell: That is not the way I put it. I said' I would take the advice of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie).


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, no. I ask the Prime Minister, he heard the statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what he said.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: He said it twice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the way he put it.


William Richard Motherwell: I said that I would take the advice of the hon. member for Victoria and dismiss him immediately.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I heard that perfectly, but does the minister think the members of this House are children, that they cannot see through such absurd subtlety as that?


William Richard Motherwell: I|t is pretty hard to believe my hon. friend is sincere.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not hard to believe me at all.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: To clear up that little question about the hon. member for Victoria dismissing Dr. Torrance without giving him a fair chance; I said that he should have had a fair

Supply-Agriculture
chance. I said that if his offence was serious enough to force his resignation, his resignation should not have been asked for, but he should have been dismissed outright. But when the minister saw fit to ask for his resignation he should at least have treated Dr. Torrance as a gentleman and as a man should be treated.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Dr. Torrance wrote a letter to the Acting Director General of the United States, and* I ask the House to look at it in the proper perspective. Canada was negotiating for the lifting of the embargo in Great Britain. The British authorities were suggesting to the Canadian authorities, "Now, if we admit your cattle into Great Britain we think you should lower the period of quarantine in Canada against British cattle which you import in some numbers, thoroughbreds and breeding stock". But there is a third party to this. Our regulations are more or less harmonious with those of the United States. Both the department in the United States and the department in Canada have been working in harmony; and so the minister directed Dr. Torrance-I think I am correct in this-to ascertain from the Director General of the United States what their attitude should be if the department found itself forced to lower the period of quarantine, and I have here the letter which the minister says warrants the dismissal of Dr. Torrance. I,t was marked "confidential" and was sent to Dr. Mohler of Washington. The letter reads as follows:
I am strongly of the opinion that quarantine regulations should be based upon scientific knowledge of the diseases against which we desire protection, of the conditions surrounding the traffic in animals, the freedom from disease of the country from which the cattle are exported, and the time occupied in ocean travel. If political considerations are to be introduced into the consideration of the question of quarantine it places the scientific advisers of the respective governments in a very anomalous position, and I feel that where we have to undertake the responsibility of carrying out any regulations that are made we should also have a decided influence in the planning of these regulations.
Let us pause there. This is the gist of the whole thing. This is where the minister takes his stand on the subject. Dr. Torrance says he had no idea of suggesting party or political influence of any sinister character. He was referring to the political pressure of the British government upon the Canadian government. Now were there not some grounds for that? Ample grounds. The British government were being asked to remove the embargo. We know that for years every conceivable opposition was put in the way. We know that the British farmers, agriculturists and breeders objected to it arid
fought it right down the line, and Canadian shippers were very much disappointed. But a time came when the British government felt that they had to do something. It was due to Canada to do it. There was some justice in Canada's claim, and they said to Canada, "Give us something which will be some compensation at least to our own people;" and they asked us to lower our quarantine regulations. That is the political consideration referred to, and I ask the Prime Minister in all fairness, would not the fair reading of this indicate that as a most sensible interpretation? Let me ask further, having in mind all this correspondence between the two departments of these two governments, and having in mind the question of the British embargo, the other end of the matter, what political considerations of a local or partisan character could possibly enter into it? There is no room for the suggestion. But as a matter of fact there were sound grounds for the political interference of the character I spoke of. He says in this letter:
It is quite possible, however, that a suggestion may be made that we should modify our quarantine so as to reduce the time of detention, and it is with regard to this possible demand that I would like to have confidentially your opinion as it affects the relations between the bureau and the Health of Animals branch. We have always felt that we were under agreement not to alter our quarantine regulations without previously notifying you of our intention, and we have received from you the same consideration.
Then he says:
I am strongly of the opinion that quarantine regulations should be based upon scientific knowledge.
I have read that portion. There is nothing wrong with that. Is that not perfectly sound? I have not the letter in consecutive form. I am just reading the paragraphs quoted in Hansard. He says in this letter:
I feel that where we have to undertake the responsibility of carrying out any regulations that are made we should also have a decided influence in the planning of these regulations.
There is nothing wrong about that. Who should plan the regulations, if it were not to be done by the scientists employed by the different governments? Who is qualified to properly perform the regulations other than the Director General whose qualifications from that standpoint have never been questioned, not even by the minister? Let me pause for a moment to say that Dr. Torrance was dealing with this question as he was instructed to do by his minister. The only possible excuse the minister has for taking a political view of it is the word "political" inserted in that letter. If we can put on that word an interpretation consistent with the letter itself
Supply-Agriculture

as I have done-and I submit it is the only inteipretation-then we remove the minister's objection to the letter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me say a
word at this point. Taking the hon. gentleman's own interpretation of the word "political," I ask him if he thinks it is a proper thing for an officer of this government, where a difference of opinion is supposed to exist between this government and the British government in regard to a particular matter, to refer that matter to an official of the United States government and ask his adverse comment upon it. Let me cite a narallel case. At this very moment there is a difference of opinion in this country as to the attitude the British government is taking on the question of preference. An officer of the Department of Trade and Commerce here might just as Dr. Torrance did in the case the hon. member cites, and according to his own interpretation, take the view that political pressure is responsible for the position the British government is taking in this matter. Would the hon. member think it a proper procedure for an officer of the department, without the knowledge of his minister, to communicate with the Department of Trade and Commerce at Washington, and ask him his opinion as to how the matter should be dealt with? If an officer of the department saw fit to act in that way, I do not wonder chat the minister would not have confidence in him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister has missed the point. He says: "Without the knowledge of his minister". His minister instructed Dr. Torrance to ascertain how the United State's department would be affected. He instructed him to write this letter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Instructed him to refer to political considerations?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. The Prime Minister based his argument a moment ago on the fact that the minister was ignorant of all this. I am pointing out to him, just in answer to that point, that Dr. Torrance was instructed to write that letter.


William Richard Motherwell: Not that kind of letter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This letter is a confidential letter. It does not refer in an offensive way to political influence. There is nothing of an offensive character in the language, even though one chose to take that view which I cannot see any ground for. Let us examine the letter again. After several paragraphs 
to which the minister takes no objection, dealing with the whole question of quarantine, Dr. Torrance states:
If political considerations are to be introduced into the consideration of the question of quarantine it places the scientific advisers of the respective governments in a very anomalous position, and I feel that where we have to undertake the responsibility of carrying out any regulations that are made we should also have a decided influence in the planning of these regulations.
Then he goes on:
Should political pressure force me to accept a shortened period of quarantine for imports from the British Isles I have been wondering what would be the attitude of your bureau in regard to the matter.
What pressure could there be other than political pressure? The pressure is the relations existing between Canada and Great Britain as affecting the removal of the embargo in Great Britain and the shortening of the quarantine period in Canada. The word "political" is very properly used there. Dr. Torrance says this: "I believe our quarantine period of thirty days should be maintained, but this pressure, owing to these negotiations, may force me to shorten that period". He does not say this, but this, of
10 p.m. course, is inferred in the object of the whole correspondence-"Should I be forced to reduce that period, what are you going to do to our cattle? Are you going to shut our cattle out or are you going to increase your period of quarantine?" It must be borne in mind that these negotiations between the department in Washington and our department in Canada had been going on for years. They had been running on harmoniously in regard to these matters and the question was a very serious one. Dr. Torrance, at the instructions of the minister, seeks to find out what the attitude of Dr. Mohler would be. To show that Dr. Mohler took no wrong impression out of this, we have already read to-night a letter from Dr. Mohler showing that no such idea entered his head. Then, we have his reply which I might read again-I do not suppose that is necessary-a perfectly courteous reply that has in it no suggestion of there being anything offensive in this letter.
I want to make this appeal to the Prime Minister: Supposing he grants that there was in the wording of this letter something other than the skill of an experienced diplomat, would that be an offence for which a servant of his standing should be summarily dismissed? I put this to the Prime Minister? He is in charge of External Affairs; supposing an under-secretary of External Affairs wrote a letter that was not couched in quite the terms that he approved and he later ascer-

Supply-A gricvlture
tained this; supposing this was the first time and that there was no more than this, would he dismiss him? He would not; I know he would not. He might bring him in and question the propriety of the exact language or something of that kind but he would not dismiss him. He would not bring him into his office; put a pen into his hand and say: Sign that resignation or you go out of here dismissed and disgraced. That is our complaint in this matter. Dr. Torrance was not given any opportunity. He is a man of the highest standing, a man of reputation, a man who has served this country well, a man who stands at the top of his profession, a man whose integrity and honour are not impeached by any one in this country other than by the minister and these two or three-the minister would not tell us who they were-unnamed, unrevealed scandalmongers whose statement was read to this House, and even the man who read it was ashamed to take responsibility for it. In addition to that, I have in my hand a sworn statement from Dr. Torrance that I intend to put on Hansard dealing with this whole matter. There should be no necessity for a sworn statement from him and no one in this House should ask for it; but when one is charged with innuendo and invidious allegations are made such as were read in this House the other day, and when such treatment is accorded under the excuse of this letter, it appears to be necessary to get the strongest possible evidence to support our contention. This is the affiadavit that Dr. Torrance has signed in connection with the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
hon. member reads the affidavit, as I listened to the discussion since I came into the House this evening it was perfectly clear to me that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) did not desire at all to leave the impression that he was in any way reflecting on Dr. Torrance's character. He has made it clear that there was a lack of confidence between himself and Dr. Torrance. The particular act that he has referred to was an act which he felt, having regard to their existing relationship made it desirable that it should be terminated as soon as possible. But as regards the communication to which my hon. friend has taken strong exception, the Minister of Agriculture said this evening that he did not mean the words in the sense in which they are being interpreted at the present time by hon. members opposite, and I might say further that I think the minister is the last one who would in any way be harsh with an official of his department. He was ready to endeavour to meet Dr. Torrance's
wish in the matter of superannuation and the like. If in any particular that wish has not been met, to the extent to which it is possible to have it met upon report of the Civil Service Commission, made in accordance with the laws of the country, it will be the wish of the government to see that in that regard every justice is done to Dr. Torrance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad the Prime
Minister has made that statement; but he was not in his seat the other day when this previous discussion took place. Had he been in his seat, he would have understood what aspersions were heaped upon Dr. Torrance. The minister certainly to-night, faced outside of the House and in the House with a situation that was untenable for him, comes and places his whole stand on this letter of which I think the most harsh interpretation would not justify the action that was taken.
Let me read this affidavit by Dr. Torrance and let me call to witness the statement of the Prime Minister and the statement of the minister himself that he cannot find grounds for disputing the honour and the integrity of Dr. Torrance.
Statement of the circumstances leading to the retirement of F. Torrance from the position of Veterinary Director General.
On Saturday morning, July 7, 1923, I was in my office as usual when I received a telephone message to come over to the minister's office as he wished to see me. I went at once and found Hon. Mr. Motherwell alone in his office.
He asked me to sit down and said:	"I think the
time has come, Doctor, when we should part." He went on to say that he had lost confidence in me and when pressed for a reason, said that information from my office had reached the opposition. I vigorously denied having given any information other than any one had a right to have and said that if such information had reached the opposition it was not with my knowledge or consent.
He then said that he had a copy of a letter I had written to Washington which gave him ample grounds for my dismissal. Without letting me see the letter, he read a passage from it which he interpreted to cast a reflection upon himself and the government as likely to force me to take a course for political reasons which I did not approve. I explained that the reference was not to Canadian but to British authorities and reminded him that the letter in question had been written a long time ago, namely, last October, yet he had never objected to it until to-day. He would not accept any explanation.
He demanded my resignation and said'that unless it was forthcoming at once he was prepared to dismiss me. I said that this appeared to be a very harsh way of dealing with an official of my standing and service and requested to be given an opportunity of consulting my friends. He refused.
I then asked permission to see the Prime Minister. He said that the Hon. Mr. King was out of the city and in any case it would be useless to see him as my retirement had been considered by the government and decided upon.
He went on to say that if I resigned I would be entitled to retirement allowance under the Calder Act based upon seventeen years' service and, consulting a memorandum in regard to this, said-
Supply-Agriculture

The minister said.
I would receive about $1,400 or $1,500 a year. If I refused I would be dismissed without any retirement allowance whatever. He offered me paper-
I want the Prime Minister to hear this affidavit.
He offered me paper and pen and insisted that my decision be made instantly.
I then asked that if I resigned I might be given the customary six months' leave with pay. He replied that they desired to fill the position immediately, and if leave were granted they could not fill the position until the leave had expired. I suggested as an alternative a gratuity of six months' salary. He agreed to this.
I then asked if my retirement could not be postponed for a year when I would be sixty-five and ^ould retire on account of age. This was refused.
I felt it was useless to go further. I had to choose between two alternatives, either to fight an unjust dismissal with the whole force of the government arrayed against me or else to accept the terms offered and write out my resignation. I had no chance to consult any one and no time to think it over. I decided to resign, wrote out my resignation and gave it to him, at the same time making a copy for myself. Our interview then terminated.
I am told my resignation was before the council and accepted the same day.
I afterwards saw the Hon. Mr. King at his country residence but could obtain no redress. He however approved the granting of six months' leave. In the final adjustment this was changed to four months' leave and two months' salary as a gratuity.
My retirement allowance has not been arranged as agreed upon. My term of service has been cut down from seventeen years to eleven years and four months and my annuity from approximately fourteen hundred to nine hundred dollars.
This is a grave injustice. I was induced to resign by a definite statement that I was entitled to an allowance based on seventeen years' service and this arrangement has not been honourably carried out.
My services to the country have deserved better treatment. I was the responsible official when in 1914 the worst outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the history of the United States broke out in that country. It never gained entrance to Canada, not through good luck, but through the careful preventive measures adopted by my advice and carried out under my direction.
During my term of office cattle mange in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan was practically wiped out and the mange area abolished; dourine of horses was entirely eradicated; and losses from glanders and hog cholera reduced to a minimum. Active steps were taken towards the control of bovine tuberculosis. The meat inspection service was maintained at a high level of efficiency.
The Health of Animals branch of the Department of Agriculture gave further proof of its efficiency and value to Canada in connection with the removal of the British embargo on our cattle. The most valuable argument on our side was the freedom of our cattle from serious communicable diseases.
The branch over which I had the honour to preside for many years is largely responsible vor this happy state of affairs, yet its chief officer, responsible under the minister and his deputy for its policy and its efficiency, has received the treatment I have described.
F. Torrance.
Sworn to before me at Guelph, Ontario, this 31st day of March, 1924.
R. G. Johnson,


That is Dr. Torrance's statement, a fair
statement of fact. I draw the Prime Minister's attention once again to the statement incorporated in his resignation, acknowledged a day or two afterwards by the minister himself, indicating that an agreement or bargain had been made regarding Dr. Torrance's retiring allowance. Let me read the affidavit again in that regard:
He went on to say that if I resigned I would be entitled to retirement allowance under the Calder Act based upon seventeen years' service, and, consulting a memorandum in regard to this, said I would receive about $1,400 or $1,500 a year.
The minister prepared for this emergency, knowing exactly what he was going to dio. He had this memorandum under his hand when the consultation was taking place. Dr. Torrance had not the slightest notice of what was impending. He entered his office unsuspectingly and was met with a demand for his resignation. The minister had it all carefully prepared!. The other day he intimated that for six or eight months after knowledge of this letter he nursed in his heart this little grudge about "political considerations" and sought for corroborative evidence,-
Mr. MOTHERWELL; That is not so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -which corroborative evidence he produced the other day-corroborative evidence of such a disreputable character that one would not condemn a yellow dog on it, leave alone a Civil servant-the disreputable character of which he has acknowledged and demonstrated in the fact that to-day he abandons it and seeks to avoid every reference to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, 'oh.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: It is awful.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, it is awful. Hon. members laugh-


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Don't get excited. You did worse .than that in 1911, you threw poor people on the street in a heartless and cowardly way. It was a cowardly act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We quite agree with the hon member's designation of this act-it is certainly a .cowardly act. It is no laughing matter, nor is it a trivial matter, for a civil servant to be thrown out in this way. The least Dr. Torrance could have expected was to have been given an opportunity to defend himself, an opportunity to consult his friends, an opportunity to ponder the heinousness of the offence contained in that simple letter. But no such opportunity was granted him, no consideration whatever was accorded him.

Supply-Agriculture
Instead, by brutal strength, based upon unlimited power, his resignation was demanded or he would be forced on the street.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, what my hon. friend has said requires a little attention, and possibly I may have to repeat myself as a number of hon. members were not in their seats at the beginning. I have been accused of selecting the letters I read.
I stated to the committee at the outset that I would read as many letters as I thought would be of interest, and that if any further letters were required upon which some of those I intended to read were based I should be glad to read them, but that I did not want to clutter up Hansard any more than was necessary. But see what my hon. friend did in reading his extracts from Hansard. He got to a certain point twice, Mr. Chairman, and then balked solid. Let me quote:
Mr. Motherwell: It came through Dr. Mohler.
This is. the information, the report that he was surprised and so forth.
Mr. Meighen: Very well; but who said it?
Mr. Motherwell: I understand it came from Dr. Mohler.
Mr. Meighen: Did Mr. Mohler say that he was
astonished ?
Mr. Motherwell: Yes.
Why did he not go just a little bit further, one more step? I do not think he saw the next one; possibly he is colour blind or something like that. Now, what was the next one?	/
Mr. Meighen: Will the minister take the responsibility for saying that Dr. Mohler so stated?
Mr. Motherwell: I could not do that as he did not tell me.
"He did not tell me," showing, as I stated in the first instance, that the report had come to us that Dr. Mohler had expressed surprise that we kept a gentleman in our employ. That was the report that came to us, and when the right hon. leader of the opposition wanted to know if I would take the responsibility for saying that Dr. Mohler had said that, I replied that I could not, as he did not tell me. Yet my hon. friend, who pretends to be the quintessence of fairness to-day, balks like a balky horse just as he comes to that.


Arthur Meighen: But the minister took
the responsibility for the statement that Dr. Mohler had told someone. It now turns out that Dr. Mohler told no one, and that the minister's statement was false.


William Richard Motherwell: I am very glad
to find that he did not. So much for that. I have not the place in Hansard where I 155
spoke the other night, but I am sure hon. members heard me two or three times state the reasons why I did not take this matter up with Dr. Torrance immediately after the letter came to my attention. There were two or three reasons why I did not do that. One was that I was busy preparing for the session, then the session was on. Furthermore I was desirous to give Dr. Torrance a second chance, which every man is entitled to, and to see if he would not cease his resentment. I understood1 the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to say that I admitted I nursed this resentment to Dr. Torrance and watched for an opportunity to trap him. I said the very opposite, that I gave him six months to retrieve himself, to live down his conduct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did the minister ever
speak to Dr. Torrance regarding this letter upon which he now bases his action?


William Richard Motherwell: I did not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not until July 7.


William Richard Motherwell: We will follow that up now. My hon. friends seem to be making much ado about very little. Dr Torrance is gone; I do not know that this will bring him back, but we want to do justice to him, we want to do justice to all. Now, so much for that. I gave him six months' grace, as I say, in which to do the right thing, but he did' not do it.


Mr. LADNER:: How did Dr. Torrance
know that he had done the wrong thing then?


William Richard Motherwell: I certainly told
him, as I have stated here about fifty times. Now, his resignation is here, as read by my hon. friend. How did the understanding regarding his retirement come about? I told Dr. Torrance distinctly that I could not tell, did not know, could not make a computation as to how much he was entitled to, but I said he would get all that was coming to him under the terms of the Calder Act. He said he was entitled to seventeen years, and I said, ''Well, whatever you are entitled to you will get." What did he think he was entitled to? I do not think the Prime Minister was here when we took that up. What did he say he was entitled to? This is what he told me:	He said he was entitled to
seventeen years, with the exception of some technicality with regard to the first six. I took him at his word. Of course I did not know whether that was correct; I had not seen the Calder Act at that time. I could



Supply-Agriculture
not compute it even now or say what it would come to at seventeen years. Based on his own figuring, it was SI ,500, and I said, "If that is what it is shown to me by the Calder Act, that is what you will get." It could not be otherwise. I did not know until some time afterwards what it would come to; in fact, I was astonished at the liberality of the allowance. As I said before, I could be accused of being too liberal, of computing his annuity in respect to two years in which he did not work one hour for the government. Yet I am accused of being unfair to him. Let us see how many hours he did work. I will go over that again as given in the letter of Mr. Jarvis, my assistant deputy minister, to the Civil Service Commission, previously referred to. In 1905-6 he got $339; on a basis of S15 a day he would have worked 20 days, in round figures, that year. In 1906-7 he got $150, which on the same basis would be 10 days' work. You hear sometimes about the short hours of the Civil Service; this beats anything I have seen or heard of. In 1907-8

one of the years on which he thinks his annuity should be based, and one of those lie referred to as subject to a technicality, he otherwise being entitled to the whole seventeen; and it was a pretty substantial technicality when in this and the next year he did not work an hour-in 1907-8, nothing; in 1908-9, nothing. In 1909-10, $150, ten days; in 1910-11, $60. six days; in 1911-12, $172. Some expenses were included in that last figure and I do not know how many days it would cover, but probably not more than 10 or 11. Now that *was the computation on which he thought he should get his annuity. It is no wonder he was disappointed. But I felt that there were-special circumstances to be given consideration. The Civil Service Commission believed the same thing, and my deputy also took that attitude, knowing him for a long while, and in many respects very favourably. As far as I am concerned we usually sign these matters on the dotted line, but if I had any compunctions about signing in this case I was willing to err on the side of generosity, so the recommendation went to council with my signature that he get his allowance on the basis of the 17 years. The Auditor General-I think it was the Acting Auditor General then, but I am not sure-sent a memorandum to the Audit Board advising them of the circumstances and the recommendation was refused.
Now, why did I not give him more time, my hon. friends say? When he came into my office I referred this letter to him and asked him what it meant, gave him an

opportunity to explain. His explanation was that it was not myself or this government but the British government he was criticising-and the letter from Dr. Mohler refers to the same thing, the British government, showing that there was some communication with them other than this in which the British government was involved. I said, "I think, Dr. Torrance, that makes it only worse. I think the time has come when our partnership should be dissolved." Now, I regret to have to state these things, but in the face of the sworn statement of Dr. Torrance I am going to give some details too. He immediately took the attitude of fighting-not of fighting me personally but of gathering his friends all round the country and saying he was going to fight this injustice. "Well, all right," I said-when a man shows fight, whether it be in this committee or anywhere else, I am not going to crawl under the desk, I can assure you of that. He took the ground. that I did not dismiss him while the House was in session because I was afraid to, and with an insinuation in his voice 'he wanted to know why I left it until after prorogation. I ask hon. members if I was going to take that lying down? So I said, "Well now, if that is your attitude, if you are going to fight, I guess we will have to see about it." I said, "I am prepared to go the limit in doing the right thing by you now, but at the same time I want our present relationship to terminate, for several reasons, one of them this letter." This was the manner in which he received my request-going to fight. As a mattei of fact we have run across that feelirg not once but many times-the impression among a lot of people that we could not dismiss them; and he was imbued with that idea. Well then, we just had to try it out, and he was wrong. Most of his recital is correct, but he d'd not tell that part. It was he who started it. I did it in the most conciliatory manner that I could think of, because it is not a very easy duty to perform. As I said before, only four times in my life have I asked for the resignation of an officer, but in the face of his reply and the way that he received it, there was nothing else for me to do but afford him all the facilities possible for his retirement, and I did.


Arthur Meighen: When was this show of
fight that so incensed the minister?


William Richard Motherwell: Right there, then.


Arthur Meighen: After the resignation was demanded?


William Richard Motherwell: No. yes, after it
was demanded.

Supply-Agriculture


Arthur Meighen: No or yes? Which will
he abide by?


William Richard Motherwell: What is that?


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister answer yes or no? He said both.


William Richard Motherwell: Will you just sit
down, or ask the question in such a way that I can understand.


Arthur Meighen: No, I have the floor. I
will not sit down until I get an answer. Was the show of fight after the resignation was demanded or before?


William Richard Motherwell: There was no need
before it was asked for, I should think.


Arthur Meighen: So the minister's decision was come to before the show of fight appeared at all?


William Richard Motherwell: The show of fight
was as soon as I asked him to make an explanation, and his explanation was that the British government was complaining.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is hedging.
Was it before the resignation was demanded or after?


William Richard Motherwell: After.


Arthur Meighen: Then how could the
show of fight determine the minister's attitude, if the minister's attitude was taken before?


William Richard Motherwell: It was the manner
of it, and I am going to explain why I could not give the length of time he asked for. I was going west the next Tuesday; this was on a Friday as far as I remember, and as soon as I indicated what my wishes were, when he failed to explain this extraordinary letter except in the way he did, that it was the British Government he was criticising- and I want to say that the ministers and the members of this House are not supposed to criticise other governments, much less should that be the duty of an officer of the government-as soon as he realized what I desired, he started to show fight, he was going to fight it, he was not going to resign. Well, he did resign. Now, what other position could I have taken? Was I going to have him challenge my right to ask him to resign? After that, as soon as he saw that I meant business he cooled off and we discussed business. He must have known the facts. He must have known there were two years between 1906 and 1912 when he did not work an hour for the government, and two other years when he only worked sixteen days, and two other years when he worked not more than twenty 1554
days each year, and yet his resignation was based on his understanding that he was entitled to all those years in computing the annuity. I told him:	"I do not know anything about this, but whatever is coming to you you will get." I went further. Even after I knew these things-and I think I am censurable for trying to get him seventeen years, but it was made out by the Civil Service Commission,-in view of all the circumstances I recommended that, but the Audit Board and the Auditor General turned it down, and I think they were right. In view of all these circumstances I do not see how in the world I can be charged with severity in the settling of this question with Dr. Torrance. I do not know what leniency means if I did not show leniency on that occasion.
With regard to the necessity about quarantine, just to show you there was no necessity for such a letter, the quarantine has not been changed since, nor did the British government ask us to reduce the period of quarantine, except under circumstances that did not occur, that is, that breeding cattle should be permitted in. That was the only circumstance, and that has not arisen yet.


Arthur Meighen: So there was no need
of the letter?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes. We had
an understanding with the American government that we would play the team game and keep each other informed as to dangers from disease from foreign countries, and also as to a common period of quarantine for the two countries. The moment we changed ours they would have some justification for changing theirs, and it was only ordinary international courtesy to tell them that there was a possibility, in the event of breeding cattle being let in, that there might be a change. It has not resulted in that, but there was a probability that it would.
I think I have now covered all the notes that I took while my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre was speaking, except to say that when estimates are going through, oppositions certainly have the advantage, and my hon. friend took the fullest advantage of his position. If I remember rightly, he also used the word "coward" as applied to myself. It is all right, you know. We like to give oppositions latitude, and I think we can afford to give latitude to this particular opposition. They are trying to pick up a little of what they have lost during the past session in many respects. They are trying to pick it up in this matter, and they have no case.
Supply-Agriculture

I do not want to prolong this debate unnecessarily. I would point out once more that I was absolutely warranted from my standpoint because of the extraordinary letter of Dr. Torrance to a foreign government, and not only with regard to his attitude towards this government, but the British government. It was impropriety, I say, of the first character, and I could not see anything else for it but to do what I did. I have in every possible way made it as light as possible for him. I gave him the six months, and I tried to get him an annuity based on seventeen years, and1 the very fact that the six months was sufficient to enable him to get other employment is an indication that I went as far as I could to take care of him. At no period of the six months was he out of employment. What is more, I was careful about saying anything, although I was interviewed in regard to his resignation. There were no great headlines in the newspapers about it; very few noticed the retirement of Dr. Torrance, which goes to show that as far as I was concerned I was not desirous of giving him any unnecessary publicity that might do him any harm or prevent him from getting subsequent employment.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Now the minister is in
possession of all the facts disclosed in this debate, and from the reading of the correspondence, would he dismiss Dr. Torrance?


William Richard Motherwell: Do you mean if I had to do it over again?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Would the minister, being in possession of all the facts disclosed in this debate, and by the filing of these documents, dismiss Dr. Torrance under the circumstances?


William Richard Motherwell: Surely.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I have the honour to
represent in this House the riding where Dr. Torrance now resides, and I may be excused for a moment or two if I discuss one or two aspects of this case as it appeals to me. There is no doubt that Dr. Torrance is a man who enjoys a very high reputation in his profession, not only in this country, but I fancy also in the United States. He is a man who is at the head of his profession. His services were first requisitioned by the government of Canada in the days when the late Hon. Sydney Fisher was Minister of Agriculture. I do not know what Dr. Torrance's political affiliations were at that time, or whether he had political affiliations of any kind. I do know, however, that the late Hon. Sydney Fisher in 1906 retained the services of Dr. Torrance on the ground of his pro-
fessional merit, and on that ground exclusively, and the fact that Dr. Torrance was continued in the service from 1906 down to last summer speaks volumes, I think, for the ability which he displayed in the high office in which he was placed under the government of Canada. He drew a fair salary, he occupied a very high position, and we know that in the case of senior servants it has been the custom for governments not to dispense with their services summarily but to treat them as men who have worked their way to eminence and are entitled to consideration, more consideration perhaps than one occupying a minor position in the service. Dr. Torrance had reached that position, an eminent position in the service of Canada, and had done great work for this country according to the testimony of the present minister, I believe, and of the former minister, and no doubt according to the testimony of every preceding minister if that testimony could be obtained. Suddenly, very suddenly, the services of Dr. Torrance are dispensed with by this government, or by the Minister of Agriculture to speak more definitely. We are naturally curious for a reasonable explanation of what, on the face of it, looks to be a rather high handed proceeding. I do not want to pre-judge the case. I am only trying to form an opinion upon the case from statements that were made here to-night and on Friday afternoon last. Having regard to the dubious statements that have been made in this committee by the Minister of Agriculture, one may fairly say that his demeanour, his conduct and his language all lack that ring of genuineness which one always expects from a minister whose estimates are under discussion in committee of Supply. There is something fictitious about this matter.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Evil mind.


Hugh Guthrie: There is something
thoroughly artificial in the explanations that have been given to the committee by the minister.


William Richard Motherwell: Would you call this letter artificial?


Hugh Guthrie: I submit and I think I
am well within the judgment of the committee that the letter is not the reason, the letter is only the excuse for the dismissal.


William Richard Motherwell: What is the reason then?


Hugh Guthrie: The reason lies beneath
the surface. In my own mind I think the reason is to be found in the fact that one Duncan Marshall desired to make a trip to England-

Supply-A gricul lure


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: -at the expense of this
country and was selected by the minister for that position. Under other circumstances were not Duncan Marshall upon the scene the head of the veterinary branch of this government would have been asked to go on that mission with the deputy minister to discuss with the British government the matter of the cattle embargo. For some reason or other one Duncan Marshall a political heeler of this government and of this minister, a man who for a year or two drew pay-and as we maintain illegally-from the treasury of this country, for some reason or other was selected by the minister for this important work in Great Britain. He was not a veterinary surgeon. The deputy minister who was to go with him was not a veterinary surgeon.


William Richard Motherwell: We got the results, though.


Hugh Guthrie: The work that was to be done was work specially pertaining to veterinary science. Although the cattle embargo had been in force during twenty or thirty years and there was no disease among the Canadian herds, the question was one pre-eminently to be discussed and settled by qualified veterinary surgeons. Yet neither of the gentlemen selected was qualified as a veterinary surgeon- one the very able deputy minister; the other a very able political heeler, a political agent of, and in the pay of, this government, who is now going up and down through the constituencies, organizing for the next general election.


William Richard Motherwell: He is not in the
pay of the government.


Hugh Guthrie: The letter in question
from Dr. Torrance to Dr. Mohler was not the reason for the former's dismissal but the excuse. The minister, for political purposes, wanted to get rid of Dr. Torrance. Having made up his mind that he was going to dispense with Dr. Torrance's services the question presented itself to him "What reasonable excuse can I find to lay before parliament and the country?" Now he trots out a letter written by Dr. Torrance to Dr. Mohler of Washington, written under the instructions, under the positive order, of the minister himself-a letter which he had in his department for six, seven or eight months, lying there on the files of that department. No discussion about it, no objection taken to that letter by the minister or by his officials; but when the opportune moment came the proud thought floated across the mind of the minister "Now I will
use the letter as an excuse for the dismissal of a public servant who has served this government and this country well. I will make that the basis for discharging this prominent official." I doubt if, in the history of parliament, a more high-handed, a more autocratic act was ever performed by any minister. Without a moment's warning, without a moment's notice, the minister summons Dr. Torrance to his office, tells him he must part company with the government, tells him in plain language that he is dismissed. Dr. Torrance asks for a few hours to consider the matter, to consult with his friends. The Minister of Agriculture then and there demands "Unless you forthwith sign your resignation I will dismiss you, and you will not receive any pension or any retiring allowance." There was no time given for consideration. What was the reason for the dismissal? This old letter which had been lying on the files for seven, eight or nine months, was trotted out and laid on the table as the basis for the charge that this officer had misconducted himself and should be dismissed. Autocratic? Yes. High-handed? Yes. Exceeding legal authority? Yes. Yes, because neither this Minister of Agriculture, nor any other Minister of Agriculture, nor any other minister, can dismiss a civil servant of his own motion. Dr. Torrance in his affidavit says:	"When I
went to the minister's office on that fateful morning the minister told me the matter had all been decided by council." So that, before Dr. Torrance was sent for at all the die had been cast; the axe had fallen. True the Privy Council can dismiss, they can pass an order in council to dismiss; but there is an act of parliament for the protection of civil servants which does not permit a minister to dispense with a public servant, and if we are to believe him it was the minister who did it in this instance. I believe myself that the act was consummated by the Privy Council before the interview with Dr. Torrance. When he was summoned to the minister's office he was in reality no longer a servant of the Crown. Think of a man summoned there and told "to sign this or be dismissed" and lose his pension. No time for consideration, no time for consultation with friends, there had been seventeen years of excellent service to the country, but the minister takes the ground that the officer's head must go into the basket to please Duncan Marshall or some other of the heelers of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would my
hon. friend tell when he ceased to be a heeler of the Liberal party?
Supply-Agriculture


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think the question is quite in order, and to term an hon. member a "heeler" is not a parliamentary term.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why did
you use it then':'


Hugh Guthrie: I have never occupied
that position, and if my hon. friend who asked the question knows anything about it he is entitled to his own experience.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Hugh Guthrie: If there is one thing I am proud1 of it is that my connection with the Liberal party from beginning to end has been above board and open to the inspection of anybody. I have never yet been charged with anything, although I have been charged in this committee, notwithstanding my protest, that the language was highly improper and highly unparliamentary-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon.
member started it.


Hugh Guthrie: I used the language in regard to a man not a member of this House, and I had a perfect right, to do it, as my hon. friend knows full well; but that is the style of the whole performance; and now they try to hush it up and cover it up. The minister tries to explain how generous he has been to this man in granting him the full limit of leave of absence with pay, and how active he has been to secure him as large a retiring allowance as possible. First he cuts his head off-he dismisses him. Perhaps that might carry with it some stigma in the case of a man not so well and favourably known as Dr. Torrance. But after dismissing him he says, "Now, see how generous I can be. I am trying to give him all the pension he can get, all the leave of absence he can possibly get, and really I am doing him a kindness, because in the six months during which time he was under pay he secured another position." Why a man like Dr. Torrance can always secure any position I should presume. 1$ is one thing to be a high official of the province of Ontario; but it is a greater thing to be a high official of the Dominion government, such as Veterinary Director General of the Dominion. The Dominion position carries more money and more prestige. The man who was qualified for seventeen years to perform the duties here is just as well qualified to-day under the provincial government, but that does not justify the highhanded action ,of the minister.

Dr. Torrance has not been given what we call fair play. The minister has not acted decently with him. There is something still known and recognized in British and Canadian politics as justice and fair play. Having heard the statements of the minister, having heard the minister in the first instance introduce that letter as the basis of his dismissal, and trot out that miserable list of petty charges which somebody trumped up in the department as a justification for his dismissal, and having seen the minister make the display of himself that is involved in such conduct, can any hon. member of the committee say that the minister showed any very great sense of fair treatment, or fair play in the case of Dr. Torrance? If we talked in this chamber for a week I do not suppose we could change the situation now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: And I am sorry to hear hon. members to my left say "hear, hear,'' because I was appealing to them in this case on the ground of ordinary fair play and just treatment. I do not think I can move the minister in this matter. From what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said, I do not think the government would be inclined to be moved, but this incident will remain a blot and a stigma on the record of this minister, so far as the Civil Service of this country is concerned.


William Richard Motherwell: If I were to remain
silent after all these scoldings I am getting, it would1 be taken for granted that I have nothing to say, and that I was in some way assenting to what was being said. I will only refer to the last scold which has been administered); and for an hon. member of my hon. friend's recognized parts, it was not becoming of him. He tried to do his best but he made a mighty poor job of it.
Now it has been stated that Duncan Marshall was in the pay of the government. Let me correct that. He has not been in the pay of the government since the 1st of January this year, and I know that my hon. friend would not want to make a statement of that kind if it were not correct.


Hugh Guthrie: It was claimed that he
was illegally paid part of the time by the government.


William Richard Motherwell: He is not in the
employ of the government and has not been in the pay of the government since the 1st of January last. Please do not repeat that statement. '

Supply-A griculture


Arthur Meighen: He is in the pay of the party.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
knows more about that than I do.


Arthur Meighen: I think I do.


William Richard Motherwell: While I am on
that point I may say that my hon. friend made all the ado about the fact that neither Duncan Marshall nor Mr. Grisdale were veterinaries. A gentleman from this province, a very prominent and active man, went over at the same time as the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie)-I think the same year-and Duncan Marshall was over that year before he was in the employ of the government. I think it was in 1920. Three prominent gentlemen went over in 1920 and all did good work. The hon. member for Victoria City was the only one of the three who was a veterinary. Duncan Marshall and Hon. Manning Doherty went over. Was Manning Doherty a veterinary?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Richard Motherwell: Was he not active
in connection with the matter of this embargo? If there were a hundred veterinaries over there would they have done any better than these men did? These gentlemen brought back the goods with the removal of the embargo. If a whole army of Canadian veterinaries had been sent over there they could not have accomplished more than was accomplished. What is the use of all this . childish nonsense and prattle about not being veterinaries? I am not going to get . cross, because I never felt less like it, but I want my hon. friend to have some regard for this House and to have a little regard for Dr, Torrance, because I certainly tried to help him, and I did not carry all over the country the fact that he was dismissed. That was left to hon. members who were supposed to be his friends.
In reply to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), I say that in all my political career I cannot recall dismissing more than four men in my life. I would , just as soon take the head off a chicken or kill a lamb, and anybody who has ever killed a- lamb knows what a disagreeable task it is, if you have a heart at all. Out of four men whom I dismissed two were Liberals and two Conservatives, so far as I could- tell their political persuasion, and I could tell that generally. The fact -that in twenty years' experience I only had occasion to dismiss four men does not indicate on my part bloodthirstiness for the head of anybody. All
this talk about the gentlemen we sent over to England not being veterinaries and not being qualified is just so much piffle. The men who did such good work over there were not veterinaries. One was Manning Doherty, another Duncan Marshall, and the third was Dr. Grisdale. The hon. member for Victoria City, who is an eminent veterinary, did noble work over there in connection with the matter but it was not on account of his being a veterinary.


Robert James Manion: I have sat and listened for
nearly two full days to the discussion of this question, and I have done so without any knowledge of the gentleman who has been dismissed. So far as I know I have never seen him; but nobody with a fair mind could listen to this discussion, listen to statements first made by the minister and then retracted by him or partially retracted-I will admit the minister shakes his head, but they were dis-proven and he should have retracted them general statements made and then disproven by statements such as the letter from Dr. Mohler, and come to any other conclusion than that Dr. Torrance had disgraceful and unfair treatment meted out to him. I do not believe there are any two ways about the matter, and nobody on either side of the House could come to any other conclusion.
The minister to-night threw overboard practically all the statements that he made the other day.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Robert James Manion: Two or three days ago
he based his dismissal partly upon the letter which he used to-night, but to a great extent upon that anonymous letter which he read and also upon the fact that in this letter to Dr. Mohler, Dr. Torrance introll p.m. duced politics. He threw practically all of that overboard tonight and depended altogether upon the letter which he says Dr. Torrance wrote to Dr. Mohler. I know something of scientific training, and if there is one branch of social life which is international, it is science. For example, in my profession, it is permitted to me to visit practically any clinic in the world. I have visited most of the good ones, and I am welcome and so is any other doctor at any of those clinics. Just in the same way when Dr. Torrance wanted advice on a question of this kind, he discussed the matter with one of the ablest men on the continent.
In other, words he wrote, and at the instance of, the minister , himself,, to Dr. Mohler for advice. In doing that he was doing what any
Supply-Agriculture

professional man would do who wanted to be safe in his actions in future in regard to the cattle embargo. Then the minister points out, and truly, that in that letter the word "political" appears. Supposing we admit for a moment, for the sake of argument, that the word "political" should not have come in; that in no way should Dr. Torrance have mentioned the political side of the question at all. After seventeen years more or less of continuous service for the government-


William Richard Motherwell: Twelve.


Robert James Manion: It would appear to any
fair-minded person that the minister should have taken Dr. Torrance aside, reprimanded him for this indiscretion, if he so considered it, and given him another chance. But he brought him into his office and summarily dismissed him. In view of that.-in view of the fact that a very short time after his dismissal from the government service, he was given a position as professor in the Agricultural College at Guelph, a circumstance which shows his ability, his scientific knowledge and that he was not a man who need be out of a position of some kind, and in view of the very lame defence for his action which the minister has put up, not only should this House consider this a most unfair piece of treatment to any Britisher, but the whole country will consider it a most unfair piece of treatment to any servant of this government.


Mr. CARRUTHERS:: I should like to take exception to a few of the high-sounding phrases of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) on behalf of his new found friend across the way. I notice he states that this he considers is the most autocratic and highhanded action that has ever been taken by any government in the history of Canada.
I stand here to-night as a living example of a more autocratic dismissal. For nine years I was in a government position having to do with the Indians under the Laurier government. After the election of 1911 I received just twenty-six days' notice. On the 6th March I received the letter stating that my services would be no longer required at the end of that month. I did not whine; I did not whimper. I asked no friend of mine to get up in this House and whine and whimper on my behalf, and I think it ill-becomes cur friends on the opposite side to waste the time of the House in staging these crocodile tears on behalf of this man. There is evidence enough to dismiss any man, and the minister Would not have done his duty if he had not dismissed that gentleman. I may IMr. Manion.]
say that I did not get two months' wages in advance when I was dismissed by my hon. friends opposite. Before I sit down I should like to mention another case. My neighbour held1 a position in a lighthouse in my town. The poor fellow, a few years prior, had both his legs amputated just below the knee, but that did not save him under the government of my hon. friends opposite. He also was dismissed summarily without any investigation and without any extra two months' pay.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Shame.


John W. Carruthers: I ask the hon. member for South Wellington if he considers this case the most autocratic, high-handed of any government in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that the question at issue has received much illumination from the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Carruthers). The hon. member (Mr. Gauvreau) in front of him agrees that nothing but confusion and darkness have come from his lips. What his case has to do with this one, I do not know. I presume there are two sides to it. If however, we are to review every case in connection with this, we shall not get through much this session. I suppose cases by the hundreds could be brought forward, but we are now dealing with Dr. Torrance's case. The facts very briefly are that on the basis of a letter which for one day was supplemented by a ridiculous, buffoon recital of a great deal of unauthorised twaddle, by which the minister contrived to get stuff on Hansard without authority, promising himself to be his authority but subsequently failing, the minister has dared to stand in parliament and defend his conduct as related to -i h'. Torrance. The letter in question is as straight-forward, as clear a letter in purpose., motive and language, as any official ever wrote. The letter itself was written and its line dictated, not its wording, by the minister himself. Inquiry had to be made at Washington as to what, in the event of a certain course being found necessary here, would be the attitude of the Washington authorities in relation thereto. It was essential for anyone writing such a letter to explain in such brief terms as would effect the purpose, just how it might be that this course would have to be taken, and Dr. Torrance explained it in the manliest, fairest and truest language. For the life of me I do not know how he would have explained it otherwise. In his letter of explanation in the basis that he laid, he cast no reflection on his chief, no reflection on his government, and none but a mind diseased could read any reflection, into the letter.

Supply-Agriculture
The only reasons that might impel the government here to take the course which the minister had in mind would be reasons brought about by pressure-perfectly legitimate pressure-in order perhaps to gain some other quite sufficient ends. That is political pressure. There is no other word I know to describe it. It is not wrongful political pressure; it is rightful politicial pressure; and I say none but a mind diseased could dream that Dr. Torrance meant party political pressure because there is no way of imagining that any party political pressure could be brought to bear at all. Consequently on the basis of the letter the minister has nothing but a flimsy excuse that does not appeal to the mind of anybody in this House, I care not whether he is a fair-minded Liberal on the other side or a prejudiced Liberal on this-and I thus refer to hon. gentlemen because they receive with laughs of derision references to as cruel and brutal a case of dismissal as ever came before parliament, a dismissal of a man whose merits in his profession and the public service they know just as well as we; nor has one of them risen in this House to protest against this conduct that smells throughout the length and breadth of Canada, and has never yet received-


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: We have never received an opportunity yet.


Arthur Meighen: They usually get an opportunity when they want to speak; I have never known it- to fail yet,-and has never yet received defence at the hands of any newspaper, however partisan that paper might be, that I have read. This is the position the minister is in. If it is acceptable to themselves, all right; if it appeals to their sense of fair play, all right; if they think it is just to the Civil Service of Canada, well and good, they take the responsibility of their position.
I will not refer at any length to-night to what I described as the rubbish read by the minister some few nights ago. He has tried to get away from it to-night, and wisely so. He charged Dr. Torrance on his own responsibility, although he put it only in the language that he "believed" some idle, silly gossip about Dr. Torrance issuing prescriptions to members of parliament. He considers that a grave offence. He says that if any other of his officials do it they will go too, he will part company with them-dissolve partnership. I put it to the minister right now,-if it is shown to him that members of his own government did so will he part company and dissolve partnership with them?


William Richard Motherwell: I am not dealing with hypothetical cases.


Arthur Meighen: But he was when he was here the other night.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh no.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, he was. He said: Show me any other of my officials who have done this and I will part company with them.


William Richard Motherwell: We will wait until it occurs.


Arthur Meighen: To-night when it comes before him he will not answer. Nor could he establish this as respects Dr. Torrance. It is denied by Dr. Torrance, but the minister did not give him a chance to deny it. He pretended that it influenced him, but he never had the manliness to present it to Dr. Torrance's attention. Is not that his position?
What is his position as respects other matters? A lot of frivolous gossip about what he said he had heard from Dr. Mohler at Washington-gossip which he never heard from Dr. Mohler or through him directly or indirectly, gossip for which Dr. Mohler disclaims absolutely either responsibility or sympathy. Then the minister makes the further statement that this had injured the reputation of his department amongst the officials at Washington. All disproved by the letter from Dr. Mohler read to-night that none of those officials knew about the lettter because he respected the confidential character surrounding it.
And all this is supposed to be right, all this is supposed to be honourable treatment of the service of this Dominion, honourable treatment of a man who, devoting the best years of his life to the public service, reaches an age where men cannot start again, is thrown out, and the minister says: "I did not do him any hurt because I did not tell many people about him." The injury to Dr. Torrance was the dismissal, the injury was to his reputation, to his prestige, to his respect through the length and breadth of Canada-yea, wherever he is known throughout the world. The act of the minister certainly was known, certainly was sounded, and Dr. Torrance suffered thereby, suffered for something not only for which he was not guilty, but a great part of which the minister had not even the manliness to lay before his face.


Charles Marcil: Shall the item carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
before the item carries I desire to make one or two observations in connection with this case, because I do not want to see it left where it is as a matter of fairness either to the government or to the minister. In the first instance, I wonder if the government thinks it
S apply-A griculture

is doing itself justice if it allows this case to go as a precedent for the manner in which civil servants are to be treated by it, whether it thinks that if it persists in this line of treatment it. will be possible to get proper men to enter the service. I do not believe the government really thinks so; I am sure it does not. But it will be thought that that is its attitude if this case is allowed to go through just as it now is.
Let us see how another very important question comes up here, Mr. Chairman. The letter which was written in October at the request of the minister is acted on in July of the following year-nine months afterwards. Of course, a reason for dismissal that is eight or nine months old is pretty hard reason to substantiate. What is done? A memorandum is prepared which is used by the minister for purposes of corroboration when this case comes up. The memorandum is anonymous. He produced it from his official file. The minister shakes his head. He used it here.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He would not
tell us whose memorandum it was. I am now going to talk to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) for one or two minutes. There is a crime which is known under the name of fabrication of evidence. This is a statutory offence. Evidence has here been fabricated, as is shown by the action of the minister in withdrawing it to-night, and is shown by the answer of everybody who was concerned by it. Let us go back and see what the fabrication is. It consists of an unsigned memorandum produced and used by a minister of the Crown.


Mr. CANNON:: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
point of order?


Lucien Cannon: I do not think, Mr. Chairman, it is fair for any member to say that a minister of the Crown has fabricated evidence.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will read the section of the code which deals with it. I refer-


Lucien Cannon: The Criminal Code is altogether different.


Charles Marcil: I think the hon. member could use
another word.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am making a case and bringing it within the code. I am not saying who fabricated the evidence.


Lucien Cannon: Order.
Sir Henry Drayton,]	;


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am speaking
to the point of order.


Lucien Cannon: I hope you do.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will try to if the hon. gentleman will allow me. What I am pointing out is simply this: That we have an unsigned memorandum which the discussion to-night shows to be false.


Lucien Cannon: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If it be false
it is fabricated within the meaning of the section.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member has no right to say
that it was fabricated by the minister.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not say
so. I never said it was fabricated by the minister.


Mr. CARROLL:: Innuendo.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen
are very sensitive. But the proper thing to do if we have this amount of sensitiveness is to inquire how it is possible for a memorandum of this kind which, to-night at least, js not used, although persisted in before, which is completely discredited-how it is possible for statements of that kind to get into the hands of the minister and be used in parliament. My hon. Mend is sensitive on this question; I think he would ratiher want to support-


William F. Carroll: I rather agree with my
hon. friend, but I do not believe in saying that a member of this House has practically committed perjury or has been accessory to perjury. I think the Chairman should make my hon. friend withdraw that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not said
that. My hon. friend does not follow me. Here we have a paper used in this high court of parliament, a paper which has been proved to be false, a paper-


Lucien Cannon: Proved by whom to be
false?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
has not been in the chamber all the time; he came in only a short time ago.. We have had evidence, we have had statements and we have had letters. I do. not think any. hon. gentleman believes it is not false. At any rate the minister himself, although he relied upon it when this matter was first up, is not relying upon it to-night. Now I want the hon. member to follow me, because I think he is sensitive of .the honour of the House and

Su p ply-Agriculture
*of the decency of parliament. Is it not a matter affecting both honour and decency to have produced by a minister of the Crown a statement which is apparently false, a statement which the minister now does not rely upon, although it was relied upon when this matter was first considered?


William F. Carroll: He may have been misled.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not saying he was not misled. But somebody prepared that statement. I am not saying the minister prepared it. but the House ought to know. What is the position of the government? What is the position of the minister? I am not saying for one minute that the Minister of Agriculture prepared this statement; in fact, he said he did not, and I take his word for it. We tried to find out who prepared it but we could not. A false statement, which, as I say, I am not charging the minister with, is made use of in this House by the minister. What is the attitude of the government in connection with that? Is it a matter which should be allowed to drop, or ought w'e to find out whether the minister himself has been entirely misled in this whole matter, perhaps by people in his own office? That memorandum had to be prepared by somebody in that office, by somebody in that department, by somebody interested more or less in getting rid of Dr. Torrance. That is the position I point out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that under section 177 this is made an offence. My hon. friend may say:	Well, that is only for court procedure.
But the authorities do not say so. The authorities show that there need be no court procedure at all. The section applies to an arbitration; it certainly ought to apply to this House, unless my hon. friend takes the position that the honour and dignity of parliament are beneath even those of an arbitration board. Now I am going to refer him to the authorities. He will find the authorities collected in Crankshaw at page 186. and reading those authorities he will find it is not necessary that the falsification of evidence take place before a court or in a pending proceeding, but that the crime may be proved in connection with a case which although pending never comes to trial. Mr. Chairman, this matter is entirely a matter for the government. They have two large questions to consider. The first is whether they cun imagine for one . minute . they are doing anything like justice to the civil servants of this country by establishing a precedent like this. The second question is whether a
premium is to be placed upon the introduction of anonymous, false and misleading statements in this House.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I want to say a word or two with regard to what the minister has said concerning the removal of the cattle embargo and his taking credit for that, for himself and his department since he took office. I do not want to reflect on what any one has done in the past in connection with this matter.
I quite agree that a number of people from this side took an active part in the removal of the embargo.


Lucien Cannon: Does the ex-minister assume responsibility for what the late government did in my county as far as cattle are concerned?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have had one or two arguments before with regard to the distribution of bulls in Dorchester county. Briefly, the removal of the cattle embargo had its foundation in a promise given to Sir Robert Borden in 1917. This was followed by the Embargo Commission which sat and considered the whole situation. While that commission was still sitting, Sir Arthur Boscawen, then the British Minister of Agriculture, promised that if the decision given by that commission was favourable to Canada, legislation would be brought down immediately to cover the situation and to permit Canadian cattle to enter Great Britain. There was some delay in that connection, and the next thing following upon the passing of the legislation by the British government was the matter of agreeing upon the regulations. I quite agree that the deputy minister should have been one of the delegates to go over and arrange for these regulations. That is only natural, because he is a man of ability, a man whom everybody interested in agriculture in this country respects. However, when it comes to selecting a second man I believe a member of the Health of Animals Branch- Dr. Torrance, Dr. Hilton or some other capable man in that branch-should have accompanied Dr. Grisdale over there to assist in the formulating of the regulations, taking with them their expert knowledge of such matters, including the carrying out of the regulations, our regulations with the United .States, and other subjects that would crop up in the discussion. They are the people who have to administer the regulations when they are accepted, and I should think they would know more about the preparation of them than a gentleman like Duncan Marshall, who, though a good man, is not familiar with and never had an opportunity to get familiar with these regulations.		
Supply-Agriculture

I would like to know if the minister considers it necessary to adopt more stringent regulations for the shipment of horses to British Columbia from Tia Juana, Mexico, than are necessary in the case of a shipment of horses from the same point to points in eastern Canada, and more severe and stringent regulations than are imposed against those horses shipped from the same points to other points east in the United States; and if so, -why?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend's question is somewhat involved, but I think it means this: Are the regulations more stringent against horses coming from Tia Juana, Mexico, to western Canada than to eastern Canada? Is that it?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: Some horses were brought to eastern Canada before the regulations were put into force, .but the regulations are now the same all over Canada, east and west. I might say that the whole of British Columbia, especially the Department of Agriculture and the premier of the province, all the live stock associations, dairy associations, and fruit growers' associations, have been flooding me with telegrams asking me to keep out Mexican horses. They could not get to Canada without passing through that county in California, a desert, if you like, of thirty-five miles, that is infected with the foot-and-mouth disease. I was deluged also with telegrams from the race-track men and others interested in that sport in British Columbia to let these Mexican horses come through, and some of them were California horses; they asked us to violate our own regulations only a day or two after they had been laid down, in order to let these horses pass through that county in California infected with the foot-and-mouth disease. I could not do that.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: With regard to the shipment of these horses, I would point out that the regulations are unnecessarily severe. I do not see why the minister should take the opinion of British Columbia fruit growers in preference to the opinion of his own veterinarians in that connection. I would have thought they were the people most familiar with the pathology of foot-and-mouth disease, and with what regulations were necessary to prevent it getting across into Canada. If the minister was not satisfied with their particular knowledge, he could have looked to the United States to see what they were doing. Surely the regulations adopted over there, [Mr. Tolmie.)
permitting the horses to be shipped east from Tia Juana are quite rigid and effective enough to prevent the entrance of the disease into those states, and would be just as good: to prevent the disease getting into British Columbia through the shipment of horses. I wish particularly to call attention to what the United States is doing in this regard. I have here a letter from Dr. Mohler, who is chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, dated May 20, 1924, so it is only a day or two old:
Dear Mr. Tolmie,-I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 17 requesting information concerning the precautions that are being taken in connection with the shipment of race horses from Tia Juana, Mexico, through the State of California.
This season we have made arrangements to have our inspector who is stationed at San Diego, California, inspect these animals on the Mexican side of the border, and they are being loaded on the cars before crossing to this side. Such animals are permitted movement through non-infected sections of California without any restriction so far as this Bureau is concerned. In fact, our regulations, copies inclosed, issued in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease do not cover horses except that such animals cannot be moved from infected premises. A number of the States, however, will not admit any kind of livestock that originates in or passes through California. A few of the States that have very drastic regulations in this respect are Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Very truly yours,
J. R. Mohler,
Chief of Bureau Animal Industry.
That would indicate that in keeping out these horses from British Columbia the minister adopted even more severe regulations than were imposed by the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington. These men in British Columbia, I understand, offered to ship these horses out through that comer of California that is not infected with the foot-and-mouth disease, over east to Omaha, up north to Moose Jaw, and then back over the mountains to British Columbia. As a stock owner and a stock breeder in British Columbia I would be one of the last to ask for any relaxing of the regulations that would endanger the health of animals in that *province. I might point out that in 1914-15, when you had 22 states infected across the line, and two or three right on the Canadian border, horses were allowed to enter Canada from the United States from non-infected areas, and not one single case of foot-and-mouth disease got across the line. These men in British Columbia have invested large sums of money in race tracks, and they were good enough to wire me to get the regulations for them from the Health of Animals Branch of the Department of Agriculture. I applied there, and I received information to the

Supply-Agriculture
effect that all that was necessary was to clean the horses' feet as they crossed the boundary line, and have them disinfected under the supervision of an inspector, and that would be all the restrictions that would be placed on them. I wired this information out to these people on the Pacific coast and they went ahead with their arrangements, only to be surprised a few days later by the information that no horses would be allowed to pass through under any conditions whatsoever. I have no interest in race tracks myself; I do not own a race horse or a share in any race track. I was applied to by my constituents, and I got the information only to find out a few days later that the regulations had been changed, and had been made even more severe than those imposed by the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington under similar circumstances.


William Richard Motherwell: The recital given
by my hon. friend is substantially correct, but I think he left the impression that I was not taking the advice of my veterinary staff when these regulations were made preventing the shipment of Mexican horses to Canada.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: You quoted fruit growers;
you did not quote your own staff.


William Richard Motherwell: Am I to understand that some of my staff have advised that these horses be let in?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I was two years minister
myself.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon.
friend is a little bit unfair. He tried to leave the impression that I did not consult some of my staff, and that I was prejudiced because these were race horses. I called in Dr. Hilton and Dr. Grisdale, and we were unanimous with regard to the policy that was adopted, and that policy met the approval of every important body on the Pacific coast, except the race horse men. It was an invidious position for me to be in because I had to appear as being unfriendly to racing institutions. As far as the fruit growers are concerned, their alarm was due to the fact that if they got foot-and-mouth disease into British Columbia it would practically ruin their export business, just as it has pretty nearly paralyzed that business in California to-day. I am astonished at my hon. friend. It was what I had learned before I came here of the strictures and severity of the Health of Animals Branch, and my desire not to slacken up on them, but to keep them up to the same high-water mark, that led me to make this decision. In other words I absorbed my ideas from my hon. friend himself.


William F. Carroll: A bad source.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know.
I think it was a good source in this particular, and I think if my hon. friend had been in my shoes at the time his decision would have been identical with my own because there is this difference: I have the responsibility of doing everything that is humanly possible to keep out this foot and mouth disease. I have just received a number of photographs from California. I do not know whether they are ready yet or not but they present the most terrible pictures that I think I ever saw. There are great, long trenches, apparently much longer than these buildings, dug out to a depth of six or eight feet. The poor cattle are crowded in there just as thick as they can stand with men on either side shooting them down, then covering them up with lime, and steam shovels afterwards piling earth over them. There is one picture after another. Another series deals with hogs, and a third with sheep, all the animals showing signs of the disease with the saliva exuding from mouth and tongue. Now, to take the chance of admitting these horses from Mexico, and possibly permitting disease to enter with them, is something I could not take the responsibility for.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I quite agree that the
picture my hon. friend has drawn is a very horrible one, but why are regulations more necessary here than are required by the Bureau of Animal Industry in the states to the east? Dr. Mohler states there are no federal restrictions on horses. If it is safe to ship a carload of horses to the Woodbine track why would it not be safe to ship them to British Columbia? That is all I was asking for. I am not asking for any relaxation in the regulations at all. If I thought you were being asked to bring in horses from infected districts I would be just as strongly in favour of restrictions as my hon. friend. That is my point of view. I want to know why regulations are more necessary and more severe now than they were ten years ago, when we allowed horses to come in simply on inspection at the boundary line, a practice which was most successful and which did not result in the introduction of a single case of disease. The portion of California traversed by Tia Juana race-horses on their way east is not an infected area; there is no foot and mouth disease within a hundred miles. Seeing that American horses are freely shipped across this territory why not Canadian?


William Richard Motherwell: The answer to that is that they have got the disease and we have
Supply-Agriculture

not, and as long as we have not it is necessary to have more stringent regulations. Why should Great Britain be more severe in her regulations? Because she has got the disease. The United States has also got it. Now, in order to make sure that we shall not have the disease we have to take these precautions and enforce these regulations. It would be very unfortunate for us if it were to break out in this country. It is just like a farm with weeds. If you have got a clean farm you are mighty particular about it, but if it is dirty you say "What is the use of going to a lot of expense for clean seed." We must take no chances.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I think the minister is
to be congratulated on the stand he has taken in keeping these horses out. We in British Columbia can well afford to let these animals stay at home as well as those that come with them; to act otherwise will not do British Columbia any good. I am speaking as a cattle man, as a man that owns a large number of cattle. I think if my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) had the same interest in the cattle business that I have he would not be so lenient in the matter of getting horses into British Columbia. Some years ago a number of cattle were imported! from the United States and they brought the "black leg" with them, something that had never been known in our district before. I venture to say that disease has cost the cattle men of the interior of British Columbia a sum running up into millions of dollars. I have known over three hundred calves on one range to die from that disease in one season. We in British Columbia cannot afford' to take any chances of allowing any live stock to be brought into British Columbia that would cause infection. I have received repeated telegrams and letters from the stockmen in that province asking me to bring every pressure possible to bear on the minister and the government in order to stop any importations of this kind. As I have already said we shall not suffer any disadvantage by excluding these race-horses.


Mr. LEADER:: As this is one of the most important subjects that parliament will have to deal with I would suggest to the minister that he leave the further consideration of this item over for another day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Harry Leader: Personally I do not desire to speak at any great length but there are other hon. members in this section of the chamber who wish to express their views in more detail.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Speak now.


Harry Leader: If hon. gentlemen opposite are willing to sit here a little longer I am quite agreeable. I am sorry that such an important item as this will not receive the consideration it merits. Two sittings of the House have been taken up and there has been no discussion of the vote for the Health of Animals branch at all. We have been engaged in a political squabble to which no contribution has been made from hon. members in this comer. I congratulate my colleagues upon having the good sense to keep out of discussions of that kind.
With reference to Dr. Torrance my personal opinion is that he was a splendid man for the job. I am personally acquainted with him and I believe he was a very efficient officer. As regards his dismissal I have nothing to say. If he did not suit his superior officer perhaps that was sufficient to justify his being let go, but it should be allowed to remain at that. There is no use crying over spilled milk. I congratulate the minister upon the gentleman who has been appointed to take his place. In Dr. Hilton I believe we have one of the best men it is possible to procure. There is good reason why Dr. Hilton is such an efficient officer: He received his early training in the city of Portage la Prairie from which many good men have come. That is one reason I am glad Dr. Hilton has been appointed to this position.
I notice that the vote has been reduced this year by 8250,000. I want to ask the minister why the reduction has been made. This is a very important question among my people at home. There are certain regulations in regard to the accredited herd plan, and here I want to state that the inauguration of this system was one of the finest steps ever taken by any government. I desire to give full credit to the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) who was mainly responsible for the enactment of that legislation. There is a regulation I think that calls for ten pure breds before one can come under the application of the accredited herd plan. The department last year limited that to five but the fact is not generally known. Of course there is a reason for that. The government know that if the fact was widely understood they would simply be swamped with applications and they have not the money to take care of the expenditure that all such demands would involve. This is a very unfortunate situation and one that requires the careful attention of the government.
I also want to know if there are any applications in for restricted area work and if the government is in a position to take care of any

Supply-Agriculture
applications that may come in in connection with that phase of the operations.


William Richard Motherwell: I have to thank my hon. friend for really getting at this late hour, and for the first time at the purpose of the vote. We have had to pay attention to hon. gentlemen opposite who have monopolized all the time, but I would not like the sitting to close without answering the questions my hon. friend has asked. The first question he asked was why the amount of the vote has been reduced. It only appears to be reduced as far as our activities are concerned, and the explanation is this: In the first place the vote had to take care of $150,000 or $250,000 of accounts of the year before. My hon. friend will remember in the supplementary estimates last year we brought down three-quarters of a million of dollars, and as a result of that we were able to pay up all the outstanding accounts that had been accumulating from year to year ever since I had the honour to take charge of the department. We are starting the new fiscal year with the accounts all cleaned up, and we will not have to spend $150,000 for that purpose. In addition to that we have seventy-five to one hundred thousand dollars more than is necessary-that is there is that much left over of what was voted. Consequently we can make a reduction of $250,000 in the total vote and still take care of fully just as much work as last year. The estimated number of additional herds is 1,500. We have now 2,800. We can do as much work with that vote as with the larger one for the reasons I have enumerated.
I think the next point was about having pure-bred herds of ten before we would deal with them under the accredited herd plan. The matter has been brought up twice during the last two years, and I think very properly. There are many arguments to support the proposition that the herds should be as small as possible. What is the use of letting a beginner run his herd up to a large number and then discover they are all polluted with tuberculosis? Better take them when they are small, and if any are lost through tuberculosis the loss will be smaller accordingly. Notwithstanding that obvious fact, we decided to take on herds of five instead of ten, and we are going to see how it works out. The number of reactors in the second test has been considerably less this year, and if they keep on decreasing in that way we believe the extra amount required for the larger number of herds will be more than offset by the smaller number of reactions in the second test. We have to-day, I understand, nearly a thousand accredited herds. That was very noticeable in Manitoba after
the restricted area was established in that province and everything cleaned up. The second test showed a little bit less than one per cent of reactions six months after the first test. As a matter of fact we are not concealing it, and if my hon. friend can find two neighbours out in his district or near it where one man has three pure-breds and another two pure-breds contiguous to each other we will test them, so long as it does not entail a lot more expense in travelling. You cannot take a smaller number than two. One animal is not a herd.
Then my hon. friend mentioned the question of the restricted area. In Manitoba we established a restricted area at the request of the Department of Agriculture of that province. That is the only one we have undertaken yet. We have two or three applications from the province of Quebec and one from Saskatchewan, I understand. When Mr. Evans the Deputy Minister of Agriculture came to us I told him we were not prepared to start out on the policy of restricted areas because we had not the money to do it. I was in hopes we would be able to work out some policy in connection with the provinces and the municipalities whereby the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal authorities could combine all their revenues for this purpose and clean up by means of restricted areas. But the provinces are all pretty hard up, and I am sure that the municipalities are in the same position, and I do not see any hope of getting asistance from this direction; but we wanted some information. We established one area and got the information as to the cost and the percentage of reactors on the first test and on the second test. This information has been most valuable to us, because while we have not established any more restricted areas, we are at the stage of introducing the restricted area round the cities where they' want a pure milk supply, in view of the municipal order that exists. We will take Saskatoon for example; under the old municipal order, those who supplied milk to Saskatoon had to have their cattle all tested or the milk had to be pasteurized. That scattered these herds all over creation, maybe a hundred miles away, and the result was, the intervening herds not being tested, it was impossible to keep down the infection. Then we found on adjacent farms cows jumping over the fence or fooling with each other through the fence. Instead of having that condition in future, we hope to lay down a restricted area and clean up the milk entirely, as we did in Manitoba, and avoid re-infection such as has occurred in the past. We
Supply-Agriculture

have not any established as yet. The people do not understand yet what it means. In the province of Quebec we hope to get one started at Huntingdon, the great dairy district where it is nearly all cleaned up now. They have a lot of splendid herds there; they thought they might as well Clean the whole thing up, and they have applied for it. They have two splendid natural 'boundaries, two rivers, and the American boundary on the other side, a sort of triangle, with two or three towns in it, and we are going to establish a restricted area there. It is in the course of formation, we cannot say yet it is established.
The only restricted area which is established is in Manitoba; but I am in hopes the principle will be adopted as the proper one in connection with the cities which desire a clean milk supply. I think the cities themselves should meet us in this expenditure, and that they should have, compulsory pasteurization of milk in their respective districts. It may seem ridiculous to be spending all this money on account of the cattle and of the public health; but at the same time cities will take very little pains in most instances in regard to seeing that their milk supply has been pasteurized. It is a matter of education. Ten years ago you could not get them to touch this propostion, even if no expense were attached to it. To-day they are applying rapidly, and we hope to apply in the future the restricted area to those cities and urban centres desirous of having a pure milk supply.


Harry Leader: I am glad that the minister has explained that the government is prepared to take up the extension of this work where five pure breds are required instead of ten. I knew in a casual way that that was the policy of the government, but I also knew that the people in general did not know it, but after this discussion to-night it will be generally known, and I think that many applications will be sent to the government resulting from this knowledge.
In regard to the restricted areas, while we do not want to butt in on anything going to Quebec, we have one of these areas in Manitoba, and I know that the people of my county are desirous of going into it. I believe that 75 per cent of the cattle are under the test, and it will be an easy matter to get the district surrounding Portage la Prairie to come into this area.
The minister makes reference to the provincial governments, and suggests that the municipalities might co-operate with the government in the work. That will have to come, if we are going to have efficient work done

such as they have in the United States, where compensation is paid only where the state government will pay part of the amount and the municipalities will contribute also. I believe we should all become interested in this work, if we are going to carry on an aggressive campaign.
I am sorry that I have to impose a few more remarks upon the committee, but if I know anything about anything I know something about this matter. I have stated before in this House that mine was the first application from western Canada in regard to the accredited herd plan. I had only one reactor, and in the course of time I got my certificate, and I have a story to tell in that regard, but I will deal with that later. Last year I mentioned to the minister that, in view of the fact that this government was spending millions of dollars to take care of the work, we should use every precaution against contamination. I suggested that where the Dominion government gives grants to fair boards they should insist that all cattle that come on the fair ground should be tested for tuberculosis. The minister thought it was a suggestion that was worthy of consideration. I felt inclined to bring a resolution into the House this year and have a debate on it and a vote of this House taken to see whether that should be the law of our land. Last fall I wrote to the secretaries of nearly all the large fairs in Canada, especially western Canada, to get their views on this important matter. They practically all wrote back telling me that this was a step in the right direction, but that they believed that we had not yet reached a stage where it would be wise to attempt legislation of that kind. I also wrote to the minister, and he will remember that he replied stating that he believed this was coming, but that the step was too radical at present. I also wrote to Dr. Mohler, chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry in the United States and asked him if they had any federal legislation similar to what I suggested. He replied that there was no federal legislation, but that many of the state fairs and some of the county fairs had already insisted and required that all cattle entering on their fair ground must be subjected to the test. I think some of the Canadian fair boards will take this matter up even ahead of the government if they do not step a little faster. I do not believe it will work much of a hardship if all cattle entering fair grounds must first be subjected to the test. In the restricted area in the Carman district they put on a fine agricultural show and all cattle exhibited must be tested; this was the case last year. Then we went on to Portage la Prairie where we did not

Supply-Agriculture
require that the cattle be tested; but knowing the advisability of taking care of accredited cattle, I feel satisfied that Portage la Prairie would suffer no hardship if all cattle entering the fair ground were tested. I believe this would not work any hardship upon the cattle industry at all because they are so nearly all tested there that the others would very soon find a way of getting their cattle tested.
Speaking further relative to contamination at fairs, last year I remember reading where, in the Jersey islands, tuberculosis was unknown until two or three years ago. They traced the contamination directly to a herd of Jersey cattle that had been taken over and exhibited on the continent. This opened their eyes to the danger and now they will not allow any more of their cattle to be exhibited on the continent or in the British Isles. That proves that if you keep your herds free from infection by coming into contact with the disease, it is possible to keep your cattle pure for hundreds of years. I might give a personal illustration. I said that my certificate had been taken away from me last
12 m. year. The inspector came out to give me the annual test which the law calls for and one of my cattle reacted. She was a show cow, a cow that I had paid a thousand dollars for, and naturally I did not like to see her go down. They gave her the intradermal test and the ophthalmic test. They did not give her the subcutaneous test. They thought the two tests were sufficient, and the intradermal test was the only one to which she reacted. I followed her to Winnipeg;-we had her killed there, and we could find no lesions. I felt very sore over this, and if ever a man had occasion to be a little sceptical of this test, I had; but I had boosted for the accredited herd plan and I was game and took my loss. I think there should be some improvement in the law in this regard. This was a very valuable cow; she was a loss not only to me but to the whole Dominion. I said to the inspector: "What are you going to do about it?" He said: "I will have to ear-mark her; that is the only thing I can do." I said: "Call up Dr. Still and see what he will say about it." He said: "It will be no use, Harry; the law says 'once a reactor, always a reactor'; we will not be able to test her again." I said: "All right; go ahead and do your duty." In a case like this, we cannot afford to lose these cattle. Although she reacted, she did not have the disease, and in a case like this an owner should have the privilege of segregating a valuable animal and have the government retest it at the end of sixty days or ninety days, whatever the period might be. Then, 156
if she does not react, he should have the ' privilege of admitting her to the herd again There is room for some improvement along that line and I just make the suggestion.


William Richard Motherwell: I should like to
thank my hon. friend (Mr. Leader) for the suggestions he has made. We have never differed on this question since we met in this parliament, except on one point and that was the amount of indemnity and the advisability of reducing it. I think at this date my hon. friend will not disagree with me on the advisability at that time of reducing it and getting more value out of the money. I want to pay the hon. gentleman the tribute of saying that he has given us some valuable suggestions. Many of them we have carried out, and I think he should be satisfied with himself that he has made a real contribution to the improvement of this act and service.
With regard to exhibitions, I will just say a word. At all the exhibitions I visited recently I have found that the tested and untested cattle were kept quite separate, isolated, so that there would be no fear of contagion. In the Maritime provinces the tested cattle were in separate buildings altogether, so that we are doing all we can with regard to the question of contagion through the medium of exhibitions, consistently with not crippling the exhibitions. I do not think there is much contagion in that way now.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The minister has touched upon restricted area as carrying out the accredited herd system. I believe there are only a few places so far where that has been adopted. How does that affect, for instance, the breeding of beef cattle? People engaged in that business usually purchase them at the stockyards and ship them into the districts where they reside. Would that be permissible in a restricted area? What are the regulations with regard to the matter?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
whether my hon. friend just came in or not.


Donald Sutherland: I heard the discussion.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not need to repeat what I said about the restricted areas with regard to the numbers. No cattle of any kind are allowed to enter restricted areas without themselves being tested, or otherwise you would reinfect the whole area.


Donald Sutherland: Consequently the
benefit would aecure only to those engaged in dairying. This would really put a stop to the breeding of cattle for beef in those areas

Supply-Agriculture

It would be impossible to purchase on the market and ship in several carloads without having them subjected to the test.


William Richard Motherwell: Indiscriminate shipment without testing is not allowed, but beef cattle, like any other cattle, can be tested.


Donald Sutherland: They would not be allowed into those areas without being tested?


William Richard Motherwell: No. The restricted area in Manitoba is very proud of its area. It thinks the cattle inside that area are worth a great deal more than those in any other part of Manitoba, other things being equal, because cf no infection being within that area. They are very careful to safeguard it and to avoid, in every possible way, reinfection.


Donald Sutherland: The cattle would not be any more valuable than the others, once they were shipped out on the market as beef, and it would prevent people from purchasing on the market short-feed cattle, for feeding for three, four or six months.


William Richard Motherwell: They would not be more valuable as regards insurance because that is a flat rate by the packers, but if my hon. friend were buying beef, he would know that the risk of infection was reduced to the minimum.


John Livingstone Brown: So far as the reports have come in, do the people of that district seem perfectly satisfied with what is being done?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, ll have had quite a time trying to hold them down from extending the area all over Manitoba. Adjoining municipalities have been very strong in their desire to be attached to this area, and my only regret is that we have not enough money to give them the opportunity. The area, however, was large enough to give us the information we sought; while a larger area would have meant more extended service, it would not have given us any more information.


John Livingstone Brown: Only part of that area is in my own constituency, and I have had but a limited opportunity of making personal inquiries from the men who were interested-; I found they were all satisfied.


William Richard Motherwell: Thank you.


Mr. WARD:: If cattle are purchased in the stockyards for feeding in other restricted areas, are there facilities for testing them before they go out?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand they are tested, the facilities being such as are usually found around stockyards.


Donald Sutherland: The one test is not sufficient.


William Richard Motherwell: It is sufficient to let them in, and they would- come in with the rest for the second test.
Mr .SUTHERLAND: And the -third?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have a few other questions in connection with the Health of Animals branch. Will the minister grant me the privilege of asking these questions under the live stock vote?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Mr. BRETHEN:: There is a phase of this question which may be connected somewhat with the department of health, but I think it can be handled more effectively under this department. I am quite in agreement with the value of the work of this department, particularly the accredited herd system for the eradication of tuberculosis, and I think the officers should be congratulated upon the advance they have made in cleaning up the pure-bred herds. This system was only started in 1919, and it was 1922 before we had any tubercular free herds under it. In that year we had eighty-sdx herds, and on March 31, 1924, we had 908 herds free of tuberculosis, at an average cost of $318 for compensation.
There is a ph-ase of this question which I believe is of very great importance, particularly as it deals with the health o-f our people. I refer to those -grade herds that supply m'ilk to our smaller urban centres. Some of these are tubercular free herds, but I believe 90 per cent of the milk f-rom such herds goes to the larger cities, where it is-pasteurized, and thereby rendered free from infection of tuberculosis. There was a time in the history of the country when some doubt was entertained as to the transmissibility of bovine tuberculosis to human beings, but today there is no question whatever in the minds of the best informed authorities in this and other countries as to the danger of infection, particularly of children, from milk derived fiom tubercular affected animals. In this connection I might quote from a bulletin on tuberculosis published by the Canadian Tuberculosis Association.
It is, however, in its communicability to children through milk bovine infection that the importance of bovine tuberculosis is most apparent. That this is a very real danger is proved by the careful statistics

Supply-Agriculture
of the percentage of the bovine type of tuberculosis in young children gathered by Park and others. The figures vary considerably in different localities.
This is taken from an address of that very much discussed gentleman, Dr. ' Torrance, when he was Veterinary Director General, delivered last year at the annual meeting of the association at Edmonton. He giv-es these figures:
Dr. A. Philip Mitchell, Resident Surgical Officer, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, has tabulated 72 cases of tuberculosis of children under twelve and found that 65 were of bovine type and only 7 of human type.
And) this is the analysis:
Children five to twelve years of age, human bacilli 4; bovine, 30. Children under five years of age, human bacilli, 3: bovine, 35. Grand total, 72 cases.
He says of this:
A most striking fact brought out is the high incidence of the disease in children under three years of age. This is not surprising when it is recalled that the large majority of children of this age are nourished in whole or in part on cows' milk. I find that in my series of cases, 84 per cent of the children have been fed with unsterilized cows' milk since birth.
There is another case which I think will come very readily to the minds of officials of the department. I refer to the city of Saskatoon, where some years ago the children's hospital was filled with children suffering from tuberculosis. After three years' protection by having cows inspected) under the municipal order plan, so that all the milk came from animals free from tuberculosis, the medical health officer of that city made the statement that their hospitals are free, not a child from the municipality of Saskatoon in those hospitals suffering from this disease; the only children there so suffering being those brought in from outside.
Now, I desire to present a report given by Dr. Ferguson of the Qu'Appelle Sanitarium, who before the convention of the Western Canada Live Stock Union on December 14, 1921, gave these figures:
From a study of 436 unselected cases by the Reseach Laboratory, New York, the varieties of bovine tuberculosis in the human were found to be:
			5-ie	Under
Adults	years	5 yearsper	per	percent	cent	centPulmonary	tuberculosis	None	None	NoneTuberculous, glands of neck..	4	37	57Abdominal	tuberculosis	16	50	68Generalized	tuberculosis	3	40	26Tubercular	meningitis, with or	without generalized lesions..	15
I just wonder if hon. gentlemen realize what is meant under that last heading-meningitis in children. Within the last few days there has come to my attention a case of two children
156J .
who were taken to the greatest surgeons in America to discover the trouble from which they were suffering. It is pronounced meningitis. No surgeon can determine the cause, but here we have fifteen children under 5 years of age under tubercular meningitis, or a tubercular affection of the meninges or covering of the brain. Tuberculosis. of bones or joints in adults, 5; children from 5 to 16 years, 3; children under 5 years, none. The results of this investigation would tend to show that very little of the pulmonary tuberculosis is bovine, but a considerable amount of the tuberculosis of the covering of the brain, more than half of the tuberculosis of the abdomen, nearly half that of the glands of the neck and a large part of the generalized tuberculosis in ' man, is of bovine origin. This report also shows that out of 686 cases of 16 years and over, only 1 per cent were found to be of bovine origin, while under 5 years, 120 in all, 49 per cent were found to be of bovine origin. In view of the fact that possibly every tenth grave is premature because of tuberculosis and that a large percentage of these cases have been proven to be of bovine origin, this is a matter of the utmost importance to the public generally and particularly to those who are using unsterilized milk. I have here an item taken from a press report dated from Montreal, May 8, which says:
Deaths from tuberculosis in April in the city of Montreal represents 85 per cent of the total number of cases reported at the city hall, according to the statistics furnished Wednesday by Dr. S. Boucher, director of Public Health. Out of 153 cases registered, there were 131 deaths from this disease.
If in Montreal, as in other places, 85 per cent of the total deaths in a month were from tuberculosis, surely the disease constitutes a serious menace. Probably figures are never very intresting, but there has come to my attention from different sources instances which illustrate the great danger to the children of this country from this disease. During one of the official tests of my herd of pure-bred cattle the inspector related an instance of a couple of children near Brockville, Ontario, at a place he visited in the course of his work to test some cattle. When he arrived at the farm he found both children, a boy and a girl, suffering from tuberculosis of the bone, and crippled. He went on with his work, the cattle were tested, and to his surprise every cow in the herd was condemned. They were found not only to be reactors, but when the carcasses were examined there was not a carcass in the herd that was fit for food, showing a very exceptional prevalence of disease in that herd. The energy with which the work of eradication of bovine tuberculosis has been
Supply-Agriculture

carried on in this department is to a great extent the result of the interest taken in the matter by the late Dr. Rutherford. If I have the story correctly, his only son died from tuberculosis some years ago and the result was a firm determination on Dr. Rutherford's part to fight this disease wherever he found it.
I was informed of another incident in the town of Portage la Prairie. On this occasion the city was under the control of the health authorities who refused to allow any raw milk to be sold in the city except from tested cows. A man on the outskirts of the city had a family cow which upon being tested proved a reactor. The man was so annoyed at this and had so little faith in the tuberculin test that he said if he could not sell milk in the city he would use it for the purposes of his own family. Some time after this one of the children took sick and the doctor was called in, but the child eventually died. Subsequently another child, a little girl, took sick and showed the same symptoms, whereupon a suspicion was aroused in the mind of the doctor that there must be something wrong with the supply of milk. He asked the veterinary who had been making the tests if he knew anything about this cow, and was informed that the cow had reacted. The doctor went back to the father of the children and said to him, "There must be something wrong with this cow." The man scoffed at the idea for a while, but after brooding on the subject for some days he decided that the cow would have to be slaughtered and an examination made. The cow was slaughtered at the abattoir. The veterinary was in attendance, and to his surprise and horror he found that just above the udder of this cow there was a tubercular sac and that every movement of the cow caused the poisonous fluid, filled with germs of tuberculosis, to flow into the udder. Small wonder these two children were infected and ultimately died, and no wonder that that father was heartbroken over his lack of information and his failure to realize the grave danger to which his family had been exposed through the presence of this disease. I can cite a great many cases similar to this where from one cow several children have been proved to be infected with the disease. A case was mentioned at this same Live Stock Union meeting by Dr. Snyder of Montana. He said that down in Paris, Illinois, a breeder had his herd tested and among them was a vigorous, fine looking, fat animal that looked anything but tubercular. However, she reacted and was tagged. The breeder scoffed at the idea that that cow could be infected with tuberculosis, and he eventually removed the tag and turned her over to his hired man in lieu of wages. This .man had a family of five or six children, and IMr. Brethen.]
the eldest child, a girl, became infected with tuberculosis. Upon examination two of the other children were also found to be in different stages of this disease. Only two of them escaped, a baby six months old, and a little girl who had not touched the milk. People were horrified at the results to this family, and they wanted to have the man prosecuted at once, but the attorney general of the state said:	No, we will just let this stand for
the time being, and when this girl dies, as she surely will, we will bring action for manslaughter against the man who had sold this tubercular cow.
There are a great many cases where single individuals and whole families, particularly children, have become infected in this way through tuberculous cows, and when we realize the potential danger from a single infected cow we will recognize what it means to the health of the community generally when the Health of Animals branch has removed this danger, as a result of the accredited herd sj'stem, so far as tens of thousands of cows are concerned.
I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the situation that exists in our smaller towns and villages, where practically every pint of milk that is offered for sale is sold in its raw state. I believe that in 90 per cent of these cases no examination whatever is made as to the health of the cows. If we take the figures that this department has established in regard to pure-bred herds, which show from 14 to 18 per cent are found to be tubercular, we can easily recognize the potential menace that this milk is to hundreds of thousands of children in this country. The danger is not so great in the larger cities, where it is practically compulsory for the milk to be pasteurized. I believe Montreal is an exception. But in all the smaller places the milk is sold in its raw state, and there is nothing to prevent thousands of children being infected in their early days through drinking it. I believe this department should extend the operations of the accredited herd system so as to include herds of grade cattle that are supplying milk to these smaller towns. I do not know that you can make it compulsory, any more than you can in the case of the pure-bred herds, but wherever there is a milk dealer with ten or more cows furnishing milk under these circumstances, and he wants to go into the accredited herd system, I believe the money of this department, which after all is the money of the people of Canada, should be devoted to that purpose, to encourage the sale of pure and uncontaminated milk to the children of this country.

Supply-Agriculture
Knowing as I do what can be done with a little money in the eradication of this disease, I hold the members of this House responsible for the misery and sickness and death of thousands of children if they refuse to vote the money for this purpose.
We hear in these days a great deal about economy but what is true economy after all? We have sanatoriums established all over this country for people suffering from this disease, and if you put the cost of maintaining a patient in one of these institutions at the regular cost of three dollars per day, it only takes the cost of maintaining one patient for a few months to pay the whole cost of compensation for a herd of cattle. It is estimated that the value of a mature Canadian in his earning years is at least $6,000 a year, and when we consider that at least 9,000 people in one year went to premature graves in Canada because of this disease, you have there a wastage of $54,000,000. Where is the economy there? There are some diseases that money will not cure, but here is a very grave disease that expenditure of money can prevent. Only last year this department cleaned up over 500 herds by the expenditure of a little money, and in regard to these herds to which [ refer particularly, every pint of milk goes direct in its infected state to the children of this country. There is a very grave responsibility resting on every member of this House in this respect; I feel it resting on me or I would not have got up at this time of night to draw this matter to the attention of the committee. I believe the responsibility rests upon all of us here to make some effort to eradicate this source of danger to the children, the future citizens of Canada.


Mr. GARDINER:: This is perhaps one of
the most important items that will come before this House. At this late hour I do not propose to discuss it further. I rise simply for the puipose of entering a protest, and a very strong protest, against the members of this House having to discuss such an important item at this late hour. The committee will remember that this item came before us last Friday afternoon and that it was discussed until six o'clock. It came before us again this evening at eight o'clock, and has been discussed continuously since then up to 12.30, and up to 11.30 the time of the committee has been taken up by our Conservative friends in discussing matters that are to all intents and purposes outside this item; but the moment we get an opportunity to get down to business and discuss the item itself as it. should be discussed, our Conservative
friends leave the chamber. I call atten-;ion to the fact that there are now only two of them present. I protest against that kind }f business, and I would suggest that this item stand for further discussion.


William Richard Motherwell: May I repeat the
historic invocation, "have a heart," and let us make some progress. The first night we did not expect to make any progress; I did not, at all events, but to-night I want to give the same assurance to my hon. friend (Mr. Gardiner) that I gave to my hon. friend (Mr. Tolmie), and to assure the whole committee that if they will allow this item to pass now I will be very lenient in allowing discussion of any particular phase of it in connection with the live stock vote. I think that is fair, and with that understanding I hope hon. gentlemen will let the item go through.


George Newcombe Gordon: The next item is a
very comprehensive one and will give the necessary opportunity.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou), the House adjourned at 12.33 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, May 23, 1924