1926-04-08

DAYLIGHT SAVING

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following letter:
City Clerks' Department, City Hall	__
Ottawa, Canada, 7th April, J926.
Hon. Rodolphb Lemieux,
Speaker of the House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Sir,-X beg to advise you that the city council of Ottawa has authorized His Worship the Mayor to proclaim that daylight saving will be observed in this city during the current year from midnight of Saturday, the 1st May, until midnight of Saturday, the 25th of September.
Your obedient servant,
Norman H. H. Lett,
City Clerk.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move:
That the name of Mr. Chabot be added to the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines; that the name of Mr. Dunning be substituted for that of Mr. Vallance on the select standing committee an Railways, Canals and Telegraph lineB; that the name of Mr. Macdonald (Antigonish-Guys-borough) be substituted for that of Mr. Meighen on the select standing committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. SENN:: 1.	Is Hon. G. N. Gordon in the employ of the government?
2.	If so, in what capacity, and what salary does he receive ?
3.	Is the said hon. G. N. Gordon in the employ of the Canadian National Railways?
4.	If so, in what capacity, and what salary does he receive ?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No.
2,	3, and 4. Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL PURCHASED
Mr. MacDOUGALL:: What are the respective tonnage quantities of coal purchased by the Canadian National Railways in each of the calendar years 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925, (a) mined in Nova Scotia; (b) mined in the United States, and (c) mined in Great Britain?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.
(a) Mined in Nova Scotia	
* Output curtailed by
(b) Mined in the United States..
(c) Mined in Great Britain	
Net Tons
1921	1,285,946
1922	1,435,882
1923	1,573,456
1924	1,251,539
1925	*718,826
Besco	strike.
1921	3,711,286
1922	3,170,798
1923	5,292,556
1924	3,012,401
1925	2,971,706
1921			
1922	56,570
1923	13,000
1924	20,117
1925	21,430
Note.-In addition the Canadian National Railways, in the same years, purchased the following tonnages of coal mined in western Canada:-
Net Tons
1921		 1,357,945
1922		 1,334,044
1923		 1,622,266
1924	 818,358
1925	 1,146,667
NATHAN W. EATON Mr. FOSTER:
1.	What sum of money, if any, was paid to Nathan W. Eaton, Canning, Nova Scotia, during the years 1922 to 1925, inclusive?

Income Tax Exemptions
2.	For what purpose was the money paid?
3.	On whose recommendation?
4.	Was the amount determined by the Exchequer Court of Canada?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	$1,494.83.
2.	Damages due to expropriation of property. 3 and 4. By judgment of the Exchequer
court.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Was a commission issued to J. P. Smith, K.C., of Vancouver to enquire into alleged improper and illegal handling of drugs by members of the R.C.M.P. ?
2.	Has the Minister of Justice received a report from J. P. Smith, and has such report been made public?
3.	What names were submitted to the minister for appointment for commissioner?
4.	Upon whose recommendation, or who was responsible for selecting J. P. Smith as commissioner?
5.	Why was J. P. Smith selected in preference to the others?
6.	Was not, in fact, J. P. Smith's appointment recommended by M. A. Macdonald, in Vancouver, and W. W. B. Mclnnes?
7.	What official or other connection had J. P. Smith with the mounted police in the Yukon?
8.	When did such official or other connection cease?
9.	Was the minister aware of such official or other connection with the mounted police at the time of such appointment as commissioner?
10.	What remuneration has been paid to J. P. Smith for his service as commissioner; also what amount for expenses?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Speaker, I
should like this and the succeeding questions up to number 26 inclusive to stand. Most of them were answered last year or the year before.


Hewitt Bostock: Questions, 6 to 26, inclusive, stand.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE-1923 RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING SALARY SCHEDULES AND OTHER MATTERS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the
question put by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) as to the action taken by the Civil Service Commission in connection with salary revision, I am informed by the Civil Service Commissioners that the recommendation in respect to this matter is practically ready for submission to the Governor-in-Council and will be forwarded very shortly.


FRANCE AND BELGIUM
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister
(Mr. Mackenzie King) with respect to a recent order or memorandum regarding depreciated currency affecting France and Belgium, whether or not this order is in breach of the treaties recently made, whether or not representations have been made to the government for the withdrawal of that order, and whether or not the government is now considering its withdrawal?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am not
aware of any order in council referring to the matter. There is some regulation, I understand, with respect to which certain representations have been made, and these representations are being considered at the present time.


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the government to a return designated as:
Sessional paper number 13S for a return to an order of the House of Commons dated 15th March 1926 for a copy of all correspondence and papers in rthsti to exemption from income tax of sums paid by the government to any official or officials in the employ of the Department of the Interior for 1923 and 1924.
The return consists of a letter signed by the Acting Deputy Minister of the Interior, saying that, "as far as the Department of the Interior is concerned there is nothing on record respecting this matter." Naturally there is nothing on record in that department respecting incpme tax. It would be just as reasonable to have a similar statement from any other department, for instance, the Department of Railways or the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The Department of the Interior is not the department that deals with such matters. I should like to know whether the government will make a return to the order or not.


Ernest Lapointe: I am going to look into this matter and call the attention of the various departments to it if they have not furnished the requisite information.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Agriculture-Cold storage warehouses, $30,000.
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: 
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The act under which these
grants are made was passed in 1907, and the money is paid on the basis of thirty per cent of the cost of construction. That sum is given by way of subsidy, conditional upon supervision of plans, construction and so on. The grant extends over four or five payments. The provisions of the act were pretty generally taken advantage of for a number of years although during the war activities were suspended to some extent owing to the fact that the act was made applicable only to municipal cold storages. Since this government came into power, however, it has again been made applicable to cold storages generally. The demand for subsidies has somewhat fallen off recently, the feeling being that Canada is fairly well supplied with facilities in this direction. For that reason the vote has been reduced.


John Wesley Edwards: The vote
covers only the grants?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, and the money is all for contracts already entered into. The contract which will take most of the grant is located in Sydney, Cape Breton.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: How
many of these plants have been subsidized and what total has been spent to date?


William Richard Motherwell: These plants extend over the whole Dominion, from Prince Rupert to Halifax. The number of plants and the total expended in the various provinces are, in round numbers:
Province	Total expenditure
Prince Edward Island, 2	 $ 20,000
Nova Scotia, 4	 142,000
New Brunswick,	2	 57,000
Quebec, 4	(approximately) 85,000
Ontario, 16	 183,000
Manitoba, 1	 9.000
Saskatchewan, 4	 80,000
Alberta, 2	 72,000
British Columbia, 3	 137,000
The total number of plants receiving assistance is thirty-eight, and the total subsidy paid, $795,000.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: How
many of the plants which have been in operation are now out of business?


William Richard Motherwell: They are all operating.


Mr. HANSON:: Where are the two plants in New Brunswick located, and when were the grants given them?


William Richard Motherwell: While my deputy
is looking up that information I may anticipate a question which will likely be asked in reference to Halifax. I have had a number of communications from hon. members from Nova Scotia and I may point out here that this vote is not sufficient to take care of the project which they have in view for Halifax. From what I can gather from the correspondence I have had with hon. members, including my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Black), I think that what they have in mind is something substantial, not perhaps as large as the establishment at Montreal, but a plant which will be handled by the harbour board, if there is such an institution in Halifax. Obviously this vote could not meet the requirements of a large port enterprise such as the one we have at Montreal.


Mr. SHORT:: At what point in Nova
Scotia are the plants operating?


William Richard Motherwell: Certain large enterprises do not come under this vote, and I referred to Halifax merely to point out that any considerable project which might be anticipated there could not be taken care of by such a vote as this.


Mr. ROGERS:: Harbour proposals do not
come under this vote?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: How much was spent of last year's estimate of $70,000?


William Richard Motherwell: About *30,000 in round figures, to meet payments on contracts already entered into.


James Dew Chaplin: What explains
the decrease?


William Richard Motherwell: We	usually have
certain votes in the supplementaries. After the House has met and spring comes and we have a fair idea of the prospect of the fruit crop we generally include a vote in the supplementary estimates for fruit-cooling establishments which have been receiving assistance in British Columbia. The extra $40,000 was in the supplementaries last year.
Replying to the hon. member for York-Sunbury, the cold storage plants in New Brunswick are located as follows: the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, at St. John, total subsidy granted, $50,100; Imperial Products Company, Limited, Woodstock, subsidy granted, $7,673.


James Dew Chaplin: Do I understand the minister to say that none of this supplementary estimate was spent?

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: Practically none.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister
admits that he brought down a supplementary estimate at the end of the session and did not spend any of it?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. It was thought that a number of the fruit districts would be able to enter into this co-operative plan, but on account of the bad fruit season they were unable to do so. In British Columbia-I have particular reference to the vicinity of Nelson-the fruit men there expected to be able to raise their part of the expenditure, because it must be remembered that this amount represents only thirty per cent of the expenditure, the fruit growers putting up the other seventy per cent, but after the estimates were passed it was found that the fruit growers at Nelson and elsewhere were not able to take advantage of it because of the poor fruit crop of last year, due to the previous bad winter season, which affected the trees very adversely. In the town of Vernon we could have expended some money, but their fruit crop was also away off in quantity, and there was also some difference of opinion between the town of Vernon and Kelowna as to which should get assistance. Strong representations were made to us from Kelowna that we should supplement what we had already given them the year before, which was $20,000, for an addition to their packing plant and pre-cooling facilities, but there was a difference of opinion between them and the fruit men who had made the representations in the first instance, and the result was that the money was not expended in either place. I have been in correspondence with the member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) who has taken an active interest in this matter, and I have assured him that after the spring season has opened and we have a fair idea of what the fruit prospects will be, it is quite possible that we may have to add to this a little in the sup-plementaries to take care of a possible expenditure in either Kelowna or Vernon.


Mr. GEARY:: Did the minister say the
federal government paid 30 or 15 per cent?


William Richard Motherwell: Thirty per cent.


George Reginald Geary: Did it not use to be 15 per
cent?


William Richard Motherwell: No, it was always
30 per cent.


George Reginald Geary: The Auditor General's report speaks as though in 1924-1925 it was 15 per cent.	I


William Richard Motherwell: It is spread out in instalments, the first payment being 15 per cent, and then so much more as the work proceeds.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I notice that these estimates were always under the title "Arts and Agriculture" up until the regime of the present minister. May I ask him how he succeeded in getting rdd of the "Arts"?


William Richard Motherwell: We tried to preserve the art of getting the estimates through. I really do not know the story, Mr. Chairman.


Harry Bernard Short: Will the minister say where these plants are situated in Nova Scotia?


William Richard Motherwell: Lockeport Cold
Storage, total subsidy, in round figures, $17,000; Halifax Cold Storage Company, at Port Hawkesbury, $9,000; St. Leonard Fisheries, Limited, formerly called the North Atlantic Fisheries, $60,000. Then there is one in Cape Breton, at North Sydney, where the amount was $36,000.


Harry Bernard Short: When was that $60,600 spent in connection with the St. Leonard Fisheries, Limited?


William Richard Motherwell: I have not got the
date, but it was before my time. Even the North Sydney contract, the latest one in Nova Scotia, was entered into before I took charge of the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask what
representations have been made to the minister in recent months on behalf of the fruit growers in the Maritime provinces, particularly in the Annapolis valley, for cold storage facilities. The minister will recall that the former member for Hants used to bring this matter to his attention annually, without very much success. I wonder if the department has looked into that, and whether it has made any provision for assistance?


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon.
friend has not got just the slant on this matter which the former member for Hants had. He was not in favour of a regular cold storage plant; in fact, I recollect discussing the matter with him, and he was opposed to it. The weather is pretty cool in the fall in the Maritime provinces, and there has never been any strong request for pre-cooling facilities for their fruit. We did do a little bit in the way of ice storage, fixing up an old warehouse in the Annapolis valley in the fall of 1922, but the nights are so cold down there that the fruit will chill off in the barrels very nicely before going into storage. That is what these pre-cooling plants are required for, aud
Supply-Agriculture

we have had no demand from the Annapolis valley for a regular cold storage plant, probably on account of their climatic conditions. I do not just recall what the former member for Hants had in mind; perhaps the hon. member for York-Sunbury would refresh my mind. I know he was very much opposed to the project that we brought up at the first session with regard to co-operative cold storage. He had no use for that at all.


Mr. CHURJCH:: When this matter was before the House last year, the minister said that during the parliamentary recess he would reconsider the whole question of cold storage facilities. Agriculture is our great basic industry, and there is concurrent jurisdiction over it by the Dominion and the provinces. The provinces take the view that cold storage warehouses is a matter, under the British North America Act, for the federal government. The function of cold storage warehouses to-day is entirely different from what it was twenty-five years ago. Just the day before yesterday the first sod was turned of a new terminal warehouse in Toronto that is to cost $8,000,000. For twenty-five years we have looked to the federal government to do something in this matter, 'but nothing has been done, and the result is that the farmers have no place in which to store their butter and eggs and cheese and other products, and at the present time a large portion of these products goes to Montreal to be kept in cold storage in private warehouses. I think the minister has no conception of what this warehouse problem means to the producer and the consumer. The retailer to-day has to buy in advance of the market and has to keep in storage butter, eggs, cheese, apples and many other products, and he has to pay bank interest of course on his investment because of the lack of cold storage facilities. The farmer has to supply the credit, whereas if the government provided up-to-date warehouses at central points it would lessen the cost of production and also very largely reduce the cost to the consumer. One cannot fail to be impressed by the large number of officials attached to the Department of Agriculture, the heavy overhead and red tape of officialdom, and the consequent large expenditure in the way of salaries and other items which is involved. At a previous session we were promised some information about what other countries are doing in the way of providing modem terminal warehouses and other methods of assisting the farmers to market their products and to help in removing some of the peak load from the consumer. Go into

a grocery store to-day and you cannot get an apple for less than five cents, and the cost of such commodities as butter, cheese and eggs is in proportion. These prices are absolutely prohibitive to the working classes. A luncheon was held in Toronto the other day after the turning of the sod of the new terminal warehouse, a function which was attended by farmers from different points extending from Windsor east to Belleville, with the object of trying to see what could be done through the medium of private ownership to meet the problems pressing upon agriculturists. But problems of this kind should be worked out by the federal authorities. We have a Department of Agriculture here which is costing this country hundreds of thousands of dollars, and is staffed with officials from top to bottom. The department sends out every day loads of literature which is not read because it is too complicated. We want the federal government to take up this question, and carry out the promise made that some relief will be forthcoming to the agriculturists, the retailers, and the consumers. We ought in Canada to follow the plan with respect to terminal warehouses which has been adopted in every large city in the United States. Why is it necessary to bring in American capital to the extent of $8,000,000 to establish a terminal warehouse in Toronto to give relief to farmers in some 22 counties when the Dominion government has large resources and almost unlimited methods of taxation upon which it can draw in order to help the agricultural industry? Modem terminal warehouses are a modem economic necessity, both in the interest of producers and consumers and to lessen transportation costs and overhead. In the case of the former they would help to lessen the cost of production and of marketing, and there would be little or no waste. The retailer could buy to the best advantage when he needed supplies and those supplies would be in first-class condition. The consumer would benefit by being able to purchase commodities at a greatly reduced price. The problem has existed in an acute form since 1897 but notwithstanding the need for action no progress has been made. The federal and provincial governments have made a football of the question and whenever the provinces were urged to take action they have referred the applicants to the federal Minister of Agriculture. In central Ontario to-day the farmer is getting the worst of it. Many market, gardeners are abandoning their occupation, and the dairy industry is in a very precarious state. The railways do not provide proper accommodation; there is noth-

Supply-Agriculture
ing in the shape of proper storage facilities, there is not even a terminal elevator for grain in central Ontario, let alone a modem warehouse. There are practically no warehouses, except a few small ones that are operated on a very minor scale. The state of New York has dozens of these terminal warehouses. Every large city has them and the aid given by the federal authority is supplemented by grants from the state legislatures. We are making treaties all the time with outside countries, but we are doing little or nothing to help the farmers and the producers and also the consumers who are suffering so much from existing conditions. I think where private interests do this modern work a subsidy should be given to facilitate the construction of these terminal warehouses. They are not a luxury; they are a necessity. These warehouses should be either under the jurisdiction of the federal government, or else the federal authorities should grant money for the purpose to the provinces and let them work out a scheme. The Dominion government would get some revenue indirectly, and there would be an immense advantage to the farmer, the dairyman, the retailer and the consumer.


Mr. FOSTER:: Allusion has been made
to the action taken by the member for Hants last year on the question of cold storage. I would remind the minister that the counties of Hants and Kings are now united. While it is true that the former member for Hants may not have voted for cold storage I suspect very strongly that one of the reasons why he is not sitting in this House to-day is because he did not understand the situation as clearly as was necessary and did not support cold storage for the Annapolis and Kings valley as strongly as he might have done. With reference to conditions in the two counties, we have been running to specialization in the matter of fruit for the last few years, but unfortunately we had three bad years in the fruit industry. May I say to the minister and to hon. members that the conditions in that regal'd were never worse in those two counties than they are to-day; and one special reason why I am here as a representative of these counties is because the federal government for the last four or five years, in fact for many years back, have not heeded the demands that have been made in the past and are still being pressed. I understand that several delegations composed of very substantial Liberals, from the two counties, have waited upon the government and impressed upon them the necessity of doing something 14011-141
to help the fruit industry of the Annapolis and Cornwallis valleys and of granting aid in other directions. The government instead of paying heed to these representations have appointed a commission to examine into conditions in the Maritime provinces. I venture to suggest that that commission was in no sense necessary. The members in this House supporting the government and members supporting the opposition are a unit on certain fundamental things which must be done in the Maritime provinces. A commission will not accomplish what is required. You cannot get these things done by appointing a royal commission and spending $25,000 or $50,000- probably this commission will cost $100,000 before iit is concluded.
Now with regard to the things which are required to be done, it is generally understood that we will have to get away from specialization in fruit growing in that section of the country if we are to make progress in creating greater wealth. The government will have to provide similiar facilities to those established elsewhere in Canada to assist the people to get back into the business of producing eggs, butter and cheese, meat, and so on; creameries will have to be established, and all those things are dependent upon cold storage facilities. We have before us to-day a propostion for a large cold storage warehouse for the city of Halifax. I understand it is to be undertaken by the Norcross Company, but the question who is to build it is of no particular interest, except in this way, that when representatives come from this section of the country and ask for assistance for cold storage institutions they ought to receive substantial consideration and support. I for one cannot vote millions of dollars to be spent in other sections of Canada, without drawing the attention of the minister and the government to the very important matter of voting at least some of this money to the re-creation of trade in the Maritime provinces to the end that there shall be an upbuilding of trade down there, in order to make two blades of grass, or two dollars, if you like, grow where one or none is growing or being earned at the present time.
On some of the items I will refer to particular industries, by which we will be able to produce millions of dollars worth of wealth in those counties if the government will give the matter some further attention. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is giving some attention to certain matters in that district, and I do not propose to find fault with him as to that. * But I desire very forcibly to direct his attention to the fact that

Supply-Agriculture

we must have new avenues for the production of wealth in those two counties of Hants-Kings and in that section of Nova Scotia in order to satisfy our people. If the Minister of Agriculture or even the Prime Minister were on the proposed Maritime commission, they would find conditions obtaining there pretty much as we have stated them during this session.
I hope it is not assumed that this item of $30,000 will be sufficient to take care of the situation in Halifax. I understand some further provision is to be made in the supplementary estimates. Even if the amount were $40,000 it would not take care of the situation or do much to revive the interest of the province in these matters. Of course this is only one of the things which can be done; other matters, such as freight rates, will come up in due course. I hope the minister will give instructions that when delegations of his own party from Nova Scotia come to him, they sLall be treated better than we would be if we approached him. It is not a question of being magnanimous to any particular part of the country; but it is a matter of seeing that the money v'hich is spent will be productive of new wealth and of prosperity which does not now exist.


William Richard Motherwell: I wish my hon. friend would refresh my memory with regard to requests for the establishment of a cold storage plant in Nova Scotia, outside of the city of Halifax. The understanding was that Halifax could not be taken care of in this vote. I have no recollection of refusing any cold storage plant in Nova Scotia. We have been doing something in reference to the establishment of cold storage in the Annapolis valley, but outside of that we have not established any plants. We are not promoting these things ourselves, but we are putting 30 per cent into the enterprise to help those who help themselves. I believe the hon. member (Mr. Spence) is pretty well posted on this question, and I do not think he will take the ground that we need a lot more cold storage plants.
I do not think I heard all that the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) said a few minuts ago, but he spoke gaily in terms of eight or more millions. I am afraid I would shock the House if I brought down a measure which would pretend to take care of an enterprise of that nature. Neither this vote nor any previous vote was intended to take care entirely of port situations. The enterprise at Montreal is one of the finest on the continent, and I would like to give my predecessors full credit for that. It is very
IMr. Forke.]
much required. I think it has been capable of taking care of the cold storage business that has been offering at that port ever since. But the proposition of cold storage immediately after the war was a very doubtful one, for the simple reason that the people were not patronizing these warehouses. They were not storing their produce; they were retrenching and using the facilities around home, buying a small plant and putting it in their kitchen or basement, and storing their dairy produce there instead of keeping it in a public cold storage where they had to pay for it; consequently there was not a demand for storage. There is not one single new contract for this year. Yet we have not been refusing them, outside of Halifax, and it was not really a refusal. I drew the attention of the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) to the fact that this vote was never intended to take care of cold storage at the port of Halifax, because that would run into a large sum. If I understand the hon. member for Toronto Northwest rightly, there is the prospect of a great enterprise, running into millions, being established in Toronto. That is not a pure cold storage proposition. A cold storage warehouse, like an elevator, seldom can pay its way when it relies merely on the charges for storing produce. Whoever owns such a warehouse must be a large produce dealer, must trade in this produce and must obtain profits largely in that way. These things seldom take care of the cost of operation and of storing the produce when the crops come in.
I should like to assure hon. members opposite, and all hon. members in the House generally, that this vote will take care of all the projects now under way, and the first one is at North Sydney, in the province of the hon. member for Hants. It is a general cold storage for all kinds of commodities. Later on in the session it will be taken up and considered.
I may say, from a cursory examination of the Maritimes, which I had the honour of making two years ago, one of the first impressions I got was that the plan for the development of the fishing industry at Halifax was lamentably short in cold storage facilities. Furthermore, if the trade with the West Indies develops as we expect it will under the new treaty, we will require more accommodation for perishable goods arriving at Halifax dock from the West Indies, in order that they may be taken care of, until distribution is made by the various railways and through other avenues. Therefore, I feel

Supply-A griculture
somewhat sympathetic with the Halifax project. But this was never intended to include port cold storage. It is too large a proposition to be included ,'n this vote.


Mr. MILLAR:: After trying to hear what is going on in the House, I have been wondering if there is any good reason why the business of this Dominion should be carried on in such a manner that one part of the House is not able to follow the discussion intelligently.


Harry Bernard Short: I was asking the minister a few minutes ago where the cold storage plants in Nova Scotia were situated. He stated one was St. Leonard Fisheries Limited at Port Hawkesbury and that $60,000 was appropriated for that. That is purely a fish cold storage plant. I do not object to the vote, but why does it come under the Department of Agriculture?


William Richard Motherwell: Fish is one of the natural resources of the country. These things interlock sometimes. Does my hon. friend want to put in a claim to have it refunded?


Harry Bernard Short: No, but why should fish
come under the Department of Agriculture?


William Richard Motherwell: That was before
my time and I had nothing to do with it. I have not the year in which it was initiated, but I happen to know that fisheries are included in this vote because I know in other parts of Canada agriculture was interpreted to apply to fisheries as well as to agriculture, not of course to apply exclusively to fish because it is not advisable to have perishable commodities like dairy produce in the same warehouse as fish. We try to avoid that but the old interpretation in regard to agriculture included fish. Those who come from the Pacific coast and are familiar with conditions at Prince Rupert will know that a considerable sum was given in years past to a fish cold storage plant at that point. My deputy informs me that the plant was intended to be for everything, but as a matter of fact it has developed largely in connection with the cold storage of fish.


Harry Bernard Short: Are we to understand that all cold storage plants in Canada ai;e under the Department of Agriculture?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Harry Bernard Short: Then why is this plant at Port Hawkesbury, where no agricultural products are stored, under the Department of Agriculture?
14011-141J


William Richard Motherwell: That is away back in days gone by. It is hard to learn how we got into it. I have pointed out that port plants, such as the one at Montreal, are not under our department but under harbour boards. That is the exception.


George Eulas Foster: Are all these plants in
Nova Scotia used chiefly for fish cold storage or are some of them used for agricultural purposes?


William Richard Motherwell: The one at North Sydney, for instance, is used for agricultural purposes and fish as well, but we have to take special precautions in connection with insulating the plant and dividing it off into rooms to ensure that no offensive odours from the fish contaminate other commodities that are stored there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course the minister does not contend that the cold storage plant at North Sydney is in aid of agriculture. If he does, he had better revise his ideas regarding that part of the country. Is the cold storage proposition at Montreal assisted out of this vote?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that done through the harbour commission?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, entirely.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the government or any department of the government obtain a report from the harbour commission as to the business done in its cold storage branch? Is the minister able to tell us whether that is a money making proposition or not?


William Richard Motherwell: I would imagine
there would be a report each year to the Department of Marine and Fisheries under which I understand it comes. Our officers are almost constantly employed in the plant grading butter and cheese; we are fairly familiar with the kind of service that is given and it is satisfactory.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: Are butter and
cheese products of the sea, as the cold storage plant at Montreal appears to be under the Department of Marine and Fisheries?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not understand the point.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: What
action, if any, has the minister taken to improve cold storage facilities in connection with fruit products going from Grimsby district to
Supply-Agriculture

the west and from western Ontario by boat to the west? I would also ask, what has been done in the direction of improving transportation on cars and boats taking our perishable products to the market on the other side of the Atlantic?


William Richard Motherwell: The next vote is
exclusively for fruit and it would be better not to mix the two. With regard to Grimsby they have been extending cold storage facilities there from time to time under the assistance that we have been able 4 p.m. to give. The concern is a co-operative one with Colonel Roberts as president. They have also an artificial ice-manufacturing plant, through the medium of which they provide icing facilities for all shipments of fruit marketed there and sent out west in the beginning of the season. The plant is doing exceedingly good work. Just how it has been panning out financially of recent years I am not aware, but as in all new institutions the overhead was a little out of proportion to the turnover during the first year or two. I understand that in recent years a tremendous quantity of early fruits particularly and perishable fruits get not only cold storage at Grimsby, but pre-cooling and icing on both railways for the western trade.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Will the minister be willing to assist the cold storage transportation of the products of western Ontario? I come from a district which ships enormous quantities of fruit by boat. What assistance, if any, would the minister be prepared to give in that direction?


William Richard Motherwell: We have no provision for that. I often was surprised that the fruit men of the Niagara peninsula did not take more advantage of this provision for cold storage facilities. On more occasions than one I have had opportunities of talking to them and also to fruit men in the Kelowna valley. On my first visit to Kelowna I saw a number of exceedingly fine fruit packing plants, not one of which had a single cubic foot of cold storage space. I pointed out to them that they were missing a lot in not prolonging their marketing season through lack of pre-cooling or cold storage facilities. The same may be said with regard to the Niagara peninsula; outside of Grimsby nothing has been done by the fruit growers to provide such facilities. Probably it is a difficult thing to finance; at any rate, it has proved so in the past. The Grimsby plant is giving exceedingly good service.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I am
asking more particularly with regard to transportation by boat, for instance, from Sarnia to Port Arthur and Fort William. Would that come under legislation such as the minister refers to?


William Richard Motherwell: No, we have never had any call for it. I do not know whether there are any cold storage facilities on the boat my hon. friend refers to, but if the owners are undertaking to carry perishable commodities they would no doubt provide proper facilities.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The minister has no doubt had requests with regard to the overseas carriage of perishable products. What improvements has he made in that direction during the last few years?


William Richard Motherwell: The committee
will recall that the only attempt made was under the provisions of the Petersen contract, which would have provided 60,000 cubic feet on each boat. My hon. friend knows what happened to that.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: What
happened?


William Richard Motherwell: Well-


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I do not
think the minister fully appreciates my request. At one time, as I understand, we did assist in the transportation of perishable products on vessels plying between Canada and the Motherland; we had thermograph records and other information carefully compiled. What improvements have been made along those lines?


William Richard Motherwell: I think assistance
in keeping track of temperature and in cargo inspection is given on both sides, but no assistance was ever given to provide cold storage facilities.


Mr. MORAND:: Is a cold storage warehouse being built at Kingsville or Leamington?


William Richard Motherwell: That will come under the fruit item.


The CHAIRMAN:: Carried.


Mr. TOLMIE:: What are the cold storage facilities for fruit alone in British Columbia?


William Richard Motherwell: We assisted Kelowna to the extent of $20,000. They have a very urgent application in for another $20,000 that they claim would double their accommodation. That is under consideration for

Supply-Agriculture
another occasion. At Salmon Arm we have assisted to the extent of $10,000, and we have also helped two smaller plants near Chilliwack.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Are there no plants at
Vernon?


William Richard Motherwell: There is a good plant at Vernon, but there is no installation yet.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What progress has been made with your experiments in regard to cold storage shipment of fruit in cars?


William Richard Motherwell: That comes under the fruit vote. I understand from my deputy that rve are experimenting with different kinds of cars.


Mr. SMITH:: I understood the minister to say that no portion of this $30,000 would apply to the proposed cold storage plants at Halifax. If that is so, will any government assistance be rendered to this plant under a supplementary or other vote?


William Richard Motherwell: Nothing will come from this vote, for obviously it is too small for the purpose. I would not be a bit surprised if this should be one of the subjects to be discussed before the royal commission which has just been appointed. I expect my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Smith) heard me intimate that if the fish exports to the West Indies and the return traffic to our Atlantic ports develop as we hope they will, we will certainly require some cold storage accommodation at Halifax. It should be under the harbour board, but I understand that the Halifax harbour port is not administered in the same way as the ports of Vancouver, Quebec and Montreal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has made some reference to the proposed royal commission on maritime rights. Does not he honestly think that this is the proper place to discuss that sort of thing, and that the members here who have first-hand information are in a better position to bring to the attention of himself and the other members of the government the needs of the various parts of the Maritime provinces? That is the feeling on this side of the House, as has been shown on more than one occasion. There is need of cold storage in a terminal city such as Halifax. It certainly does not require a commissioner from the old country or an economist from McGill University to tell us whether we want such a facility in Halifax or not. All of which shows how futile is this proposed Maritime rights commission.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Smith) asked me a question about it. I would be prepared, Mr. Chairman, to swap off the elevator there for a good cold storage plant.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: You could not very well convert the one into the other now, but no doubt both will be required.


James Dew Chaplin: Has the minister no influence whatever with the government?	.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister does
not Undertake to run all the departments. He does well if he manages his own.
Mr. ME.IGHEN: The minister, replying to the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), indicated that the only attempt the government had made to have cold storage in connection with vessels was in the Petersen contract, and that failed. We heard a few months ago that that contract was to be revived, or at least that something of the kind would be provided. We were going to have a renewal of the war against monopoly by land and sea, and we had only an armistice caused by the unfortunate-I emphasize the word "unfortunate"-death of Sir William Petersen. Will the minister now give us warning when we may expect the second Petersen contract?


William Richard Motherwell: The transportation
problem is still unsolved, both on sea and in the matter of cold and other storage. It is generally felt, however, that the programme is an extensive one which will require considerable time to complete; and rather than introduce at this late stage something that might prove controversial, it was thought that we might leave the question for solution until a subsequent session. We cannot expect to remedy all the evils of the earth at this particular session. I think my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) will agree with me that we are doing pretty well, and that the matter might stand in the meantime. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) is very much interested in this subject, especially as regards the cattle rate question. So am I; indeed we are all interested in the matter.


Arthur Meighen: Shall we have another
Petersen contract next session?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know that we shall ever have another Petersen contract; we may possibly have learned something in the meantime. But what the Petersen con-
Supply-Agriculture

tract aimed at doing may be accomplished in some other way, equally effective, and I trust not quite so controversial. And when such an arrangement comes up for consideration I sincerely hope that we shall be able to elicit the assistance of my right hon. friend and those behind him, from whom, let me say, we received not a vestige of help on the former occasion.


James Dew Chaplin: You got our
assistance in getting rid of it.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
surely does not assume responsibility for getting rid of Sir William?	[DOT]


James Dew Chaplin: Not at all;
only for disposing of the arrangement which the government made with him.


William Richard Motherwell: I beg your pardon.


James Dew Chaplin: Don't mention
it.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Providing we
develop a great trade with the West Indies as we hope, or at least as the government hopes, the minister is discussing the building of a cold storage plant at Halifax. I suggest that it would be wiser to construct a great heating plant there. How does the minister propose to protect vessels that come into Halifax with fruits of all kinds during winter? You cannot put them in cold storage in winter.


William Richard Motherwell: Is the hon. member referring to the famous pier which is almost impossible of access?


David Spence: I am in earnest. It will be necessary to make provision for a heating service as well as for cooling facilities at Halifax.


William Richard Motherwell: Do you mean in
regard to the shipping of apples and potatoes?


David Spence: No, I mean for the reception of vessels coming in from the West Indies in winter.


William Richard Motherwell: We thought of
converting that pier into something of the kind into which the cars could be run and protected overnight.


David Spence: I am emphasizing the necessity for a heating plant for receiving bananas, pineapples and other fruits coming into Halifax in winter from the West Indies. You have no heated dock anywhere in Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
the idea has been abandoned, of providing heating accommodations for the cars after they are loaded. The railways supply heated cars and the difficulty of shipping perishable goods in winter has already been met, so that it is not necessary to provide heating accommodation at the ports.


David Spence: The minister
does not get my point. You will have to provide space to take care of the vessels coming into the port of Halifax in winter. The railways will heat their cars but they will not put up a heated shed such as there ought to be at that port.


Mr. QUINN:: The minister has referred to a pier at Halifax which cannot be got into. If that is the case, as he believes, why did he allow the government of which he was a minister to spend a million dollars in connection with the grain elevator in front of that pier?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
where-[DOT]


Mr.   QLUNN@: The minister should know;
he is a member of the government.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon friend prefer the old location?


Felix Patrick Quinn: Very much.	-


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
the hon. gentleman's party tore up the old facilities.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Does that justify the minister's government in spending another million dollars there for facilities if the vesseks cannot get into the pier?


William Richard Motherwell: Evidently we need a Maritime commission after all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fruit, including grant of $8,000 to the Canadian Horticultural Council, $200,000.
Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the value of the
apples shipped from Canada to Australia in the past year?


William Richard Motherwell: I have no idea.
We are no-t shipping a great many.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Do you ship to Australia
at all?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think so.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Why?


William Richard Motherwell: I think our fruit is prohibited.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: On what ground?

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: Because of the
codling moth.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think the minister will
find it is the fire blight.


William Richard Motherwell: Both, I think.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Was any provision made
for the shipment of Canadian apples to Australia when the treaty was being negotiated?


William Richard Motherwell: I was not there.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I presume some other member of the government of which the minister formed a part was there. Was anything done?


James Dew Chaplin: The minister
gets from under.


William Richard Motherwell: That Australian
treaty has a habit of bobbing up every now and then.


Arthur Meighen: Like the Petersen contract.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, we are not
ashamed of either; but there is a time to discuss these things and a time to leave them alone, surely. I presume my hon. friend (Mr. Tolmie) w'ants to know why some agreement was not reached to have the embargo lifted. I do not think that the Australian government would remove that embargo any more readily than we would under similar circumstances, if we thought that fruit coming in from outside would injuriously affect our own product. Apparently the Australians are convinced that our apples at present are a menace. Is my hon. friend suggesting that Australia, in taking this stand, is only putting up a bluff? The codling moth is a real menace to fruit, as is fire blight, and if they think that these diseases will endanger their own fruit I think it is their duty to close down on our export. At the same time it is our duty to get rid of the trouble as speedily as possible and so merit entry into the sister dominion.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is the minister sure that it is more than fire blight that they object to?


William Richard Motherwell: They are objecting to both.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What progress is being made in the export of Canadian fruit to Great Britain, and what have been the increases in the past year?


William Richard Motherwell: There has been a
marked improvement in quality in the shipments from British Columbia. That province has been foremost in the Dominion in taking advantage of the shipping point inspection service. As a matter of fact, it was they who initiated that service by volunteering to pay $5 a car if the government would provide the inspection and give a certificate covering the car. Their quality, as I say, has improved to a marked degree, but British Columbia is about the only part of Canada of which that can be said without qualification. We have no information as to the quantity shipped from British Columbia.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I should like to know what
has been the rate of increase from year to year in the shipments from Canada to the Old Land.


William Richard Motherwell: I will take a note
of that question.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I notice that first Delicious apples grown in British Columbia are selling at seventy-five cents per dozen in Ottawa in the retail stores. What proportion of that amount, if any, goes to the producer?


William Richard Motherwell: I can imagine it
would not be half, nor a quarter possibly. At a rough guess I would say about one-eighth.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I do not want a guess; I can guess myself; I am from British Columbia. I wanted to know how the spread between what the British Columbia producer and the vendor in Ottawa receives for those apples was divided.


William Richard Motherwell: We have been endeavouring to reduce that spread in every way possible by giving inspectional facilities, so that the goods could go forward with the government certificate as to quality, and we have also been encouraging dehydrating plants, pre-cooling plants, and so forth. One of the first activities we engaged in was trying to put the Okanagan fruit industry on a better footing, and it has responded splendidly, as is shown by the improved quality of their produce. I imagine there is a tremendous spread between what the British Columbia producer and the Ottawa vendor get, but my hon. friend would not expect me to be able to follow every step, or make me wholly responsible for that spread.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What I wanted was general information of interest to the producer in British Columbia and to the consumer here. It has already been mentioned by an hon. member from Toronto that the poor man cannot buy apples at the present prices, and I wanted a little light on the subject. I would
Supply-Agriculture

ask the minister to be good enough to have the experts of the Fruit branch bring us that information before the agricultural estimates are through.


William Richard Motherwell: All right.


Mr. TOLMJIE:: I notice that the Washington Winesap grown in the Yakima valley, Washington, is now taking hold of the market, and selling at 60 cents a dozen for the best quality. Is there no variety of Canadian apple that could supply the wants of this market at the present time?


William Richard Motherwell: 
Simon Fraser Tolmie: Can we grow the Winesap in British Columbia to the same perfection that they can in the Yakima valley? The
dry belt, east ol the Cascade mountains extends south as far as Mexico, and throughout its length soil and climatic conditions are very similar. Is there no apple we can produce at that particular season of the year to compete with the Winesap grown in Washington state? Is the Winesap a success in British Columbia?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand so.


John Millar: Would the minister give a general explanation how this $200,000 is expended? Is any part of it expended for experimental work, or is that provided for elsewhere?
[Mr Tomlie.]


William Richard Motherwell: The experimental,
work, especially with regard to diseases, is conducted by the Fruit branch of the experimental farms. This vote is not for that class of work, but largely for inspectional service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister explained a few moments ago what his department was doing to extend the market for Canadian fruit, and especially to put British Columbia apples on the map. I did not hear him say anything with respect to the cost of transportation. In my humble judgment, the one great reason for the spread that has been mentioned between what is paid the British Columbia producer and what the Ottawa consumer has to pay is the extremely high express rates. Let me illustrate: There is no better apple grown in Canada than the Ontario Northern Spy. For some years I have been in the habit of getting some from my friend the member for Durham, and let me tell the minister and the committee that the express rate on a box or barrel of apples from Durham county to Fredericton, New Brunswick, is exactly 100 per cent of the first cost. That is a condition that should not obtain, and if the minister wants to do something of real service both to the producer and the consumer of Canadian apples, let him get busy on these outrageous express rates.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: W7hat amount of this vote was expended last year?
Mr. MOTHERW7ELL:	Practically all of
it.


Donald Sutherland: What portion of it is for salaries of officials, bonuses and travelling expenses?


William Richard Motherwell: The greater part
of it is for inspection.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: WTould
the minister also be good enough to give the number of inspectors?


William Richard Motherwell: This is largely for
inspectional service, but I have a page of details here that I can read for my hon. friend.
I think I gave my hon. friend the information in a return, but I will give this too:
Estimates
Inspection Service	1926-27
Salaries	5	district inspectors	
$11,850Salaries	17	permanent inspectors	
32,400
Salary 1 additional permanent inspector
(Fruit and vegetables) promoted from seasonal, additional five months.
Salaries 45 seasonal inspectors (average 7
mos., plus statutory increases)	 43,200
Salaries 5 temporary inspectors (average 7 mos. at $125 each per month)	 3,750

Supply-Agriculture
To provide for recommended reclassification
district inspectors	 150
Travelling expenses 73 inspectors	 46,900
5 district inspectors	$ 9,600
17 permanent	inspectors	 13,400
45 seasonal inspectors	 20,300
5 temporary	inspectors	 3,300
1 additional	permanent inspector.. 300
46,900
Salaries for stenographers, Middleton $320,
Montreal $960, Toronto $780, Winnipeg $960,
and Vancouver $810	 3.830
Rents
For rent of	Halifax office	
270For rent of	office Winnipeg	
480For rent of office Middleton $180, St. John 1180	
360

There are two more pages containing very much the same information. Now, as to fruit packing, I will give my hon. friend the headings.


Donald Sutherland: I
asked for the totals not the details.


William Richard Motherwell: There are these
headings: Fruit transportation, fruit packing and orchard specialization, office expenses, grade and market reports, inspection of markets. As to the shipping point inspection service the explanation would be of interest to the committee. This service, as I indicated, was first taken advantage of by British Columbia. It is now being taken advantage of in the Niagara peninsula, and I would be delighted to see the Maritime provinces, especially the Annapolis valley, follow suit. They need the service there. When the Fruit Marks Act was introduced many years ago, it was a great step forward, and it had the very beneficial effect of improving the quality of our export. But the time has come when we must no longer rely simply on inspection by the owner or packer of the fruit. I believe the time has come when we should have compulsory inspection of all exports of fruit to any market outside of Canada, especially of apples, just the same as we do in the case of butter and cheese.


James Dew Chaplin: Why not in
Canada also?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
in the case of a great deal of shipping point inspected apples the fruit in consumed in Canada.


James Dew Chaplin: I think, Mr. Chairman, one reason why so many British Columbia or Washington apples come into this market is the lack of inspection of the fruits used by our own people.


William Richard Motherwell: We are getting
there.


Donald Sutherland: Probably that accounts for the quality of the apples which are served for dessert in this city, particularly in this building. I think >t is most remarkable, bearing in mind that Ottawa is the headquarters of the inspection service and the centre of government that you cannot obtain what one might term decent, or at least third-rate quality of fruit in a building such as we have here. The same might be said with regard to cheese. The minister's statement that great care is exercised in inspecting everything for export but not commodities for home consumption possibly is the explanation. Grading certainly should be applied to articles intended for home consumption as well as articles intended for exportation abroad, because there is no question but that a great deal of very inferior stuff is palmed off on the people of this country, and instead of the consumption of our own fruits and other food products being encouraged the very reverse happens. Consequently our people are to-day buying fruits imported from foreign countries, whereas they might very well be consuming Canadian fruits if they could get that quality which is insured by inspection in the case of fruit shipped abroad.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon.
friend may have misunderstood me. Those who apply for shipping-point inspection sell their fruit wherever they like. Of course if that fruit is sold at home they get the benefit; if it is sold abroad they enjoy a still greater benefit. In my estimation apples for export should be compulsorily graded the same as is done in the case of butter and cheese.


John Millar: How many inspectors
are located in Saskatchewan and when do they carry out their inspection? Do they inspect fruit so far as they possibly can, or only when called upon to do so?


William Richard Motherwell: The principal duty of the inspectors on the prairies is to see that people get the goods they pay for. When a consignment of fruit is sent from British Columbia, we will say, under our shipping-point inspection system it is graded so-and-so. The vendor sends the shipping bill, with the necessary documents attached, and if the purchaser on the prairie is not satisfied with the goods he purchased he calls in the inspector.
22 IS
Supply-Agriculture


John Millar: The inspector only inspects when there is a complaint?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. Do I understand that my hon. friend asked for a list of the inspectors, or did he simply require an explanation of their duties?


John Millar: The number of inspectors in the prairie provinces, or in Saskatchewan alone, would be satisfactory.


William Richard Motherwell: These are the inspectors: Regina, Mr. R. P. Andrews; Saskatoon, Mr. F. Metcalf; Edmonton, Mr Goodale; Winnipeg, Messrs. Steele, C. Brooks and Fred Gow; Calgary, W. B. Gornall.


George Reginald Geary: I might ask the minister a
question about apples. I suppose there is nobody in the House who knows less about apples than I do. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) has spoken of the Winesap, and the minister I understand says that that apple is produced in just as good quality in British Columbia as it is in the state of Washington, and then in Ottawa we have the Washington product occupying the market. It has occurred to me that there is a good deal of food for thought in the situation. Whether it is the lack of proper marketing, or proper packing, or high freight rates, there is something which permits the Washington product, which is carried no farther than the British Columbia product, to pay duty and come in here and usurp the market. I ask the minister if it is not a matter which should interest him and his department.


Mr. STIRLING:: May I point out that
it is chiefly a question of quantity. The Wine-sap apple is one which has been grown for some years in the valleys in British Columbia but not in any great quantity. It is becoming more and more popular, and' in those parts of the Okanagan valley and neighbouring valleys where it is grown-that is to say suitably -it is coming forward in popularity but at the present time the quantity is not enough to supply the demands of the market.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think we should do anything to discourage interprovincial trade. If there is a better apple grown elsewhere than is produced in Ontario and the people find it out they will send for it.


George Reginald Geary: I do not blame the minister for not wanting to answer.


William Richard Motherwell: I presume it is the tariff question again. It is something which applies to eggs and many other commodities.


Mr. BROWN:: Perhaps the minister will
take into consideration the spread between the price the producer receives and the price which the . consumer in Ottawa pays.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The minister having slipped through the tariff hole again I should like to know if there is any other apple produced in Canada that would take the place of this Washington Winesap at this particular period?


William Richard Motherwell: The Northern Spy.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: And the Delicious of British Columbia?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No others?


William Richard Motherwell: I am getting very
delightful apples every morning for my breakfast. I do not know exactly where they come from, but I understand they are Canadian apples.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: If they are very good
apples, I have a strong suspicion as to the point of origin. What are the total exports of fruit from Canada to the United States and the total imports in value from that country to Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand we
have no figures on the exports. We will get that.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Would the minister get
those figures before the agricultural estimates are all passed?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We are trying to develop this great market in Great Britain for all our agricultural products. In what way does the Britisher like to receive his apples from Canada, in the box or in the barrel?


William Richard Motherwell: The modern way
is in boxes, and it is becoming more popular all the time. The barrels come largely from the Maritimes. They still stick to the barrel down there, and they are not doing good packing, with the result that the boxed apples of British Columbia and elsewhere are becoming more and more popular, largely because of the quality of the fruit, but partly because the public like that kind of package. It is handier; they have to struggle and fight with a barrel too much. If you have ever taken a barrel of apples into your basement you know how awkward it is, and you know how easily a box is handled. I expect the barrel will go off the market.

Supply-Agriculture


Harry Bernard Short: Is the department doing anything to try to educate the people to adopt the box instead of the barrel and to convince them that they could get more money for their product in that way? Does the minister not think it is the function of his department to try to educate the fruit raiser to raise the class of fruit that will sell best? If the Winesap can be raised in British Columbia, can it not be raised in Nova Scotia? If not, could they not raise one equally as good? Is it not up to the Agriculture department to try to educate the fruit grower to raise the fruit that will sell the best and obtain the best price? Is the minister doing anything in that line?


Mr MOTHERWELL:: It is a somewhat
delicate matter to undertake to educate the people. An hon. member from New Brunswick told me a moment ago that the Maritime people knew what they wanted and did not require a commission. We have some fifteen inspectors in the Annapolis valley; part of their work is to educate the people, and I think we are getting some results. In regard to the question of inspection particularly they seem to be managing their own affairs. Although the early grading was taken advantage of twenty years ago by the people of the Annapolis valley, they are most reluctant in the Maritimes to take advantage of shipping point inspection. I like my hon. friend's suggestion, but you have to go somewhat gently with the Maritime people when you have education in your mind. They will simply tell you that they know more about it than you do, and possibly they may be right. Not only in regard to their apples, but in regard to their vegetables and potatoes they do not seem to adopt the right method. They are losing their market for potatoes every year because of the bad packing and grading; they put goods on the market that are a discredit to them, although they have better goods if they will handle them judiciously. We have had barrels of those potatoes sent up here for personal inspection, so that we know exactly how they are getting along. When these barrels are handled roughly the potatoes are sent forward in bad condition, but if they were well handled and properly graded that could be avoided.


George Eulas Foster: I do not want the impression to go abroad that it is difficult to educate the Maritime provinces, because I have brought to the attention of the House the fact that in no place in the United States or in Canada are more universities supported
than in the Maritime provinces. Is anything being done on the experimental farms in the Maritime provinces to produce an apple which would take the place in the markets of Canada of just such fruit as we are discussing?


William Richard Motherwell: I had no idea of
referring to the university type of education.
I do not pretend to be an authority on that point, but our farm at Kentville is devoted almost exclusively to apple development. It was located in the Annapolis district, to pay particular attention to the new varieties of apples that would be adaptable to that particular valley.


James Dew Chaplin: Is the inspection of apples for export compulsory?


William Richard Motherwell: The grading?


James Dew Chaplin: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: You mean the
present inspection?


James Dew Chaplin: And grading
for export.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: Does the same apply to apples used for home consumption?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: A great deal
of improvement in the inspection is required. The money spent is wasted.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend
was listening to what I was endeavouring to say, this is the old method, adopted first-


James Dew Chaplin: Well, get a
new method.


William Richard Motherwell: The new method
is here.


James Dew Chaplin: Do not spend
so much money.


William Richard Motherwell: It consists of inspection at the shipping point, at the request of the shipper, for which he pays $5 a car. The next step will be the compulsory grading of fruit for export. That is the procedure we took in regard to dairy products and many other products, and we hope to take the same procedure with reference to fruit. You have to get the people familiarized with these changes; they will not adopt them all at once. You cannot change the methods which have been in use by people for fifty years. You must do it gradually.	'

Supply-Agriculture


James Dew Chaplin: You are starting at the wrong end. We had better inspect the products for home use. The present method shows the reason why hon. members cannot get good cheese in this House.


William Richard Motherwell: I hope my hon.
friend holds the same views with regard to the grading of eggs.


James Dew Chaplin: Does the minister refer to the Chinese variety?


William Richard Motherwell: They are all out
now.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: How many inspectors are there in Ontario, and what are they paid in the way of expenses and salaries?


William Richard Motherwell: There are twenty-six inspectors for the whole of Ontario, most of them, I understand, west of Toronto. The average salary is $1,600.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: With an average of about $1,000 for expenses.


William Richard Motherwell: Very often the expenses come to more than the salary in giving an inspection service. We have in our employ officers whose expenses come to more than their salaries.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I think the minister contradicted himself. In answer to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) he said that inspection was compulsory. A few minutes afterwards he said that it was optional or done on request.


William Richard Motherwell: That would seem to be contradictory. Grading by the packer, as he himself puts up his apples in the box) or barrel or whatever it is, is compulsory and has been for many years, but my hon. friend will realize that it is not a very good method. That is the method that has been practised for the last twenty years and while it is better than no method at all, inasmuch as the owner is partial to his own product, he is apt to overgrade it. We have adopted a new plan of giving governmental shipping-point inspection on application by the shipper. That is optional. It started in British Columbia and it has extended to the Niagara peninsula. It has not yet extended to the Maritime provinces as they have not asked for it. Very soon it should be made compulsory as the other method is not satisfactory.


Peter McGibbon: Is it not compulsory for export trade?


William Richard Motherwell: No. Very general use is being made of it in British Columbia.


George Eulas Foster: I am delighted to find that the minister is paying some attention to inspection. Does he not think an inspector of apples, once he has demonstrated over a period of years his usefulness in the field of inspection, ought to be left there from year to year provided that nothing happens in his career that is in violation of the 'law, or does he think he should be removed simply because in the performance of his duty he finds it necessary to take somebody into court and have a fine imposed upon him? If we are going to have inspectors removed from year to year for political reasons, or if because he brings into court somebody who has been favourable to the government in power, a political supporter or something of that sort, the inspector's scalp must be had forthwith and somebody else put in his place, I am sure the minister will agree that his inspection, however much he may desire it to be effective, will suffer very materially. I am asking if the minister does not concur in the general view that an inspector ought to remain if he has demonstrated his usefulness in that field.
Apropos of that I have in my hand the Auditor General's report for 1921, which is the last year the old government was in power, and I notice the names of a number of men whom I knew personally as being very effect ive in the matter of inspection of fruit in the Maritime provinces. I find that shortly after this government came into power those men were removed from their positions as inspectors and new men put into their place who had practically no knowledge
5 p,m. of the act and certainly no qualifications that were superior to those of the men whom they superseded except that they were supporters of the incoming government. In connection with the inspection of fruit inspectors are placed in a district remaining there for a number of years and learning the routine. I may tell the minister that these men were appointed in the years preceding 1921-not from a political standpoint, because we wished to have on the force men of both shades of politics. It was our view to get men who were familiar with the fruit industry and who had some common sense in the administration of the act and the regulations of the department. Those are exceedingly important qualifications, and we had men of that character, some of them returned soldiers. Some of these men have been let out of their positions and others brought in who certainly, so far as I am

Supply-Agriculture
aware, have no greater qualifications in the matter of the inspection of fruit. I draw this to the attention of the minister because he should have an eye single to the proper inspection of fruit. Fruit growing is an important industry in the province from which I come; on an average more than 1,500,000 barrels go to the Old Country annually from that part of the country. Whether or not the minister applies this terminal inspection he speaks about, to the Maritimes later on is a subject for consideration fend study; but while he is utilizing the system that he has now I feel sure that he ought to welcome some suggestions before changes are being made in the officer's who are to be employed for that purpose.
Is it the policy of the Department of Agriculture to grant special brands to certain apple growers in the Maritime provinces or any other part of Canada, and can the minister tell us to whom these special brands have been given?	[DOT]


William Richard Motherwell: In any grading
sjrstem we permit those who have built up a trade under a certain brand to use their brand, but they must put the government grade on the container, whatever it may be.
With regard to allocation of inspectors, when I took charge of this branch I found out that these inspectors were religiously allocated to the actual constituencies in Nova Scotia, each constituency's boundary being as religiously observed as if it were a provincial boundary. What had been in the past had to continue to be. An estimate was made of the total number of barrels of production in each county and on that basis inspectors were appointed. For instance Lunenburg got one inspector, Digby-Annapolis got four or five. Kings, which was separate then, got the most, because I think it was the largest producer. Hants got fewer, because its production was smaller. We observed that with religious regard, because we felt it was the practice. My recollection is that over all the constituencies there was an average reduction of two men. That is, a constituency that had seven in the old days would have the number reduced to five, and the numbers in the other constituencies would be reduced proportionately.
As regards moving the inspectors, there are always, of course, some chief inspectors whose duty it is to go about in an inspectional and educational way to see that the other inspectors are performing their duties properly. But my hon. friend knows that these inspectors, like all the others, are appointed by
the Civil Service Commission, and the commission also classifies them and sets their salaries. If my hon. friend will let me know how to get past the commission I shall be obliged, because sometimes I should like to have another way of making the appointments; but we have to regard the law. I believe the commission is doing its duty under the Civil Service Act, and if anyone has any complaint it must be against the act itself. We can and did make reductions in the number of inspectors in each of these ridings three or four years ago, but any new appointments were made by the commission. If some of these new appointees happen to be Liberals they never so reported to me; on the contrary, we have been constantly told that there are too many Tories in the service.


George Eulas Foster: I can tell the minister that he has been misinformed.


William Richard Motherwell: I am delighted to
find that it is not true.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Chairman, the minister referred just now to the fact that optional inspection at point of shipment has made considerable strides in British Columbia. I should like him to emphasize, if he will, that the cost falls on the grower. I think I am right in saying that the government ia entirely recouped for the cost of inspection.
Mr. MOTHERW'ELL:	That is right, $5
a car.


Grote Stirling: I think his deputy will
be ready to admit that the result to the public in the more perfect grading of the British Columbia fruit is extremely satisfactory-


William Richard Motherwell: Hear, hear.


Grote Stirling: -and that it is living up to the grade more truly year by year. The member for York-Sunbury a short time ago referred to the cost of shipping by express. That is a very sore point with the fruit shippers of British Columbia. The Board of Railway Commissioners held an inquiry two or three years ago, and we are still without their finding. I know the minister cannot answer for the doings of the railway commission, but could he assure us that his department has taken or will take steps to ascertain what is holding up the board's decision and when we are likely to receive it?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
our officers have been working on the freight and express rates for some time, and that we are supporting by every effort at our disposal the wishes and the interests of the fruit growers in British Columbia. There is no question
Supply-Agriculture

that both freight rates and express rates are very urgent matters with the British Columbia growers. I do not know whether or not my hon. friend was in his seat when I gave all credit to British Columbia for taking the initiative in shipping point inspection. I hope alb the rest of Canada will follow suit. My hon. friend probably noticed my reply to a series of questions put by another hon. member, that it is the policy of the government, as soon as any grading service is recognized to be of sufficient value to those getting the service, to make a charge for it. That is the general practice in Australia and New Zealand and it is very satisfactory. We find the growers in British Columbia are voluntarily coming forward and asking for this service. It is high time that it was applied to other fruits.


William Anderson Black: How many inspectors are there in Nova Scotia, and what salaries do they receive?


William Richard Motherwell: [DOT] I gave this information before, but possibly my hon. friend was not in his seat. There are fifteen inspectors, including the chief district inspector, Mr. Vroom. And by the way, for the benefit of the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Foster), here is one man who has been in that position as long as I can recall. I wish we had had the appointment of him, as my hon. friend intimates. The chief inspector gets $2,400, and the salaries of the other inspectors range from $1,600 to S1.9S0, depending upon their salary range; they start low and go up year by year.


William Anderson Black: What inspection
do those inspectors attend to during June and July, for instance?


William Richard Motherwell: Three are yearly
and the others are seasonal, extending over six or seven months, depending on whether the season opens early or late.


William Anderson Black: Those are paid
only for the six or seven months they work?


William Richard Motherwell: The salaries run
from $135 to $155 a month. They are all paid by the month. Three are on for the entire year, the others are engaged from six to seven months, depending on the season.


John Millar: Is any record kept of the
number of inspections made by each of the inspectors?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


William Anderson Black: What is the process of inspection at the point of shipment?


William Richard Motherwell: The people interested make application before the harvest, and we in turn make application to the Civil Service Commission so we will have the inspectors ready for the inspection of apples or whatever other fruit is being handled. Your fruit growers in the Annapolis valley would have to make known their wishes to the department well ahead of time.


William Anderson Black: What is the process of inspecting a carload of apples at the point of shipment?


William Richard Motherwell: I saw some apples being inspected at Halifax. The inspector knocked off the top and then loosened the staves, sometimes removing a stave, and inspected the apples by a sectional view that he thus obtained of the entire barrel. If the mark placed on the barrel by the grower is not accurate, the inspector marks the grade correctly. At the first inspection he examines about one barrel in every ten to get an idea of the quality of the carload. If the inspection discloses a poor grade he will examine more barrels. I suppose if he finds the apples sufficiently below grade, he does not mark the barrel at all. It depends upon how badly the apples are packed.


William Anderson Black: If that is the
process, I am not surprised that our apples arrive in the British market in very, very bad condition.
Mr. MOTIIERW'ELL: The Maritime apples are good apples, but they are not handled as well as are the products of orchards in other parts of Canada.


James Dew Chaplin: By the inspectors?


William Richard Motherwell: I hope the inspectors there are just as good as they are in any other part of the country.	.


William Anderson Black: I endorse what my hon. friend from Lincoln has said. It is extremely difficult to obtain a barrel of No. 1 apples in Halifax at any time of year. I do not know what the reason is, whether the inspectors are at fault or not. All I know is that we have to buy foreign fruit for quality.


William Richard Motherwell: This department is not growing fruit.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I understood the minister to say that the top of the barrel was taken off, that the hoops were removed or loosened, and a stave taken out. I am puzzled to know how you get the stave back.

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: If you spring the staves enough you can see into the barrel without taking it apart entirely. When you are opening a gate you do not need to push it the whole way. The staves of the barrel are loosened when some of the hoops are removed.


Thomas Cantley: But if you do not take
out any of the staves how can you examine the fruit, as the minister said the inspector did?


William Richard Motherwell: From the bottom you can look into the barrel.


Thomas Cantley: Would it not be better to inspect the fruit at the place of packing?


William Richard Motherwell: That is what is done now.


Thomas Cantley: The minister said before that the inspection was done on the pier at Halifax before shipment. Which statement is correct.


William Richard Motherwell: The optional inspection is done at the point of shipment, but the compulsory inspection by the owner which has long been in force takes place at the orchard. And as we are all more or less partial to our own there is a temptation to grade the fruit too high.


Thomas Cantley: But the minister told us that there was no compulsory inspection at all.


William Richard Motherwell: I merely used the wrong word; instead of inspection I should have said grading. The compulsory grading is done now, as it has been done for twenty years, right at the orchard, and it has not proved satisfactory. We have taken a step forward now, following British Columbia. They asked for shipping point inspection by the government and offered to pay for the service.


George Eulas Foster: The minister surely did not mean to say that in the process of inspecting a barrel of apples they would take a stave out, because that is an utter impossibility. They take the top hoops off and the head out and turn the barrel upside down, letting the fruit roll out, but it is impossible to take a stave out and put it back after they have inspected the contents.


William Richard Motherwell: Possibly I did not make myself heard. If you take some of the hoops off can you not spring the staves, and so see nearly to the bottom of the barrel?


George Eulas Foster: I refer to this matter for the minister's own sake. If any of the people who know anything about apples should happen to read in Hansard what the minister has said, they would have a poorer opinion of this discussion than they would otherwise form. I merely want to save the minister embarrassment. However, the point I want to bring to the minister's attention is this: I asked him a moment ago a question to which he replied rather cursorily regarding the use of brands. There are certain growers who apply to some department or branch of the government in Ottawa and obtain the privilege of using a particular brand on their barrels. I have in mind the case of a grower who uses the Mayflower brand, and not only on barrels in which are packed apples grown in the grower's own orchard, but on barrels containing apples produced in other parts of the country that brand appears. The growers farm out the privilege of using that particular brand, allowing various producers throughout the country to make use of it at five, seven or ten cents per barrel. Why cannot each grower apply to the proper authorities in Ottawa for permission to use a brand of his own? If the grading 1, 2, 3, or (a), (b) and so on, whatever the nomenclature employed, is to be supplemented by a particular brand called the Mayflower or anything else you like, why should the privilege be restricted to one or two people who happen to be supporters of this administration and who farm the brand out at so much per barrel?


William Richard Motherwell: I have already explained that when we introduced the grading system we allowed private growers who had built up a trade under a certain brand to continue the use of that brand, with which their customers had become familiar. And it would be a hardship to prevent them from so distinguishing their apples or other fruit. It does no one any harm and does them good. They may have the brand patented, but with that we have nothing to do. We merely give the grower permission to stamp the grade on the barrel. As to the barrel itself, the suggestion is made that it would do merely to take the top off. That is not sufficient, for it would reveal only the top layer. You must do more than that. I do not dispute my hon. friend's knowledge of barrels in general and their contents, but I persist that, if you take the hoops off, the staves will come out.


George Eulas Foster: The minister does not
appreciate the point I am making, and I shall have to be specific. A certain grower
Supply-A griculture

m
is using the Mayflower brand, and that brand appears on barrels in which are packed not only the apples grown in his own orchard, but apples produced by other growers in various places, the packing of which he does not see, and the inspection of which he knows nothing about. The use of that brand undoubtedly enhances the price of all such apples; otherwise these various growers would not pay for the privilege of using it. I want to know why the same privilege should not be extended to every grower in Nova Scotia.


William Richard Motherwell: The use of the
brand is something over which we have no authority. We simply give permission to the growers to specify the grading provided under the act, and if they want to supplement that by the use of a particular brand they are at liberty to do so.


George Eulas Foster: Does the department grant to some growers the privilege of using a brand, and withhold it from others?


William Richard Motherwell: No; we would not do anything like that.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: What are the names of the inspectors in the Niagara peninsula? While that information is being looked up I want to know what action has been taken in assisting fruit growers in that section of the country in the marketing of small fruits to distant points in summer. Growers in that part of the country have no refrigerator accommodation for the shipment of small fruit to Montreal or northern Ontario, so that they find it almost impossible to place their produce on those markets in good condition. They have not been able to get that accommodation from the railways.


William Richard Motherwell: The Grimsby plant does a very extensive icing business, manufacturing their own ice for the preservation of perishable fruit. Possibly there is not sufficient ice available for the entire service, however. This is a matter that does not come under my department; it pertains to the railway service and might be taken up in the consideration of the express problem. The question might be looked into of providing adequate refrigerator service to meet the requirements of early harvest shipments when there is a rush. By putting it in storage at that Grimsby plant, the marketing season is strung out, and that glut of the market of which my hon. friend complains is avoided.


Robert King Anderson: I was concerned more particularly with the fruit growers in my own constituency who are not near

Grimsby, and who ship their small fruits to Toronto, Montreal and northern Ontario. They have no facilities whatever for chilling their fruit before it is shipped, and they have made application to the railways. I was wondering if the minister could not assist them in making some provision for refrigerator cars to take their fruit to the cities. They are not near Grimsby at all, and have no facilities for chilling.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a certain
service being supplied to take the place of that. Tests are being continued in the value of using fans to accelerate circulation, in loaded refrigerators, of berries, an alternative to pre-cooling where facilities are not available. The results depend greatly on the shippers' readiness to adapt their deliveries and loading practices.
The blower ventilated express cars for fruit developed by the Canadian National Railways with our co-operation in 1924 were again in service in the past season with minor improvements. This is perhaps the greatest advance in equipment of recent years, affecting as it does a heavy volume in carlots over the Canadian National railway throughout Ontario as far east as Halifax and west to Port Arthur and Winnipeg. These cars were introduced into British Columbia also this past season, and proved popular with tender fruit shippers in the Fraser valley to Edmonton and beyond. An indirect benefit is that the Dominion Express Company are develop-inw a new car along the same lines for their blower ventilated services in the west.
Apparently the requirements of the trade have gone far beyond the icing facilities, and this method has been adopted.


Robert King Anderson: Has the minister any description of this car?


William Richard Motherwell: No, and I have not seen it at work, but it is giving pretty satisfactory results, and they are continuing to use it.


Robert King Anderson: I would like
to have the names of the inspectors in that section of Wentworth and Halton between Hamilton and Toronto.


William Richard Motherwell: The three inspectors for that district are J. F. Carpenter, Fruitland, Ontario; J. E. Jarvis, Burlington, Ontario, and H. C. Sheppard, Queenston, Ontario.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: How much is being spent at Leamington for the establishment of this

Supply-Agriculture
warehouse for the storage of onions? When was the warehouse started, or has it been started yet?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
$19,000 has been spent on it, but I have not the information with me as that comes under Public Works. I understand that a similar expenditure is being made at Erie. The warehouse at Leamington is now finished, but the season for using it is past, so far as this year is concerned, but it will be ready for use in the coming season.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: At whose request was it
built?


William Richard Motherwell: At the request of
the co-operative association-I forget its exact name-of the onion growers of that district. A deputation came here and interviewed us with regard to the building of an onion storage warehouse.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: When did it become
necessary to have onion storage?


William Richard Motherwell: I think it has been necessary all along. The same thing has been adopted just recently in the United States, with very beneficial results. The onion is far more difficult to store and preserve than possibly any other vegetable. It has to be well dried and kept in a cool place, with the temperature as low as possible so long as it does not freeze. The onions have to be kept in crates or racks, where they will be cool and dry. In Massachusetts and other states where they grow onions they have established onion warehouses for taking care of the onions during the rush period, rather than putting the whole crop on the market at once.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Will the growers of the
onions be charged for storage of their onions?


William Richard Motherwell: I would think so Perhaps there will be a small storage fee, as there is in connection with our grain storage elevators. That point has not been taken up with the growers' association yet, but that is the intention.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: What was the value of the onions we imported last year?


William Richard Motherwell: I cannot say what the importations were from all countries but we imported! over 6,000 cases, or about four or five carloads, from Bermuda.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: That is in 1925?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Have the imports been
growing from year to year?


William Richard Motherwell: Our imports from
Bermuda have been falling as our own production has increased.


Robert King Anderson: What success have the dehydrating plants had?


William Richard Motherwell: We have a special
vote for dehydrating, which we shall come to later. There was some criticism in some quarters of the House last year as to continuing that vote indefinitely, but now that a commercial plant has been started in the Annapolis valley this year, somewhere beyond Kentville, the vote is slightly reduced. The plant I understand is succeeding very well, particularly for the first year. There are also one or two smaller plants in the Okanagan valley. We are continuing the dehydrating experiments.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I take it that under
this vote provision is made for the salaries of fruit inspectors. Would the minister tell us whether these inspectors have fixed localities within which they do their work, or do they travel from county to county, or from province to province?


William Richard Motherwell: The chief inspector travels from place to .place supervising the work done by the other inspectors. He has his headquarters, and operates in the territory tributary to it. The other inspectors travel within their respective districts. In the Mari-times, as I mentioned a while ago, all but the chief inspector stay within the limits of their several districts. I do not think the inspectors are quite as strictly circumscribed in Ontario, because there the orchards are more scattered and consequently the activities of the inspector extend over a greater area. Speaking generally they work within a certain radius. The chief inspector, of course, travels about a great deal more.


George Brecken Nicholson: How are these inspectors paid? Upon what basis is their remuneration fixed?


William Richard Motherwell: The Civil Service
Commission sets the scale, which ranges from $135 to $150 a month. When they are employed by the year the salary is on a graduated scale, providing for a certain increase until they attain the maximum.


George Brecken Nicholson: Does the Civil Service Commission fix the rate allowed for expenses also, or must the inspectors pay their own expenses?


William Richard Motherwell: The Civil Service
Commission, thank God, have only to do with

Supply-Agriculture

the making of appointments and the classification, which involves, of course, the salary. They do not pretend to go so far as to fix the expenses.


George Brecken Nicholson: My reason for asking the question is because I find that in very many cases the expense account of these fruit inspectors is practically equal to the salary which they receive.


William Richard Motherwell: I know cases where the expenses are more.


George Brecken Nicholson: That is the point. If the inspector is appointed for a specific location and does not have to pay for a great deal of railway transportation, how is the expense account made up?


William Richard Motherwell: He can spend a
great deal in motor car service.


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, of course, we all can do that.


William Richard Motherwell: We keep a pretty
close check of their expenses.


James Dew Chaplin: Do they provide luncheons for people?


Thomas Cantley: I understood the minister to say that the forms of inspection were carried out religiously. Will he inform the committee who officiates on those occasions?


Mr. HARRIS:: Will the minister be good
enough to tell us what the functions of the Canadian Horticultural Council are? A grant to this body has been appearing in the estimates for several years. Will the minister also tell us something about the activities of the National Dairy Council? If the Chairman holds that I am wandering from the subject, let me remind him that an understanding was reached that we could discuss other items in connection with this particular vote.


William Richard Motherwell: The Horticultural
council is an organization consisting of provincial representatives whose duty it is to look after the interests of the fruit and vegetable growers of Canada. The names of those representatives are as follows:
President, E. B. Luke.
New Brunswick, W. W. Hubbard.
Nova Scotia, F. W. Bishop.
Quebec, J. H. Lavoie.
Ontario. Colonel Roberts. C. W. Baxter.
Manitoba, Professor Broderick.
Alberta, H. C. Stockton.
Saskatchewan, Dr. Patterson.
British Columbia, J. T. Mutrie, L. E. Taytos.
Secretary, Mr. Burrows.
	.
The organization makes representations when questions arise with respect to the interests of the fruit and vegetable growers on the British market. This sometimes happens. For instance it occurred in connection with the sittings of the Imperial Marketing Committee. On such occasions the organization make representations to the federal government, or whatever government may be concerned, on behalf of those whom they represent, whether it be touching freight rates, express rates, or marketing on the other side; or it may be questions affecting grading or inspection in this country. The council has adopted a system for registering new vegetables, or new plants or fruit, that may be developed by any specialist. This is the first time such a system has been adopted in this country, or for that matter on this continent. If we have a Burbank in Canada, and we have such an authority, his discoveries are recorded and registered just as carefully as the pedigrees of live stock. Take the case of the Miclntosh apple, for example. That discovery was a great find not only for Ontario but for Canada as a whole. Such developments as that are registered by this organization. We have made a start in a very important work, the tendency of which is to encourage investigations in the field of scientific research in connection with new varieties of fruits and vegetables.


Joseph Henry Harris: The minister spoke about
the secretary of this organization. Where is his office?


William Richard Motherwell: In Ottawa. Mr. Burrows used to be a member of the Fruit branch but he resigned that office and now has charge of this work.


Joseph Henry Harris: I wish to make one or two observations in connection with this vote. First of all I should like to allude to the many branches which are springing into existence in the Department of Agriculture. Any hon. gentleman who examines the estimates will find grants of various kinds for many different institutions. Now, I think the committee will support me in the statement that some of these merely serve the purpose of establishing some secretary in an office, either here in Ottawa or elsewhere, and about all he does is to draw his salary, draw his breath, and make sure that the government will place a sufficient amount in the estimates each year to maintain the organization alive. In the next place I wish the minister to give us some additional information in regard to the National Dairy Council. In that connection he will perhaps explain why the department

Sup-ply-Agriculture
have seen fit to raise the grant to this organization from $3,000 to $5,000. Who comprise the National Dairy Council; where do they get their funds, where is their office, if they have one; who is the secretary; why does his name not appear in the telephone directory of this city, seeing that he is supposed to be located in Ottawa; and what functions does the organization perform of such general advantage to Canada that the department thinks an increase of $2,000 is necessary?


William Richard Motherwell: The committee will recall that I gave a specific assurance to the hon. member for Victoria and the right hon. leader of the opposition that opportunity would be given to review the dairy vote fully in connection with the live stock vote. I do not think we should mix up other matters with the present vote.


James Dew Chaplin: That was not
the understanding. The understanding was that we could refer to this matter again on any particular vote that would come up.


William Richard Motherwell: All right, but I
wished the hon. member for Victoria to recall the understanding. It is quite possible that some hon. members are not present who wanted to hear the remainder of the discussion in question, and that they are under the impression it will take place in connection with the live stock vote.
With regard to the Horticultural council, if my hon. friend (Mr. Harris) will look up the estimates of three or four years ago, or any year prior to last year, he will find that a lot of these special votes were included under the heading "Miscellaneous" at the end of the estimates. I think last year was the first year in which it was incorporated in the general vote. Instead of there being more of this class of vote than there was three or four years ago, there is very much less. There was almost an interminable list of all kinds of grants and votes at the end of the estimates that went through in the early hours of the morning with no discussion at all. That was sometimes very convenient; perhaps it would be better if we had them there at present. Some of them are- eliminated altogether, while others are included in the vote that was nearest to the objective of the special vote. For instance, the Dairy council vote was hooked up with the dairy vote. The Horticultural council vote was hooked up with the fruit vote, as being allied to it. Now, instead of being an extra expense, it can be seen that that expense is taken out of the general vote, 14011-U2i
and not added to it by a supplemental amount at the end of the estimates. It is more apt to cause some discussion where it is, and if that is desired then it is better where it is. If you want no discussion, put it back where it was; it will cost the country that much more, and it will not be noticed, because there is very seldom any discussion of it. Both these organizations are doing very useful work. It is not at all as if the purpose were to provide salaries for this man, that man or the other. Mr. Burrows could have remained where he was if he desired, but he preferred to go to the other organization, and they are laying a foundation for work of the nature I have described, which has never before been initiated, certainly not in Canada, and very seldom in the United States.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister
says that if you look back in the estimates you will find certain things; you will find that one vote takes in a whole lot of others. I have my hands on the estimates of 1924-25. I find that each individual item in the agricultural vote, beginning with the item No. 40 and running down to 54, is identically the same, and I cannot find the item he refers to.


William Richard Motherwell: Docs the fruit vote
include the Horticultural council?


James Dew Chaplin: No, the fruit
vote is there.


William Richard Motherwell: The Horticultural
council vote is in the back of the estimates, under Miscellaneous.


James Dew Chaplin: What page is
that?


William Richard Motherwell: I have not the page before me. I shall be glad to supply the information.


James Dew Chaplin: The vote for
1924-25 is $5,850,000, without the supplemen-taries he speaks of; so that the amount is there anyway. If there is anything extra the minister is not telling .us exactly the truth.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
should not say that until he assures himself what the estimates are. I have not all the estimates before me, but I have a faint recollection-[DOT]


James Dew Chaplin: I have under
my hand the estimates of 1924-25. The total amounts to $5,850,000 and the year before, $17,119,000. without the item to which the minister refers. Now he says if you add the other items you will have far more.
Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: Does the hon. member mean to say that a small item like that would determine the total?


James Dew Chaplin: The minister
told us a few minutes ago that all these items added together would amount to a considerable sum.


William Richard Motherwell: The fact that my
hon. friend cannot find that item there is evidence that what I said is correct. Neither the Canadian Horticultural Council nor the National Dairy Council vote was hooked up with the main agricultural vote. Neither of these votes was included in the main estimates prior to last year. Look under Miscellaneous and see if it is not there. I do not carry these matters in my mind for years. I say those votes were there and I do not know how long they have been there. They were there long before I had anything to do with them, but I am not excusing myself on that account; I have been pleased to continue them. I think these organizations are doing good work.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not find
them under Agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, under Miscellaneous.


Joseph Henry Harris: The vote for this Canadian Horticultural Council, true enough, is in the 1925-26 estimates under Agriculture, and the minister tells us it was not under that item in 1924-25, that it was under Miscellaneous. But we also note that the total vote asked for under the agricultural estimates for last year was increased by 118,000, the $8,COO, I presume, being accounted for by the transfer of that estimate to general Agricultural vote. It was not absorbed, as the minister was wont to let this committee understand, by the general vote.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: Well, there is the record
in the 1925-26 estimates.


William Richard Motherwell: What about the
reduction this year of over 890,000?


Joseph Henry Harris: There is an increase of $18,000 on that particular vote, and for the minister to tell the committee that he is absorbing all this grant in his general estimates, or the one that is next of kin to the grant, is all humbug.


William Richard Motherwell: I know how these
estimates were got up; I know we are absorbing these items and I know it is ques-
IMr. Chaplin.]
tionable whether we should absorb them It is just making the vote for horticulture and fruit that much less. We had our vote exclusive of these two items prior to last year; so that by eliminating a lot of the miscellaneous grants my hon. friend refers to and hooking them up with the main vote, we do economize to that extent-not in service, but in the amount of money expended under that vote.


Joseph Henry Harris: I should like to make an
observation with regard to the minister's economy. The vote in 1924-25 for this very item was $182,000, and for 1925-26 it was $200,000, an increase of $18,000. The vote we are asked to pass in this committee at this stage is also $200,000. If the minister could tell us how he is economizing by increasing this vote from $182,000 to $200,000, and also substantiate the statement he made a moment ago that his policy is to absorb as much as possible these grants in the general estimates, he will be doing a service to the committee.


William Richard Motherwell: It is absorbed.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I understand that the manufacturers of grape wine receive a rebate on their importations of sugar from outside points when the sugar is used in the manufacture of wine. Out in British Columbia we have created a very important industry known as the loganberry industry. The longanberry grows very well in that country, yields heavily to the acre and is a good revenue producer to the farmer. In view of the fact that there is a large and developing market for wine made from loganberries we are shipping wine across the Pacific to China and Japan, where a taste is being created for it in addition to the good work it is doing in British Columbia and other parts of Canada, has the rebate which has been enjoyei by the grape wine producers been extended to the loganberry producers on these shipments?


William Richard Motherwell: I am sure I do
not know. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is not present. I will inquire.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In regard to the marks
that are placed on cars of fruit inspected for export, is any government mark placed on those particular shipments to indicate that they have passed inspection?


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon
friend mean on the car itself?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No, on the packages.

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: It will be marked
on the shipping bill, and the cars themselves are sealed like most other cars. I understand there is a special stamp for the packages in addition to the mark on the shipping bill.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the legend?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is it the usual one used
on bacon?


William Richard Motherwell: It will not be
"Canada approved" I suppose, but it will be much the same, indicative of government inspection.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I would suggest to the
minister-and I have recommended this on one or two previous occasions-that just as quickly as we can standardize these products of ours for export we should adopt a standard stamp for all of them, indicating their quality and that they are Canadian products.


William Richard Motherwell: In the two recent
conferences we have had regarding butter and cheese boxes it has been decided that the word "Canada" shall be conspiciously displayed on all containers.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to ask the minister what grades of apples are most popular in the British market.


William Richard Motherwell: Replying to a
question put by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) before dinner, I am informed that the total export of apples has remained almost stationary at about two million barrels per annum. There was a five per cent decrease this year, due largely, I think, to the very early frost of last October that rendered a lot of Ontario apples useless for export. As to the most papular grade in the British market, as a rule the people in the Old Country prefer the high grade apples of British Columbia. But I do not want to be misunderstood with regard to Nova Scotia apples; if they were as well taken care of in the process of packing as those of British Columbia and received shipping point inspection, I think they would! regain their past reputation. Unfortunately, there is a little carelessness in
packing practised by some exporters with the hope of "getting away" with it. In fact, whether it be wheat, apples, or any other commodity, there is a disposition to try to get past the official grader with something that is not quite up to grade. Therefore, all grading has to be done very carefully. To the extent that exporters are careless in maintaining their grades they tend to destroy whatever reputation their commodity may have on the British market.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Does the minister include
boxes among the barrels he quoted?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, the total export is reduced to terms of barrels.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I understand the minister
to say that No. 1 apples are in greater demand than No. 2.


William Richard Motherwell: That is my information.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Do the higher priced No.
1 apples meet the demand of the poorer class of consumers?


William Richard Motherwell: I would not think
so, for very frequently they buy the cheaper artide. That is the reason why sometimes they prefer a mixed lot, for it enables the parents of large families to distribute a small apple to each child.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I understand that in Scotch families, which are usually large, they prefer the No. 2 grade because the smaller size gives them a greater number of apples, which enables the parents to distribute an apple apiece among their children. What measures are being taken by the government to advertise our agricultural products in reat Britain? With the high tariff in the United States, the Old Country affords us our principal opportunity to sell our surplus, and I think it is very necessary to bring to the attention of the British people the fine quality of our bacon, ham, fruit, dairy products, and so forth, the better to enable us to compete with our sister dominions and with Denmark, Holland and other countries. What is being done in this "direction, or is it left entirely to private enterprise?


William Richard Motherwell: We have various
ways of advertising our products. The Canadian Fruit Show that has been -held in England annually for the last four years has helped to advertise our apples, and we advertise in two or three British publications. But I think we got the best advertising results with the least expenditure of money at a
Supply-Agriculture

dinner in the Hotel Cecil, held under the auspices of our agricultural representative in Great Britain. All the courses consisted of Canadian-grown products, and as the two or three hundred guests were leaving-


Mr. DUNNING:: What about the wine?


William Richard Motherwell: If I remember
rightly it was Ontario wine, but I do not know whether that would satisfy the British taste. Anyway, they smoked our Canadian cigars. As the guests were leaving, each was given a hamper with samples of all those Canadian-*grown products. These hampers they took home to their wives, sisters or sweethearts, as the case might be, and the advertising effect was excellent. As a matter of fact we got a number of unsolicited compliments on its effectiveness. During the Wembley exhibition we had our products placed on the menu cards of the restaurants within the exhibition grounds, and of those throughout London operated by the Lyons Company.


Peter McGibbon: Wlhat brands of liquid
refreshments did they dispense?


William Richard Motherwell: It has been suggested that the native wines of Ontario were given the place of honour.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I am glad to hear that the minister has adopted this method of bringing our Canadian products before the people of Great Britain. He has said something about sweethearts. I do not know of any better way of winning sweethearts in England than by tempting them with a few Okanagan apples. What periodicals or newspapers does the department advertise in, and to what extent?


William Richard Motherwell: We have some
small advertisements in Canada, The Canadian Export Pioneer, and we also advertise in the Canadian Gazette. Of course, advertising in newspapers cannot compare with the advertising that our producers get by delivering the goods, and in any case it is rather an expensive business carrying advertisements on any large scale in magazines and* periodicals. Our cheese was exceedingly well advertised at Wembley through the menu cards of the restaurants, and especially through the Lyons Company, for almost a year. Its reputation has been so enhanced as to be almost at its pre-war eminence.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Now that the Wembley
exhibition is over, does the department intend to exhibit at the Royal Show in Great Britain?


William Richard Motherwell: That, I understand, is a perambulating affair.


Charles Avery Dunning: The show is held in a different place each year.


William Richard Motherwell: W'hile it is important that we should be advertised at these fairs, we must at the same time be governed by the amount of money at our disposal. We exhibit at the London dairy show, which embraces not only dairy products proper but bacon, eggs and so on.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I am glad that the minister intends to continue advertising in this way. There is this point to be emphasized however: if we are going to exhibit our products in Great Britain we should see to it that they are equal to or, preferably, better than those shown by the other dominions. On one occasion when I was in the Old Country I noticed at the Royal Show that while Canada's exhibit did not convey anything like an adequate idea of what this country could produce, South Africa had a wonderful display which attracted considerable attention and which was crowded all the time. Such an exhibit as ours in competition with the magnificent exhibits of South Africa and Australia can only do us harm rather than good. If we are going to exhibit at all we should do it fairly well.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right. Our Toronto packers, I am pleased to say, for the last two years in succession have taken the highest award in bacon.


Donald Sutherland: I
understand that year before last representations were made to the minister regarding the necessity for standardizing turnips. This is an important product in my section. I believe that a number of inspections were made with the idea of arriving at some standard rules to govern the grading of this vegetable. Has anything been done in that direction?


William Richard Motherwell: I have no recollection of the matter.


Donald Sutherland: Perhaps the minister will recall it if I read a brief paragraph from his report ending March 31, 1925:
A service along the above lines, but for educational purposes, by our regular staff, was provided as an experiment on request of the Ontario Turnip Shippers' Association to cover some forty-two loading stations in western Ontario. Five inspectors were detailed for this work making inspections of some 460 cars. The inspections were made on the basis of tentative grades, approved by the Ontario Turnip Growers' Association and the department, and may provide a basis for re-

Supply-Agriculture
commending legislation in the near future as the industry feels the necessity for standardization in order to compete successfully with graded stock, particularly on the United States market.


William Richard Motherwell: I remember now.
It was not an official grading, the arrangement having been made between the vegetable growers themselves. There is no official grading of turnips, but it frequently happens that a practice initiated by producers themselves in a small way like this leads up to official action. The same process is taking place in connection with the exporting of honey. No recognized grades of honey have been established, but the beekeepers have decided upon certain grades of their own and the system is assuming such importance as will probably warrant our taking cognizance of it and providing for a grade under which this com-, modity may be placed on a foreign market.


Donald Sutherland: Nothing has been done yet?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Grote Stirling: What progress has been
made by the British Economic Committee in the matter of fruit?


William Richard Motherwell: A voluminous report has been submitted on the subject. Mr. Forsythe Smith, with the assistance of one or two others, has prepared some 200 odd pages *which he expects to have ready for the public at any moment. We have some confidential advance information with reference to the subject but I think that possibly it would be better not to give it at present.


Grote Stirling: Does the minister understand that the British government has made no progress in relation to the grant which was supposed to be given towards marketing?


William Richard Motherwell: 
Grote Stirling: That is not for fruit
only.


William Richard Motherwell: It is intended to
include dairy products. We shall have a representative over there assisting Mr. Forsythe Smith and working in conjunction with the others as Mr. McOuat did in connection with the meat report.


Mr. CHURCH:: I have read a good deal
of the debates that have taken place on this item in the past three or four years and I have come to the conclusion that the minister has lost track of the main thing in giving the fruit growers adequate protection. Representing a constituency in the Toronto district which is near the Niagara peninsula,
I have been amazed to see how little has been done to safeguard the fruit industry and to stimulate the production of our own fruits and vegetables. I do not know of any country in the world where Providence has done so much and man so little to develop this industry. Our lack of a national policy herein is deplorable. What does the minister propose to do to protect this industry? Nothing. A return that was brought down last year, and which will be found in Hansard, shows the tremendous amount of fruit and vegetables that is imported into this country and the extent to which there is dumping of American fruits. The amount is perfectly staggering; it has ruined our own fruit farms. This industry up to a few years ago used to provide work for a good many people in this country; it used to be one of our basic agricultural industries in Ontario, but to-day it is withering away. In two or three seasons throughout the year we have large importations of tropical fruits, which works to the disadvantage of our own producers. In all the large departmental stores in the large cities and towns of this country you will find piles of American fruit which has been imported into Canada at a- great loss to our own fruit growers. Many of the fruit farms in the district from which I come have been sold. The industry has decayed, and you cannot put it on its feet unless the government provides proper cold storage facilities and adequate safeguarding legislation. Saskatchewan may have become the Washington of the north, the centre of gravity as it were, temporarily for Canada; but what does the minister propose to do during the next twelve months to protect this industry, which is now dying away so far as the province of Ontario is concerned? It is not like it was twenty-five years ago, simply because of the absence of a definite national policy on the part of this government; there is no vision. Years ago boats plied on all the Great Lakes carrying for a very few cents per one hundred pounds fruit that had been grown in the Toronto-Niagara district, but to-day there is a steamship monopoly on the Great Lakes, and it is going to interfere seriously with the fruit growing industry in the Niagara district. A combine and monopoly exists.
Now, what about the consumer? It is proposed to spend a few hundred thousand dollars again this year the same as last, to pay the salaries of a large number of officials,
Supply-Agriculture

but what does the government propose to do to protect this industry in all the provinces? Take the apple industry, for instance. Where is that industry to-day? Years ago you could go into a store and buy apples by the peck or by the bag for a very low price, but to-day they are charging the working classes in my district five and seven cents for just one apple, while we appoint paper commissions on the tariff to kill time; the government is spending in this vote tqp much money on overhead. Look what Ohio, New York, Indiana and Michigan are doing to protect the fruit industry there. Ohio is a state with 10,000,000 of people, about the size of Canada, and the state legislature has put this industry on its feet, with the result that all through the summer on lakes Erie and Ontario steamers are plying across the lake loaded with American fruit and vegetables from that state, and landed at Port Stanley and other points on lake Ontario. What sort of national policy is this government going to evolve to protect the fruit industry in this country, to prevent the invasion of Canada by American products, to prevent this country from becoming the happy hunting ground for all the Yankee fruit growers on the North American continent while the policy of drift continues? It is the Americans who are getting the cream of the Canadian business in fruit and vegetables. What does the government propose to do in the next twelve months to safeguard the fruit industry in Canada from coast to coast, and this industry in particular?


William Richard Motherwell: I think I would be usurping the functions of the new advisory tariff board if 1 were to take this matter up. I would, therefore, suggest that we leave it to the board which has been constituted, and which will possibly be functioning within a few days. It is not within my province to announce a national policy with respect to the tariff. We will be advised on the tariff by the board that has recently been appointed, and I cannot predict what they will or will not do, but doubtless all these arguments that are being advanced by my hon. friend will be taken into consideration by the board.


Thomas Langton Church: As a result of the lack of a policy on the part of the government on this question, the mass production of the United States in fruit and vegetables is being brought across the border in motor trucks from Buffalo and the Yankees are getting the cream of the business and using Canada as 
a dumping yard. That is what happens under the absence of any sensible policy of this government, and it is no wonder the Americans are finding Canada a happy hunting ground and are grabbing everything so far as this industry is concerned while all we do is talk about useless tariff commissions.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister a moment ago hid behind what he called the new advisory tariff board. I wish to make just one remark, Mr. Chairman, and it is that the order in council appointing this new board never said one word about "advisory". No such word is used in it at all, but we have heard tke word used by the Prime Minister and now by the Minister of Agriculture. This board is not advisory at all; it is simply tader the dictation of the Minister of Finance.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon.
friend is wrong. He will find that the regulations indicate the advisory character of the board.


Peter McGibbon: It would be appropriate
if the minister at this time would tell us what he and his department have been doing to facilitate the marketing of the products of the farms of Canada. There is no question that that is the great problem before this country. There has been plenty of evidence this afternoon to show that the spread between the producer and the consumer is enormous, and it is the duty of this department and of the government to reduce that spread so that the producer will get a larger share of the ultimate price paid for his product. If there is one thing which this government ought to do but which they are not doing, it is to help the farmers of this country market their products in such a way that they will get greater remuneration for their products. I would ask the minister what his department is doing along that line.


William Richard Motherwell: We have been on
that very question all day. Was my hon. friend not in? Anything that will help to improve the quality of an article will help to market it. It is clearly understood that anything that is well bought is half sold; anj'thing of high quality will help to sell itself. If we see that the product is properly graded and put on the market in the" proper way. especially the article for export, which determines our reputation abroad, that naturally assists in the marketing of the product. I do not know what my hon. friend had particularly in mind. Was it transportation?

Supply-A gricul ture


Peter McGibbon: I have in mind the fact that the ultimate price paid for the article should go into the pockets of the producer, not into the pockets of the middleman, as it is going to-day, and I think the minister and his department are asleep in that respect. The profits are going to the middleman, not to the man who is producing the article. The minister has been asleep for the last five years, and has not yet wakened up to that fact.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, oh.


Peter McGibbon: The minister says "Oh,
oh." I leave it to the producer of agricultural products to say whether or not I am right. Why, we have had this very day proof of the enormous prices that have been paid for commodities-apples, for instance-by the consumer. Those profits are not going into the pockets of the producer. Yet this government is unconscious of the duty it owes to the producers of this country, and of the necessity of enunciating a policy which will ensure to the producer a greater share of the profits which are now being enjoyed by the middleman.


William Richard Motherwell: I presume that what my hon. friend has now in mind is the cooperative marketing of farm products?


Peter McGibbon: Yes, it is one of the
things.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, if my hon.
friend knew the history of that movement he would know that no province has done so much in that respect as Saskatchewan. That is essentially a provincial matter.


Peter McGibbon: I am talking about the
responsibility of this government, not about the responsibilities of the provinces.


William Richard Motherwell: We are talking about the government that has to do with cooperative marketing, and that is essentially a provincial matter. That may not have been drawn to my hon. friend's attention. During the time I had the honour to act in a provincial capacity the foundation was laid for those co-operative activities that are today the largest of their kind, not only on this continent but in the entire world. My hon. friends think I should follow the provincial activities into the federal field. I am afraid that in some respects we are doing that now We have been trying to draw the line of demarcation between provincial and federal activities, leaving the production and the educational branches, if you can call them so, to the provinces, while the federal authority
takes care of the grading, the marketing, the care of the health of animals and like matters. It is not an easy thing to draw the line, because these various activities overlap in spite of us. We have been working harmoniously,
I think, with every province in that respect. In no part of Canada do we do as much work that is really provincial as we do in the maritime provinces. In Ontario I have been in communication with the Hon. John Martin, by correspondence and otherwise, about some work we have been doing in connection with the testing of cattle for butter fat, there being a general disposition as 'between the federal department and the provincial government to keep the line of demarcation between the respective jurisdictions. It is admitted that as the work of co-operative marketing develops we shall derive very beneficial results. But what would my hon. friends have the federal government do in the matter? Open wholesale or retail houses, and out out all the middlemen? How would my hon. friend himself proceed?


Peter McGibbon: I would not hide behind the provinces and get rid of responsibility in that way. I would take hold of my department and run it so that the consumer would get the benefit of the policies which I inaugurated.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, well, that is a little bit of grandstand play.


Peter McGibbon: The minister is an
adept at that himself; if there is anyone in the House who surpasses all others in grandstand play it is the minister.


William Richard Motherwell: When I was in
the Saskatchewan legislature, for the first time in the history of any province estimates were introduced for the purchase of cream, provision being made that the treasury should be recouped.


Donald Sutherland: That is not fruit.


William Richard Motherwell: I am talking about co-operative marketing. I am not averse to learning from any source. I am prepared to accept information from my hon. friend or anyone else; that is the way I learn. But I would remind my hon. friend that he cannot tack such a thing on to the federal department because we would be exceeding our prerogative if we undertook work of that nature.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you do that
when you established the wheat board?
Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: We have the market prices broadcast to the farmers by radio. We have a regular marketing branch to give the farmers information as to the condition of the markets so that they will know when they go to those markets that they are getting full value for their products.


Peter McGibbon: They could get it
through the daily newspapers.


William Richard Motherwell: Let me be quite
candid: I am not at all averse to getting all the information I can as to how to improve my department. I would be delighted to get information from any source whereby we would be able to narrow that spread my hon. friend speaks of. I can recall that before my hon. friend entered this House I brought down a bill with respect to the establishment of cold storage plants, expressly for the purpose of developing the spirit of co-operation and encouraging co-operative salesmanship among our farmers. What kind of reception did that bill get from the associates of my hon. friend? What kind of reception did it get in the Senate after hon. members had hammered the life out of it here? The bill got through here but it did not get through the Senate. It was so badly mutilated there that it was no good and I had to abandon it. So my hon. friend should know a little bit about the history of these matters before he gets up and proclaims from the housetop how the federal department should exercise provincial prerogatives without ai the same time invading the provincial field. If my hon. friend has any suggestions to make as to work that will come within my jurisdiction I shall be delighted to welcome them, because there is no doubt there is a spread. But my hon. friend wants to narrow the spread by increasing the duties. He says that by making products dearer you are going to narrow the spread.


Peter McGibbon: No, I want to narrow
the spread by cutting out the profits of the middleman and giving them to the consumer. The minister and the government during the last five years have been asleep to the necessity of doing that, and they are still in a comatose condition.


William Richard Motherwell: I suggest to my
hon. friend- that he should apply to the provincial government; and there is a good Department of Agriculture in this province.


Peter McGibbon: Have they any control over the export of food products?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, well, we will
attend to the exports.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: In support of the position taken by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, let me read just a few lines from the report of the Department of Agriculture which, I think, will convince even the minister that the hon. member was justified in taking the position he did. On page 40 of that report I find the following:
Additional illustrations could be given indicative of the weak points in our live stock industry as having reference to its development as a national business. The fact that Great Britain imports $168,000,000 of bacon and pork products per annum, Canada at present supplying only 15 per cent of this amount, confirms the above statement both with reference to our problem and to our national opportunity.
Surely that is a national question which the minister should take up. When we are only supplying IS per cent to a market which consumes $168,000,000 a year there is surely ground for the minister's bringing about improvements in that regard.


William Richard Motherwell: Is the situation
better or worse than it was three or four years ago? My hon. friend has heard it stated that the quality of our product is improving, that the spread between Canadian and Danish bacon is narrowing every year. Three years ago there was a spread of from twenty to twenty-five cents between Canadian and Danish bacon. To-day both products quite frequently are on a parity, with probably a difference of five shillings per hundred, or from that to two or three shillings at other times, showing an improvement not only in quantity but in quality. Now that is the national part that comes under the prerogative of the federal department, as I understand it. But notwithstanding that fact we are, in a measure, working with the provincial government. That responsibility is always imposed upon us because associated with grading there must always be efforts to improve quality. It is just a question where we should stop the one and commence the other. But my hon. friend thinks that because Great Britain does not buy all this bacon from Canada somebody is derelict in his duty.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I am not asking that they buy all of it from Canada, but when Great Britain is buying $168,000,000 of the very products the minister has been talking about, and we are only able to furnish 15 per cent of them, I think it is about time the minister woke up and took a more active interest in the department.

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: Thank you. I will just tell the result of the waking up. For a great many years during the administration of the friends of my hon. friend there was an embargo on Canadian cattle going to the Old Country.


Peter McGibbon: That is an old story.
Who helped to get the embargo off?


William Richard Motherwell: There was a total
embargo; you could not ship store cattle into Great Britain. What did you do? Was it not an international enterprise we went into?
I am always willing to give credit to hon. gentlemen opposite for anything they did. The hon. member for South Winnipeg deserves credit for the work he did in connection with it, but the fact remains that this is the government which succeeded in having the embargo removed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes. You will
have to get up earlier in the morning before you can spring anything like that on me. It was suggested this afternoon that I should educate the Maritime people with regard to certain matters. Well, I am willing to sit at the feet of my hon. friend across the way, but they must not be threshing old, straw and making allegations in which there is absolutely nothing with respect to dereliction of duty on the part of this government in regard to our live stock market. We have succeeded in. inducing the British government to open a market which has been closed for thirty years. Is that a fact or not?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Richard Motherwell: It does not matter
what my hon. friends may think of the method or of the enterprise, but last year when we endeavoured to meet that situation and prepare Canada for the inevitable time when we had to compete with the Argentine in live cattle, what did my hon. friends do? They opposed it to a man.


Mr. MANION:: What did the committee
of the minister's own government do but throw out the contract?


William Richard Motherwell: What did my hon.
friend do?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend does not
like the truth.


William Richard Motherwell: The committee was a committee of parliament and got its cue from my hon. friends.


Robert James Manion: It was a committee of this government.


William Richard Motherwell: lit does not matter whether it was the best method or not; it was the best in sight. My hon. friend was not in the House, but his party is on record, both then and previously, and did nothing.


William Duff: I call attention to the fact that we are discussing item 42.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: With reference to the
statement of the hon. Minister of Agriculture in regard to the embargo and to certain inaccuracies in connection therewith, I should like the privilege of saying four or five words in that connection. Looking back through the history of the cattle embargo, we know that it was in existence for thirty years. On that point the minister is quite correct. 1 should like to point out that the first break or the first change in the situation in connection with the cattle embargo was a promise to the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, who was then Prime Minister of the country. That right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for South Winnipeg held a conference with the representatives of the British government including the then Minister of Agriculture, and it was on that occasion that the British government promised to lift the embargo at the conclusion of the war. After that an embargo commission was created by the British government and the case for Canada was presented to that commission by the Conservative government of the day. ,At that particular time a promise was secured from the then Minister of Agriculture to the effect that the government of Great Britain would be guided by the finding of that embargo commission. That, commission found in our favour. The legislation was then introduced into the British House of Commons, and all the present government had to do with it, so far as I am aware, was in helping to make some regulations, or to come to some agreement with regard to regulations, as to how those Canadian cattle could enter Great Britain.


William Duff: Will the committee
proceed to the item under discussion?


Mr. MULLINS:: Did the minister make
the statement that the present government was responsible for the removal of the embargo?


William Richard Motherwell: I think the hon.
member for Marquette claimed that distinction. He lifted the embargo.
Supply-Agricxdture


Henry Alfred Mullins: I never made that statement. If the minister says I did he is incorrect. It is not the fact. I think I had something to do with it. I think the minister had some correspondence with me in regard to it. I do not think the minister has the right to make the claim which he has made in regard to the removal of the embargo, and I will tell him that he only left the job half finished. If Canada had obtained justice she would have the Canadian cow in on the open market, instead of having her where she is. There would be no trouble at all if there was some effort to induce the British authorities now to consent to the admission of the Canadian cow on the British market. True, we got the males in, but that was not the result of the efforts of the present government. An hon. member sitting over here, who is not making any statement at all, is the gentleman responsible for having the embargo removed.


William Richard Motherwell: I referred to the hon. member.


Henry Alfred Mullins: They exacted promises and that is what accomplished the result. Public men in Great Britain stated on the platform that while they did not want to admit our cattle, still they were going to keep the promise they made to Sir Robert Borden and the hon. gentleman from South Winnipeg. I do not think it is fair for hon. members on the other side of the House to claim credit for the removal of the embargo.


Donald Sutherland: The item is a fairly large one, $200,000, and the question asked by the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario was a very pertinent one. He asked what the government was doing in regard to the marketing of fruit, particularly apples. Apples are grown in many places in Ontario. The trees grow quite naturally and bear a certain kind of fruit, which indicates that the province is by nature adapted to the growing of apples, and I believe there are millions of bushels annually going to waste in Ontario; orchards are being neglected and the people are not taking full advantage of their opportunities. The minister endeavoured to say that this was a matter for the provinces to deal with, not the federal government. He indicated the strides which had been made by the province of Saskatchewan in this respect. Perhaps he would inform the House what Saskatchewan has really done in regard to the marketing of apples.


William Richard Motherwell: We do not grow any apples of any account.


Donald Sutherland: I quite understand that, and I did not think the minister's reference to Saskatchewan, in view of the question asked by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, was an answer at all. There are great difficulties in the way of marketing fruit, particularly apples, and I notice by the returns of the trade of Canada that our apples are exported to about twenty-five different countries. The minister states that their responsibility ends when they see that the fruit is put on the market in the proper way. But apparently no effort is being made by the department to assist in the marketing of fruit. There must be something done along that line in the matter of cooperative marketing if we are going to reap the advantages which we should, and I think the federal department is the proper one to take steps in the_ matter. When the present government came into office there was an annual grant of about one million dollars a year under what was known as the Agricultural Instruction Act, which was being divided up amongst the seven provinces and which could be used with great benefit along this line. I should like to ask the minister if one of the first steps he took when he came into office was not to have an analysis made as to the value received for the money voted under the [DOT] Agricultural Instruction Act. A report was made to the minister by the party whom he appointed for this purpose favouring the continuance of the Agricultural Instruction Act and pointing out the advantages which were derived from the money voted for it. If the minister was consistent in what he stated when this matter was brought up in the House, namely, that this commissioner, as he termed him.-although he never was a commissioner-was appointed for that purpose, why did he not act on the recommendation which the commisioner made, which the minister has and in which the commissioner pointed out the advantages of continuing this aid to agriculture under the Agricultural Instruction Act? The minister in that way could co-operate with the provinces and do something along this line. Co-operative marketing is something that must be put into operation in this country and assisted if we are to obtain the advantages to which we are naturally entitled.
Cold storage facilities and all the means of transport are under the control of the federal government, and surely the minister does not mean to say that this matter rests entirely with the provinces. It is the duty of the federal government to assist the provinces and to get them to co-operate and to co-

Supply-Agriculture
ordinate in this matter. I do not 'believe there is anything of greater importance to those engaged in fruit growing in Canada than to enable them to co-operate so as to place their produce on the market with a good deal of unnecessary expense eliminated. It is a downright shame to see the hundreds of thousands of barrels of first class fruit that annually goes to waste in Ontario and something should be done to prevent it. The minister says that some of the provinces have already taken over the work which was done by the federal government in the past. That may be true as regards some provinces, but the federal government does not and never has assisted in any way the fruit growing industry in Ontario; it has left the matter entirely to the provincial government.


William Richard Motherwell: The cold storage
plant at Grimsby is a very useful institution.


Donald Sutherland: I
am speaking about the experimental stations, because these are being contributed to by Ontario and other provinces. Nevertheless, nothing is being done in this province and the minister says: The matter must rest entirely with the province; we are not going to do anything in the matter of marketing fruit, so we shall vote just $200,000, appoint an army of inspectors to go around the country, and our responsibility will end there. Surely the minister does not mean to leave on the members of this House the impression that the responsibility of the government ends with the appointment Of an army of officials. By the way, the minister has put forth great efforts to see that a change is made in the complexion of the inspectors whom he found in office when he came in. I have in mind two seasonal inspectors in the county from which I come, both appointed about the same time and both thoroughly competent men, who received notices from the department asking them for their resignations shortly after the minister took office. One of them sent in his resignation and the other did not. The one who sent in his resignation received a gratuity or bonus of a little over or a little less than $1,000.


William Richard Motherwell: Would my hon.
friend mind giving me the particulars? I do not know about the matter.


Donald Sutherland: I
brought the matter to the attention of the minister about two years ago and I did not intend to bring it to his attention to-day. The inspector who refused to send in his resignation was dismissed without any gratuity or bonus, whereas, the other, who complied with the minister's request, received a retiring allowance of about $1,000. The minister has endeavoured to leave on the minds of hon. members the impression that everything in connection with the inspectors rests entirely with the Civil Service Commission; that he has no control over them whatever.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say that.


Donald Sutherland: I
think the minister has control over these officials who are operating throughout the provinces and his responsibility cannot end there. The government should continue to lend the assistance which was given before under the Agricultural Instruction Act to bring about a better system of marketing in this country.


William Richard Motherwell: I hope I have not left that impression on my hon. friend in regard to these officials. We have the power to dismiss them, although we have not exercised it very frequently. I am afraid my hon. friend has got mixed up.


Donald Sutherland: Not at all.


William Richard Motherwell: I would like to get that information because I have no recollection of it. As regards the Agricultural Instruction Act, I regret quite as much as my hon. friend does the necessity of dealing with that question as we dealt with a number of other cases in which the Dominion government was giving grants to provincial activities. The committee will recall the large sum, $20,000,000, that was voted for road construction.


Donald Sutherland: That was not under the Agricultural Instruction Act.


William Richard Motherwell: Just wait a minute. I am pointing out that four federal policies bearing on this point were introduced during the war. One of them was the federal policy of road construction that prior to that time had been looked upon entirely as a provincial matter. Another was the house building scheme under which large sums of money were lent to the provinces for the purpose of taking care of the acute situation immediately following the war with regard to housing.


Donald Sutherland: I
will admit the government have solved the housing problem.
Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: Just a moment.
The next one was the matter of technical education. I am not criticizing any of these adversely, but these four methods of federal aid to the provinces were not on all fours inasmuch as the one to agricul-9 p.m. ture had started sooner than the other three. That, however, was the only difference. The government was under the necessity of cutting down our expenditure wherever possible, trying to make our budget balance. We have cut down that expenditure since we came into power by over $100,000,000 and this is one of the four ways that I have cited. Does my hon. friend not appreciate the difficulty that I would have in retaining one of these things when it had been decided by my colleagues and myself that the other three, the road expenditure, the building programme that had been entered into and the assistance to technical education, should be discontinued? How are you going to justify cutting those three out and retaining the other? In my experience a good deal of useful work was done under the Agricultural Instruction Act, but we were induced by the exigencies of the situation to decide to cut down wherever possible and we treated them all alike.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Does the minister mean
to say to this committee that the grant for technical education has been cut out by the government?


William Richard Motherwell: I think it will be shortly. It was for a five year period and 1 think it expires this year. These were all for periods of five and ten years and with that limitation my remarks hold good.
With regard to the fruit situation-because after all that is the vote under discussion-* the hon. member for South Oxford I think was in this afternoon when I drew attention to the prosecution as a result of the Duncan report in connection with the investigation under the Combines Act. Just as soon as the government received the Duncan report, and before it was made public, I, through my deputy and the Fruit Commissioner, called a conference of all the fruit growers organizations from the Atlantic to the Pacific for the purpose of organizing a national selling agency. The government paid the expenses, amounting to about $1,500, of the twenty or twenty-five delegates who met here for two days and organized a national co-operative marketing agency to counteract the abuses practised by the distributing combines. Now that was something to our credit. I do not know whether we gave the delegates a dinner 
or not, I do not think so, but at all events I have been criticized severely by my hon friends opposite for calling such conferences at the expense of the country. The fruit growers from the Okanagan Valley right down to the Maritimes were very appreciative of our efforts in their beh'alf.


Peter McGibbon: Does the minister
seriously ask this committee to consider that he has discharged his duty to the people of this country with regard to the co-operative marketing of farm products by spending $1,500 to give a banquet to a number of people whom he invited here to discuss co-operative marketing? Surely the minister takes his duties a little more seriously than that. This is one of the greatest agricultural countries in the world, and yet to-day our farmers, if they are suffering from anything, are surely suffering from their inability to market their products at a fair price. The minister's explanation is really childish and is an affront to the people and to this parliament.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, that is really refreshing. I think possibly what I am going to say now will do more good than the $1,500 that we expended. The trouble with the apples of Ontario is that no system of marketing will make them acceptable on the market because they are not properly graded and packed. You cannot market cull apples to advantage anywhere.


Peter McGibbon: Is it not the duty of
the minister to remedy that condition?


William Richard Motherwell: We are doing our
best. I am trying to knock in to my hon. friend's head what should be done, but I have great difficulty in imparting to him the requisite information. You must first grow a high quality product to meet the fruit of your competitiors, and then you must put it on the market in accordance with the grade that it purports to be. We called those people together for that purpose. Is it my hon. friend's serious proposal that we should go out into the country and organize co-operative associations for the marketing of fruit? That is already being done in many of our provinces. We believe, Mr. Chairman, in the policy of assisting our fruit growers to help themselves, and as an earnest of that we called them together on the occasion I have referred to. They then formulated a policy, and some of them have since inaugurated it. If my hon. friend has anything further to suggest that is explicit, not merely a little curtain lecture-which I am always delighted to receive at his hands-I shall be glad to listen to him. Will he please specify what

Supply-Agriculture
further in the way of co-operation he thinks the federal government should undertake? I can assure him that I will deal with his suggestion seriously in an effort to add something more to our already long list of achievements in this respect.


Peter McGibbon: With all due respect to
the minister, I think his department has teen something like Rip Van Winkle-it has been asleep to the needs of the country. When it wakes up to the fact that it is its duty to help the farmers of this country to cut out the profits of the middleman in marketing their products, something will be accomplished for our farming interests. At present, practically nothing is being done in this direction.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is
not convinced yet.


Peter McGibbon: No, I am not.


William Richard Motherwell: I presume my hon.
friend reads the Farmers' Advocate?


Peter McGibbon: No, I never do.


William Richard Motherwell: That is quite
evident.	I may tell my hon. friend
that the Farmers' Advocate in a recent editorial drew attention to the fact that more has been done in Canada in the last four years to grade and put our exportable farm products on the markets of the world in the most favourable condition than had been done in the previous twenty-five years. Well now, ir my hon. friend wants me to assume the functions of a superman, 1 am afraid I canno' fill the bill; but I do claim that we have done something in comparison with what has been done in the past, although I may add that I do not claim any great credit for that either.


Peter McGibbon: I hope the hon. minister does not take his policy from the editor of the Farmers' Advocate.


William Richard Motherwell: The Farmers' Advocate dates back beyond either my hon. friend's birth or my own, and is one of the outstanding agricultural papers of Canada. I do not think that what it says is the last word, but at the same time its opinions are worthy of consideration-as put alongside of those of my good friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, apropos of the question of marketing fruit, the minister was good enough to say that he would be glad to consider any constructive suggestion that might be made to him. Speaking this afternoon, I indirectly made a suggestion to him to which I think he ought to give very careful consideration, that is, 'he cost of
transportation, especially of perishable fruit. Down in the Maritime provinces we import, annually, a good many carloads of grapes, peaches, and other fruit from the Niagara peninsula. I gave a concrete illustration of the cost of transportation. Now I ask the minister: Has he or his department at any time during the past four years done anything to cut down th<- cost of transporting that fruit? If he has, and has been able to accomplish anything, then he has done more real service not only to the producers but also to the consumers of this country than I had thought him capable of. If he has not attempted to do anything, then I say he has been derelict in his duty both to the consumer and to the producer.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
knows that the whole question of freight rates is now before the railway commission?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: 
Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the work which is being done with respect to this schedule take into consideration the transportation of fruit from British Columbia eastward?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, that is where it is needed.


George Eulas Foster: Some time ago there
appeared in Ottawa a delegation that waited on the minister, and later on the Prime Minister, with regard to an increase in the marketing facilities for the fruit of the
Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: As indicated, recommendations were made by the Horticultural council and other fruit men of Canada who interviewed the Prime Minister and myself about six or seven weeks ago. The whole question was fully discussed and I have no doubt the Prime Minister will have something to say later on. He was present at the Imperial conference when this and other subjects of a similar nature were under consideration. As to asking the British government to give us a preference on Canadian products by taxing foreign goods, I am bound to say that we have always hesitated aibout doing anything of the kind by appealing directly to the government of Great Britain as such. Our policy was established away back in 1897 in what has been called the British preference, which has been amplified from time to time since. We have always been reluctant to take the course suggested and we have been criticized in consequence. I know the doctrine is sometimes preached of preference for preference. But when it comes to seeking by preference entry into a market which is absolutely free in relation to practically all our exportable farm products, it would seem to me to call for some nerve on our part to ask the British government so to adjust their fiscal policy as to tax foreign goods, and thereby tax their own consumers, for the benefit of us in Canada. I repeat, we have hesitated to take that step; I do not think

Suppl y-A gricvlture
we have ever done so in respect of any product. There may be some other way of accomplishing the same result, although I do not know what it is. Let me assure the hon. member that we are not at all unsympathetic in this matter. We had a pleasant interview with these gentlemen representing the fruit interests of the country, and some suggestions were made that seemed acceptable to them. Probably the Prime Minister may supplement what I have said.


James Dew Chaplin: Did not this government put a duty on raisins for the benefit of Australia?


William Richard Motherwell: We tax them for
the benefit of our own revenue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh,	oh.
Mr.	MOTHERWELL:	Oh,	yes.	There
are no raisins in Canada to protect, are there? My hon. friend from Lincoln comes from a grape growing country, I know-


James Dew Chaplin: I am asking
the minister if we did not put a tax on raisins for the benefit of Australia.
Mr.	MOTHERWELL:	No,	we	are not
legislating for Australia.
Mr.	SUTHERLAND (South	Oxford):	I
would ask if the fruit pulp of Australia was put on the free list for the benefit of Australia or Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: We discussed that with the deputation-Mr. Taylor, one of the British Columbia members, raised the question-when they were here, and they presented the very question my hon. friend has just raised, as well as others. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, how far you are going to let us meander around on this vote.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: In view of the
government's policy to give the people free food, how does the minister justify a tax on raisins?


William Richard Motherwell: We wanted some
revenue.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: In western Ontario there is a great deal of trouble in connection with hog cholera. The deputy minister this morning made a statement to the effect that practically every bit of hog cholera that has broken out in this Dominion was due to the importation of pork from the United States. I would like to ask the min-14011-H3


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
ister what steps he has taken to prohibit the importation of that pork into Canada. Surely we can produce sufficient pork in this country for our own needs. Why should we be forced to have this pork coming into this country, affecting our swine, and injuring this industry in Canada?
William Duff: I would point out
that we are dealing with item No. 42, which has to do with fruit.


Donald Sutherland: 
EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
to go rapidly, but we were told we were going too quickly, and we were defeated in each instance. Now we have been reaching out to the same objective by easy stages.
Apparently agriculture has been singled out by the minister, who has put himself on record as in opposition to the views expressed by the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding when he was Minister of Finance. It was well known that Mr. Fielding was not of the same view as the Minister of Agriculture with regard to that matter, and Mr. Fielding reproved him in the House on several occasions. But apparently that is the thought that is uppermost in the mind of the minister, and so far as agriculture in this country is concerned, it has suffered in every instance where a trade treaty has been made by this government. In every instance the interests of agriculture have been sacrificed in order to meet the demands of such people as the newsprint people, for instance, who were penalized by Australia for exacting the enormous profits they exacted during the war, when as much as £100 per ton was paid by the people of Australia for newsprint. As they pointed out, the Americans who had come over into Canada and acquired control of our pulpwood limits had taken an unfair advantage of them. Now the Minister of Agriculture permits fruit pulp from Australia to come into this country free, bringing Australia into competition with those in our own country who are already suffering under great disabilities. The minister tried a short while ago to make it appear that this was a provincial matter with which the federal gov-vernment had nothing to do. I say that the federal government are doing more harm to those who are struggling to put their business on a sound footing than anything else they have to contend with.
The minister pointed out a few minutes ago that it was necessary for the government to economize, and one of the first steps he took was to cut out the grant under the Agricultural Instruction Act. He said that that was not necessary. Let me remind him that this was a measure that was adopted before the war began; it was not a war measure at all; it was a very necessary thing. The act granting aid in highway construction was also passed some 3'ears ago, when highways of that nature were not anything like as important and as essential as they are today. The cost of transportation so far as fruit is concerned is one of the most important things we have to contend against, and better highways by which the fruit can be conveyed

by motor trucks are really the only hops for the country. It costs almost as much to ship fruit a short distance and have it placed on the market as it does to purchase fruit in the open market. I cannot understand how the minister can attempt to justify the reductions that have been made so far as they affect agriculture. Highways are absolutely essentia! in order to further the fruit industry of this country. The Agricultural Instruction Act was an act by which great assistance could be rendered, and was rendered, and the man who was appointed by the minister to make an investigation and report to him recommended that this grant should be continued, yet the minister states that they have found it necessary, for the sake of economy, to cut out this grant.
The minister also referred to the grant to further the building of houses. It is well known that there are empty houses to burn all over this country to-day. They have been insured in many instances; that is the verdict of the insurance companies. Housing is not a question to-day that demands the granting of assistance from this government, but the attention of the government should be directed to the cause of all these troubles.
It is necessary in order to assist the soldiers who have gone on the land to have a revaluation of that land. The government admits that there has been a tremendous depreciation in land values, and all the time the minister is doing something not to assist agriculture but to hamper and restrict it, turning loose on this country an army of meddlesome, vexatious inspectors who are doing everything in their power to discourage rather than to encourage those engaged in agriculture. And as regards the food products of the Dominion the consumer has to pay any price at all that may be demanded for very inferior articles. As to this the minister has made the case much worse than it was by the explanation he has endeavoured to give. Why has he absolutely ignored the report of the commission appointed to investigate the administration of the Agricultural Instruction Act? Surely if agriculture is languishing, and the government admits it is, and farm lands are depreciating, a revaluation must be made in the interest of the soldier settlers or they are going to be all forced off the land. This is a serious matter and one which should cause the government to take some action. Furthermore the reduction of the tariff on everything the farmer produces is making the situation worse instead of better. From the circumstances one would al-

Sup pi y-A griculture
most come to the conclusion that the government are deliberately putting into effect a policy which is going to strangle the agricultural industry in this country. It seems hard to realize that any body of men placed in such a responsible position would dare to put into effect the legislation inaugurated by this government, legislation which has made it so difficult for those engaged in agriculture to carry on.
Now we hear of another scheme advocated. We are going to build more railways. We are going to establish a steamship line to carry our products to the markets of the world and thus come into competition with our own existing Canadian line. This matter must be settled right now in this House; the responsibility cannot be delegated to the provincial government. The responsibility must be placed where it properly belongs, and I do not believe any member of the government has a greater load of responsibility by reason of the restrictions and discouragement from which agriculture is now suffering that the minister who is now endeavouring to put his estimates through the House.
George Eulas Foster: I have a word or two to
say on the subject before the committee, and then I should like to hear from the Prime Minister, who I observe is seated near the Minister of Agriculture. The minister says we cannot ask Great Britain to-day to do anything in the desired direction because by sc doing we shall be asking the British people to tax themselves on goods coming in from foreign countries. On the surface there might appear to be something in that argument, but when it is analysed it really has no foundation. In the first place we are entitled to ask Great Britain for some concessions if we are going to remain a part of the empire. At least we are entitled to sit down and talk over our difficulties with them. We have already done that, I apprehend, in the case of immigrants because a contract has been entered into which requires Canada to guarantee five years' employment to English immigrants coming to this country. In other words we undertake to take care of these immigrants if they cannot find employment in the various channels to which they might be directed on first coming to this country. It seems to me that the Canadian government, for one thing, might point out to the British authorities, in the discussion of this question, that in Nova Scotia there are thousands of acres of lands upon which fruit can 'be grown of a quality that will compare with any fruit grown elsewhere, and that here there is an opportunity 14011-143i
for thousands of immigrants of a certain kind from Great Britain to settle and establish themselves in the fruit-growing industry. But first a stable fruit market must be established, and I ask what sense there is in our remaining as part of the British Empire, if fruit and other products from the United States are allowed to find a market in Great Britain to the exclusion of fruit and other products from this and other dominions interested in building up that empire, and at the same time we have to tax ourselves for the upkeep of immigrants for whom we have now no work.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Is that the
measure of your loyalty to the empire?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: It is a
case of loyalty to Canada.


George Eulas Foster: My loyalty to the empire
will stand comparison with that of my hon. friend at any time. The hon. gentleman need have no fears on that account. It is not a question of loyalty; it is a question of common, ordinary business sense.


An hon. MEMBER:: Horse sense.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, horse sense.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: Let my hon. friend laugh.
That laugh sounds like a horse laugh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Now that my hon. friends
have got that off their minds we can get back to the main question at issue, which is this: we should provide openings for certain of these British immigrants, whereby they can go on the land and make a living at more places convenient to present markets instead of carrying them all the way across this continent and shunting them into the hinterland in the northwest, locating them on brush land, and starting them out there in an endeavour to make a living. Attempts to settle such districts have failed, and will continue to fail. This is illustrated by a letter written by one man the other day. I should like to place this letter on Hansard, but it would not be exactly pertinent to the discussion and I shall do it on a more appropriate occasion.
The main point in considering such questions as this is that we are faced' with the development of the whole of Canada and not one particular portion of it. In this development the British people themselves are just as vitally interested, or they would not be willing to vote one million pounds, or $5,000,000, for this particular purpose. If we have
*2244

Supply-Agriculture
"a million and a half barrels of apples in Nova Scotia the imperial preference suggested of two shillings and sixpence, or a little better than 50 cents, would have a very important effect of stabilizing our market. If the British government paid $750,000 out of the treasury by way of subvention it. would be cheaper than spending $5,000,000 in the campaign of education on which they are at present embarked. These questions need only be brought to the attention of the British government in a practical way in order to get some progress along the lines which have been pointed out.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There is a question I wish to ask but I do not know whether it would be pertinent to this vote. I have noticed that since 1921 the Department of; Agriculture has done considerable advertising in the public press of the country. Could the minister tell me what the whole amount was, and how much money was expended with each newspaper? I do not suppose he has the information at hand and if he has not I would foe glad to receive it before the consideration of his estimates is concluded.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to seed fairs, etc., $305,000.
Mr. MOTHERWELL; The seed fairs are given subventions by the various provinces. This vote is divided into three parts. Under the seed branch we have six zones with a seed laboratory in each-at Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Quebec city, and we have one in the Maritime provinces. The testing, analysis and grading are handled in these respective centres. Under the Eertilizers Act they have to do many things, in connection with legislation passed here recently. The Fertilizers Act has to do of course with the analysis of fertilizers, to see that the farmers are not sold spurious fertilizers, which have not the manurial value that they profess to have.	_
We have a great variety of seed fairs, and the amount of subvention depends upon the size of the fair and the character of the work. The grants to seed fairs are made on a basis we often work on, conditionally, and of course some of them get a small grant. These grants are made according to the prize list and the support given by the respective provinces On that account the grants will naturally vary, but that is the policy that has been in force for ten or twelve years. There has been a great deal of improvement in our seed supply, particularly in the development of the work
TMr. Foster.]
of the Seed Growers' Association through the medium of this system.
Peter McGibbon: How many fertilizing
plants are there in Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: I am afraid wo
have not got that information. There is quite a number in the Maritime provinces and Ontario.


Peter McGibbon: You can surely tell us
some of them.


William Richard Motherwell: We do not keep a list of them, but I think we can get that information. My information is that before the manufacturers can become eligible for the business they have to take out a license and have to get a certificate for the particular brand of fertilizer that they issue, subject to analysis before it is sold. My deputy will take a note of that.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister tell us what amount of fertilizers are imported?


William Richard Motherwell: I have not got that either.


Robert Rogers: Surely the minister will
have some information in respect of the seed, feed and fertilizers, when he is asking the House to vote $305,000.


William Richard Motherwell: That amount is for the whole thing. I will give the allocation of the respective divisions and that will bring it down to something definite.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: What is
the reason for the $10,000 increase?


William Richard Motherwell: Certain additional
work has been allocated to this branch, the administration of the act with respect to hay and hides, thus involving additional clerical assistance and travelling expenses. It is to take care of that. These matters were formerly under the Department of Trade and Commerce but have been transferred to my department. I understand that for the purpose of economy some inspectors do the work of the seed branch and the administration of the Fertilizers Act; consequently they are not kept separate. At first I thought they were. The whole inspectional staff takes care of the work. The details are as follows:
To provide inspection service for the administration of the Seeds Act, Feeding Stuffs Act, Fertilizers Act, and Inspection and Sale Act; to establish and maintain analytical laboratories for the testing of seeds, feeding stuffs, and fertilizers; to encourage the production of superior seeds for domestic requirements and export; to encourage the manufacture and intelligent use of good quality fertilizers; to further develop export

Supply-Agriculture
markets for seeds and feeding stuffs; to establish and maintain a markets intelligence service for seeds, feeding stuffs, and fertilizers.
General Administration- 1. Staff-inside service.	1925-1926	1926-19272. Office supplies	$ 6,000	$ 6.0003. Publications and stationery..	5,000	15,000Production and Markets.- 4. Subventions for seed crop competitions, seed exhibi-	. $11,000	$21,000tions and seed centres.. ..	$60,000	150,0005.	Market reporting service.. 6.	Development of domestic and export markets for seeds	6,000	4,000and feeding stuffs	5,000	2,000Inspection and Sale Act.- 7. Organization hay and straw	$71,000	$56,000standardization	
8. Supervision binder twine,	$ 2,500	$ 2,000oil products, hides, etc.. ..	2,000$ 2,500	$ 4,000
And then it goes on with the various laboratories to which I have referred, from the Maritimes to the Pacific, as follows:
Laboratory and Inspection Services-1925-1926 1926-1927
9.	District No. 1-The Maritime provinces	$17,680	$18,14510.	District No.	2-Quebec.. ..	37,880	38,75011.	District No. 3-Eastern Ontario	
17,660	19,21012.	District No. 4-Western Ontario	
44,040	48.90013.	District No. 5-Manitoba andSaskatchewan	
40,975	45,69514.	D'strict No. 6-Alberta andBritish Columbia	
38,265	41,800
These services are to a large extent carried by the fees which are charged at certain times of the year. When there is no rush on the laboratory the work is done free. In the early part of the year, in order to ensure samples coming in, especially for testing purposes, analysis is done free. Later on it is charged for.


Robert Rogers: Is the minister really sure
these items he is quoting come under this estimate?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes.


Robert Rogers: I do not think the cost
of laboratories comes under this item.


William Richard Motherwell: This is administration. They have all been established for some time, except one in Toronto, which was constructed by the Public Works department in the usual way.


Robert Rogers: Does it take $48,000 to
administer the laboratory in Toronto?


William Richard Motherwell: The whole inspection staff for the province of Ontario radiates out from the city of Toronto, and I may say that is the centre of a large proportion of the seed business of this province and includes all the activities of the various subdivisions, both feed and seed, and fertilizer and hay inspection as well.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: As the minister has all these inspectors and is following up the fertilizer production ver3r closely, I would like to ask what has been the effect upon the price to the Canadian consumer of the reduction of duty or the putting of fertilizers on the free list? Has there been any reduction in the price?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know that I could prove to the satisfaction of my hon. friend that the reduction in price that has taken place is directly attributable to the reduction in the duty, but the fact remains that the price to the consumer has gone down since the reduction in the duly. It may have been a coincidence or a result of the reduction in the duty.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has the price not gone up again?


William Richard Motherwell: I think not. Like anything else, it will fluctuate in price in any case.


Peter McGibbon: What percentage of
nitrogen does the department demand in fertilizers? How does that percentage compare with the percentage in fertilizers imported say from Chili and what is the relative value of the two?


William Richard Motherwell: That involves a
very long answer and a great deal of information.


Peter McGibbon: If my conception of the chemical composition of this product is correct, you cannot give a relative value unless you know the relative quantity of nitrogen in the different fertilizers. Surely the minister has some idea of the percentages.


William Richard Motherwell: Each of these fertilizers calls for a certain analysis, and when samples are put on the market it is the duty of the inspector to see that they comply with the analysis. I cannot carry that in mind all the time.
Supply-A griculture


Peter McGibbon: I quite agree with the minister that his mind cannot be an encyclopedia, but there must be some definite regulation in vogue in his department. Does he demand in the imported as well as the domestic product a similar standard of nitrogen in order to protect the consuming public?


William Richard Motherwell: On the sack or
whatever other container these fertilizers are placed on the market in there must be marked a description of the quantity of, say, the nitrogen content and the fertilizer is hbld responsible to be what it purports to be. For instance, if it purports to contain 25 per cent of nitrogen, it must live up to that percentage. The Fertilizer Act of 1922, referring to fertilizing substances in their commercially pure state, says that they must contain not less than the following percentages:
Nitrate of soda, 15 per cent nitrogen.
Sulphate of ammonia, 20 per cent nitrogen.
Superphosphate (acid phosphate) 16 per cent available phosphoric acid.
Basic Slag, (Thomas phosphate), 10 per cent total phosphoric acid and 80 per cent fineness.
Natural rock phosphate of stated origin, 25 per cent total phosphoric acid and 80 per cent fineness.
Sulphate of potash, 48 per cent potash soluble in water.
Muriate of potash, 48 per cent potash soluble in water.
The basic slag is the by-product from the steel mills, wherever they may be. I saw them in Sydney.


Peter McGibbon: The minister does not
understand the purport of my question. In order to protect the public who do not know the chemical analysis and who practically think one bag of fertilizer is equal to another, has the minister any definite standard to which he makes not only the importer but the domestic manufacturer conform?


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps I failed to make the matter plain. If they purport to put a fertilizer of this description on the market it must comply with those percentages of nitrogen, or whatever it is. If they desire to put a mixed fertilizer on the market or a different one from the description, they must put the percentages on the bag and live up to those percentages.


Peter McGibbon: I quite understand that. The point is this: Are these regulations made by the department, or do they allow the manufacturer to make any strength of fertilizer they wish if they put the percentage on the bag?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, but he must
live up to those percentages.


Peter McGibbon: I do not think that is
fair to the consumer because, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he is not capable of differentiating between the value of the two percentages. Hq thinks one bag of fertilizer is as good as another, whereas it may not be half as good. It is the duty of the department to protect the consumer by establishing a standard and making the domestic manufacturer as well as the consumer conform to that standard.


William Richard Motherwell: These artificial fertilizer's are so innumerable that I am afraid my hon. friend's system of classifying and standardizing them would be much involved. There is no such thing as a "best" fertilizer any more than there is a "best" wheat or a "best" medicine. It depends on
10 p.m. what you want the fertilizer for or how needful the land is for a particular fertilizer or what crop you are going to grow on it.


Peter McGibbon: The minister will agree with me that the main constituent of these fertilizers is nitrogen.


William Richard Motherwell: It is one of them.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Has the hon. member
any reason for saying that nitrogen is the main constituent?


Peter McGibbon: That is not a disputable point.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It is.	[DOT]


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the minister
not issue a pamphlet on fertilizers recommending certain ones as being superior to others? There is a pamphlet issued by the department giving the composition of these fertilizers and stating which is the better one. That would cover all this.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think we
could recommend a fertilizer unless we knew what it was required for, any more than a doctor could prescribe a medicine without knowing what was wrong with the patient.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the department not make recommendations in this pamphlet on fertilizers?


William Richard Motherwell: 
Arthur Edward Ross: If the minister
would let the deputy stand up he would explain what my question refers to.


William Richard Motherwell: What does my hon. friend want? Is that not plain?


Arthur Edward Ross: It is not an answer to my question at all.


William Richard Motherwell: What does my hon. friend want? Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman, there is no such thing as "best" fertilizer. It depends on the crop to be grown and the land you are dealing with.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the minister said that every domestic manufacturer had to take out a license. How many Canadian manufacturers have done so in the last year?


William Richard Motherwell: Approximately fifty. I have had correspondence with a good many myself, but I cannot recollect them all. Most of them were in the Maritime provinces, some in Ontario.


Donald Sutherland: Surely the minister does not intend to convey the idea that our experimental farms are not in a position to recommend the kinds of fertilizers which should be used in certain districts and soils? I think that is the information the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross) desires.


William Richard Motherwell: I tried to make that plain. The best way I think to illustrate that is to ask: Could any medical man prescribe a flat dose for my hon. friend, no matter what was the matter with him?


Peter McGibbon: He might for the hon.
minister.


William Richard Motherwell: That might be.


Arthur Edward Ross: After a little rest, Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the minister that his department issues a bulletin on fertilizers which contains certain recommendations. Now, does he not know that that pamphlet is being issued? If one is not sent to him I will hand him my copy.


William Richard Motherwell: We are issuing those bulletins continually. Supposing we are dealing with the Maritime provinces, where they grow potatoes largely and use certain fertilizers, we would always have an eye single to what the fertilizer was to be used for; we would not issue the same instructions for that part of the country as we would to some other part where a different
crop was being grown and where an entirely different fertilizer would be required. Would my hon. friend from Kingston, as a medical man, issue the same kind of prescription for everybody?


Arthur Edward Ross: If I were administering the department I would be willing to answer any questions. The bulletin does not say that the fertilizer is for Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, or Ontario; it gives the composition and recommends it. I was trying to get the minister out of a difficulty by m(y question, but it is impossible.


William Richard Motherwell: Every fertilizer contains three essential ingredients: nitrogen, potash and phosphoric acid. The proportions of these ingredients vary according to the particular crop you intend to grow and the deficiency of the soil in any of these chemical elements.


Mr. FLEMMING:: In some parts, particularly in the east, the farmers use what they call home-mixed fertilizers. They purchase the chemicals and do the mixing themselves. The results are very successful and they save considerable money in this way. Is any effort being made by the department to determine the purity of these chemicals? It is very important that the imported ingredients shall be exactly what they are represented to be.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, the chief work of the branch is to see that the imported stuff is what it is supposed to be, and worth the money for manurial purposes. Their inspection discloses any spurious contents.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Chairman, on page 6 of the bulletin to which the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) has drawn attention I find that prices of Belgian basic slag of sixteen per cent analysis are quoted for the Maritime provinces and elsewhere. Will the minister tell us why the price of Nova Scotia slag is not quoted?


William Richard Motherwell: I remember we discussed the question two or three years ago. Basic slag is the by-product of the Sydney smelter?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that it is all exported; there is none placed on the home market.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Chairman, for the information of the minister I may tell him that it is not being exported. It is not on the home market, as he says, but for a very
Supply-Agriculture

different reason-because that plant has been forced to close down by the importation of Belgian and other slag, [DOT] which importation has been stimulated by lowering the duty. That industry in the Maritime provinces i3 entirely wiped out. I took some interest, naturally because it was a matter of great importance to our people, to find out whether or not the farmers were getting their fertilizer any cheaper by virtue of the fact that this industry was put out of business. I find that after they succeeded in closing down our industry the price of fertilizer in the Maritime provinces advanced three dollars a ton, and there is intimation of another two dollar raise, which seems to be the old story repeating itself, that directly the local manufacturer is put out of business the foreign monopolists put up the prices to whatever limit they see fit. I am forced to the conclusion that it is no use trying to impress upon this government that industry is of value in the Maritime provinces, or in any other part of Canada, because a moment ago I tried to get from the Prime Minister before he left the House an expression of opinion on a very important item that was promised by the Minister of Agriculture, but before he got around to it he was shut off by the Chairman, who called the item and it was passed. So I despair of getting any assistance at all from the minister so far as this item is concerned, and I merely rise to tell him that the government succeeded in putting the local industry out of business. *


William Duff: I must direct the hon. member's attention to the fact that I did not shut off discussion and I cal! upon him to withdraw his statement.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, I think I can throw some light on this subject, although not from personal knowledge. It was brought up last year or the year before, and a statement similar to that repeated now by my hon. friend opposite was then made, that owing to the reduction of the duty on fertilizers the plant at some particular place in Nova Scotia had been ruined. A few weeks later an hon. member on this side of the House, whose constituency was immediately adjoining that in which the plant is located, said he would give the real explanation of why the plant was closed down-in the first place he said, it had not closed down since the change in the duty, it had been closed down two years and a half before the reduction was made. In the second place he explained the reason for the closing down of the plant. This basic slag, which is a byproduct of steel, they had been selling to the
(Mr. Foster.]
farmers as an article which analysis and experience had proved to be good. In the course of time the particular works from which this by-product was mad'- changed their system of making steel from the open hearth to the Bessemer method, or vice versa -I do not know which. At any rate they changed the system with the result that the basic slag, while it would still give a chemical analysis, had lost its value as a fertilizer by reason of the fact that it was no longer soluble in water. And this notwithstanding they continued, either in ignorance or deliberately, to sell this non-fertilizing basic slag to the farmers of the neighbourhood until by bitter experience the farmers discovered the difference and ceased to buy it, the consequence being that the fertilizer plant went out of existence. That was the Charge which was made on the other side of the House and which was answered on this side, as will be seen by reference to Hansard. Just before I close let me reply to an hon. member opposite who made the statement that there were no fertilizer plants in Canada now. There are three in British Columbia at the present time, all doing an increasing business.


George Eulas Foster: I rise in order to restate
what I said before. I had no desire, Mr. Chairman, to intimate that the shutting off of the discussion was deliberate on your part. I merely suggested that the Prime Minister was unable to speak, as had been suggested by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in answer to my inquiry regarding the government's position in the matter of an imperial preference for our apples.


William Duff: I do not think it is
fair for the hon. member to put it even in that way. I have been very generous to hon. members who have taken part in the discussion of the various items which have been considered in the course of the day, having allowed a great deal of latitude. It is therefore unfair of the hon. member, both to the Chair and to the committee, to put his explanation in that form.


George Eulas Foster: I shall be happy to put
it in any form you suggest, Mr. Chairman. I am only too delighted to come within the four corners of the rules both in the House and in committee, and if I assure you now that I retract the statement wholly I trust that this assurance will bring back that pleasant smile which we all like to see, and that we shall proceed as agreeably as before. Just a word in reply to the hon. member (Mr. Neill). I do not know who made the explanation to which he has referred, but

Supply-A griculture
certainly the department has facilities for examining basic slag produced in Nova Scotia, and this is the first time I have heard it suggested that anyone had claimed that their analysis was not up to standard or that the effectiveness of the fertilizer had been questioned. It has been tried not only in one locality but in thousands of places, and the explanation which the hon. member says was given is certainly no explanation at all. It is absolutely not in accord with the facts as given to me by the people who used the material.


Alan Webster Neill: It is in accord with Hansard of last year or the year before.


Mr. McMILLAN:: I can offer some information, derived at first hand, in regard to this subject. I was a representative of that company under Mr. C. L. Walker in our section of the country for years. Indeed, Mr. Walker has slept in my house a good many times. He stopped sending the fertilizer into our section for the reason that it was no good, as we knew from experience. There is no use taking half an hour to answer the point; it has already been answered.


Joseph Henry Harris: If the hon. gentleman
(Mr. McMillan) will look into the question he will discover how wide of the mark he is. The duty of the Department of Agriculture, in view of this very vote we are now discussing, should be to see to it, by means of a registration system and a method of inspection throughout the whole of Canada, that the goods sold to the farmers of the country are up to the mark and in accordance with the analyses which should appear either on the bag itself containing the article, or on the tag appended to that bag. The information which the Department of Agriculture issues throughout the country should be supplemented by the efforts of men such as my hon. friend representing firms trading in Canada, and more particularly outside Canada, in order to make sure that purchasers shall know exactly what they are buying. And if an article is not up to specification the fact should be reported to the department which is to-night asking for this vote for the purpose of continuing this work.
My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) is on solid ground when he tells the House that the fertilizer industry in Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, was imperilled by the action of the government in taking off the duty of ten per cent which had been in force on this commodity. The reason for the damage to the fertilizer industry in Canada was perhaps not so much the fact that the manufacturers
wanted a protection of ten per cent, as the fact that our manufacturing plants being in a large number of cases considerable distances away from the agricultural communities requiring the fertilizer, the cost of transportation made competition impossible with manufacturers nearer at hand. Let me give a concrete illustration. The city of Montreal is a considerable distance away from the Maritime provinces, who are large consumers of fertilizers; the New England states are comparatively close to those provinces. The records show that immediately this ten per cent duty was taken off, the United States product came in. Previous to that time that protection had enabled manufacturers in Canada as far west as Hamilton and Toronto to sell their product to the Maritime provinces, in spite of the freight rate; but as soon as the reduction was made the producers in Hamilton, Toronto and Montreal found themselves unable to compete with the New England states, so that one by one they went out of business. After they had ceased operations the price of fertilizer to consumers in the Maritime provinces, in Ontario and throughout Canada was raised dollar by dollar, until to-day the farmers are paying more per ton for the American product than they had to pay for the Canadian article before the protection was removed.
Another concrete illustration may be drawn from the city of Hamilton. That city is reasonably close to the Niagara peninsula; so is the city of Buffalo. And in the city of Buffalo such tremendous plants as the Crocker, the Millsom and the Buffalo Fertilizer works, and some four or five other large enterprises find it advantageous to dump their surplus manufactures into Canada after first supplying the home trade. When that ten per cent duty was in force it was sufficient to prevent this dumping, especially in that very large consuming area in the Niagara peninsula. With a slight protection of ten per cent the manufacturers in Hamilton, Toronto and other centres of production in Ontario were in a position to supply the Niagara peninsula, but today we find lying idle in Hamilton a plant capable of manufacturing 10,000 tons of fertilizer per annum and which is waiting for any bidder who wants to acquire any portion of it. It went out of business immediately upon the removal of the ten per cent duty. Take the Swift Canadian Company, which is a large manufacturing concern in Toronto. Originally they were engaged in the city of Toronto in the manufacture of fertilizers from the by-products produced in that city, but they have found it not to their advantage to
Supply-A griculture

continue the manufacture of fertilizers there, and to-day, although they are selling the same brands from Toronto, where are those brands being manufactured? They are made in their plants across the line, and then shipped into the Niagara peninsula. They go through the same avenues of sale as they did previously, but the point of origin is no longer the city of Toronto, but rather the factories which they control and operate in the United States of America.
One hon. gentleman to-night raised a point which is worthy of note, namely, that the most expensive constituent in the fertilizers which are necessary to recuperate the soils of Canada is nitrogen. It will be interesting for this committee to know that according to the report on fertilizers issued by the department, and to which the hon. member for Kingston referred a moment ago, nitrogenous products, which are the base, and the expensive base, used in the manufacture of complete fertilizers in Canada, have been exported from this country since the duty was taken off-mark you, they were exported previously, but not to quite the same extent-to the amount of 29,500,000 pounds last year. That 29,500,000 pounds of nitrogenous product is sufficient base, and expensive base, to manufacture complete fertilizers to the amount of 90,000,000 pounds. That 29,500,000 pounds of raw product was exported from this country largely to that great fertilizer centre in the United States, Baltimore, to be made up there into complete fertilizers, and to a degree shipped back to the consumers in Canada. That represents $500,000 that the manufacturer of this nitrogenous product received for his product from the Baltimore broker or buyer. If that base instead of being shipped in a raw, coarse state largely to Baltimore had been worked up into complete fertilizers in this country-and everybody in this House knows that this country does need in a great many parts complete fertilizers to carry on intensified farming operations-it would have brought to the manufacturers of that product, to the labourers and all who were engaged in its production, the sum of $900,000.


Alan Webster Neill: Did the hon. member say
that Canada exported the amount he stated of nitrogen?


Joseph Henry Harris: Of nitrogenous products.


Alan Webster Neill: In what shape?


Joseph Henry Harris: In the shape of a tankage which would analyse on the average 6 per cent of nitrogen and 20 per cent of bone
TMr. Harris.]
phosphate of lime. One ton of that tankage, containing 6 per cent of nitrogen, 20 per cent of bone phosphate of 'lime, together with sufficient potash added to make up a grade such. as 2.82 fertilizer, would make up three tons of complete fertilizer which our farmers would buy.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the hon. member not
admit that the main source of nitrogen is obtained from nitrate of soda, which is produced in Chili and brought up here-imported, not exported?


Joseph Henry Harris: That is one source, but not the main source. If the hon. member will allow me to go one step further, I say that we exported 'last year 29,500,000 pounds of nitrogenous products, products indigenous to this country and gathered in this country. Would it not be better, instead of allowing those by-products to go to waste by the abattoirs in this countiy, to manufacture them into complete fertilizers, rather than to continue this extravagant importation and the displacement of that business in this country by that extravagant importation? If that industry is going to be put out of business in this country, it is time that we replaced that little 10 per cent duty which was on previously, and which permitted us to overcome the handicap of the freight rates which are so hard on us, due to the fact that the point of origin is far from the point of consumption. Let us again get back to the position where we shall manufacture sufficient complete fertilizers to meet the demands of this countiy in order that we may not only do business among ourselves, but save as well these by-products which are going to waste by the hundreds of tons in all the large centres of population, and which could be turned into a product which our farmers would be glad to buy from us. If the duty were replaced, it would revive this industry, which is indigenous to this country, being so closely allied to agriculture, which everyone knows is our basic industry.


Thomas McMillan: My hon. friend from Toronto-Scarborough has taken us into the question of soil fertility and soil cultivation. When he begins to tell us that the tankage from slaughter houses is the great basis for nitrogen, I would like him to realize that in any successful system of agriculture it is not to that source that farmers look for nitrogen, but to the atmosphere, where we find a composition containing 80 per cent free nitrogen. Those who have been trying to operate their farms to the best advantage realize that the best encouragement we can give agriculture
to grow *uch crops that we are able to get

Supply-Agriculture
that nitrogen, from the air upon terms which are actually better than getting it for nothing, and that is through the growing of alfalfa, sweet clover, peas, beans and that sort of crop. It is all right for my hon. friend, from his point of view, to talk in the manner he does, but we have found as a result of many years' experience, so far as our immediate section is concerned, that so long as we can get the potash and the phosphoric acid, and along with it so much lime, we can get nitrogen very much cheaper than we can buy it in the shape of artificial fertilizer purchased from the factory at a high price.


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend will agree that it is much easier to get that nitrogen from the air if the soil is in good condition, and that the soil can be brought into that condition much more quickly by the application of commercial fertilizers. The argument advanced by the hon. member '(Mr. Harris) is borne out by the trade returns of Canada for the year 1925. These show that the year before the duty was removed from commercial fertilizers not a pound of nitrate of soda was imported from Chili, whereas last year the importations amounted to 17,270,274 pounds. It is quite apparent to everyone who uses commercial fertilizers on their farms that the price did go down for a few months until it served the purpose of those who secured control, but the price to-day is higher than it was before. Having put the industries almost completely out of business in this country to-day the prices are fixed at Baltimore for the factories which are still operating in Canada. There are still a few of them in operation here but the prices are fixed for them by those who are in the business at Baltimore. The Baltimore people realize it will not be to their advantage to have every one of these fertilizer factories closed, because that would very probably induce the government of Canada to reimpose the tariff against American fertilizers. They still allow a number of factories therefore, to do business in Canada, provided they are allowed to fix the prices, and the Canadian factories do not enter into competition with those engaged in the industry on the other side. I think this is one of the clearest examples of the folly of the course which is being pursued by the present government. Those people who had invested money in this industry in Canada have seen their business in the main destroyed and transferred across the line, and Canadians are at the mercy of a bigger combine than they ever dreamed of. In addition they are paying much more for fertilizers. If the minister will look at the trade returns he will find that the arguments advanced by my hon. friend (Mr. Harris) are borne out to the very letter.


Mr. EVANS:: In my opinion the duty on fertilizers did not do either the manufacturer or the agriculturist any good. According to the admission of the two last speakers to my right, the industries for whose benefit the duty was intended have gone to pieces. Before that stage had been reached their product had become too dear for the Canadian agriculturist to use in the manner he desired. One of the largest users of fertilizers in the Maritime provinces, as well as one of the largest potato growers, was the gentleman who sat in the last parliament for Carleton-Victoria, Mr. Caldwell. When this subject was under discussion in 1922, Mr. Caldwell pointed out, as will be found by reference to page 3140 of revised Hansard, June 17, that while we collected a little over $50,000 during the last six years from the duty on fertilizers, the manufacturers charged the Canadian consumer some $3,800,000 extra on account of the duty. Mr. Caldwell was complaining at the time that the cost of raising potatoes was too high. He went on to say that with the exception of acid phosphates the materials entering into the manufacture of fertilizers were free. He said he wanted the duty reduced to five per cent, and added:
There would be little loss of revenue on this account either; we collected less than $90,000 a year during the last six years, but we have paid to the manufacturers or mixers over half a million dollars per year on the material they brought in flee. They are able to charge us this year $9 more than is paid by the farmers in Maine for the same product. Last year the difference was $15.
So we see that while we have kept that spoon-fed industry going for some years in our midst the other industries that were dependent on it have been killed. The tariff on fertilizers has proved a failure, and has been detrimental to the general good of the nation.


Peter McGibbon: What is the price today?


George Eulas Foster: Just a word or two in
reply to the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) that hon. gentleman seemed to think he had absolutely closed the entire case by saying that the reason this basic slag company had gone out of business was because their product was of no use, and he stated that he himself knew that because he had handled the product. I merely wish to point out that not merely is the hon. gentleman misinformed, but that if he were to repeat the statement elsewhere it would be characterised
Supply-Agriculture

in language far from parliamentary. The fact remains that the price to the Canadian consumer of fertilizer has risen from S3 to $5 more than it was, in fact the price has become so high that, these manufacturers are able to compete, and are coming back into the market with their product. This conclusively shows that the reduction of the duty put them out of business and produced conditions with which they were unable to compete. However, since the price is returning to the original figure they are opening up their manufacturing establishments again. An hon. gentleman near me disputes this statement, but I am informed that the facts are as I have stated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: Some of my hon. friends
are rather amused. Let me tell them that if they investigate the subject they will find that undoubtedly prices have been raised to the consumers and a number of factories have gone out of business.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Please give us some
figures showing those prices.


George Eulas Foster: I should be very glad to
do so, but I did not realize that this question was coming up to-night and therefore did not have the necessary figures available. I promise my hon. friend, however, that I shall be prepared to accommodate him on the first occasion that offers.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I challenge 3rou to prove it.


George Eulas Foster: Why does not my hon
friend, if he is so anxious to get figures, ask the minister to give the desired information? Surely this is information to which the House is entitled.


Joseph Henry Harris: If the minister does not
want to give the information let me tell the committee that in the little town of Fergus, situated 70 or 80 miles north of Toronto, at the time the duty was taken off acid phosphate, 80,000 pounds of fertilizer a year were bought through a co-operative society. At that time they paid as low as $16 a ton but the best price they could get this year was $20.80 per ton.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Surely the minister in charge of this matter ought to be able to give some information as to the prices for feritilizer in Canada this year compared with last year and previous years.


William Richard Motherwell: I was going to make the suggestion that we might be able to get from the Seed branch the prices of these

fertilizers for some years before the duty was taken off-I think that occurred in 1924-as compared with the relative prices at the present time. We do not happen to have that information, and I admit it would be interesting. Up to the present we have not had any necessity for using this fertilizer on the plains of the west For that reason, I suppose, our western friends, including myself, have not made the same study of the subject that eastern members have. But it certainly is news to us all that the way to get cheap fertilizers is to tax them.


Mr. CAHAN:: 'You are propounding a truth nevertheless.


William Richard Motherwell: I am always ready to sit at the feet of any eastern Gamaliel on this or on any other question and learn, but I often read of this matter before I had the privilege of being in parliament. There has been an agitation for fertilizers for certain crops, and there has been an agitation by farmers for certain classes of fertilizers. My hon. friends opposite take the ground now that the way to develop eastern agriculture- it is not yet applicable to the plains; it may be some day, possibly-is to tlx the fertilizer which the farmer purchases for his land. If that is true, I have to throw up my hands and say I do not know anything about this subject.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Robert Rogers: Perhaps the minister would refer it to the tariff advisory board.


William Richard Motherwell: I was going to suggest that we might refer it to them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister allow me a question in regard to binder twine? Perhaps he knows about that.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How does that
compare with the price before the duty was removed?


William Richard Motherwell: I am afraid I will have to assume charge of another department as well as Agriculture before I deal with all these problems. But the best I can suggest is that this be dealt with before the advisory board, and I think that it will be all right. I am not joking about this.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is a question of price as compared with the duty.


Air. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Will the hon.
member permit a question?

Supply-Agriculture


Arthur Meighen: The minister has those prices; he publishes them every week over his own signature and sends them to me, yet he says he does not know anything about it because he lives on the plains where they do not know anything about fertilizers.


William Richard Motherwell: Not this kind.


Arthur Meighen: No, not this kind, but the kind the minister distributes all over the west. I am pointing out that the minister every week publishes the prices of fertilizers, so that he knows them quite well.


William Richard Motherwell: Excuse me, I do not.


Arthur Meighen: I followed his pamphlets week after week, and only a few short weeks after the duty was taken off, in his own pamphlet he showed that to the Canadian consumer it was higher all the time. But the result was that put the Canadian competitor out of business and put the American competitor in control. He had his Saskatchewan friends laughing because he said he was removing the tax on fertilizer. Of course if the minister is able to arouse enthusiasm in Saskatchewan by saying that every time you tax you raise the price, it is no tribute to his Saskatchewan followers. But how can you reconcile that with the fact that throughout the country Canadian competition is eliminated and the Canadian consumer pays the price dictated by the American manufacturer? The minister looks helplessly on and says he knows nothing about the subject.


William Richard Motherwell: That is another
matter. I did not say I did not know anything about it, but if the way to promote eastern agriculture is to tax fertilizers, then I said I knew nothing about it, and I admit that right now.


Arthur Meighen: Then why do you tax
fertilizers?


William Richard Motherwell: That is a different matter.


Arthur Meighen: It does not matter what you call it. You cannot change 'it by giving it a different name. You cannot deceive a clear brain by a phrase or a delusion. We know that the taking off of the tax affected the price in Canada because it eliminated competition. You cannot get around that fact You may get a laugh from those who know nothing about fertilizers, but you cannot ignore the solid facts. They never collide; they are always in harmony. Here we are in this country, with at least hundreds of our workmen gone, producing our goods in the
United States, and the Canadian consumer is paying out of his own pocket for the folly of the minister.


John Gordon Ross: Does the right hon. member, contend that by taking off the tariff you raise the prices of goods?


Arthur Meighen: We do not have to contend; we simply have to show the facts as they exist. If the hon. member cannot see the facts, there 'is no hope of his understanding the argument.


John Gordon Ross: You admit that
is a fact?


Arthur Meighen: What?


John Gordon Ross: You contend that if the tariff is taken off the prices immediately rise?


Arthur Meighen: We contend it and we know it, because we see the facts.


Mr. McLEAN (Mdlfort):: Was that the
only factor entering into the raise? There might be another factor operating.


Arthur Meighen: If you will read the
quotations from Baltimore as given by the hon. member for East York last session you will see that while the prices of goods rose in Canada the prices in the world market fell. In Baltimore, the centre of the fertilizer industry, prices were dropping, while in Canada they were rising.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: What would
prevent a Canadian from bringing in these goods free of duty and selling them at the lower price?


Arthur Meighen: He could bring them in if he paid the price dictated by the American manufacturer.


Malcolm McLean: The right hon. member stated that the prices had fallen in Baltimore and in the world market.


Robert James Manion: There have been many such cases all through the history of tariffs-


Malcolm McLean: Is the hon.member going to answer my question?


Robert James Manion: There have been many cases where the raising of the tariff has lowered the price. In the United States after they raised the tariff in 1861 they lowered the price on every line of goods manufactured in that country. The prices came down. Not only that, but since the war, when the British government put a tariff on a number of goods on which they had no tariff before, the prices of those goods came down in England, according to statements of Stanley Baldwin, the
Supply-Agriculture

Prime Minister. They have established industries which never existed before, but they have lowered the prices by putting up the tariff. It has been explained by hon. members on this side of the House that they have thus given a market to their own producers, and by producing on a large scale they have lowered the prices.


Malcolm McLean: Does the hon. member contend that the manufacturers in England did not take advantage of the tariff protection given to them?


Robert James Manion: No, I contend they took advantage of the protection given to them to keep the market to themselves, and lowered the prices to the people of England.


Malcolm McLean: I do not think the hon. member understood my question. I want to know if the manufacturer reduced his price below the level the tariff protection would have given him?


Robert James Manion: Absolutely. As soon as they got the market to themselves, so that they could purchase on a large scale-just as large production all over the world gives lower costs-they sold goods cheaper to the people. That is the statement of Mr. Stanley Baldwin. I can quote it, and I will do so later.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. member will admit that the manufacturers of England are different from those in Canada.


Robert James Manion: No, I will not admit that. I say the protective policy of Canada gives the manufacturers in Canada, and the farmers for that matter, an opportunity to hold the market for themselves; and they sell the goods cheaper when they can hold the market for themselves. That is what protection does. That is the mistake my hon. friends from the west make. If you take off the tariff you raise the prices of goods.


Ernest Lapointe: Get back to the argument.


Robert James Manion: The minister has been wandering from the argument. The minister dragged in the Petersen contract and gave that as a proof of his endeavour to better conditions in Canada, when we know that the only effect of the contract was to kill Sir William Petersen.


William Richard Motherwell: I am trying to
answer the hon. member's question.


Robert James Manion: I was going to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. McLean), over there- he is a farmer-is it not true-


Mr. RINFRET:: Let us come back to the item.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend had better discuss it in the House rather than go to Montreal and cast a lot of insults on members of this House as he did recently in a speech there. My hon. friend has a good deal more courage among his friends in the city of Montreal than he has in the House of Commons.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Will the hon. member
mention one of the insults?


Robert James Manion: I can mention many of them; I saw them in the Montreal papers. I was going to ask my hon. friend a question if I am permitted. Supposing a farmer sells, for example, 1,000 bushels of potatoes, can he not afford to sell 1,000 bushels cheaper than if he sells only 500 bushels and lets the other 500 bushels go to waste?


Malcolm McLean: Not necessarily.


Robert James Manion: He certainly can, and he can make money by doing so. The manufacturer does the same thing. By keeping the market to himself he cuts down the price to the consumer and gives work to Canadians.


Malcolm McLean: Will the hon.
member tell us then, or will the small town lawyer to his right tell us-


William Duff: I must ask the committee to come back to the item under discussion.


Mr. TOBIN (Wetaskiwin):: I want to ask a question.


William Anderson Black: I think I have the floor.


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: How is it that during the war the government led by the present leader of the opposition (Mr Meighen) reduced the tariff on tractors for the purpose of lowering the price in the interest of production?


William Duff: I must ask the committee to come back to the item under discussion. The senior member for Halifax has the floor.


William Anderson Black: I do not know whether the minister understands the situation with regard to the manufacture of fertilizers in the constituency which I represent. Prior to the time that the duty was removed from fertilizers we had in the harbour of Halifax a fertilizer factory which gave employment to a large number of men, as well as to stevedores and others in connection with handling the raw material that was

Supply-Agriculture
brought there to be manufactured. The duty was removed from fertilizers and the result was that the factory was closed. Those employed in the factory have been scattered. I cannot tell where; probably with many hundreds, many thousands of others, they have crossed the line and are now earning their living in the United States. Instead of this factory being in operation and a considerable sum of money being distributed in wages and in various other ways in my constituency, the factory is boarded up, and as we pick up our daily papers we find columns of advertising matter offering to farmers and other users of fertilizers in our country, Belgian and German fertilizers no cheaper than the home product.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: They are better.


William Anderson Black: I am not prepared to say anything about that.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I am.


William Anderson Black: Probably they are no better. At any rate the production of that material in my constituency has been stopped, and instead of labour being employed there and money circulating in various ways in connection with that factory, it is closed up and we are importing from Europe Belgian and German fertilizers manufactured by cheap labour while our own people are deprived of emplos'ment in that connection. That is the situation as regards the one factory that I know about, and it is an example of many others throughout our province. They are not so large as many of the western factories and do not give as much employment or pay out as much money, but one after another is being closed up. This is a very serious matter to the people of Nova Scotia and it is one of the grievances we have in that end of the country.


Donald Sutherland: The item before the committee is a rather involved one:
Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to seed fairs, etc.
You might say it consists of four subjects in one and I suppose that has something to do with the wide range the discussion has taken. What proportion of this appropriation of $305,000 will go for salaries and expenses of officials? I notice from the last Auditor General's report an amount of $166,344 was spent for that purpose. Perhaps the minister can give the committee some idea as to the amount for salaries and expenses in connection with the control of the distribution of seed, feed and fertilizers under this item.


William Richard Motherwell: The same staff
handles the three services.


Donald Sutherland: In
view of the fact that the fertilizer business has been practically put out of business in this country I would imagine that instead of an increase in the estimate a reduction would follow.


William Richard Motherwell: It is largely to keep tab on importations that the inspection staff is required.


Donald Sutherland: I
am afraid the minister is keeping a little too much tab on things and not doing enough to encourage industry in this country. Only on Saturday I went into a place of business in the town where I live and complaint was made as to the number of government officials coming in, forcing them to make returns to the government that are absolutely useless, worrying people into making statements. Some of these people have to keep an extra staff in order to make out statements to the government. They have inspectors coming in, one looking after one particular business, coming in one day and on the following day another one looking after something else, when they might very well be combined. I notice from the Civil Service Commission report a few days ago that about twenty new officials are being taken into the department. There has been a tremendous increase in the staff of the Department of Agriculture since the minister took office. He certainly has not reduced expenses in that respect, and instead of combining four different subjects into one item the minister ought to give us an idea of how much of this vote is being devoted to each of them.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
never misses an opportunity of discussing the number of inspectors we require and the grievance that he holds against the Department of Agriculture because of their number. I took advantage of the opportunity of making a week-end visit to my hon. friend's district a few days ago, As we went through the town of Ingersoll I looked out to see if there was anything exceptional with respect to imported cheese.


Donald Sutherland: Of
course the minister noticed along the river three factories, every one of which was closed down ?


William Richard Motherwell: We went on into
Middlesex and spent the week-end there. I did not hear in that district any of these
Supply-Agriculture

complaints, not one. They were in the middle of the sugar-making season, and maybe that was the reason they felt pleasant and did not retail any of the perennial grievances of my hon. friend; but I was looking for them. The people did not seem to show by their vote the other day that they were aggrieved. Did the Minister of Justice hear any complaints while he was up there?


Ernest Lapointe: No, not -a word.


William Richard Motherwell: I ask the hon.
member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Tobin), did he hear any grievances of this kind?


Donald Sutherland: I
have no doubt that the Minister of Justice was investigating those complaints when his train pulled out and left him!


William Richard Motherwell: I have not heard
one whisper of these grievances.


Arthur Meighen: You have no time to
listen to them.


William Richard Motherwell: ' Maybe not. But what about the vote registered there the other day?


Robert James Manion: What about the vote registered on the 29th of October in every section of Ontario?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, what about
it?


Arthur Meighen: Was there any Peace
River agent there?


William Richard Motherwell: Did any pfficer
that the government is responsible for go wrong in any respect in Peace River? The returning officer did not go wrong; it was a deputy.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, I see.


William Richard Motherwell: Now, I have really forgotten what the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) wanted to know. But I can make a pretty straight guess at it- something about inspectors. This work unavoidably and inevitably is largely inspec-tional. In order to keep down the very expense that my hon. friend is complaining about, the same staff administers seed, feed, and fertilizers; consequently the particulars are not kept separately.


Donald Sutherland: Do
any of these inspectors go across the line and inspect the fertilizer plants?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Donald Sutherland: The tariff was referred to as a tax. Now surely the minister will not contend that commercial

fertilizers are not higher in price to-day than they were before the tariff was removed? I think he had better let this item stand until he obtains for the House the exact prices of fertilizers.


William Richard Motherwell: I am able now to
give the information asked for by some hon'. members with respect to the number of fertilizer firms that were established and operating last year in Canada. We were nine below the number. We estimated the total at fifty; we have fifty-nine in operation. There were two hundred and eighty-nine registrations of fertilizers.


Peter McGibbon: What is the capacity of those plants?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know.


Donald Sutherland: The minister will realize that these firms are not manufacturing fertilizers, they are merely mixing the ingredients, and the prices are fixed at Baltimore in every instance.


William Richard Motherwell: A great many
farmers are doing the mixing for themselves


Donald Sutherland: 1
suppose among the fifty-nine are included some farmers who are mixing their fertilizers on the barn floor.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Peter McGibbon: A few years ago during
the war Professor McLennan of Toronto University reported that there were millions and millions of dollars worth of pure nitrogen gas escaping daily into the air. I think he was referring to the Okanagan Valley. That potential wealth is pretty hard to estimate. Has the minister's department, in view of the fact that this country is likely to use a large amount of fertilizer in the future, ever considered doing anything towards utilizing that vast potential wealth?


William Richard Motherwell: We have done nothing in connection with it because we do not know where it is located.


Peter McGibbon: Might I recall to the minister's mind that the report was made by Professor McLennan, professor of physics in the University of Toronto, who rendered distinguished service during the war? I think he devised the plan that enabled the British Admiralty to close the straits of Dover to German submarines; and he discovered helium gas. In fact, he is one of the greatest scientists on this continent. People thought the gas was of no use because it would not burn. Surely the minister is alive to the immense potential wealth of this gas?

Acting Ministers


William Richard Motherwell: Surely.


Peter McGibbon: Has his department considered taking any-steps to utilize the gas?


William Richard Motherwell: I will do so if my
hon. friend will tell me where it is located.


Peter McGibbon: I refer the minister to Professor McLennan, who discovered it.


William Duff: Carried.


Mr. DAVIS:: Mr. Chairman, it was understood that this item should stand until the minister obtained the prices of fertilizers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
For experiments in dehydration of fruits and vegetables, $10,000.
Simon Fraser Tolmie: Mr. Chairman, we have
had rather a busy day with agriculture ever since three o'clock, and as it is now after eleven I think we might stop at this point. We have made fairly good progress and have had a very interesting and delightful discussion.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
knows my weakness-I always capitulate to such a request. I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Friday, April 9, 1926