1928-02-14

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from February 10 consideration in committee on Bill No. 7 to amend the Patent Act. Mr. Rinfret. Mr. Johnston in the chair:
On section 1-Manufacture for reasonable requirements.
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: When we were discussing thfg
section the other day reference was made to the words:
Not less than one year after the thirteenth day of June one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three.
It was pointed out quite properly that this revision was perfectly obsolete. I may say that it was intended in this act to reproduce the exact wording of the revised statutes. I quite admit it has no meaning at all. At the same time, if we adopt the other phrase, "one year after the passing of this act" it may be misconstrued, and may be interpreted to mean that we intend to give an additional year to the holder of the patent. I move that we rescind the amendment made the other day, and strike out the words: "and not less than one year after the thirteenth day of June one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three."


Mr. CHURCH:: Will the minister tell me what he proposes to do, now that he has struck out the amendment, in regard to having in Canada a national patent and trade mark policy? On looking up the records I find that under this section over 90 per cent of the trade marks are owned by aliens. My
point is that all these patents which deal with the raw materials or natural resources of Canada should be under the control of Canadians. The commissioner of patents should be given power to require that these patents shall stay in Canada and that the product shall be manufactured in Canada for the time limit of one year. I find in other countries where similar legislation is in force, what they call a national policy, and provision is made for the revocation of a patent in such cases. What is the result to-day of this patent law which we have in Canada? Has there been any revocation?
I do not believe there has been a single revocation. An American citizen comes into Canada, goes to the patent office and files his application under this section or some other section. He procures his patent, goes to the United States with the patent in his pocket, takes the raw material from Canada and manufactures it in the United States.
In the case of the radio and motor car business, if we had a law providing that all the work should be done in Canada, it would create employment for our people. You cannot go to Washington and secure a patent, and then take the profits accruing therefrom out of the country, for there they have a national policy in the patent office, a policy that applies also in other departments of the United States government. To-day we have no brakes to control patentees, and I am confident that a return to the house will show that over ninety per cent of our patents and trademarks are held by other than British subjects. If this bill is the best the government can do in consolidating our patent act, the sooner we make a patent law after the American pattern the better it will be for Canada.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, as I explained the other day, the object of this bill is to bring our patent act into conformity with the decisions arrived at by the countries which met at The Hague international conference. On Friday the committee was quite agreeable to the bill. I think my hon. friend will agree that when a patent is granted we should see to it that within a reasonable time the patentee manufactures under his patent for the benefit of the country.


Thomas Langton Church: I would remind the minister that this bill is now before the parliament of Canada, not The Hague conference. I appeal to him as a Canadian interested in the development of our natural resources to see to it that we have in our patent law a national policy that will ensure the patented
Patent Act

article being manufactured in Canada for at least a year, to give Canadians a chance of employment. Our present patent law is driving our people across the border to work up our raw materials there.


The CHAIRMAN:: When this bill was last before the committee clause 1 was amended. In line 8 the words:
-thirteenth day of June one thousand nine hundred and twenty-threewere stricken out, and the words:
-after the passing of this act substituted. The minister now moves that the amendment be rescinded and the words in the seventh and following lines:
and not less than one year after the thirteenth day of June one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three
be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I now ask, Mr. Chairman, that we revert to clause 2, where the same situation occurs. I move that we also rescind the amendment agreed to last Friday and that the words:
not less than one year after the thirteenth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three
be stricken out.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Please read the amendment.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It is the same amendment as we have made in the preceding clause.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Since the bill was in committee some interested parties have reported to me that we might possibly make a change at the thirty-first line. It says:
if a license in respect of said patent has previously been granted under section 40,
I may explain that the commissioner of patents does not grant the license; he simply orders the patentee to do so. The intention of the legislation would be carried out if we substitute for the word "granted" the word " ordered," because a case might arise where a patentee had been ordered to grant a license and had not done so. I believe that under the other sections of the act we could still proceed against him and revoke his patent. However, I think the clause will be much clearer if it is made to read:
if a license in respect of said patent has previously been ordered under section 40.

I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that in line 31 we strike out the word "granted" and insert the word " ordered."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Chairman, in the same section, a few lines below the place to which the minister has just referred, are the following words:
and unless the patentee proves that the patented article or process is manufactured or carried on to an adequate extent in Canada.
Will he kindly explain what "adequate extent" means?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: A similar question was put to me the other day. It is within the discretion of the commissioner. If my hon. friend will revert to clause 1, subsection (c), he will see that the commissioner considers the petition, and has discretion to determine whether in his judgment the requirements of the public are adequately provided for and the article adequately manufactured. I may say to my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) that although we were very much pleased last week to do away with the split infinitive, the words "adequately manufactured" are used throughout the bill, and practically form a verb by themselves. It is immaterial either way.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Chairman, I expected some such answer from the minister. I believe the reason why Canadian patents are not as well taken care of as they ought to be is that there is too much power given to the commissioner of patents. You should have your law so framed that if a patent is void, it is void; and if it is not void, then the commissioner should have no discretion.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I welcome my hon. friend's opinion, which I prize very highly. There is no intention in this bill to alter the principle of our patent law. We are merely bringing our legislation into conformity with the decisions of The Hague conference in respect of such minor matters as I have indicated. I shall be only too pleased to consider my hon. friend's representations and if possible make a more extensive study of the whole patent law with a view to its general revision.


James Dew Chaplin: I did not catch the full purport of the amendment; perhaps the minister will read it again.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The amendment is very plain. It was provided in the amending act of 1923 that the disposition would obtain for one year, and when the revision was made this was carried into the revised statutes-

Patent Act
"not less than one year after the thirteenth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three This is now quite obsolete.
I am sure my hon. friend will have no objection to the amendment in this respect, and the other amendment consists merely in the changing of a word. Subsection 2 empowers the commissioner to consider the application,
" and if a license in respect of said patent has previously been granted under section 40", then certain action is taken. This is what I should call a clerical error, because we do not grant licenses under section 40; we order the license to be granted by the patentee. The only change, therefore, is from the word " granted " to the word " ordered ".


Thomas Langton Church: It seems that parliament is being asked to hand over the administration of the act to a commissioner who may or may not grant licenses for political purposes. The word " granted " is changed to " ordered ", Subsection 2 provides for the revocation of the patent unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the patented article or process " is manufactured or carried on within Canada to an adequate extent ", Do these words imply that the applicant for a patent may be at liberty to bring in foreign labour, skilled or unskilled, in violation of our Alien Labour Act, as is actually done now? In the city I come from a number of men were brought in from the south to work in the nursery business, notwithstanding that similar labour could have been obtained in Canada. In my opinion this bill should take account of the provisions of the alien labour law in this respect. Will it not be possible for the holders of patents, under this provision, to bring in skilled and unskilled labour from the United States under the terms of paragraph (b) from which I have quoted?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend has repeated the argument he advanced on the previous section and I thought he would take it that I had not changed my view of the matter. We have discussed this question before and it has been pointed out that the proposed legislation is intended to carry out the terms of a mutual agreement on the part of the nations that met at The Hague. It is a plausible argument that this parliament does not sit at The Hague but in Ottawa. That is perfectly true. But is it not desirable that we should take advantage of the protection which will be afforded us by the participating countries? Surely it is not a bad thing now and then to cultivate the international spirit in matters of this kind which 56103-28
link the nations together. Really, to be perfectly frank, I must say that my hon. friend's objection does not appeal to me.


Mr. BOYS:: I do not quite appreciate the
object in changing the word "granted" to the word "ordered". I can understand that the license might be ordered, but there comes a time when it is actually issued. Surely, therefore, the intention must be to make it applicable not only to licenses which have been ordered but to licenses which have been issued.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The commissioner orders
the license to be granted but the license is granted by the patentee himself. Of course, under section 40, if he fails to issue the license within a certain time limit we may revoke the patent.	We thought that the
provision would be better worded in the manner now proposed. We order that the patent be granted; that is the only thing we do as a department. The commissioner orders the patentee to grant the license.


William Alves Boys: Is not the license eventually
issued by the department?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It is granted by the
patentee himself.


William Alves Boys: But take the document itself,
the license: where does it come from?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It is registered in the
department, but we have no way of compelling tjhe patentee to grant the license. We may, however, revoke his patent. The proposed amendment aims simply at making the provision clearer and bringing it more into harmony with the previous section.


William Alves Boys: I do not think the minister
grasps my point. What I want to indicate is that there comes a time when the license is issued, and so far as I know it is issued by the department. I may be wrong in that regard; if so-if it is issued by the patentee . -then I agree with the minister.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Under the copyright law, where application is made for a license the department grants it; under the patent law, on the other hand, the department issues the order and the patentee grants the license. If our instructions have not been followed and the license is not granted, then we may proceed under section 40.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



St. John and Quebec Railway



TRADE MARK AND DESIGN ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from February 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. 8, to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act.- Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I move that we revert
to section 6.
On section 6-Filing of application already filed in another country.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have an amendment
which will change the wording of this section. The leader of the opposition pointed out the other day that in the first two lines of that section the words "as enacted by section 3 of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1923," had become obsolete, and my purpose is to move that the section be amended by striking out those words. I also move that the figures 49 at the beginning of the new section be changed to 52. There is nothing material in the change except to do away with the line which figured in the old act, but which has no meaning now that we have a revised statute.	*
Section as amended agreed to.
Amendments concurred in.
Bill reported.



SAINT JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from February 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. 9, to authorize an extension of time for the completion of the St. John and Quebec Railway between Centrevil'le, in the county of Carle-ton, and Andover, in the county of Victoria, N.B.-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-extension of time.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): The other day, when this bill was before the committee, the leader of (he opposition called my attention to a point in connection with it, and the bill was left in committee in order that I might have the opportunity to (take the matter up again with the Department of Justice. I have done so. and the Department of Justice regards the amendment in its present form as quite sufficient for the purpose, and I am also advised that the Premier of New Brunswick, who is really the promoter of the line in question, is perfectly satisfied with it as it now appears, and he requests it in this form.
Thomas Langton Church: I have been a member
of the railway committee for six years, and I (Mr. Rinfret.J
have never known a bill asking for an extension of time which has not been referred to that committee. I do not see why any exception should be made even in this case of a government bill. We have a committee appointed by this house to deal with questions of charters and extensions of time and so on, and I am going to move that this bill be referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. DUNNING:: Probably my hon. friend was not present the other day when this matter was referred to the committee of the whole instead of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, as is usually the case. The reason for dealing with it in this manner is that this is not an ordinary railway charter; the railway in question is owned by the government of the province of New Brunswick, and the extension is asked for by that government. It was therefore thought quite proper to deal with it in this way, as no private interests are involved in any sense and it is not necessary to call witnesses and go through the usual procedure. I should also say that this railway is in operation already, and this extension refers to a branch which is not yet constructed.


Thomas Langton Church: Technically the minister
may be correct, and this may only be one exception, but at the same time I see no reason why the house should be asked to deal with railway bills in this w-ay. The predecessor of the present minister had all the branch line bills, government and private, sent to the railway committee, for consideration, and even the estimates of the Canadian National Railways are sent to a committee of this house to be dealt with. All the branch line bibs were sent to the railway committee, and that is the only regular way in which bills of this kind should be considered under the rules of the house. Some of these companies are only paper companies; they get a charter and then ask for repeated extensions of time. We had two or three bills before the railway committee during the last two or three sessions requesting an extension of time, and hardly a dollar had been spent on any of them. I contend that this process violates the whole principle of the Railway Act. For these reasons I think the minister should agree to have this bill dealt with in the regular way.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Royal Military College

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from February 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. 13, respecting the Royal Military College of Canada-Mr. Ralston.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: When the bill was last under
consideration section 7 was allowed to stand, and also section 9. In. reference to section 7 the committee will remember we were discussing the provisions for the admission of cadets to the college. As I pointed out, the provision which was retained in the old act was obsolete because of the fact that now there is no preliminary examination; the examinations are based on standards of educational qualifications in the different provinces, and it was unworkable to select candidates from the whole of the Dominion in order of merit. I have, however, considered the suggestions which were made at that time to incorporate as far as possible the principle of merit, and, as I indicated to the committee, whether it is incorporated in the act by regulation or practice, it is the only standard under which the act will be administered. I now suggest to the committee that the following words be inserted at the beginning of section 7:
The selection of cadets from each province shall be in order of merit, and
This I think will be found satisfactory. The reason the words "from each province" are inserted is because it is felt we cannot put together all the candidates from the Dominion and simply select them in order of merit. That would not be fair to the individual provinces and would not give them their quota.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to see a
change made in the law with respect to this splendid institution under which the period for obtaining a diploma would be changed from four to three years where it was for over thirty-five years until recently. A complaint I hear made in respect to the Royal Military College is in regard to matriculation or entrance. In every province there is a separate examination for matriculation, and I think that the change made in the system followed at Kingston has not been in the best interests of that institution. We should go back to the old system and let the college run its own entrance.
I should like to quote from a letter written to me at my request by Mr. Iva E. Martin, M.A., who was director of studies at the college for many years, and is now one of 56103-28J
my constituents. Mr. Martin was one of the most brilliant students in mathematics who ever graduated from Toronto university, and was a most efficient and successful member of the staff of the Royal Military College for over thirty years. The minister should see to it that in the matter of literary requirements the college should go forward and not backward. Merit alone should be the test of entrance with one examination for all.
May I be permitted to read two or three paragraphs of the letter in question? Professor Martin has the confidence of all classes of graduates. He did more to make the college than anyone else. He says:
This proposed act will put into a practical form the authority necessary to continue the institution as it is nowr being conducted. The old act has been out of date for years. Regulations issued from time to time by the governor in council is the real basis of its operations and this act merely authorizes this constitution.
I would suggest that paragraph 2 (1) of the proposed act be made to read something as follows:
2. (I) There shall be an institution for the purpose of imparting a preliminary education in military subjects such as tactics, fortification, engineering, etc., and a general introduction to such scientific subjects as may be connected with, and necessary to, the technical education of a military officer in the performance of his duties in the military profession. Also for qualifying officers for command and for staff appointments.
Paragraph 5 indicates the "qualifications" of the commandant which are difficult of realization in the practice, and I think that he should be "assisted" by a director of studies who should be selected from the civil members of his staff.
Professor Martin is right in all he says. There should be a director of studies under the commandant with increased duties and powers. I hope the minister will see his way clear to provide improved buildings, equipment and grounds and a recreation hall for the Royal Military College so that it may not lag behind McGill. Queens and other universities and colleges, and grant better pay to the staff and give them quarters at less rates.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Before the amendment
carries I should like to say that the clause appears to me to be very indefinite. No one can say how "order of merit" is to be determined. Merit in what? In athletics, in scholarships, in Sunday school work?


James Layton Ralston: Merit in the subjects
required for the examination.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The clause does not say so. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this matter is left entirely at large without any definition, it may be purely guess work. Anyone can come later on and say merit is one thing,
Royal Military College

and somebody else will say it is another thing, and the point will be decided according to the decision of the commandant or the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
James Layton Ralston: Regarding clause 9 the
suggestion was made that the old act provided a limitation of the amount to be paid by each student. I have incorporated that in an amended section which I will read to the committee:
9. Every cadet shall be required to furnish himself with such books, apparatus and equipment as are not supplied by the college, and to pay a sum not exceeding the rate of $300 per annum and such allowances as are from time to time authorized by the governor in council to meet the ordinary expenses of living and the procuring of uniform.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Do I understand that the student will have to pay for his tuition and board the amount of $300 per annum? .


James Layton Ralston: I have sent down for a
statement as to just what it does include. I can only assure my hon. friend that this is exactly the provision that is in the old act. The cadet will not have to pay any more under this bill than under the old act. I gave the figures when we were considering this bill before, to the effect that they only paid $300 per year, except the first year when they paid $550, $250 being allowance for uniform.


John Wesley Edwards: What I am going to say may not be very popular, but that will not be an unusual experience with me in this house. Needless to say* I have a great admiration for the Royal Military College, for the work it is doing and for the reputation which its graduates have made throughout the world. I am not sure that we are on the right track in limiting t'he cost to what it has been in the past, namely, $300. The cost of obtaining a degree in arts, medicine or science in any of our Canadian universities is far below the cost of the education provided to a cadet of the Royal Military College. In so far as we limit the cost to the student, we increase the cost to the country, provided that we increase the accommodation at the college for a greater number of students- It may be advisable to keep the expenditure down to about where it is or where it has been; but if we are to do that and at the same time increase the accommodation so that more students can attend-and I think that should be done-it seems to me that it is about time

and very proper that we should consider whether or not the cost borne by the students might not be increased to a certain degree. I am not going to suggest what that cost should be; but the very fact that that sum of $300 has obtained for so many years, notwithstanding what we all know to be the fact that the cost of education in all other institutions has enormously increased in comparison with what it was a number of years ago, suggests that the matter of what the students should pay, without too large a burden being placed upon them, is one which might very fairly be considered from the standpoint of fair play to all concerned.
The Royal Military College is regarded, and rightly so, as giving a very efficient and select education to carefully selected men from all parts of Canada. The cost to the student is very low as compared with that of other institutions such as universities. I should like to see the number of students increased. That, of course, would mean an increase in the cost to the country unless some appreciable increase in cost was placed upon the student himself. I may not be on a popular line in expressing the thought that the student should pay more money; but having regard to all the circumstances and changed conditions, I submit it is a matter which is worthy of our careful consideration.


James Layton Ralston: There are perhaps many
of us who on general principles would feel inclined to concur in what my hon. friend has said; but in amending this act I have felt that-1 do not want to introduce any new principle. The point is that the accommodation has not been increased, and when the accommodation is increased I quite agree with him that it may be well for whoever is considering the matter to consider an increase of charge to the student as well. I should like the committee to remember that these students are selected in a different way from students going to an ordinary educational institution. In every other institution the doors are wide open to students. Before a student obtains the privilege, for it is a privilege, of receiving this education in the Royal Military College, he must show a certain qualification, a certain aptness, a certain physical fitness, a certain mental alertness, and, in short, he must measure up to a certain standard. Therefore it is felt that it is perhaps not advisable at this stage, when I am merely suggesting more or less formal amendments to the act for the purpose of bringing it up to date, that we should consider increasing the cost to the student. When the

Canteen Funds
accommodation becomes more luxurious and extensive, there may be an opportunity for considering that matter.


John Wesley Edwards: I quite appreciate the viewpoint of the minister and I am prepared to concur in it. Has he under his hand sufficient material to enable him to inform the committee what percentage of the graduates of the Royal Military College follow a military career after leaving the college?


James Layton Ralston: I do not have that just
under my hand. Speaking from memory I would think those who actually enter the permanent forces are less than five per cent, but I would also point out that in the late war ninety-nine per cent of the living students who were physically fit took their part and behaved themselves creditably as students of the Royal Military College should do.


Thomas Langton Church: Might I ask the minister if the supplies are going to be purchased under the federal patronage system? With the increased fees and the uniform and equipment required, the Royal Military College is now looked upon as a rich man's college. 'Nowadays out of sixteen collegiate institutes in the Toronto district the college does not get more than one or two students a year, while in other years it got quite a number. There is no other institution in Canada where there is more party patronage as regards not only the staff, civil and military, and the help, but the purchase of the equipment, repairs to buildings, new buildings and supplies. They even built a road through the constituency of the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) under the patronage system, and he can tell how at great expense a little bit of macadam and concrete road was built some of it without tender, which could have been put in by any city engineer for one-third of the cost. The whole tendency seems to turn this institution from what it was intended by its founders into a rich man's college. The course has been lengthened to four years; the fees have been increased as well as the equipment and supplies. The whole thing is just a patronage institution for the benefit of the Liberal party in the city of Kingston and in the county of Frontenac. All the supplies are being bought down there. If the department would buy the text books in the same way as the largeT boards of education in Canada do, they would save this institution and the cadets from one-quarter to one-third of the present cost. I should like the minister to consider the policy of buying these books and supplying them
to the students, charging so much for them and thus effecting an economy.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend knows of any instances in connection with which any improper expenditures have been made, I trust he will bring the matter to my attention when the estimates of the Royal Military College are before the house. As regards patronage I want to say to him that I know of no institution under any government department that is conducted as free from party patronage as this institution is, and while I happen to hold the position I do, that condition of things will remain, because I do not propose to have this institution made anything other than what it is, namely, a place where deserving young men, men who will become creditable Canadians will be able to obtain an education at a moderate cost and thus be fitted to take their part in their country's affairs.


John Wesley Edwards: I hope the day is far distant when, as was suggested on a former occasion in this house, the present Postmaster-General (Mr. Yeniot) might succeed the Minister of National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide for the disposition and allotment of the canteen funds which were accumulated during the war by certain units of the Canadian expeditionary force in Canada, the Canadian Siberian forces and by the forces stationed at St. Lucia (British West Indies), resulting from the profits of canteens and other like institutions operated by the several units and formations, and for the administration of the same by the provincial! board of trustees appointed under the Canteen Funds Act. chapter 34 of the statutes of 1925.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. BENNETT:: Perhaps the minister will make a statement.


James Layton Ralston: There is deposited with
the Receiver General of Canada the sum of about $124,000 which has been accumulated from the profits of canteens operated by units which have their local organizations in Canada, which did not themselves proceed overseas. These were units such as depot detachments, hospital units and things of that sort, and in
Canteen Funds

addition to that there were three units not so localized such as the Siberian expeditionary force, the St. Lucia forces, and the Y.M.C.A., all of which accumulated profits, and these had been paid to the receiver general.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: About what do they
amount to?


James Layton Ralston: About $124,000.


Hugh Guthrie: That is what is left?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. The way in which it is proposed to dispose of these funds-we are advised that it is necessary to enact legislation-is to divide it up into allotments according to provinces and hand the funds over to the canteen boards which were constituted under the act of 1925. The administration will naturally be somewhat different, and the proportions to the provinces will be somewhat different from the overseas canteen funds, but that is a matter rvhich I think can be taken care of by the provincial boards when the moneys come to their hands. What we have done is this: we have taken the place of organization of a particular depot unit, and have allotted the funds, the profits of that unit, to the particular province where the organization took place. Generally speaking the enlistments were made from a province in which the unit was situated. In addition to that we have the Siberian forces, the St. Lucia forces, and the Y.M.C.A. force, and in this case the division proposed is according to the enlistments in each province. By a combination of the two a percentage has been made up which is given in the schedule to the bill based on this resolution, and it is proposed to hand the funds over in these proportions to the various provinces- I do not know whether the committee will be interested in having the percentages given or not. I will give the figures roughly, leaving out the second decimal. They are as follows:
Per cent
Alberta	 6.5
British Columbia	 3.6
Manitoba	 10.9
New Brunswick	 5.5
Nova Scotia	 4.1
Ontario	 41.5
Prince Edward Island	32
Quebec	 23.5
Saskatchewan	 3.1


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Can the minister give
it in dollars and cents?


James Layton Ralston: 
Mr. GUI HR  IE@: May I ask if this scheme
which is now propounded has been approved by the Canadian Legion and the other soldier organizations?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot say at the
moment. The officers of my department were in consultation with some of these representatives, but I cannot answer offhand.


Mr. MANION:: Are those funds being
divided up on the same basis as the other funds of last year, and by the same organization? I think I understood the minister to say they were.


James Layton Ralston: They are being divided
by thS same organization and on the same basis, except that my hon. friend must remember that those who were overseas would probably not expect to share in those funds, because those who originally enlisted in the depot units and went overseas are supposed to have gotten the benefits of the profits from the depot canteens when they sailed. Conducting officeis were given a certain amount for comforts, which was supposed to represent in theory at least a. fair proportion of the unexpended profits up to that time. So that those who will share in this fund, will be largely those who have not gone overseas, and who have not derived any benefit from any other source.


Robert James Manion: 
James Layton Ralston: No. I shall be glad to
have any suggestions because we all recog-, nize that we are to some extent dealing with

Canteen Funds
a fund which, in the strict legal interpretation at least, may belong to individuals, but which in a lump sum will permit something tangible being done with it. Therefore any helpful suggestions I shall be very glad to have.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Were not these funds
accumulated from the money of men who were overseas?


James Layton Ralston: These funds particularly
were not. I think, accumulated from men who were overseas. As I tried to point out, those who went overseas, in theory at least, and, 1 think they will agree, generally in practice too, received the benefit of the profits of the depot canteens from which they made their purchases. Then those who were overseas began to get the benefit of canteen funds from overseas canteens, but those who remained in Canada still kept contributing to those depot canteen funds, and it i- they and their dependants who, I think, would benefit largely by any disposition of these funds. The bill to follow this resolution does provide that any use of the provincial allotment for relief purposes should be limited to the class of case for which no relief is then available from governmental sources* or from the allotment made under the Canteen Funds Act. In other words, it proposes to provide for the class of men who contributed most generally towards the funds still left.


Mr. CLARK:: Mr. Chairman, I think the
minister ought to be able to assure the committee generally that those men who did go overseas and did contribute to these funds actually received the proportion to which they were entitled. I have grave doubts that that is the fact. I do not think it was the custom to pay them tbi exact proportion of the funds to which they would have been entitled had a division been made at the time. True, they may have been given something from the funds when they went overseas, but I do not think it is generally accepted that they received the proportion to which they would have been actually entitled if the funds had been divided at the time. Therefore I do not think the men who went overseas should entirely be disentitled to something from these funds.


James Layton Ralston: I endeavoured to make
it clear to the committee that I thought in theory at least-that is the word I used- these men were supposed to have received the benefit of the funds that had accumulated; but there was no accounting, and there may have been more contributed than was paid out. We have to deal with the practical
situation here and the question is whether it is worth while attempting to divide the small amount of money among all the men who contributed, or to confine it to those who were members of the depot units. As I said to my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) a few moments ago, I shall be very glad to receive suggestions from the committee when the bill is under consideration. The principal thought in mind is not to dissipate the money so that it will not do any good.


John Arthur Clark: What information has the
government secured from those directly interested in the funds? After all, their representations should have some bearing on the disposition of the money.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot give my hon.
friend an answer in regard to this particular resolution, I can only speak of the representations which were made to the commission which considered canteen funds generally two or three years ago. At that time it was represented that these funds should not be divided among individuals, but should be used for the relief and general benefit of those most in need. That is the principle which I think our ex-service men would like to see carried out, and it is the principle under which the provincial boards are administering the funds received from overseas canteens.


John Arthur Clark: Why were they not included at the time?


James Layton Ralston: This particular fund was not the immediate subject of the investigation to which I refer, although that investigation had to do with similar funds accumulated overseas.


Mr. GEARY:: Has the minister any information as to the amount received from each of the sources outlined, for instance, the Siberian forces, the forces stationed at St. Lucia, and so on?


James Layton Ralston: I could give my hon. friend the proportions going to the different provinces from these funds. I do not se-em to have under my hand the total received from the Siberian forces. For Ontario, for instance, the fund of $42,000 is made up of funds from about sixty different units. The only two amounts that I notice from the Siberian expeditionary forces in Ontario are $139 and $71. The 85th battery of the Siberian force contributed $652. I cannot give my hon. friend the total for the Siberian forces. It is simply a matter of arithmetic
Admiralty Act

to add together the various items relating to the Siberian expeditionary force under each provincial list.


George Reginald Geary: Those two items were probably moneys realized in Canada.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ralston thereupon moved for leave ito introduce Bill No. 39 respecting the disposal of certain canteen funds.
Motion agreed to and bill read' the first time.



ADMIRALTY ACT AMENDMENT

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That the order for the second reading of bill No. 30 to amend the Admiralty Act be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of
Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 31 to amend the Supreme Court Act.
John Wesley Edwards: What is the nature of this bill?


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps my hon. friend will let the bill go into committee, when each section can be explained.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Dates of sessions of supreme court changed.
Ernest Lapointe: Under the law as it stands the spring sittings of the court begin on the first Tuesday in May, but it is represented that it is more convenient for the court to have the sittings begin on the fourth Tuesday in April. The judges desire to work a little longer and I do not think there can be any objection to that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Notice of adjournment of court.
Ernest Lapointe: This is. to amend the section which provides that the court may adjourn any session from time to time and meet again, at the time appointed, for the transaction of business. The subsection which it is proposed to repeal provides that notice of adjournment and the day fixed shall be given by the registrar in the Canada Gazette.

It is stated that the provision is unnecessary and, as a matter of fact, has not been observed in practice. As a rule these adjournments are for very short intervals and sometimes it would be impossible to advertise them in the Canada Gazette unless an extra issue were published. The fact is that only the lawyers concerned in the case, the hearing of which is adjourned, are really interested and they know when the court will meet again. It is therefore considered unnecessary to have publication of notice in the Canada Gazette.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Appeal to be on a stated case.
Ernest Lapointe: This amendment adds the following proviso:
Provided that the court may, in its discretion, on special grounds, and by special leave, receive further evidence upon any question of fact, such evidence to be taken in the manner authorized by this act, either by oral examination in court, by affidavit, or by deposition, as the court may direct.
As explained in the note on the opposite page, it has happened quite recently, in the case of Red Mountain Railway Company versus Blue, that the filing of plans ^before the court here could not be accomplished for the reason that the court had no authority to receive such new evidence, and when the case went to the Privy Council the filing of the plans was allowed. The new provision is intended to give the Supreme Court of Canada the same power which is exercised by the Privy Council and by the appeal court in England.


Hugh Guthrie: And Ontario.


Ernest Lapointe: And, my hon. friend adds, the appeal courtaof Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 33, to amend the public printing and stationery act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-How expenses shall be met.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I expressed the opinion
the other day that this bill was an endeavour

Printing and Stationery Act
to place a limitation on the working capital of the department in the sum of $700,000, but I pointed out that the last words of the measure were intended to place unlimited discretion in the power of the governor in council and for that reason were most objectionable. It will be observed that the working capital of the department may by this section be increased up to a sum not to exceed $700,000. If the bill stopped there it would be easily understood. But these words follow:
Or such sum as may hereafter be determined, from time to time, by the governor in council.
It is perfectly obvious that you cannot in one sentence place a limitation of the amount and then, in another sentence, use language that places no limitation on the sum that may be granted by the governor in council. Here we have a parliamentary restriction to $700,000 and at the same time a parliamentary grant to the governor in council of power to increase that sum to any extent in the world. That, I submit, should not be done and cannot possibly be in the mind of the minister. You cannot restrict with one hand and with the other confer unlimited power.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There is much force in
my hon. friend's argument and I am quite willing to meet his views in that respect. The idea behind the legislation was to rectify a situation which has existed for some time. While the statute provided for an advance to the printing bureau of $200,000 at a time, it happened that the advances were liable to be protracted according to special circumstances. The object was to increase the limit to $700,000 and also to provide for a possible emergency, if that amount should prove insufficient, as for instance in the event of a long recess where no estimates were voted. I quite agree with my hon. friend that there is a contradiction in fixing a limitation and at the same time providing that there be none. I move, therefore, that the section as it stands be amended by striking out the words "or such sum as may hereafter be determined, from time to time, by the governor in council." I may add, however, that it is just possible that this will afford the minister occasion to come back in future sessions with similar bills.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister appreciated the point the other day and I assure him that I appreciate his position. But may I suggest to him, as being in charge of the Printing and Stationery department, that when he mentioned the other day the fact that he had inventories amounting to half
a million dollars he might have reflected that it is sound business in these days to keep inventories as low as possible. I was amazed to find that his inventories totalled that sum, while he was asking for a working capital of $700,000. If he has read the book recently published by Mr. Ford he will see that when that gentleman was confronted with a difficult situation he saw the wisdom of reducing inventories. And .with the paper business, of all businesses in the world, it is highly desirable to keep inventories as low as possible, or a loss will be suffered.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: When this matter was before the committee previously I gathered that the printing department was self-sustaining, and that when they performed their work of publishing certain documents, say for the Department of the Interior, that work was charged to the Department of the Interior and the printing department got credit for it, and the same all along the line. Perhaps I should bring this up on the estimates, but at present I see no provision made in any of the departments for repaying the printing department for work done.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think I can satisfy my hon. friend right away. This is only one clause in a somewhat extensive act, and if my hon. friend will -refer to the whole act he will find that provision is made for everything he asks.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Then why the necessity of increasing the capital account if the work is credited to the printing department immediately it is completed?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is to cover the interval between the time of the completion of the work and the time the work is paid for by the different departments.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Agriculture-dairying, including grant of $5,000 to the National Dairy Council, $265,000.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The committee will notice that there is not very much change in the size of this vote; the $14,000 increase is largely accounted for by salary increases which came into effect last year. There are three or four main items ;into which this sum is divided; part of it is taken up with research
Supply-Agricult ure

work, part with the grading of butter throughout the country and a part is spent on educational work. I will give the details as soon as I get the figures, which will be here in a moment.


Mr. LUCAS:: The minister mentioned the grading of butter. I would like to ask if there is now a standard system of grading butter in the Dominion?


William Richard Motherwell: The grading is uniform now. The western provinces formerly did their own grading and we accepted their grades, but that was found to be not very satisfactory. They wanted to include more in their grading than was the case in the east, so an arrangement was made about a year ago whereby we would take over the grading for all the western provinces, and that is what was done.


William Thomas Lucas: Does that grading only apply to butter for export, or to butter for domestic use as well?


William Richard Motherwell: It is only for export, although the same grades are used for domestic butter. Tor home consumption the grading is only voluntary, while for export it is compulsory. The export business, of course, has now come to be very small.


John Wesley Edwards: As the minister very properly says, the exports of butter have come to be very small, and there are very good reasons why that condition has come about, some of which I desire to place before the minister for his most careful and prayerful consideration. For two or three moments I would like to refer to the effect of the foolish legislation put through in 1925 upon the dairying interests in Canada when this government entered into an agreement with Australia and New Zealand. That trade agreement came into force with regard to Australia on October 1, 1925, and was extended by order in council to New Zealand. At the time that agreement was made the rates of duty on butter under the tariff of 1907 were 4 cents general and intermediate, and 3 cents British preferential. Under the Paterson plan operating in Australia three cents a pound on every pound of butter manufactured in the commonwealth was put into a pool, and out of that pool six cents a pound was paid on each pound of butter exported. This, it is quite obvious, has given a very decided advantage to the producers of butter in Australia, apart altogether from the climatic advantages that they enjoy, over the producers of butter in Canada. New Zealand and Australian butter can be shipped from those countries to Van-

couver for slightly less than 3 cents a pound; I think I am correct in that statement. Now let us see how that works out. Suppose every pound of butter shipped from Australia has cost the producer the extra 3 cents a pound that goes into the pool. Well, he receives a bonus of 6 cents, so that he has sufficient left over, after paying the 3 cents into the pool, to carry his butter to Vancouver without costing him a cent-at least he comes into competition with the producer in Vancouver under as little handicap as if Australia were only a short distance away. There is another advantage given to him. Australian and New Zealand butter arrive at Vancouver and can be shipped from there to Montreal for $2.30 per hundred pounds. Add to that a cent a pound for the duty now imposed and you get S3.30 per hundred pounds. But suppose the producer in British Columbia wants to send a carload of butter to Montreal. In that case the freight rate on his butter from Vancouver to Montreal will be $3.58i per hundred pounds. In other words he is at a disadvantage, as compared with the Australian and New Zealand producer, of 28jf cents per hundred pounds in competing in the market in Montreal. New Zealand butter imported into Vancouver in November, December and January last was laid down there at 34 cents a pound all charges paid. That meant that butter produced in Saskatchewan and shipped from Regina or Saskatoon to Vancouver had to be sold in carload lots at 31i cents, for the reason that it cost 2i cents a pound to send that butter from the points named to Vancouver. The price therefore, as I say, was fixed by the importations in the province of Saskatchewan.
Another point to which I wish to draw attention is this: There is a spread between the winter and summer price of milk right here in Ontario and Quebec. In this city it amounts to 40 cents, and in Montreal to 90 cents per hundred pounds. In Montreal the summer price is, I think, $2 per hundred pounds, and the winter price $2.90. Surely it must be obvious to every person who notes that difference in the cost of producing milk in summer as compared with the cost of production in winter, how very unfair it is that the producers in Canada, with a climate such as we have, should be forced to compete with those who have no winter and enjoy summer weather the year round.
Let us see for a moment the effect of this on the western provinces. Take first the province of Saskatchewan. In 1900 that province produced only 339 pounds of butter. There was then no such thing as a dairy industry in Saskatchewan. In 1910 it produced 1,548,000

Supply-Agriculture
pounds; in 1925,	15,946,000 pounds; in
1926,	16,629,000 pounds. Well, you may
say, notwithstanding the conclusion of the agreement with Australia in October, 1925, the production in Saskatchewan in 1926 was greater than in the previous year. That is very true, but the effect from the importations, which was bound to occur later, had not then been felt. In other words you would not expect every farmer in Saskatchewan to knock every one of his cows on the head immediately after the agreement came into effect, but as soon as the Saskatchewan producers began to feel the effect of this trade arrangement they began to go out of the dairy business. For instance, compare the production in Saskatchewan for the first ten months of 1926 of 15,730,000 pounds with the production in the same ten months of 1927 of 11,502,000 pounds, a reduction of over 4.000,000 pounds, or a decrease of 26.8 per cent. In the month of October, 1925 the production in Saskatchewan amounted to 1,302,432 pounds, whereas in the same month of 1927 it dropped to 633,062 pounds, a decrease of 48.6 per cent. At the present time Saskatchewan is making about 50,000 pounds of butter a week and consuming about 200,000 pounds in the same period. Why should not those extra
150,000	pounds be made by the farmers of Saskatchewan instead of buying it from the farmers of Australia and New Zealand? On undoubted information twenty butter factories which had been in operation in Saskatchewan for years went out of business in the month of November last year, and went out of business for good.
The same story is told with regard to the effect of this trade arrangement on the butter industry in Alberta. The decrease in production in each of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1927 over 1926 is estimated by those who are well qualified to make a computation as being between four and five million pounds. In the four western provinces they have been building up a magnificent dairy industry. In 1910 the production in those provinces was less than 7,000.000 pounds of butter. That production grew in 1920 to 28,000,000 pounds. In 1925 it reached a total of 1,000,000 pounds a week, or 52,000,000 pounds a year. In 1926 it reached a total of 55,000,000 a year, and we are informed by members of the National Dairy Council of Canada, who are well qualified to make an estimate in regard to this matter, that the production in those provinces for the year ending March 31st next will be over 10,000,000 less than it was in the preceding year.
I should like to represent the situation to the minister in another way. We have been
saying a great deal about inducing people to come to this country to fill up our vacant lands and engage in farming. If you hope to succeed in inducing people to go on Canadian farms you must give them encouragement by holding out to them the prospect of profitable employment or reasonable profits. Take the average butter production of the average Canadian cow. I believe it is about 150 pounds a year, but we will put it at 200 pounds if you like. The production of some ten million pounds of butter which we import from New Zealand and Australia in one year would keep fifty thousand cows busy the year round in the Dominion of Canada. If you allow ten cows to a farm, that would establish or play a very important part in establishing a firm basis of mixed farming on some five thousand farms in this Dominion. What are we doing by this arrangement with Australia and New Zealand? By this foolish policy of the government we are establishing on a paying basis mixed farms, not in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and other provinces, but in Australia and New Zealand. We are importing from Australia and New Zealand millions of pounds of butter which should and can be produced in -this country, and we are exporting every year, to go into the pockets of the farmers of Australia and New Zealand, millions of dollars which should be in the pockets of our own farmers.
Our exports and imports are very suggestive. In 1925, for instance, we exported
24.500.000	pounds of butter and we imported
193.000	pounds, so that we had a surplus of exports of more than 24,000,000 pounds. Our product was going out to other countries of the world and their money coming into Canada to enrich our farmers. In the fiscal year 1926 our exports amounted to 23,303,900 pounds, and our imports to 7,029,000 pounds. In 1927 our exports dropped from 23,303,900 pounds to 9,878,400 pounds, and our imports amounted to 7,190,267 pounds.. For the year 1928 it looks very much as if we would have
10,000,000 pounds of imports in excess of our exports and. in fact, it looks as if our exports would be practically nothing at all. Therefore, as regards the dairy industry, after two and a half years' experience with this foolish trade arrangement with Australia and New Zealand, we have a net result of our exportable surplus of 24 000,000 pounds being wiped out entirely and being replaced with an importation of more than 10,000,000 pounds of butter.
May I point to another fact? The United States imposes a duty of twelve cents a pound
Supply-Agriculture

on Canadian buttter. Surely every hon. member representing a dairy constituency and looking for future markets, would like to 6ee the United States reduce that tariff against our butter, but do you think there is any likelihood of the United States doing so, as long as Canada permits Australia and New Zealand to send millions of pounds of their butter into this country at a rate of duty of one cent a pound? Will the United States lower their tariff and thus make Canada a halfway house for huge importations of butter from New Zealand and Australia? I do not think so, because the United States have followed a policy of protecting their farmers by giving them an advantage in their home markets over outside competitors. That is the sensible and rational .thing for us to do in this Dominion of Canada.
Another little point which is worth referring to in connection with this matter is this. We all know by the advertisements and posters which we see put up all over Canada that, in the harvest season in the west, men are invited to come from other parts of the country to assist the western farmers in taking off their harvest. One of the advantages in going into mixed farming would be to encourage the farmer in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta to hire at least one man by the year, to give one man employment the year round, to give him something to do in the winter time as well as in the summer. But under this arrangement with Australia and New Zealand, with the dairy industry [DOT] going out of business, with farmers getting rid of their cows, they have nothing for a man to do in the winter time, the result being that hundreds of men, who were formerly employed in assisting farmers to take care of their stock during the winter, find themselves during the winter months out of employment. That is inevitable.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), in advocating this arrangement, advised us to sell our butter to the old country; he told us to ship our surplus butter, if we had any, to London, and to import butter from Australia and New Zealand. In the first place, if we ship our butter to the old country, it will cost us about five cents per pound to get it from the prairie provinces to England. In the second place, when we get it there we are forced to compete with all the other butter-producing countries of the world that have a surplus. In the third place, if we ship a pound of butter from, say Saskatoon or Regina to London, England, at a cost of five cents a pound, and bring a pound of butter from New Zealand or Australia to Saskatoon 
or Regina, that will cost another five cents per pound, so that by the plan advocated by the Minister of Finance there is a direct loss of ten cents per pound. That strikes me as foolish and illogical in the extreme.
I looked in the returns to see to what extent Australia and New Zealand were providing our farmers with a market and I found that in 1926 our exports of butter to Australia were nil and our exports to New Zealand amounted to ten dollars' worth. I imagine some people in New Zealand were wondering what sort of people we had in Canada who could make such a foolish bargain, and why it was we did not produce our own butter. Evidently they decided to order a pound or so of our butter, in order to find out what kind of butter we produced in Canada, and I am sure they found that butter made in any province in Canada was equal to the best made in any part of the world. We thus got ten dollars of their money. In 1926, we exported to the United States only 17,774 pounds of butter. Why? Because it costs twelve cents per pound to import butter into that country. That is a very good reason. The United States say to us in Canada: We have farmers here who can produce butter, and while it is true you make good butter in Canada, we do not want your butter. We do not intend to allow you to send your butter into this country to be consumed by our people. We intend to give our own farmers an opportunity of supplying our people with butter.


Mr. BROWN:: Has the hon. member the
figures in regard to the increase or otherwise in the export of milk or cream or cheese?


John Wesley Edwards: I am dealing with butter.


John Livingstone Brown: But it is very important
to get them all together.


John Wesley Edwards: I	quite
agree it is very important. These are the figures of our imports of butter from Australia and New Zealand in 1925 and 1926:
Imports	Imports from
from Australia	New Zealand
1925..	..	nil	162,848	pounds1926..	..	2,485,000	pounds 2,342,966 pounds
There is at the present time a demand in the United States, in New York state particularly, for milk and cream from the province of Ontario. I suppose my hon. friend is aware of the fact that in the state of New York-and I presume in other states across the line, but I know it is the case in the state of New York-they have been year after

Supply

Agriculture
year, putting into effect this tuberculin test with their cattle. They are determined to have all their cattle in that state accredited herds, with the result that they have wiped out thousands of cattle in the state of New York, and to a certain extent wiped out their local production, and that I submit furnishes a good reason why there is a demand in New York state to-day, not only for Ontario and Quebec milk and cream, but also for cattle and milch cows from these provinces. That accounts for it to a very large extent.
But I should like the minister, or some member on the other side of the house, particularly someone from Alberta or Saskatchewan. to give this committee some good, tangible and commonsense reason why we should put our dairymen in the western provinces in the position they are in. I have given some figures for the west, but the statement also applies to the east and affects the dairymen of Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. It affects the price which the farmers of Ontario and Quebec get for their cheese. They are beginning to feel the effect of this Australian and New Zealand arrangement in the price of cheese. That was reflected in the prices paid last season for Ontario and Quebec cheese. It has a wide effect, but will some person tell me, will my hon. friend from Lisgar inform me, why we should allow New Zealand to send millions of pounds of butter into Canada at one cent a pound and Canada get absolutely nothing in return for that? In so far as the arrangement with Australia is concerned, it might be said that we offset what we lose in the dairying industry by the advantages, if there be any, to the pulp and paper manufacturers and to the automobile concerns. But you cannot say that in regard to New Zealand, and we are getting more butter from New Zealand than from Australia. Why then should this arrangement with Australia, which was bad enough in all reason, be extended, as it was, to New Zealand, giving them the advantage of our market and getting nothing whatever in return? Of course under the arrangement we have the privilege of paying more for raisins in Canada. That was intended for the special benefit of the people of Australia and was one of those things which was liberally coated with oil, in order that it could be more easily swallowed by hon. members from the west, and even the free traders from the west took that down without even making a face, swallowed it as nicely and easily as anything you could imagine. It is a fact that the farmers of Australia and New Zealand have a very decided advantage in the climate
which they enjoy as compared with the climate of Canada. It is a fact that you can produce milk from which butter is made on grass cheaper than you can in winter time, when the stock has to be housed and supplied with expensive feed. What about those people in Australia and New Zealand whose cattle range out the year round? They have a decided advantage, and I should like hon. members in this house to consider this well. You may theorize as much as you like about what John Bright and Cobden and some of those fellows said many years ago. You may theorize as much as you like about free trade and protection, but I say that any government in this country should take into consideration the climatic conditions in Canada in arranging the tariff. The government is not fair to the farmers who have to spend thousands of dollars in putting up expensive bams and stables in which to house their stock, who have to spend thousands of dollars in cutting and storing feed for the stock in winter-stock which during the winter months are, as the farmers very often say, eating their heads off: that is to say they are not producing for him a profit. The farmer is waiting until the next summer to make a profit out of his cattle. Surely it is unfair, unreasonable and unjust in the extreme, to tell a farmer in Ontario or in Quebec or in the western provinces, or in any province, with climatic conditions such as we have in Canada, that he must compete on even terms with the farmers of Australia and New Zealand, who have a decided advantage over the farmers in this country in the matter of climate. This arrangement has been tried out for two and a half years \ it has proved an absolute failure, and we have men from all over Canada, not one or two, but men representing all the dairy organizations in the Dominion, in every province, appealing to this government to put an end to this trade arrangement and give the farmers of Canada a fair deal in the matter of finding a market at home for the things that they produce.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I listened with interest
to the hon. member for Frontenac. I expected the Minister of Agriculture would rise in his seat and offer some defence. I think I said last year, and I repeat it again this year, that you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. That is, if you believe in low tariff or even free trade, you cannot say "I want free trade in those things which I buy and protection in the things which I sell." This very proposition the hon- member for Frontenac has presented to-day was put up to me in my last election. The people of the
Supply-Agriculture

city of Calgary, when I spoke about free trade in butter and the question of the Australian treaty, told me I would not say the same thing in the rural district, where dairying was being carried on, as I did in the city. I wish to give the hon. member for Frontenac some figures in connection with this matter which I received a few days ago. I had twenty-eight cows myself when I was on a homestead in Alberta, and I told the farmers in the dairying district-and I could name the district- "If you cannot meet the competition of your fellow citizens in the British Empire 8,000 miles away, who have to ship their butter that distance, and send it over the equator, you had better learn to do it or go out of business." In the districts where I made that statement I got the largest vote. I said to them, "How can you, with consistency, ask for a protection on your butter and then send me down to parliament to plead for a reduction of the duty on agricultural implements? It cannot be done.'' I cannot sit still and say that I am going to support a tariff on butter and ask for a reduction of the duty on agricultural implements.
Mr. hon. friend quoted some figures for 1925. I was interested in this question of butter, and when I came here I wrote to the department and asked for facts as regards the imports and exports of butter for 1927. When I heard the hon. member for Frontenac dealing with the question of butter I ran upstairs and got a statement I received the other day which show's that in 1927 we exported butter to the amount of 83,351,581, and that we imported $2,500,000 worth, or nearly a million dollars' worth more butter was exported than imported by us. Those facts surely show that the Canadian butter trade is not suffering very much.


John Wesley Edwards: What year
was that?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The fiscal year ending
December 31, 1927. My hon. friend took 1925. I presume that 1927 is much more satisfactory to our farmers and to the house at large. We imported two million dollars' worth of butter, and we exported nine million pounds, or over a million dollars' worth more than we imported.	Why did we do it?
Simply because our butter is good and commands better prices abroad than at home, Why should we put an import duty on butter? Why should we ask our fellow-citizens in the towns and cities to pay more for our butter than the price it commands in the open market? We produce our wheat and 
sell it in the open market against the competition of the world, and we also meet the open market for our butter.


John Wesley Edwards: Does my
hon. friend not think that when Canada had a surplus of from twenty to twenty-four million pounds of butter, that surplus was a sufficient guarantee to the Canadian people that they would not have to pay more than they should for Canadian butter at home?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It is a sufficient guarantee that if they could get more for it in the export -market they would send it there. And that is what they did. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that I need go any further into the matter. Our exports of butter show that even with the Australian treaty in effect Canadian butter is able to meet competition in the markets of the world, and asks for no quarter there. Therefore we do not propose to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cold storage warehouses, $30,000.
Mr. TOLMIE:: Have there been any
changes in the distribution of these branches since last year?


William Richard Motherwell: No, this is to complete old contracts that were entered into prior to last year.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Are any new ones anticipated for this year?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, we have just
entered into a contract with a cold storage organization in New Westminster. If it makes sufficient progress we may require a further amount in the supplementary estimates to take care of it.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That is to cover agricultural products and fish, or just fish alone?


William Richard Motherwell: Everything that is perishable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fruit, including grant of $8,000 to the Canadian Horticultural Council, $290,000.
William Richard Motherwell: The principal increase here, Mr. Chairman, is due to an extension of our grading system for export. It will be recalled that last session legislation was passed authorizing the department to introduce a system of compulsory inspection of apples and other fruit intended for export. This involves a considerable outlay. Five dollars is charged by the department for each car inspected, and this money goes back into the treasury.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr TOLMIE:: Does this new inspection
give our fruit access to the Australian market?


William Richard Motherwell: No, it would not
affect that market.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Do they accept our fruit
there?


William Richard Motherwell: There is some fruit going there, but it is not subject to inspection. The objection that our Australian friends have against our fruit is the possibility that fire blight may be brought into the *country. We do not think the disease is transmissible through our fruit.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is that the only country
which refuses Canadian fruit under those conditions?


William Richard Motherwell: No, Japan is another. Some countries are more afraid of the transmission of fire blight than are others.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: When we were on a similar item about four years ago the minister was kind enough to promise to give me the reason for the spread between the prices paid to the growers of Delicious apples in the Okanagan valley, and the prices charged by the vendors in the city of Ottawa. They now sell first class Delicious apples at 2 for 15 cents, while the grower in the Okanagan valley, I understand, receives about $1.60 or $1.70 per box of about 140. The inquisitiveness that I had four years ago still persists, and if the hon. minister and his very able assistant can give that information to the people of Canada, I am sure it will interest both the consumer here and the grower in the Okanagan valley.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the spread is due to high freight and express rates and the high cost of handling. It might have been attributable four years ago to the activities of the combine that was then in operation. This has since been dissolved, so after all perhaps the spread was not so much attributable to that cause as we thought at the time. I remember the interrogation of my hon. friend, but it was made so long ago that I forgot to anticipate it on this occasion. Possibly we can get the information.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I did not expect the minister could give it to me offhand, but it would be most interesting to know how that spread occurs.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Has the government or the minister's department in the past made any attempt to minimize this spread?


William Richard Motherwell: The fruit branch
thought they were working along proper lines when they assisted the commissioner to gather information in respect to the Nash combine We worked on that for nearly two years. Anyhow the growers are always afraid of combines, whether they be \?heat combines or tobacco combines or any other kind. We felt it was our duty to assist them in ferreting out the information in connection with this matter and we called the growers together in conference here about two and a half years ago to take counsel with one another. They came from the Atlantic and the Pacific and we paid their expenses, incurring a cost of some $1,600. We gave them an opportunity to organize their forces in the direction of a national campaign of salesmanship with a view to reducing the costs to which my hon. friend has referred. The main thing in selling satisfactorily is to have a product of good quality, and I will say this for British Columbia: that there are no other people in the Dominion I know of, so far as this or any other commodity is concerned, who have deliberately exceeded the standard required by law. The growers of British Columbia actually put up a pack a standard above that which the law demands and for that reason they can generally find their way into any market in the world.


Peter McGibbon: The minister has not
answered my question.


William Richard Motherwell: What does the
hon. gentleman want?


Peter McGibbon: I have asked the question a good many times before, I have asked it again to-day, and I will continue to ask it. I want to know what the minister or his department has done in order to put into the pockets of the producers a larger share of the proceeds to which they are entitled considering the vast sum paid by the consumers.


William Richard Motherwell: I understood the
hon. gentleman to ask, first, what we had done to reduce the enormous spread, and I tried to answer that question. He also inquired as to what we had done to encourage a more acceptable system of marketing. My hon. friend has missed the point, because I dealt with shipping-point inspection especially in the case of exports. Through such inspection and the granting of the government certificate accompanying each consignment we have done something to help the industry, and the British Columbia and Ontario apple growers assure me that, having experienced the beneficial results of this

Supply-Agriculture
system, they would not now think of shipping their product without a certificate of quality.


Peter McGibbon: That is not the question.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. gentleman does not want to hear that. However, that is the way to bring about satisfactory results and I am anxious to impress it upon him. If there is anything else of a specific character which the hon. gentleman desires to know I shall be glad to answer him. I would ask, however, that he put specific questions and not generalities as to what we have done for this, that and the other. We have met the situation and improved the standing of British Columbia apples on the British market, and this result we have achieved by making grading compulsory for everyone. Ninety per cent of the growers grade their apples voluntarily in any case, and this legislation is to compel the other ten per cent, who have been spoiling the market, to follow suit. What further can I do for my hon. friend?


Peter McGibbon: The minister says that
the government has enhanced the market value of the product, but the proceeds that go into the grower's pocket have not been increased. I want to know what his government can do or has done or contemplates doing in order that the producer may get that larger share to which he is entitled in view of the enormous cost to the consumer.


William Richard Motherwell: All matters directly pertaining to production are usually conceded to fall within the scope of the provincial government. One cannot draw a very distinct line of demarcation between federal and provincial responsibility, but we have endeavoured to draw at least a rough line between the two, and all matters relating to improved production and reduced production costs are recognized to devolve upon the provincial government, while matters of grading and marketing as well as of standardization are regarded as coming under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Now I have already told my hon. friend what we have done in respect of the duties which I have classified as falling to us. We do not control freight rates. As I say, we have shipping-point inspection but we have nothing to do with freight rates, although we have made representations in this regard. Indeed, I made such representations when I was in the .provincial government, but we have no particular record of any results achieved. The question has been raised on more than one occasion regarding express

and freight rates on apples, but I cannot offhand indicate what has been the outcome of any representations that have been made in the matter. The rates are still very high, however.


Peter McGibbon: Probably I am stupid,
but I want to get an answer to a definite question, and apparently I cannot convey my idea, to the minister, or else he is stealthily evading the point. In the years he has been Minister of Agriculture, what has he done to find out, first, what the spread consists of and, secondly, whether that spread cannot be minimized so that the producer may receive more for his goods? Surely that is a simple question.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon.
friend suggest that we should start an investigation into the costs of handling at each end? Well, we did do that. The combine was charging a double commission, as my hon. friend will remember, and they were fined several hundred thousand dollars; double commissions were considered to be illegal. The courts confirmed that finding and this evil was removed. I think my hon. friend will admit that this is something.


Peter McGibbon: That is one achievement; what next?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend, I
see, remembers that. Does he think we should go before the railway board and ask them to call a hearing? I repeat, we brought the fruit growers from various parts of Canada into conference, the department paying the cost, and they could have taken advantage of that trip to request a hearing before the railway commission if they wanted to make representations regarding freight or express rates. That is as far as we have gone.


John Wesley Edwards: The minister has told us what great care is taken in British Columbia in the grading and packing of their apples, and he has said that due to the fact that they exceed the legal standard they have no difficulty in finding a market. That is very good. Now what I understand my hon. friend (Mr. McGibbon) to have in mind is this: We all know, and we can easily satisfy ourselves if we walk down the street, that we are paying a high price for apples in Ottawa, as indeed we pay for them anywhere else in Canada, in the east at any rate. We can also easily ascertain this to be the fact, that the producer of apples in British Columbia, for instance, notwithstanding all the care he takes in the selection, packing

Supply-Agriculture
and grading of his apples, does not get for his product anything like a remunerative price considering the great care and labour he expends, and the capital invested. Perhaps the minister has under his hand the figures in this regard and I should like him to disclose them so as to satisfy my curiosity. He might tell us the extent of the importations of similar fruit from across the line into British Columbia. I have been informed that growers in California and Washington and Oregon, finding a market at home for all their produce, are left with a surplus which they are obliged either to throw out into the back yard to rot, or else to ship into Canada, taking whatever they can get for it. That fruit is sent into the prairie provinces at prices far below its cost of production.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Would that increase the spread?


John Wesley Edwards: I am trying to find out if this has not something to do with the low price received by the British Columbia producer for his apples. The American producer says, "Here is a box of apples which cost me about $5 to produce; I might better sell it for $2 than throw it out in the ba.ck yard", and we allow him to ship it in Canada and take the market which should be kept for British Columbia apples- This cheap fruit is dumped into the prairie provinces, with the natural result that the British Columbia producer has to come down in his price. That is the point. I think the minister understands that, and perhaps he has the figures which would indicate to what extent the importation of apples from the United States into the western provinces has been carried on.


William Richard Motherwell: The total importation?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, from
the United States into the western provinces.


William Richard Motherwell: I have not the
total by provinces, but I have the total importation of apples into Canada for 1927, which amounted to 151,568 barrels. I also have a list of all the other fruits if my hon. friend cares to have it.


John Wesley Edwards: Have there been any complaints from Canadian producers in regard to the dumping into Canada of apples or any other fruits at sacrifice prices?


William Richard Motherwell: Only 525 barrels of [DOT]apples came into Canada under the dumping clause, because as you know the invoice price has to be below the set price before the dumping clause is applied. That amounts to only 56103-29
0.34 per cent of the total. The rest of the apples came in at a higher invoice price, consequently the dumping clause was not applied.


John Wesley Edwards: Is that for
last year?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes-


Peter McGibbon: Did I understand the
minister to say that over 150,000 barrels of apples were imported into the three western provinces?


William Richard Motherwell: Into all Canada.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I should like to ask the minister whether the application of section 43 of the Customs Act to the importation of fruits into the western provinces from the United States would not. make it impossible for low priced fruit to be dumped there from the United States?


William Richard Motherwell: Section 43 was applied to 525 barrels of apples, which was only about one-third of one per cent of the total. These were low grade apples brought in at low prices, and consequently the dumping, clause was applied. The remainder of the apples were of' a superior quality and came in above the set price, and therefore the dumping clause was not applied to them.


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not know to what extent fruit is being dumped into the prairie provinces from the United States, but I have never seen any of it at these low prices. In the particular district in which I reside the whole problem is to buy the fruit. We realize that our friends in British Columbia produce excellent fruit which we wish to purchase, fruit which we need and which we should have. We live in a cold country and are not able to grow this fruit ourselves, and in the winter time it makes an excellent food to balance up the heavier foods used on the farms. We need apples and other British Columbia fruits, and it seems to me that we have the very best market there for British Columbia fruit if we could afford to buy it. I do not maintain that our friends in British Columbia get too much for their products, because we know that is not the case. I know many men who have left their farms on the prairies to go into the fruit districts of British Columbia in an attempt to make a living growing fruit, and a great many of them have come back to the prairies after having lost money. Certainly there is not very much money in growing fruit in British Columbia, but I think the trouble lies more in faulty distribution than in the tariff or anything else. I can hardly ever buy a box of apples in my village for less than

Supply-Agriculture

$4, and certainly not for less than $3. The average farmer on the prairies should be able to put in from 20 to 40 boxes of apples every year for the use of his family, but not one farmer out of ten can afford to do it. I believe there is a great field for investigation there; perhaps this work could be done cooperatively. If fruit is dumped into the prairie provinces from the United States it certainly does not reach our part of the country. I do not believe the retailers make too much of a profit either, but the problem seems to b.e in distribution. The fruit is shipped in carload lots to the larger centres and shipped out again over long distances, sometimes as far as 300 miles or more, in less than carload .lots, which means extra freight and express, all of which makes the price to the consumer almost prohibitive. I would suggest to our friends in British Columbia that they explore this field and see if it is not possible to develop some marketing system in the nature of our wheat pool, which would enable them to distribute these apples themselves to the smaller centres. They could ship the fruit in carloads, which would give us the benefit of the cheaper freight, and if that could be done and the fruit sold at a reasonable price there is hardly any limit to what we could consume on . the prairies. I was going to say our fruit consumption could be doubled, but I can easily say that it could be increased five or ten times. We have the capacity for the consumption of that much more fruit, but the prices are so high that we are unable to buy the quantity we could use.


Peter McGibbon: I am glad to secure some information from a private member which I could not get from the government. The remarks of the hon, member (Mr. Campbell) at least have a ring of sincerity and common sense. This is one of the problems before Canada to-day, and I think the minister and his department should devote some attention to the question of distribution. If something could be done along this line he would be performing a service to the producer and the consumer which would be far greater than anything he has done in the past. I hope the minister will take into consideration the suggestions of the last speaker, and also see if he cannot give us a little more information with regard to that branch of the industry.


William Richard Motherwell: If it will help my friend at all I will take a moment or two to recite some of the things we hope to do in the next twelve months. Last year, in reply to an inquiry by one of the hon. members for St. John as to what we contemplated doing

in aid of cooperative marketing, I pointed out that I hoped not to have to organize any new branches of my department until I had better office accommodation for them, but that as soon as I secured that accommodation it was my hope to organize a cooperative marketing branch. My department was then scattered around in eighteen or twenty buildings throughout this city, and I did not want to increase that number to twenty-one. However, events have travelled pretty fast since then. There is, for example, the situation in Essex and Kent in regard to the cooperative marketing of tobacco. The efforts of the growers in that respect have met with only partial success. My deputy and myself went up to study the situation at Chatham, and later on at Windsor, and we made an announcement as to what would be done. We had not accommodation for our present staff, but the situation was growing so serious in Essex and Kent that we felt the time had come to establish a cooperative marketing branch and to take our chances of finding accommodation for it when it was established. The report to council asking for the necessary authority has been signed, and it will go to the treasury board in a day or two. There will be a staff of five.
That, probably, is the information my hon. friend desired. The branch is not yet in operation, and I do not know how long a period will elapse before it will be. We find that to get anything through the civil service commission it takes at least ninety days, so I give fair warning if any delay is experienced in the matter.


Peter McGibbon: This is truly a wonderful government. They have been in office since 1922, and in 1928 the Minister of Agriculture comes down solemnly and tells the house that the reason he has not done anything in this matter is because he has not got an office.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, was ever a more absurd excuse offered to an intelligent body of men? He has not got an office! After six or seven or eight years in that department that is the excuse offered by the minister for not having done anything for the people of this country.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, listen!


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I was going to ask the minister if he has distributed any information regarding the keeping of fruit. Of course it is well known you can keep fruit, notably apples, in certain temperatures, and they are kept that way by every large wholesaler; but when apples reach the small stores and the

Supply-Agriculture
consumer many bags are possibly spoiled by the exposure of the fruit to a fairly high temperature such as you would find in a kitchen. Then the apple becomes unattractive and people do not consume as many as they otherwise would. The idea has often suggested itself to me that if the government distributed a bulletin on how to keep fruit it would have a most beneficial result and no doubt bring about a larger consumption.
Yesterday7 we had a very interesting debate on research work. We are consuming in this country large quantities of the juices of citrus fruits for breakfast, and I was going to suggest to the minister that he might take up with the research council the question of finding out whether it is not possible to secure some very palatable substitute for these citrus fruits for breakfast, and by doing so increase the market for fruits produced in this country.


William Richard Motherwell: We sent a number of packages of fruit, both last year and this year, to Great Britain. These were packed in different ways-some with two tiers, and some with one-just to find out how much the fruit was affected in transit by the depth of the package. We also had some experiments conducted in the last two or three years in regard to the breaking down of the Jonathan apple, and these have shown that a great deal of improvement could be obtained by harvesting at the right time. I think a great deal more can be done. Too great care cannot be exercised in handling not only apples but other commodities for export. The least thumb mark or the least roughness in handling will be shown immediately the commodity arrives on the other side of the water. I remember some of our people were visitng at Harrod's and they found in the case of some Canadian apples fhat although they had been handled with the greatest possible care thumb marks were visible on the skin. It is not possible, I repeat, to take too much care in order to ensure the arrival of fruit at its destination in good condition.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In regard to the matter of keeping fruit I was very much impressed in London in 1921 when I was handed some apples that were over a year and a half old. They had just been taken out of storage where they had been kept at the right temperature. The apples were Ontario spies and they were in first class condition.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I should like to ask if the vote of $8,000 to the Canadian Horticultural Council is to be continued. It has been passed for a number of years, and no one 56103-294
objects to voting this money when it is to be used for the advancement of horticulture. But when that vote, or any portion of it, is used in support of an appeal to the tariff board for higher protection on the fruit that the people of this country need to consume I think it is time to enter a protest. I certainly do protest against voting any money to the Canadian Horticultural Council, or any other organization, to enable them to appear before the tariff board and ask for a higher tariff.


William Richard Motherwell: I presume they want to look after only what they conceive to be the interests of the fruit industry. On the other hand there is the Consumers' League, a very active body under the direction of a very prominent gentleman, looking after activities such as those of the horticultural council.


Leland Payson Bancroft: But there is no vote
for them.


William Richard Motherwell: I think there are
a few items with respect to them all right.


Milton Neil Campbell: I should like to ask
the minister in what way he finds his action in regard to any office he proposes to establish hampered by the civil service commission? I have heard the minister repeat so often in the house that he is hampered by the civil service commission that I should like to know in what particular way he does find his work hindered.
Mr, MOTHERWELL:	I should have said
the civil service commission under the limitations of the Civil Service Act. I have no complaint at all to make of delay due to the commission, but the procedure laid down is so tortuous that it takes ninety days on an average to get a matter through at all. I noticed in a speech delivered by a member of the previous administration in 1921 that exactly the same condition prevailed at that time. According to a return that was brought down the putting through of a certain matter took ninety days. This is due to no fault of the commission; they act as expeditiously as possible-but to the routine which has to be followed. The first thing we have to do is to establish the position; a position has to be created before you can appoint anyone to it. Then an elaborate description has to be given of the position. Then the matter has to go before the treasury board, who look it over carefully in order to be sure that I am not exceeding my powers. They have kept a very watchful eye on these matters for the last two or three years. There is a
Supply-Agriculture

lot of routine, and each party through whose hands the matter goes has to perform his duty and see that the necessary requirements are complied with. This all takes time. When I held office elsewhere the procedure was more simple and direct, and when a position was created it did not take nearly so long to fill it. If we required a man we went after him and got him. I have no authority of that nature in my present position. If immediate action is required the minister in charge must have power to act immediately; he cannot secure prompt action in the face of so much routine. The same thing is true with regard to research work. Australia can come to Canada and in broad daylight, take away our best men. Why? Because their research workers are not under the civil service commission of that country. But on the other hand we cannot go to Australia and say to some of their men: "We want you," for the simple reason that we have no such authority.


Milton Neil Campbell: All the minister has
said will increase my respect and admiration for the civil service commission and convince me all the more that we really need to maintain such an institution in Canada. In spite of what the minister says, I find at every session of parliament some action is taken by this house to impair the usefulness and power of the civil service commission. In the estimates year after year appear votes providing for the appointment of certain officials not under the commission. There seems to be no difficulty whatever on the part of the government to get around the civil service commission when they want to do so, but the minister and one or two of his colleagues use every opportunity they can to throw some mud, not particularly at the personnel of the civil service commission, but at the principle on which the commission is based. In other words, they want the patronage system back. The minister told us about how nicely things were done where he came from, and I presume he refers to Saskatchewan. I can cite some instances about how nicely things are done there too. Let me give one.


William Richard Motherwell: In the Department of Agriculture when I was in charge of it?


Milton Neil Campbell: No. I think the minister administered his department excellently in Saskatchewan, and I will pay him the tribute, as I have done in my constituency, of saying that he is an excellent Minister of Agriculture. Without abusing the old proverb, "comparisons are odious," I think I can say

that the minister understands his particular job just as well as any minister of the crown in this house. I do not think he is any particular sinner with respect to the patronage system. Some time ago I was unfortunate enough to become involved in a law suit in Saskatchewan.


John Frederick Johnston: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I cannot see what that has to do with the item before the committee.


Milton Neil Campbell: I will finish in a
moment, but I think it is particularly relevant. The minister was permitted to express his opinion with regard to the patronage system, a system which is involved in every single vote in this house. I was going to say that in the particular case referred to I found that the provincial police of Saskatchewan were instrumental in working up a civil case against me.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman
is wholly out of order in this discussion.


Mr CANTLEY:: I have listened with a
great deal of interest to the discussion which has gone on for the last hour or more. I sympathize to a large extent with the minister-


William Richard Motherwell: Thank you.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



ELECTRICITY AND FLUID EXPORTATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds) moved the second reading of Bill No. 2, to regulate the exportation of electric power.
Mr. CAHILL:: Explain.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I cannot add much to the information which was given to the house on the first reading. The object of the bill is to amend the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act of 1907. By the provisions of that act the exportation of petroleum, natural gas, water and other fluids is regulated by order in council, and the effect of the bill now before the house is to change the provision with respect to the exportation of electric power so as to make it subject to act of parliament, and to leave the regulation of the export of petroleum, natural gas, water and fluids as it now stands-

Electricity and Fluid Exportation
When this legislation was introduced in 1907 the value of electric power was comparatively small as compared with its value at the present time. It is now one of our most valuable resources, and is practically inexhaustible, because as long as water flows over a waterfall we are able to develop electric power. It is constantly increasing in value, and we believe is approaching a huge development in Canada. Its value to Canada can scarcely be over-estimated, and I submit that in dealing with an asset so valuable we should have the sanction and approval of t'he House of Commons rather than have the matter dealt with by order in council. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the exportation of electric power should, as far as possible, be prohibited; that electric power should be retained in Canada for the benefit of the Canadian' people, because its value in developing our industry and our agriculture and in providing traffic for our railways can hardly be accurately estimated. This bill does not propose to go the length of prohibiting the export of power, but would make it subject to the regulation of parliament. As far as I have observed I think the press comment has been favourable, and the bill as introduced has the support of a very large body of public opinion in Canada. There are provisions in the bill which preserve the rights of the provinces, and the measure contains certain saving clauses with respect to existing liens.
The only objection I have heard urged against the bill in the house or elsewhere is that it does not provide for emergencies, or for the fact that in some cases it may be extremely advantageous that there should be an exchange of power from time to time as we have it at Niagara and perhaps elsewhere. That objection may be easily overcome by a proper amendment. In fact I have gone so far as to draft an amendment which I think would meet all the abjections which have been offered. An order of the house has been made for the production of copies of all licenses and regulations, and when these documents are brought down we shall be able more intelligently to discuss the matter. I suggest that the bill might well be read a second time and sent to committee for approval and consideration and for such amendments as the circumstances seem to warrant.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, the government
is taking no exception to this bill. It does not make any drastic change, but I think the sponsor has in mind that in cases where new developments spring up, and there is a possibility of a certain portion of the power
being exported, the company or individual promoting the measure shall come to parliament and obtain a private bill for that purpose. With that suggestion, the government has no quarrel; indeed I think I may say on behalf of the government that we will go even a step further. It is in our opinion desirable that the exportation of electricity be absolutely prohibited; it is too valuable an asset for us to permit it to leave our country. Although we may be at some disadvantage from a climatic point of view we have this very valuable asset which to some extent offsets that condition, and it is important that we should retain it within the boundaries of our own country. I suggest that this bill be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in order to give interested parties an opportunity to appear and voice any objections they may have to its provisions, and also to give my hon. friend an opportunity to make the necessary amendments which I think are required, particularly to clause 6. That clause reads as follows:
Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect the rights of any province with respect to power or the rights of any person under any license issued before the first day of January, 1928.
I understand it is the intention of my hon. friend not to interfere with existing contracts, and that the issue of yearly license will continue. With that suggestion I think the bill might go to committee for consideration, and the government will be content,


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I
should like to get some further information on this question. My hon. friend has made a statement about not interfering with provincial rights. Last year we had a discussion in Alberta with regard to these power rights, and I understand the provinces of Ontario and Quebec claimed that they had full rights to the development of electrical energy in their respective provinces. It seems to me that if the provinces control the generation and distribution of electricity, this bill may be an interference with provincial rights. If we are to continue to put an embargo on the exportation of electric power, there is no reason why a similar embargo should not be imposed on the exportation of gas and other natural resources under provincial control. I think it should be made clear how far we are going to trespass on provincial rights.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Post Office Act


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved the second reading of Bill No. 22. to amend the Post Office Act.
He said:	The object of this bill Mr. Speaker, is well known to the press of Canada, namely, to identify the ownership of newspapers. For many years past the newspapers of this country have been coming to parliament and securing privileges. Up to 1882 newspapers were carried free by the post office. This bill provides for what is already required by law in England, Australia and the United States, that is: A sworn statement of the names and addresses of editors, owners and principal stockholders of every newspaper, magazine, periodical or other publication, to be fded with the Postmaster General semiannually. There is an exception in favour of religious, fraternal, temperance and scientific or other similar publications. Also, it shall not be necessary to include in such statement the names of small stockholders, that is, persons owning less than one per cent of the total amount of the stock, bonds, mortgages or other securities. If any such publication fails to comply with these provisions it shall be' denied .admission to the mails. Paid editorials and other reading matter for which money is paid shall be plainly marked " advertisement ". Statements under the act are to be made in duplicate and delivered to the' Postmaster General, who shall make regulations for the carrying out of the provisions of the act.
I introduce this legislation solely in the interests of the freedom of the press in a liberty-loving country. It is the law to-day, as I have said, in the old land, in Australia and in the United States. Unless a newspaper is registered in the names of the editor, the publisher and the largest stockholders it cannot get the advantage of the mails in the United States, and if it contains paid editorials they must be marked as advertisements.
It is interesting to recall, Mr. Speaker, that you were the pioneer in this field, because away back in 1919 you introduced a resolution for a purpose similar to that which I am now seeking to accomplish by this bill. It was then felt that such legislation was necessary, and parliament was prepared to enact it, but unfortunately at that time we had the so-called uplift form of government known as the Union government, which was very fond of making a political football of any economic question. The then president
[Mr. Adshend.)
of the1 council, Mr. Rowell, raised the point that under section 92 of the British North America Act your proposal affected property and civil rights, and these being under provincial jurisdiction he asked that your motion might stand. His opinion prevailed.
I wrote the Postmaster General of the United States, and in his reply he refers to the fact that the legislation there is working satisfactorily and they could not very well get on without it.
The Hearst papers, some of which were prohibited during the war, are allowed circulation in Canada, but in the United States they are subject to regulations similar in scope to the provisions of this bill.
In Toronto we have the Mail and Empire newspaper. Until recently no one knew who owned it. That paper was the arch critic of the hydro-electric policy of the Whitney government; it ridiculed Sir Adam Beck, it ridiculed public ownership, and it ridiculed the Whitney government for introducing hydroelectric legislation, under which we have built up our provincially-owned hydro-electric system, a system that has conferred such boons on the farmers and working people of Ontario. The Mail and Empire was clearly wrong in its attitude to public ownership. As a matter of fact, the paper was owned in Montreal. Recently it was sold to a good man and a fair man-Mr. I. W. Killam of Montreal. We know he is a responsible man and a reliable one. He has turned the paper upside down; to-day it is better in every way as a newspaper and I venture to say he would not oppose this bill.
There have been considerable newspaper references to this bill. The various farmers' magazines have openly approved of the proposed legislation as being in the best interests of a free press and a free parliament. The Farmer's Advocate has written me in the following terms:
The reading public are entitled to information regarding the ownership of the publications they read. There are to-day many cross currents in public opinion, and there are so many conflicting views expressed, that we are sure the publication of the information suggested in your bill would help to clarify the situation for the benefit of people who are guided by the printed page.
The St. Catharines Standard says:
The information will be very interesting when it comes to the demand for power concessions and other rights, and might explain some flip-flops in the days immediately preceding an election.

Post Office Act
The Globe, founded by George Brown, has urged such legislation for years, and in a recent editorial it says:
Parliament should earnestly support and pass the bill once more introduced by Mr. T. L. Church, requiring newspapers to give to the public information as to their ownership. It is a step which newspapers themselves should welcome in the interest of honest journalism.
Newspapers are a recognized force in the making of public opinion, which means a force in the government of the country. They present the news, but they also present opinions. Readers should know what interests and influences are at work in the forming of the opinions presented. There should be means of judging whether these opinions are based on informed zeal for public welfare or whether the newspaper uttering them is secretly promoting selfish purposes.
It should not be possible for two newspapers under the same ownership to promote contradictory policies without the public knowing the fact. By adopting the wise measure introduced by Mr. Church, the newspapers will be better served and public confidence will be increased.
The Port Hope Guide has this to say in support of the bill:'
The public has a right to know from what source the fountain of public opinion, represented by the press, draws its inspiration. If from interests adverse to the welfare of the public, the fact should be known from the house-tops. This country cannot afford to have the press muzzled or controlled by corporations, parties or persons whose only object is to direct public opinion into lines that are calculated to advance private or corporate interests to the detriment of the general interests of Canadians. _ No responsible publisher, or newspaper owner is ashamed or afraid to allow the whole world to know who's who, and would welcome such a law: it is only the publishing company whose personnel is represented by "straw men" and against such companies action cannot be taken owing to the fog surrounding them. It must not be lost sight of either that there are corporations even in Canada, which can and do afford not only newspapers but radio broadcasting to disseminate what they would have the public believe. Even the electorate might be influenced to vote for some fraudulent scheme and promote a wrong.
I may observe, Mr. Speaker, that you yourself supported a similar resolution in 1919. For your views on the subject I would refer the house to the debate as reported in Hansard. I want it understood that I am not for a moment attacking the press of this country; I do not believe that you could find anywhere a press to excel it. The contribution which the Canadian newspapers made to the community, the country, education, to social betterment, the satisfactory outcome of the war; what it did to promote the cause of the poor and needy and of charity and philanthropy and to further every worthy movement in behalf of the soldiers and of the nation at large, was invaluable. It was the press that helped very
largely to restore Canada to her normal position. Nor can one say too much for the honour and integrity of the press of Canada. The tendency of our Canadian newspapers is decidedly forward, not backward, and notwitstanding the high cost of material and labour their prospects are bright. I have no doubt that the genius of our newspapers will help to make this country great industrially so that Canada will march triumphantly on from strength to strength. The genius of a free people will help and work for the good and success of the newspaper industry.
The object of this bill is to make the disclosure of newspaper ownership compulsory. There are four estates in the Dominion: the Governor General, the Senate, the House of Commons and the press. We know who the Governor General is, we know who the members of the Senate and the House of Commons are, and logically we ought to know the composition of the fourth estate, the press. There is no reason why the ownership of newspapers in this country should not be disclosed, when we bear in mind the fact that registration is compulsory in all cases of transfer of real and personal estate and, as well, in transactions in connection with chattel mortgages, bills of sale, wills, deeds, mortgages, notes, liens and so forth. The shareholders and directors of banks must also be disclosed, and those comprising bank mergers are not concealed. Why, therefore, should the ownership of a newspaper be concealed? A free press is as necessary to the welfare of the country as a free parliament. You, Mr. Speaker, are a literary man and a lawyer, and you presented the argument in this case a few years ago, in 1919, in such a manner as must have commended itself to all thinking people. Had your advice been followed in 1919 it would have been a good thing for this country and for the press and a free press and for the liberty of the press.
Is there any fair-minded man in this country who is opposed to this proposition if he has at heart the interests not only of the country but of the very press itself? Legislation similar to this has been found necessary and has proved beneficial in the United States and in England and Australia, and the same reasons that apply there are equally applicable in Canada. The object of the proposed amendment is to facilitate the enforcing of the regulations governing the use of the mails. In a return brought down by the minister it was shown that the country has been suffering a loss of eight millions a year in the payment of cash sub-
456	COMMONS
Post Office Act
sidies to the newspapers in the way of rates granted on the 'carriage iof newspapers through the mails less than the cost thereof to the post office; in other words an eight million dollar subsidy is given them.
Now the government occasionally spends considerable sums of money in advertising and I do not blame them for so doing. It is the duty of the government to keep the public informed on various questions affecting the interests of the people. All governments do this, and it is only natural for them to patronize the papers that support them. I am not complaining of this because I hope I am enough of a sport to realize that it is what others would do. The merchant on Sparks street also is obliged to advertise in the press and if he sells his stock or store must register the same. The merchant cannot sell his goods without registering, nor can the farmer dispose of his stock or crops or produce without complying with the same requirement of a bill of sale. I see no reason therefore why we should not expect the press to do the same and disclose their ownership.
Canada to-day is the happy hunting ground for American millionaires and promoters who are seizing our forests, our timber reserves, our mines, our pulp wood, our water powers, and in the process enlisting the aid of a section of the press. The future of new Ontario is endangered by a small section of the press which boosts the business interests of American millionaires, and we can very well understand why this legislation is being opposed by a few. It is a fact that many of the newspapers carry paid editorials whose sole object is to boost certain policies. The Toronto News, at one time under the direction of Sir John Willison, went so far as to describe Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck and their hydro program as two amateur anarchists, and other newspapers have been known to oppose enterprises which have been undertaken for the good of the common people of the country. I know that a section of the press in the city I come from tried to foist an expenditure of $32,000,000 on the taxpayers in 1914, in connection with the sale of the Toronto Railway Company and Toronto Electric Light'Company to the city. The arbitration gave them in 1922 $12,000,000 for the railway instead of $32,000,000, and that was twice as much as they should have got. The American interests in. this country are by no means lax in asserting themselves, and they do not hesitate to engage the assistance of a section of the press.
The last time-1919-a, resolution of this nature was proposed we had opposition from

the apostles of uplift, the Union government, especially that brand of uplift that finally landed the good old Conservative party in the cemetery. Legislation of the nature now proposed has been found to work admirably in the United States, and the same is true of England and Prance. It is a social necessity, it is an economic necessity, the object of which is to safeguard the interests of the country. I am sorry that neither the government nor some member of the Progressive party saw fit to introduce this bill, especially in view of the fact that the proposal has been openly espoused by agrarian newspapers in the western provinces as well as by many other leading journals in the prairies, of all shades of politics. I cannot understand why it should have been left to a member of the opposition to bring forward a measure of this kind.
One cannot help regretting the tendency of the press to-day to adopt the chain principle; we have chains of'newspapers throughout the country. These chain newspapers have lost their individuality and their potency, and the local colouring and tireless aid which formerly they gave to the municipalities for good government and for legislation for the masses. I may say in this connection that I have a letter from the Postmaster General of the United States in which he says legislation of this kind is working out very satisfactorily in that country, and I believe there is no reason why it should not work here also. I believe this bill should go to the private bills committee, because it involves a very important public principle, and in that committee deputations could be heard dealing with all sides of the question. I have introduced three' other bills similar to this, but they never proceeded beyond the first reading. In 1924 my bill came up for second reading, and, in the absence of the then Postmaster General, the Prime Minister asked that the bill stand, promising me another opportunity to proceed, which, however, was not made available. There has been no legislation in regard to this particular matter since 1882; I had the promise of 'the predecessor of the present Postmaster General that this bill would go to the private bills committee for consideration, and I believe that to be the proper course in this case.
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to oppose this bill; I rather welcome its introduction, setting forth, as it does, the policy of the Liberal party when they were in opposition in 1919, as declared in a resolution along very similar lines introduced by you, Mr. Speaker in that

Post Office Act
year. I have one objection to make, however, and it is this: I believe we should place all newspapers in Canada on the same footing; there should be no exceptions. Subsection 1 of section 23a says:
Provided, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to religious, fraternal, temperance, and scientific or other similar publications.
I would suggest to the hon. member that he consider amending that section by leaving out that proviso and making it indude newspapers and periodicals of all descriptions. If he would consider that before the bill comes up for discussion in committee of the whole house, I should be very pleased to help him put the bill through.
I do not think it necessary that this bill should go to a private committee; it can be dealt with very well by the committee of the whole house. I believe we are sufficiently aware of the importance of our newspapers in Canada, and I think we know enough of what is required along the lines set out in this bill to proceed with it here without losing time by submitting it to a committee.


Thomas Langton Church: I shall be very glad to
accept the amendment, but I still think the bill should go to the committee on private bills.


Milton Neil Campbell: I
wish to add just a word to what has been already said in support of this bill. I congratulate the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) on the interest he has shown in bringing down a measure of this kind, and I heartily congratulate the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) on being at least one of the ministers ready to fulfil the promises made in the platform of 1919. This is something the organized farmers of western Canada have advocated for many years. Perhaps there is something rather remarkable in the fact that it should be introduced by one of the Toronto members, but I certainly approve of it and think the hon. member should be thanked for bringing down such a measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-sworn statement of names and addresses of editors, owners, stockholders, etc., to be made semi-annually.
Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I suggested
an amendment to this clause, and perhaps it might be in order for me to now move that
all the words after the word "months" in the twenty-third line be struck out, down to and including the word "publications" in the twenty-sixth line.


Robert James Manion: The word "further" after
the word "provided" in the same line would have to be struck out also to agree with that.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I have not given much study to this bill, but I suppose the minister wants to make it as workable as possible. It seems to me that when you publish the names of all persons having one per cent or over of the stocks, bonds or mortgages, you are going into rather unnecessary detail.


Peter John Veniot: Where is that found?


George Halsey Perley: Just after the
words which have been struck out in line 28:
*-less than one per centum of the total amount of stock, bonds, mortgages or other securities.
If the total was $1,000,000, one per cent would amount to $10,000, and just as in the case of ownership of $100,000 of bonds the name of the owner would have to be included. That seems to be unnecessary detail.


Peter John Veniot: I am perfectly satisfied with the bill as it stands. It is up to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Church) to agree to any further change.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26, to amend the Railway Act.
Ernest Lapointe: Explain.


Thomas Langton Church: The object of this bill is
a step forward for a national coal policy and to provide a remedy for the existing problem of supplying coal to the central and other portions of Canada, and render Canada independent of foreign supply.
The present coal situation is grave and demands an immediate solution and the adoption of a national fuel policy so that every pound of coal shall be mined and coked under the British flag.
The bill is an effort to establish a national policy for the carriage of Canadian coal and coke on the same basis as is provided by the special tariff on grain and flour. The govern-
Railway Act

ment by an order in council rescinded and then restored special rates on grain and flour. The coal question is a transportation question to the extent of 95 per cent. Canada owns the national railways and merchant marine, and has the facilities to solve the coal problem and put in force a national coal policy which would forever make the country independent of a foreign supply. Action is wanted. Coal is as much a necessity as flour and grain. Part of the Canadian grain going through American channels gets a special rate. There should be equality of treatment for carrying coal on the same basis as flour and grain. Canada has spent over two billions of dollars on the national railways, and surely it ought to be possible to reduce the rates for the carriage of coal by a few cents a ton in order to aid the miner in Alberta and the maritimes. The national railway either belongs to the people of Canada, or it belongs to Sir Henry Thornton. Should it be used to develop a sparsely populated vast dominion, or should it be run solely for profit to satisfy the ambition of its president? Is present profit its sole aim, or is to develop a vast dominion its sole object? Was this railway system taken over by the nation to help bring about economic annexation to the United States, or was the initial objective a means for the distribution of necessities and the transportation of its settlers in order to encourage an ever increasing and contented people? Can a country known to possess a real winter or fully one-half of every year expect to grow if the statement once was noised abroad that no reliable source of fuel was ensured for its settlers? If a country does not grow, will or can its revenue increase? Would not this bill bring in the near future great development of industry, some ten, some twenty and some a hundred' fold?
The legislatures of Alberta and Ontario, and others as well, have lined up in favour of this legislation. There is only one proper course to follow and that is to grant reduced rates for the transportation of coal mined and coked in Canada and used for domestic purposes in Canada in order that the needs of the people may be met in a satisfactory and adequate manner. This particular legislation will cost the country little or nothing, and will confer a great benefit not only on the people of Alberta, and of ether parts of the west, but also on the people of the maritime provinces and of central Canada. It is a step in the right direction.
The management of the national railways say they cannot carry coal from Alberta at 
less than $9 a ton. I would say to Sir Henry Thornton that Canada's national railway system must not be operated for the promotion of the United States coal barons alone but for the benefit of the people of Canada. Sir Henry Thornton receives his salary from the people of Canada. Does he consider their interest one iota or is he striving for his own vain glory? This question has been before the public for six or seven years now, and no progress has been made with it-a football has been made of it.
There is only one way of solving this question and that is along the lines of the Duncan report which is the principle of this bill. Ontario and Quebec are just as much entitled to relief in the coal situation as other portions of the country which receive bonuses and subsidies to solve their economic ills.
The province of Alberta is certainly entitled to a reduced rate for the carriage of coal as are the maritimes and on the same rate cut as grain and flour now receive. There should be equality of treatment in Canada. There Should be an economic policy adopted in this country for the good of all the provinces. It should be a cooperation with a policy of "each for all and all for each." That is the just principle for all provinces in the confederation.
The. proposed legislation may be looked upon as a small form of subsidy, but it will reap a vast harvest, not only for the national railways but for the people of western and central Canada and the east as well. If Sir Henry Thornton is working for the United States coal barons, and himself, he should either be paid solely by them or he should forfeit his present salary to his ambition for a surplus profit. Seemingly Sir Henry Thornton would prefer to fix the coal rate at $9 or $10 a ton and carry no Canadian coal at all, than to lower the charge a trifle and secure the cream of the business. In my opinion a case has been made out for placing coal on a parity with grain and flour in the matter of railway rates on a special tariff toll basis. If hon. members will read the evidence given before the railway commission they will realize that such is the fact and that coal should receive the same preferential rates. For the reasons I have given I move the second reading of the bill.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to endeavour to inform the house as to what the effect would be upon the rates with which this bill seeks to deal. In the first place the present Crowsnest pass rates

Railway Act
on grain are applicable to the head of the lakes. As regards the movement of coal from the west to Toronto, the rate for grain per ton and the rate for coal per ton are now identical. The rate on grain from the west to Toronto is $12.70 per ton. From Drum-heller, the mining centre to Toronto, the rate is the same. I presume however that my hon. friend who introduced the bill has in mind the application of the same mileage rates as now apply to grain as far as Fort William, to the remainder of the distance from Fort William to Toronto, although the language of the bill which he introduces leaves me somewhat in doubt as to whether that would be the result. Neveretheless I thought it desirable to have figures taken out which would illustrate the application of the mileage scale of the Crowsnest grain rates to Fort William, also to the remainder of the distance to Toronto on coal. The reason for making this analysis was to ascertain whether or not the adoption of such a principle would make it possible to move coal from Drum-heller to Toronto and sell it there to the satisfaction of the people of that city and the people of Ontario generally.
If I remember correctly the representations which have been made by the coal operators of Alberta and by the government of that province, they do not believe that a tate of more than seven dollars per ton would enable the business to be done. All the argument is in the direction of a rate of seven dollars per ton or less in order to make practicable the movement of coal from Alberta to Toronto and southern Ontario generally. If we apply my hon. friend's measure in the manner I have just indicated, the Crowsnest mileage scale east of Fort William as well as west thereof, to coal, we would get a rate from Drumheller to Toronto of $8.44 per ton. That is what the railway commission would be ordered under this legislation to put into effect as a rate, and I submit for the consideration of my hon. friend and those who I know are interested in securing a solution to this question, that a rate of $8.44 is not in accordance with the claims which are made by the coal operators in Alberta and the consuming public in Ontario as to the reduction necessary in order to bring about effective relief.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Is that all rail to Toronto?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The all-rail rates are the only rates affected by the bill. It might be claimed that a more advantageous comparison from the point of view of coal movement could be secured by including together the statutory rate on grain to Fort William and the rate fixed by the railway commission over the Transcontinental line to Quebec on grain and applying the mileage scale on grain east of Armstrong to the distance to Toronto. I have had those figures taken out too, and the result if that were applied-and I doubt very much if such an application would be covered by the terms of my hon. friend's bill-would be that the rate would still be $8.30 per ton. Therefore we see that by applying the lowest scale rate existent anywhere in Canada with reference to grain, we would still have a rate from the coal fields to the consumer in Ontario of $8.30 a ton. I think I cannot do better than leave to the house the question whether it is desirable to incorporate in the Railway Act a statutory rate which admittedly will not accomplish the objective which the promoter of the bill states that he has in view, because the rate which would be secured thereby is much higher than that stated by the coal operators and the government of Alberta and by the government and people of Ontario as being necessary in such a case. I would be quite prepared on behalf of the government to have the figures I have presented further examined by a committee of the house-and I am not now discussing, as I did the other day, the desirability of further extending the principle of statutory rates-but I think any examination would reveal the accuracy of what I have stated with respect to the application of the measure.
Perhaps it would be worth while to give some information regarding comparative rates from the maritime provinces region on coal with the Crowsnest rate now existing in the west on grain. I know there is a good deal of misunderstanding in some quarters in that connection. The rate on coal to Riviere du Loup, 718 miles, is $2.90 per. ton. The grain rate under the Crowsnest pass schedule for the same distance in western Canada is $3.80 per ton.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Different classifications.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course coal and grain are different classifications, but the bill seeks to place them in the same classification. If my hon. friend's bill were to pass, I take it that the rate on coal from the maritime provinces to Riviere du Loop would be increased from $2.90 to $3.80 per ton, and would thus deprive the maritime provinces of the advantages which are theirs at present under the Maritime Freight Rates Act.

Supply-A gricul ture


Mr. CANTLEY:: Will the minister be good enough to give the point in the maritime provinces to which he is referring?


Charles Avery Dunning: Sydney, Nova Scotia.
That is the point taken as the point of shipment. I gave the mileage. If we take Quebec, an important market for coal from the maritime provinces, the present rate under the Maritime Freight Rates Act is $3.50 per ton. The rate for a similar distance, 818 miles, under the Crowsnest rate on grain is $4.00 per ton, or fifty cents per ton higher on grain than on coal moving from the maritimes into the central market. To Montreal, an important market


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hour for public bills and orders having expired, the house will now resolve itself into committee of supply.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Agriculture-fruit, including grant of $8,000 to the Canadian Horticultural Council, $290,000.
Mr. STIRLING:: Can the minister inform
me whether any progress has been made as between the government of Canada and the government of Australia with regard to the entry of apples into Australia? The minister will remember that when the Premier of Australia was here last year he was approached in this regard. Again, as he passed through Vancouver he received deputations from the fruit growing interests in British Columbia, and he appeared to be very greatly interested in what that deputation placed before him. He was interested from the point of view of increasing the entry of Australian apples into Canada at times when the Canadian market was bare of apples; and just prior to the Minister of Justice starting for Australia he was supplied with data connected with the matter and asked to take the matter up in Australia. We have never heard whether what the minister was able to do in Australia resulted in any benefit, and we would like to know from the minister whether the situation has in any way improved.


William Richard Motherwell: When Premier
Bruce was in Canada I availed myself of the opportunity of having a very full discussion with him on this embargo which he placed against our apples because of fire blight. Our experts have always taken the view that fire blight was not transmissible by the fruit. The Australian government took the opposite ground-that there was a likelihood of its being transmissible-and they were inexorable

on that point. After Premier Bruce left here, and about the time he would arrive home I wrote him veiy fully, so that he would have the letter on file, urging him as strongly as possible to reconsider the matter with a view to taking the embargo off. But the reply was the same-they could not see their way clear to do it. It is their privilege to impose embargoes if they see fit, and that is the way the matter stands.


Thomas Cantley: Before six o'clock the
minister made some remark from which I gathered that he intended to do something in the way of establishing marketing conditions in the central ipart of Canada. May I ask him what are his intentions with regard to marketing, particularly in Nova Scotia? Last year that question was up before this house, and if I mistake not, the member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), when we were discussing the question of the interchange of fruit between the east and the west, said that Nova Scotia fruit did not go to the west. Well, that is true, Mr. Chairman, and for a very good reason: the freight rates are entirely opposed to that movement. The Minister of Railways was in his seat a moment ago; I thought he was still there, but I see he is not. However, I may point out that from Onondaga valley to Halifax the freight rate is SI.64, whereas the rate on Nova Scotia fruit travelling westward into British Columbia is $2.65.


James Layton Ralston: Per hundred pounds.


Thomas Cantley: It does not matter
whether it is per 100 pounds or per barrel, it is a discrimination as against Nova Scotia fruit. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to use his good offices with the Minister of Railways to rectify that matter, which is an injustice, as many of the other rates are, to the maritime provinces.


John Livingstone Brown: It might be well to point
out that the Crowsnest pass agreement originally made provision for the shipment of fresh fruits to the west, and if I remember rightly that agreement was very strenuously fought by a great many members in the maritime provinces.


William Richard Motherwell: If not all of them.


Thomas Cantley: I am not interested in
that, as I do not accept it as a quite correct statement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Agriculture
Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to seed fairs, etc., §375,000.
Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: Is the
minister extending the operations of the seed control branch to western Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps I could
answer that question better by pointing out that in all Canada there are six seed control zones, beginning at the western part of Canada. The first one is at Calgary, then Winnipeg, then Toronto, Quebec, Sackville, and there is a central zone in Ottawa. These are used primarily for the testing of seeds for purity from weed seeds and germination. There is a good deal of agitation in the west in regard to paying more attention to the cleaning and preparing of seed. The appliances there are so primitive that it costs so much that the average man cannot pay the cost of properly cleaned seeds. I have been in communication with the Minister of Agriculture of Alberta and the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan in connection with doing co-operative work in connection with these facilities for seed cleaning purposes with the seed men. This vote covers seed, feed and fertilizer. I remember when we came down here the first year the hon. member for Lisgar brought to my attention the very urgent necessity of some amendment to the Feed Act, particularly with reference to bran and shorts. At that time a large percentage of the screenings was included in the bran and shorts. It helped out considerably from the weed standpoint, but not in the feeding properties. We had that act before us several times, and I think now everybody is satisfied with the Feed Control Act in that respect. The particular kind of fertilizers is not of very much interest to the western farmers. We have had experiments with the use of the fertilizers out there and it costs more to distribute it, even if it were laid down on the farm free, than it is worth. But down in eastern Canada where the early virginity is out of the land, the artificial fertilizer becomes an important matter indeed, particularly where you are constantly growing crops like potatoes and tobacco. It is a very vital matter to the farmers to get a good supply of the proper quality. It is just as important to them as any other subject is important to the western farmer-the grading of the grain, for instance.
These three acts, plus the Insecticides Act, which was passed last year, all come under the seed control administration. The Insecticides Act covers all poisons for economic purposes-fruity vegetables or anything else. That is roughly what the seed control commissioner has to do.


William Russell Fansher: The
point I wish to stress is with respect to the control of seed that is being used generally over the western provinces. We have made progress by the establishment of tuberculosis-free areas, pure-bred sire areas, and so on, and I think there is a great field of usefulness for seed control work in western Canada. We have a large number of varieties of grain sold in the same district, and when the crop is drawn to market we get mixed grades.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is speaking of commercial seed. I suppose he saw the survey made by the Dominion Department of Agriculture with regard to the kind of seed used by many farmers. The seed was taken from the drills, and it was found that a large percentage was very low grade and dirty. It was appalling to find this class of seed being sold in what is possibly the premier grain-growing province of the Dominion. We found some of the weed inspectors were doing this, and they above all others should know better. It was not that way twenty years ago; then the utmost care was taken with the seed and it was treated with some form of insecticide. Unfortunately when there is a run of good crops there is a tendency, so far as the bulk is concerned, for the retailer to grow careless with regard to the quality of the seed, with the idea that anything will do.


John Livingstone Brown: There is a matter which
should be taken into consideration in connection with this vote, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that the member for Neepawa (Mr. Milne) is not here, because he and his brother had an unfortunate experience that I think ought not to be repeated very often. The story told to me, if I remember aright, is that they bought some four or five hundred bushels of seed grain on sample from a seed merchant. [DOT] When they got it home they found it was by no means equal to the sample. They complained, but their only satisfaction was to be told that they could draw the grain back to the railway station, about twelve miles away. To draw four or five hundred bushels of seed wheat such a distance at that time of the year was not a welcome experience. The situation must be met by a more rigid control over the men putting seed on the market to see that it is according to sample.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I notice the minister has an increase of $39,000. How is it accounted for?


William Richard Motherwell: As my hon. friend will notice, the activities under the department are extending all the time. It costs
Supply-Agriculture

something to take care of this insecticide act and also the new hay act. The flat increase that was given to practically all the civil service last year also represents a considerable addition to the vote. There are no particular new activities outside of those mentioned.
With regard to the complaint made by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), there is provision in the law for redress. I know it is pretty difficult to get complete redress when you are dosed up with a bunch of 'bad seed in seed time *with no opportunity of getting better seed. That seed merchant should have been prosecuted for violation of the law, because every bit of seed grain is carefully examined by the seed inspector before it leaves the seed house. There' must have been some dishonesty by somebody, otherwise such a consignment could never have got into the channels of trade. If anything like that occurs again we should like to be informed about it so we may take the matter up and get what redress is possible. Of course, I recognize that he who has been so victimized cannot get full redress.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are the salaries of inspectors included in these items?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many inspectors
are there in the minister's department?


William Richard Motherwell: In the whole department?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to ask him
for the number in the whole department before I find out how many there were on January 1, 1926, January 1. 1927 and January 1, 1928.


William Richard Motherwell: That would be a
nice thing to ask a return for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it would be a nice
thing to ask the minister for.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister will
be delighted to answer and justify it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am perfectly sure he
will try to justify it.


William Richard Motherwell: I might say that,
outside of a comparatively small number of items, these sums are largely for inspectional purposes, and of necessity this inspection must be done through the medium of men and women inspectors. That is the character of the work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to know how
many Liberals the minister employed last year.


William Richard Motherwell: Liberals! We
would have to get an X-ray to find any. I do not know how many-


Peter McGibbon: One hundred per cent?


William Richard Motherwell: It is pretty hard
to tell. Has my hon. friend any particular one m mind? If so I should like to put a tracer on him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My information is that
it requires now a tracer to trace them, there are so many, and that we have inspectors of inspectors.


William Richard Motherwell: I invite now not
only my hon. friend but any other hon. member to name one man engaged in this work over the requirements of the public service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we are
trying to find out. Will the minister tell us under this item how many inspectors there are, and where the money goes to? That is the real business of the department.


William Richard Motherwell: For the different
divisions of this particular vote?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just take this vote to
start with.


William Richard Motherwell: I confess I do not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we are going to find out.


William Richard Motherwell: My deputy has the information in different groups. In order to give the bulk number he will have to do some adding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister can give
them in detail from that book.


William Richard Motherwell: Any particular
province?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to know
how many there are altogether.


William Richard Motherwell: That is some problem.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This country is greatly
interested in it.


William Richard Motherwell: Some of the names are pretty hard to get around.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not want the names of the inspectors, I want the list by provinces!


William Richard Motherwell: The mari times,
five; Sackville is the centre.

Supply-Agriculture


Richard Bedford Bennett: For what purposes under this vote?


William Richard Motherwell: Under seed, fertilizer, feed, insecticide and hay control acts there are five or six different subheads of which Commissioner Clark has control. Each year they are being added to.


William Alves Boys: What are the salaries?


William Richard Motherwell: The maximum is $2,200; the minimum, $1,400.


William Alves Boys: Are they devoting themselves
exclusively to this work?


Mr. MOTHER WELL:: Yes, as far as I know; but they have more than one activity to engage in. These inspectors frequently cover the work involved in five acts. Under one act they will be engaged during a certain part of the year and under the other acts in other seasons. In this way they are able to administer four or five acts.


William Alves Boys: Their whole service is given
to the department?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. There are
some inspectors who give only part time, three or four months, but that does not apply to those whom we are discussing. Some are engaged for six months.


William Alves Boys: Where they get $2,000 or $2,100, do they give two, three or four months' service for this salary?


William Richard Motherwell: The salary is for
the year. At the present time we are in the midst of the seed business and the inspectors will be engaged in this work until the spring. Of course the staff is larger now than it will be immediately after the close of the season. When they get through with this work they will take up their duties under the fertilizer and insecticide acts.


William Alves Boys: What portion of the year do
these inspectors devote to their business?


William Richard Motherwell: Their whole time
is taken up.


William Alves Boys: I understood that they were
required to work only a portion of the year because their services1 were needed only during a certain season.


William Richard Motherwell: The five acts are
not administered at the same time by the same men. Take seed, for example: the work begins in the fall of the year, right after threshing, and becomes increasingly active. There are such things as seed germination and testing for variety and freedom
from foul seeds, and these will engage the attention of the inspectors until seeding time in April, when the work reaches its peak. Immediately following seeding, the inspector turns his attention to the Fertilizer Act, Later on, even before the trees are in blossom, there is spraying to be done, and then the provisions of the insecticide act- must be enforced.	Later on, again, there is hajr
inspection. And so on. There is also the Feeding Stuffs Act to be administered, and that will cover the whole year inasmuch as its provisions are apt to be enforced at any time, food being a requisite to both man and beast at all times of the year.


William Alves Boys: I thank the minister for his
comprehensive explanation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He might complete his
statement by giving the number of inspectors in the provinces.


James Dew Chaplin: We have had Nova
Scotia.


William Richard Motherwell: In Quebec there
are nine inspectors; in eastern Ontario three; in western Ontario seven; in Manitoba and Saskatchewan seven, and in Alberta and British Columbia six. They go to Calgary from these two provinces for inspectional work and seed testing, and I hope my hon. friend has taken advantage of a visit to that laboratory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have; it is well conducted, or used to be.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Is there any standard
that guarantees to the farmer, in case he is willing to pay for it, that there will be no noxious weeds in the seeds he buys? I have special reference to grasses and garden seeds,


William Richard Motherwell: The Seed Control
Act, an amendment to which may be submitted to the agriculture committee, covers that point. There is a standard in regard to both garden and vegetable seeds.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is there any standard
that will guarantee to the farmer that there will be no noxious weeds in the seeds he purchases?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is it?


William Richard Motherwell: I take it my hon.
friend means, no noxious seeds as understood by the Seed Control Act. There is no such thing as a guarantee that there shall be absolutely no noxious seeds in any kind of seed. There is always bound to be a possible
Supply-Agriculture

slight percentage to the pound, but the act stipulates the extent of it. The act is lived up to rigidly. These are the grades: Registered, Extra No. 1, No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3. We have the maximum of primary noxious weed seeds per pound, and the various percentages are set out minutely. No. 1 registered is given as free from noxious weeds.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That means that if the
farmer buys No. 1 registered grass there will be no noxious weeds in it?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
knows that "noxious weed" is defined by the provincial Weed Control Act and there might be foreign seeds in the lot which would not be noxious. There is a list published giving the noxious weeds.


Mr. McMILLAN:: Is that list available
for distribution in pamphlet form?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I want to make this
point, that if there is not a standard'-


William Richard Motherwell: There is an absolutely definite standard-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If there is not a perfect standard it is very important that the department make every possible effort to work one out. I know of nothing more discouraging to men trying to farm well and farm clean than to pay a big price for seed only to find that the seed contains some noxious weed. The inspector who comes around, who may be either a municipal or a provincial man, does not allow very much for the fact that those weeds have come in in spite of all the caTe the farmer has taken to avoid them. If we are going to have clean farms in Canada, or if we are going to keep those parts clean which are already in that condition, it is absolutely essential that some standard be set up either by the federal government alone or in cooperation with the provincial governments. A standard should be established so that any farmer may be sure that he is getting absolutely clean* seed to start with if he pays the price, and from that he can develop seed for his whole farm. If under the act governing the sale of seed there is the possibility of a farmer being charged the highest price for the best standard, only to receive seed which is not absolutely clean, I fail to see how we can look forward to a time when agriculture in this country will be free from the blight of noxious weeds, because a few are enough to do the damage.


William Richard Motherwell: My experience with seed is that it does not matter how clean it is or how many certificates it has, the farmer is well advised to keep looking around his fields for some new weed to appear. As he goes for his Sunday stroll or for his evening walk, he Should keep his eyes open because there is always the possibility of one stray seed being in a bag, and that is enough to do the trick. Here are some of the most noxious weeds which we are up against; bladder campion, dodder, field bindweed, Johnson grass, ox-eye daisy, perennial sow thistle, white cockle, wild mustard and wild oats. Some of the secondary noxious weeds, which are permissible to a certain degree where the others are absolutely prohibited, are ball mustard, blue weed, Canada thistle, chicory, couCh grass, cow cockle, docks, false flax, hare's-ear mustard, night-flowering catchfly, purple cockle, ragweed common, ragweed great, ragweed perennial, ribgrass, Russian thistle, stickweed, stinkweed, tumbling mustard, wild carrot and wild radish. Those are the less objectionable weeds, and you will notice that a certain amount, depending upon the grade, is allowed in the sample. I think my hon. friend has farmed long enough, however, and has bought enough seed to know that you cannot be absolutely sure that there will not be one weed seed in a bag of seed which should not be there, but it is supervised and certified a* far as it is humanly possible to do so. Human agencies always have their limitations, and that applies to this seed inspection as well.


Milton Neil Campbell: I would like the minister to give us some information about the experimental work carried on in regard to vermilion wheat.


William Richard Motherwell: Those experiments
were conducted1 last year, and the results were so unsatisfactory that I do not believe the experiments have been continued. A certain amount of vermilion wheat did get into trade channels, however, and a very considerable acreage was sown before it was discovered to be such a poor baking wheat. This fall a new variety of wheat trickled down to Winnipeg and was observed by the inspection department there as something new and not very desirable. They sent a sample of t'he wheat and the flour to the Dominion cerealist and asked him to identify it, and it turned out to be vermilion wheat.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Are the seed inspectors the men who look after the inspection of binder twine?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.

Supply-Agriculture


Leland Payson Bancroft: Then at this juncture I should like to state to the minister how much I appreciate the fact that these inspectors have done very good work this summer in connection with the inspection of binder twine. Last year I had occasion to call attention to the fact that in some cases binder twine was being sold short in length and light in weight, and I am pleased to say that that has been very carefully looked after this summer. So far as I have been able to learn, no twine has been sold under the length allowed by law.
While I am on my feet I should like to remind the minister again that the personnel of the advisory seed board should be increased, and that there should be three farmer representatives from the three prairie provinces instead of one, as is the case at present. Now there is only one representative for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and he is appointed for one year only. The member this year is Mr. Mountain, of Solsgirth, Manitoba; next year there will be a gentleman from Saskatchewan; the. year following someone from Alberta will be appointed, and the year after that it will come back to Manitoba. One member is not enough for those three provinces; pure seed grain is of too much importance for that. At the very least we need one farmer representative on that board from each of the three prairie provinces, and 1 also suggest to the minister that they be appointed for three years instead of one. In one year a man just gets nicely into the work when he has to quit, and a new man starts all over again.


William Richard Motherwell: The remarks of my hon. friend are quite in order, but I .might tell him that within the last ten days another farmer representative was appointed to that seed board. We find some difficulty in getting the proper relationship between the various members of the board as representing different phases of the seed trade. We have representatives on that board from the seed merchants, the seed growers and members of the seed branch of our own department as well. If you increase one you have to increase the other, and every one who has had anything to do with such a board knows that the larger it is the less satisfactory is the advice you receive. If you had a compact advisory board, however, you get much greater efficiency and good, sound advice. We have endeavoured to maintain that proper harmony and relationship between the different interests represented on that board by appointing one more farmer .representative within the last ten days.


Leland Payson Bancroft: One more from the prairie provinces?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, from Alberta, I believe. I have forgotten his name, but I believe he is a very good man.


Mr. ROWE:: Could the minister tell us
what proportion of this appropriation is used in the distribution of free seed throughout the Dominion?


William Richard Motherwell: None. That is done usually through the Department of the Interior. Sometimes my department does a little, but there is practically none of that done now.


William Earl Rowe: Has the Department of Agriculture taken any action to encourage the use of fertilizer throughout the Dominion?


William Richard Motherwell: We are always experimenting with it.


William Earl Rowe: Approximately what amount of this' appropriation is used for this purpose?
Mr. TVfOTHERWELL: We are always conducting experiments in reclaiming soil. We have in eastern Canada a system of prizes, running up in the aggregate to two or three hundred dollars, to encourage the use of fertilizers by those who are not using them freely. My attention has been brought to such cases in the maritime .provinces and Quebec, and I presume there are some in this province. We encourage the farmers to try the fertilizers. Some people have no faith in fertilizers, but if they will only try them once or twice they usually follow it up. I might draw the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that in addition to the ordinary sources of artificial fertilizer we have a synthetic fertilizer plant near Niagara Falls-my hon. friend possibly knows of . it-where nitrates are extracted from the air through the medium of hydro power, which is becoming more and more popular. It has to be carried on with great- care because of the possible injury to plant life unless applied to the soil two or three weeks before vegetation appears.


James Dew Chaplin: Is there any fertilizer
from that plant, used in Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: Most of it goes to Buffalo because they axe more familiar with the use of it there.


James Dew Chaplin: I understood the minister to say a minute ago that they were using that fertilizer in Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say we were using it in Canada, I said it was made

Supply-Agriculture

in this country. Most of it is shipped to the United States, because they are more familiar there with the use of that particular kind of fertilizer.


James Dew Chaplin: All of it is used in the United States.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not doubt
that. I wanted to draw the attention of my hon. friend, without unnecessarily irritating him, to the fact that it was made in Canada.


William Earl Rowe: I should like to ask the minister if the department has not supplied fertilizer at cost, or given it away, in the poorer parts of the Dominion? Has that not been part of a policy adopted by the department? If so, how much was given away in 1926?


William Richard Motherwell: Grants of certain
quantities of fertilizer have been made to those who have been conducting certain experiments.


William Earl Rowe: How many carloads were
given away by the department in 1926 and 1927?	'	"	*


William Richard Motherwell: My deputy informs me that in the aggregate $2,000 worth was given last year in the form of prizes to those who would conduct certain experiments suitable to their particular localities and report to the department. There is still considerable objection on the part of certain farmers, to using artificial fertilizer, and this policy has the effect of familiarizing them with its use.


William Earl Rowe: The minister has not yet
answered my question. I should like to know how much has been given to each province.	[DOT]


William Richard Motherwell: My deputy informs me that he does not happen to have that information.


Mr. MILLAR:: What penalty is applied in oases where binder twine offered for sale is not of the specified length per pound, and how many such cases Were there in 1927?


William Richard Motherwell: In nearly all these cases there is a penalty. I do not happen to remember how many oases there were.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said the
expenditure had been $375,000, and he gave the number of people that were employed as about forty. That certainly is not the number of employees that are doing inspecting work under this item. The number must be nearer one hundred than forty, when $375,000 were spent. I should like to get exact information as to the number of people employed.


William Richard Motherwell: Inspectors*


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I am trying to get at is how many people are involved in the expenditure under that vote.


William Richard Motherwell: That is quite
another question. My hon. friend is getting interested now in stenographers. I understood he was not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all right. The
minister is not going to get away with that cheap sort of talk.


William Richard Motherwell: I made it quite
plain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As long as my hon.
friend realizes his responsibility and acts accordingly he will be treated as he should be, but if for a moment he forgets it he will have reason to remember that we are here.


William Richard Motherwell: Ah!


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister may as
well understand that now as at any other time. We asked him how many people were in receipt of pay under that vote. I asked for the number of inspectors and the numbers were given me-less than forty in all. Now there is a suspicion in this country that very large sums of money are being spent to provide employment for people who are not yery useful in the public service. Here is an item of $375,000, a substantial sum of money, and that sum is being expended for the purpose named by the minister, namely the providing of inspectors and those associated with them in the public service. Now all I ask-and we have a right to know, whether they are ward heelers or not-is how many drew pay out of that $375,000.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend
will take the trouble to read Hansard tomorrow-I do not suppose he will have time, -he will find that he asked for inspectors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did, yes.


William Richard Motherwell: Now he is enlarging the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: Well then we will
proceed to answer it. What is the kick about?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The kick is at the
endeavour to make a joke of what was a legitimate question.


William Richard Motherwell: If we did not make a joke now and again what would become of us?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
James Dew Chaplin: And the heelers.
Mr.	MOTHERWELL:	Do	not	let us
forget that salaries do not cover the whole of this vote, but that it includes seed fair grants and many other things. While my deputy is counting these up I should like to appeal to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft) if, from his experience in this inspectional work, wre are not disposed to be undermanned rather than overmanned. As a matter of fact I have been conscious for some time since my hon. friend drew my attention to some shortcomings in the inspectional work in connection with binder twine, that we have not had sufficient staff to do the work as well as we would like to do it. I do not know whether the hon. member for Selkirk is present or not.' That was the situation. What object have we in padding the list of employees? Until we find some specific case where the department is overstaffed, let me say with all respect that my invitation stands. I should like to be shown where they are and I shall be just as willing as any other hon. gentleman to get rid of them, but until you find them that cannot be done. This appropriation is not devoted entirely to salaries; it includes seed fairs throughout the Dominion. My deputy informs me that there are about ninety-two employees.


William Alves Boys: Can the minister state how much is for fairs and how much for salaries?


William Richard Motherwell: The total appropriation of $275,000 is distributed as follows:
General administration	 $30,000
Seed production and markets	 56 000
Administration of Inspection and Sale
.	   4,000
Administration of Agricultural Pests
Control Act	 5 000
Administration of Seeds, Feeds and Fertilizers Act, By districts-
Maritime provinces	 28,000
Quebec	 42,000
Eastern Ontario	 24,000
Western Ontario	 59,000
Manitoba and Saskatchewan	 55,000
Alberta and British Columbia.. ..	49,000
Grant to Canadian Seed Growers'
Associations	 13,000
Purchase of seed stains	 2,500
That is because in certain countries to which we export our seeds, the law requires that a certain percentage of the seed be stained so as to identify what country, it comes from.
Fees for chemical analyses of feeding stuffs, etc., $7,500.
The increases asked for in this connection are to cover statutory salary increases, and to provide for the administration of the new Agricultural Pests Control Act, and the additional amount necessary for the payment of fees for the chemical analysis of samples of insecticides and fungicides. The item for seed production and markets $56,000, includes the seed fair item. That is given under certain regulations, the money being paid to the Department of Agriculture of the respective province and transmitted by them to the seed fair on condition that the province pays an equal amount to what we do for the seed fair. That practice has been in vogue for the last fifteen years.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: To whom is this amount
paid for the analysis of feeds?


William Richard Motherwell: We have not sufficient cherqists of our own to do this work, without taking up too much of their time, and there is a certain .number of what we call approved chemists who charge a given rate of fees. These samples are submitted to them and this item is to cover their fees.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Are they located throughout the Dominion?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. Very much
the same principle is involved in this as that with respect to approved veterinary surgeons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they are approved by a patronage committee?


William Richard Motherwell: I should be glad if my hon. friend could find out some patronage, because I have been unable to find it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know the minister has been looking hard for it.


William Richard Motherwell: I admit there is some left but it is not here. It is left in the most vicious form of patronage outside of the control and jurisdiction of this parliament. That is where it is and my hon. friend knows it. My hon. friend and I would probably be agreed on that. As regards the selection of these gentlemen I do not know one of them and I never saw them. The advisory board in each case recommends them and they are appointed by order in council. They are engaged then to charge not more than a certain fee. I do not know one of them in
Supply-Agriculture

all Canada and we are too busy to inquire into the political affiliations of the men who are doing work for us. Perhaps my hon. friend will not believe me, but such is the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend says so, I will believe it.


William Earl Rowe: The minister in answer to a question said that the Department of the Interior distributes seed grain throughout the Dominion. I fear this must be an error on the part of the minister. When did the Department of Agriculture transfer that responsibility to the Department of the Interior?


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps it has not come to my hon. friend's attention that, ever since homesteading began in the west, a certain quantity of seed grain has always been handled by the Interior department. This is now being done by the Department of Immigration since it has been separated, because homesteaders are under the care of the Department of Immigration until such time as they acquire their patent. For forty years or more homesteaders have been supplied in times of excessive drought with seed from the Department of the Interior, the same department from which they get their homesteads. In 1914 this was extended to other farmers than homesteaders.


William Earl Rowe: That is confusing. I cannot see where the distribution of sped grain for the development and encouragement of the growing of better grain by the farmers is connected with the Department of Immigration and Colonization or with the Department of the Interior. This should surely be an expenditure under the Department of Agriculture. This seed grain is distributed not only to those sections of the country which are still under colonization but throughout the whole Dominion. I merely asked the question as to the approximate amount of expenditure in this appropriation for the distribution of seed. This expense- surely belongs to the Department of Agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: I think what my
hon. friend has reference to is those small samples of five pounds that we gave at one time. This began to be badly abused. A large family would double up and put in a number of orders until they would get three or four bushels. Perhaps they would not do this in one family, but they would go around and send in names- Another objection is this: If a man sows just five pounds of seed, my hon. friend knows it is more difficult to look properly after a small plot sown with five pounds of seed than to look after five

acres. The seed is put in a little corner by itself; it is exposed; it is not worth while going round with the binder, and it may be left a little too long. People do not like to thresh it in the threshing machine. This plan was found to be a nuisance and the results fell short of the idea of those who originated it. I do not condemn it, but it was played out and it was abandoned eight or nine years ago, long before I took office. Since then we have developed new varieties which are sold at a fixed price, the same price to all. Reward wheat is sold at three dollars a bushel at point of shipment.


Mr. ERNST:: As regards these seed fairs,
to what regulations must a fair conform, roughly, in order to qualify for the grant? What is the amount of the grant? How many such grants were paid to seed fairs in Nova Scotia last year?


William Richard Motherwell: Conditions have
changed since I was a provincial minister, but the practice used to be that there should be a certain amount of standing grain competition going with the seed in the bag. That has been abandoned. The seed and standing grain competitions have passed away. The only condition is that the provincial government contribute a corresponding amount, then they take the supervision of the fair. As to the number of fairs in Nova Scotia, my deputy tells me that he does not recall any. The provincial government recommends the fairs and draws the matter to the attention of the federal authorities. That is my understanding.


William Gordon Ernst: Do I understand the grant
is given only to seed fairs exhibiting these seeds, and that they would not be given to fairs exhibiting seed potatoes or other vegetables?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes, there is
great latitude in the interpretation of the seed fairs.


William Gordon Ernst: Suppose a fair exhibited
seed potatoes, to what regulations would they have to conform in order to comply with the grant ?


William Richard Motherwell: All these terms are
sometimes rather mystifying. For instance, seed fairs include potatoes, garden seeds, et cetera. I think my hon. friend has in mind the winter fair in the city of Amherst, which represents the three maritime provinces.


William Gordon Ernst: No.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, there is one
there and there is a seed fair associated with

Supply-Agriculture
the winter fair. The winter fairs are not only live stock fairs, as they used to be ten or fifteen years ago, but they are branching out and becoming more and more seed fairs as well, and those grants are paid on the basis of what the exhibition association and the provincial government themselves put up.


William Gordon Ernst: The minister knows that in
most parts of Nova Scotia grain is comparatively unimportant as compared with some of the other commodities which are grown. I had in mind a number of agricultural exhibitions which are held throughout the province each autumn, in which seed of certain kinds is displayed. The seed of potatoes forms an exhibit in most of them, and other vegetables also, and I was wondering how those fairs could bring themselves within the provisions of the grant, so as to qualify for it.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
the seed fairs my hon. friend refers to are part of the small fairs. There is no grant in such cases. We try to confine our federal grant to fairs of a reasonable size. In the case of the summer fairs, we have our usual "A'' and "B" fairs. These are classified according to the size, the prize list and the scope of their activities, whether they are provincial or interprovincial. The small fairs, such as are held in many provinces receive no grant at all. The provinces do not recommend them, and we are governed by what the provinces recommend.


William Gordon Ernst: I have not got an answer
to my question yet. I realize that the province has to recommend them, but I cannot quite understand the minister recommending the grant merely on the recommendation of the province. There must be some regulation with which it has to conform. The fairs to which I allude are of considerable size and importance, and I want to know how those fairs could qualify, if at all.


William Richard Motherwell: The only way they could qualify would be by giving a sufficiently large prize list to attract a large number of exhibitors. A great deal is done on the recommendation of the provincial governments. There is a certain pliability and flexibility in the matter, but when the provincial government thinks it is of sufficient importance to warrant having a fair, we recognize it and O.K. it. I think that is the better way. We would require a larger staff if we were to undertake to exercise supervision and decide what fairs were eligible and what were not. In a great many of these cases we accept the recommendation of the provincial authorities.


William Gordon Ernst: If the provincial government recommends a fair, does the minister make no inquiry?


William Richard Motherwell: If it were outrageously out of the way. we might. The prize list is a pretty good indicator of the character and scope of the fair and of the interest that woidd be taken in it by the public.


William Gordon Ernst: I am at last getting some
approximation to an answer. I should like to draw attention to the matter of these exhibitions in the rural districts. The winter fair at Amherst is important to a large community, but the average farmer who might be interested does not get there, nor does he exhibit his goods. If the minister wanted to do a real service to the maritime provinces- which are entirely different from the west- he would give some encouragement in the way of a grant in order to foster the development of seed. I do not know what the regulations are. Apparently the minister looks at the prize list and arbitrarily decides whether or not the grant will be given, but if the regulations which he at present has improvised do not permit of the grant in such eases I wish he would improvise them further in order that a grant may be given.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member
wants the activity to be extended to a wider range.


William Gordon Ernst: Yes, to do some practical
good to the farmers of the maritime provinces.


William Richard Motherwell: To be quite candid, we are carrying out more activities of a strictly provincial nature in the maritime provinces than in any , other part of the country.


William Gordon Ernst: That may be quite true, but encouragement is needed and I think the activities should be doubled.


William Richard Motherwell: I will have a talk
wth my hon. friend some day and 6ee if I can meet him.


John Millar: Is the minister now prepared to give me the information I asked for a moment ago in regard to the manufacture of binder twine not up to standard, and the number of cases in which fines were imposed?


William Richard Motherwell: The maximum fine is fifty dollars, the minimum, ten dollars. A number of fines have been imposed, but we cannot recall how many. There was a tre-

Supply-Agriculture
mendous laxity in the quality and quantity of binder twine ten or fifteen years ago, but to-day there are very few of what one might call deliberate infractions of the law. Very often a word of caution is sufficient to prevent a second failure to comply with the statutory requirements.


John Millar: Is there any confiscation of the binder twine?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know.


Mr. COOTE:: Is any amount included in the vote for a grant to the Seed Growers' Association? If so, how much?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. We find the Seed Growers' Association, of which Major Strange and others are very active members, are doing such excellent work that this year we increased the grant two or three thousand dollars to encourage them in their work. The total grant is now thirteen thousand dollars. I think the money is well spent.


George Gibson Coote: Is there a weeds branch in the minister's department? If so, are their activities covered by this vote?


William Richard Motherwell: No, that is a provincial matter. Nevertheless about once every ten years the seed branch get out an illustrated bulletin.


George Gibson Coote: I understood there was a seed and weed branch; probably I have been misinformed. In western Canada we have a serious problem confronting us with regard to noxious weeds growing on Dominion government land. At the United Farmers of Alberta convention about a year ago a resolution was passed requesting the government to make provision for the eradication of noxious weeds on Dominion government land. A copy of this resolution was sent to the minister, and I think his reply was to the effect that he would be glad if we could suggest to him any way of taking care of such noxious weeds. It seems to me rather peculiar that the government, while issuing so many bulletins instructing farmers how to eradicate noxious weeds, should be so lax in respect to its own property. In all seriousness I would suggest that the minister should spend a little money on devising ways and means of taking care of noxious weeds on Dominion government lands in western Canada. I have in mind one patch of sow thistle growing on the banks of the Old Man river in the town of Macleod, the property of the Dominion government. These weeds have been growing unchecked 
for several years, and the prevailing westerly winds carry the seed out toward the Lethbridge northern irrigation district, on which the province has guaranteed bonds to the extent of over five million dollars. The people in the district have a large enough problem on their hands to make a financial success of the venture without having to contend with perennial sow thistle from Dominion government land. One hon. member near me suggests that we might call it federal sow thistle. I think the minister will agree with me that it is probably one of the worst weeds we have to contend with. Certainly it is a shame that the Dominion government will not provide means to take care of these noxious weeds on their own land. We can deal with farmers in the district by plowing down their crop if they allow noxious weeds to grow unchecked, but we cannot apply this drastic treatment to the Dominion government. Undoubtedly the Dominion authorities might very well spend a little money to take care of their own noxious weeds before offering advice to farmers on the subject. We have absolutely no way of protecting ourselves against noxious weeds growing unchecked on Dominion government lands, and I do hope that the' minister will take the necessary steps this session so that before next session this evil may be checked.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not want to
hide behind the Department of the Interior, but really my department has no public lands; these are under the control of the Department of the Interior, and that is where my hon. friend should apply. If there is any way of dealing with this matter through that department I shall be glad to help him. Take the bird sanctuary at Quill lake, which I understand has recently been let for pasturing. As everyone knows, it is swampy. I visited the place a year ago, and I found that sow thistle is getting a hold in the moist ground, in fact it flourishes under such conditions, and without employing an army of men to dig it out by hand I do not know how you can deal with it. There were crops growing on the surrounding land. The lake was swarming with duck, and all the stooks in the vicinity were half eaten up. If I remember rightly, I recommended to my colleague that something be done looking to the closing of that sanctuary. As I say, it has recently been let for pasturing purposes, but that will not solve the eradication of the sow thistle there. My hon. friend I understand is a practical farmer, so he knows that this weed has an under-

Supply-Agriculture
ground root stalk and just revels in moist land. What are you going to do about it? If my hon. friend will give me a recipe for the eradication of that sow thistle I will pass it on to my colleague.


George Gibson Coote: It seems from the minister's
statement that I should be discussing this matter with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), but I take it that the Minister of Agriculture is the agricultural adviser of his colleague.


William Richard Motherwell: I am ready to sit
at my hon. friend's feet and learn on that question.


George Gibson Coote: I am sure now that I have
his sympathy, and that I shall have at least his moral support in endeavouring to get the Minister of the Interior to take care of this problem. The local provincial weed supervisor-I do not know whether that is his correct title-has made several examinations of the patch that I am speaking of, and from what he told me I think he is willing to undertake the necessary steps to eradicate the sow thistle. I think the work could be done under a thousand dollars, and it seems to me the Dominion government should be prepared to spend this sum to do away with the nuisance on their own 'and. I will take the opportunity of discussing the matter with the miinster in his office some day and I think possibly I may be able to suggest to him a way in which this difficulty can be overcome. I would ask his support for the proposal I make.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Does my hon, friend suggest that the people in his constituency have discovered a means of eradicating sow thistle?


George Gibson Coote: One method recommended by the provincial department of agriculture was covering the patch of sow thistle with tar paper for a year or two. That would smother the weeds.
Mr. MOTHERWELL': We will do our best in the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like the minister to direct his attention to the question which has been touched upon by my hon. friend (Mr. Coote). This parliament has jurisdiction over agriculture to a limited extent, and the provinces also exercise jurisdiction in this respect. The minister was at one time Minister of Agriculture in the province from which he comes and he now holds a similar portfolio in the federal government. Now my observation is this, that vast sums of money are voted here which would accomplish much greater
IMr. Motherwell.!
results if their expenditure were more or less directed by the local authorities. In most matters centralization has failed, and any endeavour to standardize agriculture must necessarily fail in Canada as it has done elsewhere. My hon. friend from Macleod has discussed a matter to which I was going to refer. The Dominion government owns large areas of land in western Canada: it has Indian reserves, bird sanctuaries, forest reserves and other lands, some of which are occupied while others are vacant. Surely when the provincial authorities are endeavouring to deal with weeds and various other problems incident to agriculture, and are confronted with the difficulty of lands owned by the Dominion not being cared for, it is obvious that the entire effort is lost. The Quill lake reserve, to which the minister has referred, is a striking illustration of the point I desire to make. Of what value is it to spend federal money to bring about the results which the minister so earnestly desires if the provinces, in their efforts, find themselves absolutely unable to approach federally-owned lands, and if thistles and noxious weeds of various kinds flourish, with the result that the whole district is destroyed? Of what use is the expenditure of federal money when the federal government has not done its duty in relation to these lands? That is the position with respect to some Indian reserves in Alberta, and this is true also of other federally owned lands. I think the minister would be doing a great, service to the country if, in his approach to the problems with which he has to cope, he regarded his duties as Minister of Agriculture as being of a national character, and correlated the efforts of his department with those of the departments of agriculture in the various provinces. The department of agriculture in Quebec, for example, has to deal with problems entirely different from those that face the department of agriculture in Alberta; and where you have federally owned lands in the western provinces in connection with which there are all the difficulties to which the minister has made reference, how can we hope to eradicate any pest from a district adjacent to such lands if the federal government does not devote its attention to the territory under its jurisdiction? That is a real, live problem. Farmers have spoken to me about it and I know that the provincial authorities have from time to time come right up against it. I myself have seen, travelling over the country in automobiles, and sometimes within the right of way of the railways, large areas of noxious weeds, seeds being disseminated over the surrounding soil; and the pest has persisted notwithstanding the best efforts of the provincial authorities, simply because the federal government has not
Supply-Agriculture

discharged its responsibility with respect to its own. property or to those matters over which it exercises sole control.
I submit that the function of the federal department of agriculture is in a large sense national. It never was intended that the department should undertake detailed operations affecting agriculture in the provinces, and even though it makes grants in aid of work that may be done by the provinces, with assistance from the Dominion, the federal department should not engage in these small activities which I have mentioned, if they fail to look after their own property, with resultant injury to the work done by the provinces, especially in the west. I do not expect the minister to express an opinion at the moment, but I should like him to consider the problem that confronts the department of agriculture from the standpoint of a greater degree of decentralization, and an increased effort to discharge the broad national duties that rest upon the department in the matter of pure seed.
With regard to other .matters to which the minister has alluded, it is perfectly clear that this department should exercise jurisdiction. But when it comes to the question of inspection and matters of a kindred nature, there is the danger that a situation may arise similar to that which was created with respect to eggs. The courts will declare that the legislation is invalid because it interferes with civil property rights .within the jurisdiction of the provinces. My observation leads me to the conclusion that an effort is being made by the federal Department of Agriculture to pay too much attention to work that really constitutes an interference with the industry, at the expense of the local authorities who are more competent and are better able to deal with the situation. And this apart from the first point I made, namely, the failure of the federal government to discharge its duties with respect to federally owned property, with resultant danger, indeed injury, to adjoining lands, whether privately or publicly owned.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not want my
hon. friend's remarks to pass without consideration. I thank him for the suggestions he has offered. I would point out, however, that there are some things which cannot be helped-My hon. friend (Mr. Manion) is sitting opposite, and as a medical man he knows that so far no cure has been found for cancer. Are you going to reprove or to hold up to ridicule the whole medical fraternity because such a cure has not yet been discovered? If any farmer who is familiar with the sow thistle can suggest a recipe for eradicating it where it is found in low-lying soil, wet enough 
to encourage its growth and not dry enough to plough, then it seems to me his fortune is made. I do not mind admitting that I have no remedy to offer. Just as the medical man knows that there is no cure for cancer, so I do not pretend to be able to do the impossible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not suggest that.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no reason, however, why we should not persist in our efforts to find some means of eradicating the pest. The problem is a serious one which I have been studying ever since coming here, as indeed I did in Regina. The sow thistle develops in cultivated land more rapidly than elsewhere. The farmers, of course, like to pass the buck to the government, but this matter can be dealt with only by cooperation. The farmers will say, "What is the use of our cleaning up so long as the Dominion Government's lands are polluted?" And I presume the federal officials will take a similar attitude. Everyone knows that the pest exists and we can only be thankful that but seventy-five per cent of it is fertile.
With regard to the overlapping, that question came up at the interprovincial conference, and it must be admitted that there was a good deal of overlapping many years ago. The Hon. Mr. Hoadley brought that question up, and after it was discussed everyone agreed that very substantial progress was being made both by the federal government and by the provinces in cutting out the overlapping.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister did not hear me; I was speaking with respect to federal property.


William Richard Motherwell: There was another matter which I took no chance of forgetting; that is, interference with agriculture.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, I remember
that. My hon. friend said there was a great tendency on the part of the government to interfere with agriculture, and I think my hon. friend referred to the standardization of products both for export and for home consumption. Of course you have to interfere, but we never interfere until there is a reasonably strong sentiment in the community for the action we propose. Invariably we start with a voluntary system, as we did in the grading of cheese and butter, until about three-quarters of the people concerned are carrying it out. Then it is made compulsory, so there is no unnecessary interference. Ask any of the members from the maritime provinces if there is any unnecessary interfer-

Supply-Agriculture
ence now with their grading. We do not perform these services until we have a strong . public sentiment behind us; there would be absolutely no use doing these things in any other way. If my hon. friend were as familiar with this work as he is with the practice of law he would realize that you cannot do this work without some interference any more than you can make omelettes without breaking eggs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has misunderstood me. I was not talking about interference in that sense; I was talking about the federal power as distinguished from the provincial power, and I asked whether my hon. friend did not think the federal Department of Agriculture should at least see to it that federally owned lands observe the law with respect to noxious weeds, rather than have them as pest centres in communities which are otherwise free.


William Richard Motherwell: I will take that up with the Minister of the Interior.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: You could spend the entire revenue of the Dominion of Canada trying to clear up the federal lands, and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition knows that. In western Canada years ago lands were opened up which never should have been touched, and now these have been abandoned. They are located all over the prairie provinces; they are covered with weeds, and you could not possibly clear them up. In the case mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Coote), probably that is a little plot of land owned by the government which could be easily cleaned up by the people of that town, but if you try to clear up every abandoned homestead and pre-emption in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, together with the road allowances and all the landis belonging to the Dominion government, you could spend the whole revenue of this country in one year.


William Richard Motherwell: And then not
accomplish your purpose.


George Gibson Coote: As I said before, I did not
want to delay this item, but I must reply very briefly to the remarks of the minister. In this particular case I have heard the weeds were started through the practice of some person or some firm in the town of Macleod of throwing on this vacant property straw which had come in a packing case. Sow thistle appeared where these people were in the habit of doing that, and it has spread from that Dominion-owned land to the district surrounding. I do not want to be misunderstood when I say this piece of property could be taken care of very easily; it is not very large and could be cleaned right up. It is larger than it was two years ago, of course, but even now it could be dug out by the roots, and in a few years the good done by removing that source of contagion would amount to thousands of dollars. The only two patches of sow thistle which amount to anything in my constituency, so far as I know, are or Dominion-owned lands; one is on an Indiar reserve and the other on this property in the town of Macleod. The superintendent o1 Indian Affairs is doing his best to look aftei the sow thistle on the Indian reserve, and I thank him for it. I believe it is being dug out by the roots, and I think the same should be done in connection with this property in Macleod.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: I am inclined
to think that this whole discussion is slightly put of order; sow thistle does not come under this item at all. It may be true, as the leader of the opposition has said, that a good deal of government land in covered with sow thistle and other weeds, but the Department of the Interior is ready at all times to cooperate with the local authorities in controlling these weeds. There are places where that is very difficult to do, but in regard to the land in Macleod I believe my hon. friend would find the Department of the Interior willing to turn over that land to the town for public use, and the town could clean it up. It is only reasonable that that should be done; the town was responsible for the pollution and they should clean it up. I believe that to be the practice of the department everywhere, and why it is being dis-. cussed under this item is more than I can imagine.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
For experiments in dehydration of fruits and vegetables, $10,000.
Mr. BARBER:: I should like to ask the
minister for the total amount spent to date in carrying out these experiments, in what districts throughout Canada the experiments have been carried on, and the varieties of fruit dealt with.


William Richard Motherwell: We have had three experimental dehydrating plants, one at the central farm at Ottawa, one at Grimsby and another at Penticton; we have had very good results, and a number of private commercial enterprises have sprung up. I believe some of these are located at Vernon and Kelowna, and are doing very well. We import enor-

Supply-Agriculture
mous quantities of dehydrated fruit, and we can very well supply a great deal of that quantity ourselves, but for some reason or other this has not been done, which is one reason why the department has spent a certain amount of money in developing these plants. We have a dehydrating committee in charge of this work, consisting of Mr. E. S. Archibald, B.A., Director of Experimental Farms, chairman; George E. McIntosh. Dominion Fruit Commissioner; F. T. Shutt, M.A., Dominion Chemist; W. T. Macoun, Dominion Horticulturist, and C. S. McGill-ivray, Chief Canning Inspector. A number of these gentlemen have been overseas attending a research conference, and Mr. Archibald has just returned from attending a dairy conference in the west. They have not had an opportunity, therefore, to lay out a program for this winter, and unless something more advantageous turns up we expect to go through with the same program. My friends from the maritime provinces will be interested to learn that a number of gentlemen came here from Berwick in Kings to see what could be done and if any assistance could be obtained in the establishment of a plant of this kind. Our vote was exhausted at the time, however, so we could not give them any money, but we put them in touch with a competent engineer and gave them all the information we had. Like many other enterprises they did not have sufficient funds, and their plant was not as successful as they would have liked, because they were unable to put in proper insulation, with the result that it did not do as well as they expected. We have it in mind to assist that plant and to help put it on its feet with this grant. The dehydration committee has a number of proposals before it. They did well down there but suffered from a lack of money. They did not have quite enough capital to operate the plant and we did not have any money at that time to assist them.


Harry James Barber: What has been the amount expended in carrying out these experiments?


William Richard Motherwell: Fruits that have
been dehydrated are: apples, apricots, blackberries, blueberries, crabapples, cherries, raspberries, strawberries, gooseberries, loganberries, peaches, pears and plums; and vegetables. I think the process is going to be quite successful.


Harry James Barber: The minister has not
answered my question as to what amount has been expended in carrying out these experiments.


William Richard Motherwell: The house at first voted $15,000 and we have not exceeded the appropriation. This is the fourth year for the work, and the amount now asked for is $10,000'. We have no idea, I think, of extending the system to tire Okanagan valley. There are two very good plants in British Columbia, one at Vernon and the other at Kelowna, but I have not visited them since they were established. I shoidd like to see a similar plant established in the Annapolis valley. They did start a commercial plant there but through lack of capital it is not as successful as it should have been, and I feel we might possibly help them out in the matter of a proper dehydrating equipment or something of the kind, so as to help them to get on their feet.


Harry James Barber: In the Fraser valley we have looked for something in the line of experiments on the part of the department in the dehydration and crystallization of fruit. A large quantity of dehj'drated and crytallized fruit is being imported into the country at the present time, whereas tons of fresh fruit are going to waste in the fruit districts of the Fraser valley. We believe that such fruits as loganberries, raspberries, strawberries, cherries and peaches could be handled if we had some process of dehydration or crystallization. The minister has referred to commercial plants that have failed. We have had commercial plants start in the district referred to and they have failed also. I understood that the object of this vote was to develop some process by which a dehydration industry could take care of the fruit and produce of our growers which otherwise would be wasted. To-day tons of fruit are being wasted which could be utilized if we had some process for the dehydration and crystallization of fruits.
Mr. MOTHERWELL; We shall be glad to look into the matter of crystallization. My hon. friend agrees that there is no further necessity to experiment in the matter of the dehydration of fruit on the Pacific. It is the crystallization that he is speaking of now, is it not?


Harry James Barber: I do not think there have
been any experiments in the dehydration of the small fruits.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes.


Harry James Barber: Not in the lower Fraser district. I have been trying for two years to get some information from the department for people in that district and I have been unable to obtain it. All the information given

Supply-Agriculture
in the departmental report is that experiments in the dehydration of fruits and vegetables have been continued. -


William Richard Motherwell: The department
recently got out a publication-I do not think my hon. friend's attention has been drawn to it-giving a summary of four years' work by the dehydration committee. The program for the coming year has not yet been outlined by the committee owing to some of them not having returned to Canada until quite recently.


William Gordon Ernst: I should like to get some
information from the minister. I do not speak disparagingly of the vote because I quite realize that some aid or encouragement is necessary to start this industry in order that it may be opened to the fruit growing districts of the province of Nova Scotia. He stated that some portion of the $10,000 in this vote is to go to a commercial enterprise in Berwick. Could the minister inform the house just what proportion of the $10,000 is to be granted to that enterprise, and will he disclose its name?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have a right to know it.


William Gordon Ernst: I think the information is due to the house. I ask only for the purpose of information. .


William Richard Motherwell: The representatives of the company came up to see us about two years ago.


William Gordon Ernst: Which company?


William Richard Motherwell: I have no recollection of the name of the company, I have never had an opportunity of discussing it with the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). However, I do not recall the name of the company.


William Gordon Ernst: It is not the Apple Crisp Company, is it?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know. I think it would take the whole of this vote for the improvement of plants already established once you began installing better equipment and providing cork insulation. Those improvements would soon eat up the $10,000.


William Gordon Ernst: If some portion of this vote of $10,000 is to be used to assist private enterprise, no matter how laudable, I should like the minister to take the house into his confidence and inform us what enterprise it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have a right to know.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not care to act without the advice of the dehydration committee, the members of which have returned to Canada only recently. I would not care to give a straight pledge that the money would be invested there or somewhere else.
If my hon. friend thinks he is not being given sufficient information we will strike the vote out.


William Gordon Ernst: I am not asking that the
vote be struck out; I merely want to get information before the vote passes. If the minister cannot supply the information I suggest that, he let the item stand and perhaps he will be in a position to give it to us to-morrow.


William Richard Motherwell: We have not the information my hon. friend would like to have, and that I would like to have. We have always been governed by the representations of the dehydrating committee, but my sympathies are in the direction of helping out the commercial plant that was started, but which, partly for want of capital, failed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What plant is it?


William Gordon Ernst: I only want to see that the money which is given for dehydration purposes in the maritime provinces is going to do some real good. I do not object to a vote for dehydration, but I should like to have an assurance that this money will be spent where it will do the most good. I want something done to benefit the industry.


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps it would
have been better if I had not mentioned that institution when I did not know the name of it.


William Gordon Ernst: The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) is present. He can speak for his constituency.


Peter McGibbon: Is the minister asking
parliament to vote money when he does not know what he is going to do with it?


William Richard Motherwell: I think I have
explained for at least the third time why I have not the information. The dehydration committee were not all in Ottawa until yesterday, and I should like to be advised by them because they have a knowledge of the work. If it is a technical violation of the rights of parliament not to have all this information, even for the reasons I have given, I shall be delighted, in order to bring myself in line with the rights of parliament, to move that this vote be struck out. Let it be remembered that I do this not in any spirit of petulance but because I recognize that the criticism is right. I think, however, the circumstances ought to be sufficiently
Supply-Agriculture

extenuating and the amount is so small that my hon. friend should not hang on to it in that way like a pup on a roof.


William Gordon Ernst: While the minister's application may fit, it was because I have had some experience in connection with governmental expenditures in the maritime provinces that I drew the attention of the committee to this vote. I was only asking for information and I am surprised that the minister cannot furnish it,


William Richard Motherwell: In view of the
high regard in which I hold the maritime provinces I should not like to see the vote struck out, but I admit that the circumstances to which I have referred render it impossible for me to give the information asked for. The committee can take the item as it is or let it go out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This parliament has not yet come to that.


William Gordon Ernst: The item can stand and
we can get the information later.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) has rather invited me to speak about this, and my statement will be very brief. I never knew, until I heard the minister so state, that any firm in Berwick, which is in my constituency, had applied for a grant, and I do not know now what firm it is.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
where it is except that it is in the Annapolis valley.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not the slightest idea what company or firm has applied for this grant. If the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, who has had such an unfavourable experience in connection with governmental expenditures, is the least bit worried that the money is going in a wrong direction, he can rest assured that, so far as I know, it is not going to any friends of mine. I think it would be a shame to cut out this item. This experimental work should be assisted and extended, and if anything of this sort can be done in the Annapolis valley, it should certainly be done. I wanted to speak simply to obviate the impression that was left by the hon. member on the other side of the house that some unwise or unnecessary expenditure was contemplated in the Annapolis valley.


Robert James Manion: May I suggest to the
minister that the suggestion of the hon. member behind me that the item should stand seems a reasonable one? Parliament is not going to prorogue to-morrow, and we have plenty of time.
[Mr. Motherwell.3


William Richard Motherwell: All right, we will let it stand. The committee can see how amiable the minister is to-night.
Item stands.
Live stock, including grants to exhibitions feeder shows, etc., $1,480,000.


William Richard Motherwell: I have been requested by an hon. member to let this item stand because he would like to get some information on it.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last
three bills dealing with the incorporation of a memorial bridge company, a transit company, and a gorge bridge company, were before the house for second reading. They were being referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills when I directed attention to the fact that they dealt with railways and the construction of a bridge and should, therefore, be referred to the railway committee. I am now advised that such bills usually go in the first instance to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills and if it is thought desirable they may be sent afterwards to the railway committee. I therefore move:
That the order of the house of Friday, February 10, referring the following private bills to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, be discharged, and that the said bills he referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, namely,-
Bill No. 14, to incorporate the Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge Company.
Bill No. 23, to incorporate St. Clair Transit Company.
Bill No. 25, to incorporate Niagara Gorge Bridge Company.
That puts the matter where it was originally. On Friday the Solicitor General, following my comment, mentioned that last year a similar bill had been referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. CANNON:: I mentioned it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Earl of Oxford and Asquith
Wednesday, February 15, 1928