1928-02-17

[Stage Direction]
Interim .report 'of special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems.-Mr. Power.
CUSTOMS TARIFF SCHEDULE On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: With reference to the schedule to
the customs tariff, referred to by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech yesterday, and with a view to facilitating a study of the tariff changes which have been proposed, I desire to ask the Minister of Finance if he would be good enough to prepare and place on Hansard a comparative table showing the old rates and the proposed new rates where changes have been made.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I may tell my hon. friend that the officers-of the department are now preparing a complete statement such as he requests for the use of the minister in committee. I imagine it is almost complete now, and just as soon as it is finished I will be glad to lay it on the table in order that it may be inserted in Hansard.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR On the orders of the day:


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) whether Mr. Trade Mark Act

Alexander Smith, K.C., has prepared a report upon the matters he was investigating in connection with the Department of the Interior, and if so, whether the report will be laid upon the table at an early date.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: My information is that the
report is almost complete. I cannot say exactly when it will be finished, but as soon as it is ready I will lay it on the table.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
would like to ask the Postmaster General if he has received from the Civil Service Commission any information with regard to the proposed reclassification of the letter carriers, and if so, if he will lay it on the table.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: That matter is now before the Civil Service Commission and is receiving their attention. There has been no reclassification made as yet.
REST1GOUCHE RIVER-SMELT SEASON On the orders of the day:


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Yesterday in my absence from the house the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones) referred to the situation with regard to the smelt fishing season, particularly on the Restigouche river. I may tell my hon. friend that no extension of the smelt fishing season has been granted this year in Quebec or any other province. Of course the fisheries of the province of Quebec are administered by the provincial authorities, but the granting of an extension of any season is within the power of the federal government. We have not granted any such extension, and if any fishing is being carried on beyond the limits of the season it is being done illegally. At all events, we are making inquiries of the provincial government with regard to the real situation, and we will see if the officials are keeping on the job.
TRADE MARK AND DESIGN ACT On the order:


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house I would move that Bill No. 8 to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act be referred back to the committee of the whole.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Minister may refuse to register trade mark in certain eases.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This section sets forth
two additional reasons why the minister may refuse to register any trade mark or union label. The object, as I explained when the bill was before the committee previously, is to bring our act into line with the decisions made at The Hague conference, where it was decided that we should not grant trade marks which constituted a reproduction or imitation liable to create confusion with the trade mark of another unionist country. In subsection (f) the following words appear:

with a trade mark known to be the mark of a national of another country -
It has been represented to me that it would be better to have that more clearly defined, and that we should adopt the exact wording of the decision arrived at at The Hague. I therefore move that the words " known to be " be struck out and that there be substituted therefore the words " which is considered by the competent authority to be well known in Canada as ".


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am inclined to think that perhaps the sense of The Hague convention -would be better met by specifying the competent authority in this country. The words " competent authority " were used at The Hague in order to meet the requirements of all nations, but as each nation has its competent authority designated by statute, might it not be better to express in our act the name of the competent authority, which in this case I believe is a judge of the exchequer court.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Our competent authority under that section would be the commissioner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, subject to appeal.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the amendment
cany?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister will look
at subsection (f) he will observe this wording:
If the trade_ mark constitutes a reproduction or imitation liable to create confusion with a trade mark known to be the mark of a national of another country which by treaty-
And so on. Now in article 6 of The Hague convention the words used are, "a trade mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration to be well known" and so on. If we use the words suggested in the amendment I think it may be open to much confusion, and it might therefore be desirable to adopt the expression "known or

Supply-Agriculture
established to the satisfaction of the commissioner to be the mark of a national of another country" or something of that sort. I think if you leave the matter in the terms in which you now have it the law may become very much confused. Has the minister considered the question of designating a competent authority?
have the section perfectly dear, and at the same time to meet the desire of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) that the trade mark should be known in Canada. Therefore I will move that we strike out the words "known to be" and insert the words "well known in Canada as."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My object was to reproduce the exact wording of the article adopted at the convention. But there is a point in the argument made by my hon. friend, and perhaps we could meet the wishes of the interested parties and at the same time cover the point completely by adopting a somewhat different phraseology. Perhaps we might insert the words "which is considered by the commissioner to be well known in Canada as"-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest that it might
be well to designate the "competent authority" in the statute itself.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I move to insert the
words:
"which is considered by the commissioner to be well known in Canada as"-


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I should like to inquire
from the minister whether, in the event of one of our own nationals applying for a trade mark, the commissioner must first of all search the records of other countries to see whether there is any interference with other trade marks.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps the chairman
will read the proposed amendment again.


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment is to strike out the words "known to be" in the tenth line and insert the words "which is considered by the commissioner to be well known in Canada as."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that will meet
the case.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Procedure as to cancellation.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I would ask the chairman kindly to refer now to section 4. We have the same situation there in the twenty-fifth line where provision is made for the institution of proceedings before the exchequer court. The section uses the expression "trade mark known to be the mark of a national of another country" and so on. I do not think the amendment should make reference to a "competent authority" at all, because the court becomes the sole judge. I wish to
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Agriculture-for experiments in dehydration of fruits and vegetables, $10,000.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: When this estimate was before the committee a few days ago we were asked to let it stand. The committee will remember that I explained that the committee on dehydration had not been able to meet owing to the fact that three of its five members were absent from Canada. They convened only the day before yesterday. At that meeting they made a complete recommendation as to how this $10,000 could, in their estimation, be expended to the best advantage. Perhaps it would save time if I read their report:
Proposed Activities of Dehydration Committee 1928-1929
In the province of Nova Scotia, it is proposed at the experimental station, Kentville, there be installed a small dehydrator of cabinet type, to be used for research work in dehydration. Although this installation is for experimental purposes, yet it will have a capacity up to one and a half tons of apples per day, hence it is semi-commercial. Dehydration work with apples will be done this year, and a complete study of varieties commonly grown as to their suitability will be undertaken, and demonstration work with regard to the importance of grading of fruit previous to dehydration, and the grading of the dehydrated product. This plant will cost approximately $2,000 and the material and labour $3,000.
In the province of British Columbia the three-unit plant formerly operated at Penticton will be installed at the station at Summerland. This plant will be operated this year on apricots and prunes which will be available in the orchards in the Penticton and Summerland areas. The great importance of production of suitable varieties; the proper ripening of prunes preparatory to dehydration justifies the planting of a ten acre orchard at Summerland for further complete study and demonstration work as to profitable prune production for dehydration. The importance of apricot dehydration is illustrated by the fact that our importations into Canada are still great. Dehydration in Canada has not been started yet. The planting of young orchards is such that within five years there will be a large surplus of apricots not
Supply-Agriculture

required for the fresh fruit trade which of necessity will be dehydrated, thus replacing present importations.
In addition to the above, at Agassiz there will be conducted dehydration work in connection with loganberries. The cost of the work in British Columbia will be distributed about as follows:
Planting of demonstration prune and
apricot orchards	$ 1,200
Dehydration operations in apricots and prunes	3,000
Dehydration operations in loganberries	 800
We received information only yesterday from the government of British Columbia in reply to a communication of ours of about three weeks ago inquiring whether we could lease a five-acre plot of ground in the Oliver district for the purpose of planting this apricot orchard. The British Columbia government wired us that they would be pleased to lease us, at a nominal rental, five acres in that district for this purpose. The same kind of experimentation will be conducted at the Summerland experimental station with the idea of developing the best variety of fruit and ascertaining the stage of development at which it will dehydrate to the best advantage.
With regard to the situation in the maritime provinces, it will be recalled that in the absence of any such program as I have just outlined my sympathies were rather disposed to favour the improvement of the commercial plant in Annapolis valley. Neither Dr. Gris-dale nor I was able to give on the last occasion the name of the owner of that plant; it turns out that the establishment belongs to the United Fruit Growers. Inasmuch as neither of us had ever dealt with that case we were not in a position to give the name from memory. We have also learned that these growers have recovered very largely from their early disappointment and their plant is now in fairly good shape. Nevertheless they have not yet got into their stride, and the same applies to two other plrnts in the Annapolis valley. Consequently we have decided to set up a $5,000 dehydrating plant at Kentville for the purpose of testing out and demonstrating the best varieties of fruit for dehydration.
There is a tendency to use any kind of fruit for dehydration; anything that is unsuitable for the fresh fruit trade, it is considered, is good enough for the dehydration plant. That is a fallacy; it will not work. It has been found many times that ycu cannot convert poor fresh fruit into a good dehydrated product. A reasonable standard of quality must be maintained in the raw fruit if the converted commodity is to be of good
	-
quality. Size, quality and many other factors in relation to dehydration will be investigated at the Kentville station along the same lines as have been pursued in the Kelowna valley during the past four years. I have i report, copies of which may be obtained on application, of the work that has been carried on during the four years that this vote has appeared in the estimates, the present being the fifth occasion on which the grant is being made. It might curtail the discussion somewhat if I read this report, which is quite interesting. Here are the conclusions:
The results of these investigations might be briefly summarized as follows:
(1)	' It is impossible for a dehydrator to make a good product from low-grade fresh fruit.
As will be noted from the passage I have quoted, it is essential that a reasonably good raw fruit be used if a good product is to be obtained.
(2)	The hope for permanency and prosperity in the Canadian dried-fruit industry lies in creating a greater confidence therein by both the domestic and foreign trade, and by emphasizing high quality. This can be done perhaps more effectively through dehydraters than through the evaporators. A reduction in costs is equally important. The dehydrater, once established, can operate at a lower cost per ton of dried fruit than the evaporator.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) brought up this matter last year when h& inquired as to the relative cost of dehydration and evaporation. The conclusion arrived at after four years of investigation is that the dehydrating plant once established can operate at a lower cost per ton than the evaporator, and, of course, the product is much more acceptable to the purchasing public.
3. The fruit-growers themselves must carefully consider the matter of their plantations in relationship to dehydration. It is impossible to expect a trade to be developed on an insecure supply of a large number of varieties. Hence, our fruit plantations must be somewhat remodelled with that end in view.
The trouble in the past has been that a good many people have looked upon dehydrated fruit as a by-product, something that has been made fairly presentable from a poor raw material. That idea is altogether erroneous. The conclusion in this regard is this:
(4)	Dehydrated fruit must be considered a fruit product and not a mere by-product.
(5)	It would be wise for those considering plantations for dehydration purposes to consider carefully the relationship between the dried-fruit industry and other phases of the fruit industry. Often the dehydration plant should

Supply-Agriculture
either be operated under the same company, or in close co-operation with the fresh-fruit warehouses. the canning plants, cider plants, cider and fruit-juice plants, jam, jelly, and marmalade plants.
That is obvious. The cost of administration would be reduced if all the operating units were centralized.
(6)	There still remains considerable work to be done thoroughly to classify the suitability of uniformly good grades of the different varieties of our various fruits and vegetables.
The foregoing are -the conclusions arrived at in this report covering the experimental work carried on over the last four years.


James Dew Chaplin: Why is it necessary to
grow apricots in British Columbia when, as the minister says, in three or four years' time there will be far more apricots in the district than there will be a market for? Why do we need to grow more?


William Richard Motherwell: Some varieties will
dehydrate better than others and the department is leasing five acres from the provincial government, very much to their satisfaction, for the purpose of testing these varieties.


James Dew Chaplin: How long will it take
to produce fruit if you plant to-day?


William Richard Motherwell: The sooner you
begin the sooner you get fruit.


James Dew Chaplin: That is self-evident, but
it does not tell us how long it takes to produce apricots.


William Richard Motherwell: Five or six years.


James Dew Chaplin: That is to say, it will be six years before you make the tests and you are putting in your dehydrating plant now?


William Richard Motherwell: There were
orchards planted immediately after the war and they are bearing now.


James Dew Chaplin: I know that.


William Richard Motherwell: But they were
planted indiscriminately as to quality and suitability for dehydration. They are bearing now and we shall be able to make tests with these while the other trees are growing. The result will be a continuous supply of new raw material for experimental purposes. If there were no trees bearing now the hon. gentleman's criticism would be warranted, but there is a substantial number of trees, although I am unable to say precisely how many thousands. It is a large soldier settlement where fruit-growing, particularly the producing of apricots, was undertaken after
the war. The soldiers found the undertaking somewhat onerous and this is one way in which we can help them to improve the quality of their product and enable them to compete in any market.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister thinks I
am criticising him. I was merely asking him for information, and he certainly has not given us a clear explanation of what he is doing. He says he is planting trees with the idea of finding out in the future which are the best varieties to grow. He also advises us that it will take six years to determine from the trees we are now planting what quality of fruit they will produce. He is putting in a dehydrating plant at once to test the kind of fruit which will be produced six years from now. That may not be what he said but it is the effect of his remarks. Can he not find out, by testing the fruit which is now being produced, what are the most suitable varieties? That is the common sense of the matter, and I know something about it because I come from a fruit district.


William Richard Motherwell: We are not putting in a dehydrating plant at Oliver and I did not say that we were. We are transferring the plant that has been at Penticton.


James Dew Chaplin: Where are you putting
it?


William Richard Motherwell: We are transferring it to the experimental farm at Summer-land about eight miles from Oliver. There is no dehydrating plant at Oliver, which is simply an experimental orchard. In the meantime there will be an abundance of apricots to experiment with.


Mr. MILLAR:: Is this work carried on
under the fruit branch or under some other department?


William Richard Motherwell: The fruit commissioner is on the committee, also Professor Macoun, Mr. Archibald, the director of experimental farms, Mr. McGillivray, Mr. McIntosh and Dr. Shutt.


John Millar: Is this connected with the health of animals branch?


William Richard Motherwell: No, it comes under fruit.	.


Mr. TOLMIE:: What variety of prune has the' department found to be the most satisfactory for dehydration?


William Richard Motherwell: We have not done much of that as yet. It is for that purpose that we are establishing the plant at Sum-merland. We have a new orchard of ten
Supply-Agriculture

acres where we shall experiment particularly with prunes. There are very few varieties of prunes that have been dehydrated, but an enormous quantity of prune's comes into Canada, and we might just as well produce that article ourselves. There is no doubt that they can be grown, but it has not yet been demonstrated which is the best variety or what is the proper stage of maturity for dehydration. That will be established at Sum-merland.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We grow the Italian prune to perfection in many parts df British Columbia, and I was just wondering if that variety was satisfactory for dehydration purposes.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand it is.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What information has the minister with regard to the dehydration of the loganberry? That is a berry that is grown in great profusion. It is a fertile and a very profitable crop produced in many parts of British Columbia, particularly in the coast section and down on Vancouver island. We are already making most excellent wine from loganberries which after three or four years is equal in palatability, and also in pressure, to anything else. If we can find a new outlet for the loganberry, it will prove to be a very profitable crop for the growers in that section of the province.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is quite right; it has become quite a crop. In the summary from which I have just quoted there is a short paragraph with regard to loganberries which says that in addition to the work at Agassiz there will be conducted dehydration work in connection with loganberries. Here is a paragraph with regard to loganberries in the report covering the last four years:
Loganberries dehydrate into a delightful product. The colour, flavour and appearance are well preserved. When dehydrated they are almost as natural in appearance as the fresh fruit.
I might add that whereas the loss of weight in most evaporated fruits amounts to approximately twenty per cent, in the case of the loganberry moisture is absorbed in sufficient quantity to restore the fruit almost to its original weight as well as to its original quality. '


Mr. STIRLING:: I think the minister is to be congratulated in carrying on this work of dehydration of various fruits in the Okanagan valley. The experimental plant which has been in operation there for three years has arrived at some very valuable findings which have recently been published.

W ith regard to one clause in that report it is particularly worth noting that as the grading of apples has got better and better, the quality of the cull apples left behind has also improved. Whilst dehydration is of very little use economically for the small under-sized crooked apples, the better the quality of the culls, the more culls there are in a hundred pounds which can lend themselves to dehydration. As a practical result of these experiments at Penticton, a small dehydration plant has successfully been started at Vernon on a commercial basis, and the minister has a sample of the dehydrated apples which they are putting on the market. To my mind the greatest future before these experiments lies in the dehydration of prunes, largely because Canada imports an enormous quantity of prunes every year. Throughout the Okanagan valley, and especially the southern part of it, prunes have been grown very successfully for the last twenty years. The Italian prune is the most popular variety, but it remains to be seen whether the Italian prune will prove as good for dehydration purposes as other varieties of prunes, and one of the values that I attach to this lease of land from the provincial government at Oliver is that there it will be demonstrated whether Italian prunes are the most likely to produce the maximum of results from dehydration. I do not know just where that five acres is situated, but I have no doubt that on it there will be growing already apricots, and very probably apples. Is not that so?


William Richard Motherwell: Nothing as yet.


Grote Stirling: Undoubtedly apricots and apples, and I should imagine prunes, are being grown on the neighbouring land, and that will be an extremely good basis from which to start. I also agree with the moving of the dehydration plant from Penticton to the experimental farm at Summerland. That is a wise piece of business. It brings one more piece of work under the minister in that neighbourhood, directly under the eye and supervision of his representative at the farm. I think the fruit growing interests of British Columbia will be well served if the experiment is carried on along the lines the minister suggests.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: Has the
minister considered the advisability of establishing a plant in the Niagara peninsula for the dehydration of fruit-apples and other products-or has such a plant been established there?

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: Some years ago
-before my time at least-dehydration was established at Grimsby right in the heart of the fruit country, but at that time they still held to the old idea that anything at all would do to dehydrate. The result was it was never satisfactory. They did not seem to take to the idea. It was a fresh fruit country, and although the establishment was a good one, and although an artificial ice production plant was constructed for the purpose of icing the cars, they never made use of it and are not using it now. They are using the ice plant to ice cars when required, and also to create a sheet of hockey ice in the adjoining rink.


Robert King Anderson: Is there a
market for this particular product of dehydrated fruit?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, a very large
market; but a great many people do not seem to differentiate between dehydrated and evaporated fruit. Some of the enthusiasts who first advocated dehydration left the impression that anything would do. Then when it was tried it did not produce a good product and did not take on the market. But they are getting over that idea now. There is a commercial plant at Kelowna, and another one at Vernon. I do not know whether the hon. member knows of any more or not. I think they are doing well. In the maritimes there are three plants which are doing fairly well, but not nearly as well as if they had an experimental plant in their midst, to give them the same advantage as the Kelowna plant got -at Penticton, and that is the reason we are establishing one at Kentville.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms, including necessary new buildings, $1,900,000.
Mr. GARDINER:: Will the minister
explain this item?


William Richard Motherwell: As the committee
is well aware, we have one central experimental farm and some twenty-two or twenty-three branch farms. I presume my hon. friend wants to know the amount for each branch farm, as well as the central experimental farm. The figures are as follows:
Central experimental farm	 $500,000
New buildings	 100,000
Special printing	 65,000
New farms	 145,000
That is the tobacco farm at L'Assomption.
Charlottetown	 40,100
Summerside (Fox ranch)	 14,840
Kentville	 50,535
Nappan	 44,755
Fredericton	 48,280
Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere	 46,625
Cap Rouge	 50,000
St. Joachim, (horse farm)	 13,675
Lennoxville	 46,500
Farnham	 22,500
La Ferme	 35,000
Kapuskasing	 45,759
Harrow	 28,398
Morden	 45,130
Brandon	 46,662
Indian Head	 47,935
Rosthern	 34,600
Scott	 36,225
Swift Current	 35,880
Lethbridge	 52,280
Lacombe	 45,822
Invermere Windermere	 36.500
Summerland	 45,890
Agassiz	  44,000
Sidney	 24,695
Substations	 26,805
General	 3,200

I see that covers them all. I presume my
hon. friend wants to know what this increase is to be used for. The house will recall that in addition to taking care of the general growth of this system it was hoped we would be able to make an extension last year or this year to some one or two of these farms. That is the one at Lethbridge, the central farm here. The equipment was getting inadequate to meet the situation. The other was the new tobacco farm at L'Assomption. We found the money grant was not sufficiently generous to take care of the central farm enlargement; so that it was spent on the Lethbridge farm and the new tobacco station at L'Assomption. This year we have been trying to arrange for an extension to the central farm. We have been negotiating for some time, but owing to the difference between the price asked by t'he owner of the property, and what we think we could afford to give, no transaction has as yet been consummated. There were three in prospect last year, and we have three in prospect this year. We will take up such one as the vote will permit our purchasing and we can make the best arrangements for. As the years pass by the valley of the Assiniboine is flooded with greater frequency than in the early days, with the result that a very large part of the Brandon experimental farm is inundated about every third year; that has occurred at least two or three times since I took charge of the department. Consequently we require an extension of that farm. A small extension at the Agassiz farm is also required. Which of
Supply-Agriculture

these three we will use the vote for I do not know at this stage. It will depend upon how good a bargain we can make and how much money we have at our disposal. We are in hopes of getting an extension of the central farm here. Our persistency in this direction has not resulted in very much progress so far, notwithstanding the urgency of the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Cannot you expropriate?


William Richard Motherwell: It will be observed that part of this vote will cover the necessary buildings. In former years these had to appear in the Public Works estimates. It was thought to be more convenient to have this part of the expenditure included in uur vote for administration purposes. Consequently $50,000 will be so expended, and will not appear, as formerly, in the public works vote. So the increase will be that much less than appears on the surface.


Robert Gardiner: What is the necessity for the increase of the central experimental farm? Is it going to be made into a beauty spot, or is it to be used for experimental purposes?


William Richard Motherwell: That question is very well put. It is already a beauty spot. I think great credit is due to the late Dr. Saunders for the way in which he laid out this farm forty years ago. At that time it was considered to be a good large farm, for it comprised about 460 acres. But to-day we are endeavouring to carry on our farming operations without sufficient land. Nearly every branch and provincial farm has been getting larger to meet the growing requirements of the country, but this farm has actually been growing smaller and smaller each decade so far as its utilization for practical purposes is concerned. The arboretum to the north of the Prescott highway takes up 62 acres; the shelter belt takes up 16 acres; the campus covers 13 acres; the orchard 40 acres; the experimental plots, the poultry runs and the paddocks and yards for the various branches of live stock take up a large acreage. The result is that for farming purposes the area is reduced to three fields of 40 acres each-120 acres. The campus of the Saskatoon university farm is twice as large as our campus. So cramped' have we been for space that during the meeting of the world's poultry congress here last August we had to use our wits to conceal the lack of pasturage for our chickens. We did the best we could-we put some of our chickens on a piece of tillable land, and about 1,300 others we sent out to a private farm. The year before we put our 
chickens out on the rifle range, where we lost about a thousand dollars' worth due to the unsuitable nature of the ground. When an experimental farm in the very heart and nerve centre of the Dominion has not enough land to pasture its chickens, it seems to me we had better give up farming altogether or get additional acreage. But a far more serious question arises with respect to our young cattle. We send them out to the same rifle ranges, and I do not know what we should do but for the good nature of the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who lets us have the land at a nominal rental. Then we have 65 head of milch cows of various breeds to look after. We have no pasture for them. Last year we fenced off temporarily five or six acres of new meadow land that had been seeded down the year previous. In wet weather it does not take 65 cattle long to make such a small enclosure look more like a corral in the west than pastureland. In the summer time those cows are housed all through the day. At five o'clock in the evening we let them out to have their little frolic in this five-acre plot of nominal pasture, then at five o'clock in the morning they are brought in for their breakfast and kept in for another twelve hours. That practice has been going on for ten or fifteen years. Well now, it seems to me it is about time we provided a little real pastureland for those " critters." When Premier Bruce and Premier Coates were here last winter I was thankful it was that season of the year, because both of them are practical farmers. Premier Coates was more interested in live stock, and when I have a practical man like that to show around I have to keep dodging to prevent his getting to know too much about the weaknesses of our layout.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: You can do it all
right.


William Richard Motherwell: That is not a joke, it is a fact. As I think everybody knows, the original owner of about 100 acres of the present central farm was the late J. R. Booth. He was an old resident and we all recognized the sentimental value he placed upon the Booth farm-he held it away up at $1,500 an acre. Of course he did not want to sell, and I could not blame him, for he was associated with the place for the best part of his life. Now, however, the present owners are prepared to talk business, although their price is still too high. I feel very strongly that we should not continue any longer with our present cramped quarters if we are to have a real central farm. It must be remem-

Supply-Agriculture
bered that this is the centre of our whole system of experimental farms. It is here that we develop new wheats. During the last few years we have, in a small way, grown the wheat under glass in the winter, and so reduced by half the time required to develop a new variety; but with only sufficient room to do it on a single plot instead of a triplicate plot system, and with very little glass for continuing this experimental work through the winter, it takes us a little better than double the usual time to develop a new wheat. It seems to me that since Canada is developing in this way, with at least half of the people engaged in agriculture, we can afford to have one farm here as the centre of the system, of a size commensurate with the importance and the innumerable requirements of agriculture.


John Millar: Since one of these experimental farms is close to my own home, and since I am possibly responsible for a small part of the increase, perhaps it would not be amiss if I were to say something on this subject. Within recent years three important events have occurred in conncetion with that farm, the first being the magnificent donation of Mr. W. R. Patterson, which was mentioned in the house last year. Mr. Patterson owned 640 acres of land immediately north of the experimental farm, one of the finest farms in western Canada, with a fine spring, good buildings and the land in a good state of cultivation, and he has given this as an addition to the present farm. Nominally I suppose this farm is being held by the government at a small rental, but evenutally it is to become the absolute property of the Dominion of Canada.
The next event, and a rather happy one, was a hail storm. I had been trying for a year or more to persuade the Minister of Agriculture that a new greenhouse was required on that farm, since the one then existing was a small building erected in 1888, which had become a fine illustration of decay. The minister was visiting in the west, and while he was there I prayed for a hail storm, which eventually came and finished the greenhouse. I then telephoned the minister asking him to pay a visit to the farm, which he kindly consented to do, and I knew that would settle the matter. It did; the greenhouse is already built and is a credit to the farm.
The third matter which I desired to mention was in connection with the horse breed-ng business. For some years, under the able management of the superintendent, Mr. W. H. Gibson, they have been engaged in breeding Clydesdale horses, and have produced some
of the best Clydesdales in Canada. Last fall a number of these horses were exhibited at Toronto, but for a reason easy to explain they did not succeed very well at that exhibition. The same horses were taken to Chicago, however, where they were awarded a number of the very best prizes in competition with the rest of the North American continent, and as I understand it, one of these horses was awarded the title of the best Clydesdale mare in North America. A Scotch judge, who was judging some of these horses at Toronto, said about one horse that he would like to take it back to Scotland with him. I think that shows that we have made great advances in Canada in this connection. Of course all the provinces do not specialize in the same breeds, but I fancy that within the next ten or fifteen years western Canada may become the source of supply of the very best Clydesdales, and we will find breeders coming to Canada from the LTnited States and perhaps even from Scotland to buy their stock. Therefore I wish to commend the minister on the management of this farm at Indian Head.


William Richard Motherwell: Before anyone
else speaks I would like to refer for a moment to Mr. Patterson's donation of a whole section of land, fully equipped with the exception of machinery. I have known that farm ever since it was homesteaded, and it is a wonderful property. We had an experimental farm there consisting of 680 acres; Mr. Patterson knew the government required more land, and he contributed another 640 acres, feeling that his original homestead could not be put to a better use. He has been living there right beside the experimental farm for nearly forty years, and he appreciated the work done. We have to get up some speed or private interests will step in and do work which naturally falls to the lot of the government. It is no secret that when our research experts were taken from Winnipeg to Australia and to Toronto, the wheat pool offered to make up an addition to their salaries sufficient to keep them here. We should not have that condition; surely we should speed up, and not only extend our farms but also pay our men salaries sufficiently adequate so that they will not gravitate away to other countries when they receive better offers. I am sure that when the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) knows all the facts in connection with this farm, his judgment will tell him that we must either go forward or go back, and this is not the time to go back. The more the west grows the more tremendous are the problems to be solved in connection with cereal culture. This year our loss from rust
Supply-Agriculture

is estimated to be at least a hundred million dollars, and my opinion is that it will be a great deal more. In addition to that matter, our experimental farms are taking up the question of root rots and a number of other important things, so it will be seen that we will be doing a real work. Perhaps when the rust laboratory at the farm gets started we may have all this work under one administration, although I doubt if that can be done because you have to operate right in the rust field. That is where this work is being done, with headquarters in Ottawa to keep track of it all. We cannot carry on these operations in mid-air or under ground; they have to be done on the ground level and under natural conditions, or they are not of much value. We have a large herd of cattle representing the three main dairying breeds, and they do not see the light of day from five o'clock in the morning until about five o'clock in the afternoon. That is very unsanitary and an absolutely unnatural condition, and work of that kind must be carried on under conditions as close to normal as it is possible to make them.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I do not
know that I can quite agree with the idea of enlarging the farm. When the present location was decided on some forty years ago, the Conservative party was in power; they appointed a committee or commission from both sides of the house to look about and procure land for this experimental farm, and if I remember correctly Hon. Sydney Fisher represented the Liberal party. I was wandering if it would not be wise for the present government to adopt the same method of procedure. I believe there is land very close to the present Booth farm which could be bought for much less money, and it is very good land in a very good location. It might even be wise to take the adjoining properties; I believe there is one farm of SO acres and another of 160 acres, making a total of 240 acres which could be secured in addition to the present land. If it is good business t-o enlarge the present farm at all I believe it is good business to get 240 acres more, and so have a farm which will do for the next twenty-five or perhaps fifty years. If that were done the farm would be bounded on all sides by main highways, which is a veiy desirable feature.
I would also like to bring up another point. The municipality in which this land is situated at present exempts the experimental farm from school rates and municipal taxes. There will now be 420 acres added to that exemption. The government have also exempted some 2,700 acres in this same township for the 
Connaught rifle range. To my mind that municipality should be helped by the government in some way, if not through the medium of municipal rates at least by means of school rates. The Children of those who reside on the experimental farm get their tuition in the schools of the city, although the rural municipality has established a high school at enormous expense. Therefore these municipalities should be given compensation of some kind, bearing in mind the exemptions which diminish their revenue.
I agree with everything the minister has said with respect to the very cramped conditions on the farm. The way the live stock are housed and kept at the farm almost constitutes cruelty to animals. Nobody in the business would think for a moment of keeping live stock under the conditions in which they are kept at the farm. Brood mares are running loose along a little lane at night, and a watchmen is kept to see that no person runs a motor car down there and cause injury. There is no room whatever for poultry, sheep, cattle, or in fact any live stock at all. I commend the minister for his decision to enlarge the farm, but I do not quite agree with him in his expropriation proposals. I think he might have got the other 240 acres adjoining at a much lower price, and the price he would then pay would be more on a parity with prevailing land values. The price asked for the Booth farm, according to newspaper reports, is $600 an acre. That is too much to pay for merely farm land, but it is at the rate of $100 for a city lot. Land which is practically in the city, bought at this rate will be worth inside the next ten years, practically $1,000 a lot; you cannot at present get lots as close to the city as the lots in question are at such a price as that.


Mr. EVANS:: What is the area of the proposed extension and what will it cost?


William Richard Motherwell: The area is something like 320 or 321 acres. Whilst I am on my feet I should like to say something in reply to the hon. member for Carleton. It is quite evident that no question of politics is intruding itself in this matter because the owner of the farm which my hon. friend is recommending is a Liberal, or is supposed to be, whereas the owner of the land whose purchase I am considering is a Conservative. It must be admitted therefore that we are dealing with this matter purely on its merits, a very pleasant fact to record. I may say to my hon. friend that we have had offers of parcels of land at a rate very considerably cheaper than the price of the Booth farm, but anybody

Supply-A gricul ture
who has had any experience in operating two farms divided by a highway knows the tremendous disadvantages encountered in trying to get from one to the other. If you are on the one farm the implements you desire are at the other, and when you are at the other you are bound to want implements which are at the first farm. It would be a continual inconvenience to have to cross the road. The land is good but not better land for experimental purposes; it is a very heavy good clay land. On the far side, what should be called the west side I suppose, there is a lot of rough land which is very broken up with rocks, and there are two intersecting roads. If we had taken the farm suggested there would have been two roads between the present experimental farm and the operations on the far part of the Caldwell farm.


William Foster Garland: I did not
suggest going past the suburban road.


William Richard Motherwell: The property we
have in mind is almost as natural a site as Fort Churchill is a natural terminal for the Hudson Bay railway. I do not know how you would improve it. However, I am not going to enter into any discussion, because we have not purchased the land yet. We are going to get land somewhere, and I am very glad to have my hon. friend's testimony as to the urgency of the case.


Mr. BRADY:: I should like to ask the
Minister of Agriculture three questions: first, what portion of the appropriation of $1,900,000 for experimental farms goes to British Columbia; secondly, what part of the total appropriation is to be applied to the erection of new buildings; thirdly, is it the intention of the govex-nment to extend the operation of experimental farms and give one to the great area of central British Columbia?


William Richard Motherwell: While my deputy
is looking up the desired information with regard to my hon. friend's first question I will answer his third. I was in hopes some years ago of being able to carry out the expectations of my predecessor in establishing a new experimental farm up in the Prince Rupert district between Fort George and Rupert, and made a trip through that country in order to judge of its character. It holds out many advantages from an agricultural standpoint, but I found that the district was so inadequately equipped for the purpose that I concluded it would be better to improve existing farms to a reasonable degree, than to
establish new farms. There is a tremendous demand for the starting of new farms-I do not think there has been any less pressure in the case of this government as compared with preceding governments in that respect- but the most sensible proceeding would seem to be to complete the existing experimental farms and equip them properly. We have been starting a number of demonstration plots, and I think they have been doing pretty good work. Of course some people are very ambitious and would not for a moment look at little demonstration plots or small farms; they want big farms, equipped with buildings, and cattle, and other- kinds of live stock. Personally I think we have as many farms as we can afford to administer until a larger appropriation is voted, and that in some of the provinces we could do with fewer farms at this stage. But they are in existence, and hon. gentlemen will remember the old saying: Once a capital always a capital; once a farm always a farm, because it is pretty hard to let it go. In some of the provinces where there are many farms, four or five, the provincial governments have started negotiations with the department here looking towards the taking over of some of these farms for provincial purposes. Whether anything will come of it I do not know, but I look favourably on the proposal where a province has four or five farms. These farms have done excellent pioneer work and some of the provinces are desirous of taking over farms here and there. I am not going to say what purposes they have in view, but I may observe that they have been looking into the work carried on at the Alberta farm and have been looking into the schools, having in mind perhaps the possibility of establishing some primary agricultural farms such as were set up in Alberta some years ago. If we can make a business arrangement with them we may relinquish some of the farms and then extend into frontier areas. I am not going to make any promise in that regard but I should like to see something done in that direction. In the meantime we are doing what we can to establish the work on a sound basis, equipping old farms where necessary. To get the most satisfactory results we should really, if I may use the term, jack up the vote half a million every year, because we have been going along very niggardly. I may say that we are not going to come out square this year. As every farmer knows, the last two years have been exceedingly expensive in agriculture; and as costs have increased in the case of the private
Supply-Agriculture

farmer, where the harvesting is done in bad weather, so have they increased to the government, with the result that we are running somewhat behind. The total for British Columbia is $200,000. There are the Sidney farm on the island, Agassiz on the mainland, and Summerland and Invermere, besides some, substations in the north.


James Charles Brady: 
Simon Fraser Tolmie: With regard to these experimental farms and the proposed enlargement of the central experimental farm at Ottawa, I quite agree that there is a marked necessity for the addition of certain lands to the central experimental farm. As far as the purchase of the lands is concerned, the best lands should be procured for lhe least possible money, always seeing to it they are well fitted for the purpose of which they are required. It is a very difficult matter of course to set any actual value on farm lands that are used for experimental purposes, where a great deal of the work that is carried on in the different lines is done on plots of one-fortieth of an acre. But it is common knowledge that the discoveries on this single farm at Ottawa have already yielded a revenue to the agriculture of this country that has amply paid for every dollar that has been expended on experimental farms or will be expended in that direction for some years to come. If these experiments are to be of value to the average farmer they must be carried on under ordinary farming conditions, that is, with a sufficient area to supply pasturage and the other things that one usually finds in connection with an ordinary mixed farm in Canada. So I should say that the purchase of these lands is an absolute necessity. The people of Canada are to be congratulated upon possessing the most complete system of experimental farms to be found in any other country, without a single exception. Those farms have developed; they have done a great deal of very valuable work for this .	56103-37
country, and properly conducted they have a great future. It would be a mistake, in my opinion, to cramp the central experimental farm at Ottawa, which is the one generally visited by agriculturists and others coming here from other parts of the world. Canada is too big a country to take any such narrow view of the situation.
Referring to what the hon. member for Skeena has said, I quite agree with his remarks in connection with the necessity for a farm in that huge inland empire known as central and northern British Columbia. British Columbia has an area larger than the three states to the south, an area greater than France and Italy and Switzerland oombined; so you can readily see that with one or two experimental farms located in the southern part of the country, where the conditions are entirely different from those that prevail in the north, it is impossible to obtain the best results and to give information that will be of value to those who are living in the northern section. That northern country is a great lake area, with rich lands, lightly timbered, and with many lakes and rivers. It is an ideal dairy country, with such a rainfall that you can have a stand of grass all summer. During the past year British Columbia was one huge field of grass wherever grass could grow, from the forty-ninth parallel to the Alaska boundary. Hon. members may be surprised to know that in British Columbia we have no less than 160,000,000 acres of range land, of which 100,000,000 acres are timbered and 60,000,000 open. To show you how slowly we are progressing, in one single year it has been found necessary for us to import seventy-five per cent of the meat we buy in British Columbia, running into a matter of 85,750,000, as well as 24,000 head of cattle, 63,000 sheep-as many as we have in the province-5,000 calves, and 113,000 hogs. That is the amount we imported into a country which has rich agricultural possibilities but is still in an undeveloped state. We are using but six per cent of our range land, while the state of Washington to the south is using about 69.7 per cent. Washington is not only feeding herself but is exporting her surplus products to other countries, and that shows how necessary it is to encourage the settlement of those great areas. I do not know anything that would give more encouragement to those farmers than a recognition on the part of this government, by the establishment of a suitable farm in that particular section, of the agricultural possibilities of the part of the country to which I refer.

Supply-Agriculture

During the time I had the honour to be Minister of Agriculture we decided to have a farm located in that section, after we had made a very thorough examination, and received reports from the experts of the Department of Agriculture connected with the experimental farm system. They reported favourably, and we would have established a farm there had it not been for the action of the Liberal party in defeating us at the next election. However, we have strongly urged this on the present Minister of Agriculture, and I feel sure that he could not dispose to better advantage of any of that surplus which the Minister of Finance mentioned yesterday in his budget speech than by immediately taking up this matter and establishing an experimental farm in that section. During my time as minister we established an experimental farm at Swift Current. A good many of the people were opposed to it at the time, but I understand that it is now rendering very excellent service to the farmers in that particular area. The peculiar conditions existing there were a reason for the establishment of that farm, and the same is the case in northern British Columbia. None of the present experimental farms can do for the agriculture of that province what the establishment of a farm in that particular area itself would do. I urge again upon the minister in the strongest possible terms that if he cannot give attention to this matter this year he take advantage of the earliest opportunity to obtain further information, and then to expend the necessary money for this very laudable purpose.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I have listened with
sympathetic interest to the statement made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady), I believe that the work done by the experimental farm has proved to be of so much value to the farming interests of this country that the minister should take under consideration as soon as possible the extension of that system to a part of the country which is so badly in need of it. I am driven to that conclusion by my personal knowledge of the good work that has been done by the district farms. While speaking of this matter may I refer to the statement of the minister a moment ago that we were familiar with the system and with the probable changes. I quite agree with him, but I say that it is not so much that the problems are becoming more difficult or less difficult of solution, but they are becoming different. The pioneer days in the old parts of the provinces immediately in the vicinity of the experimental farms have gone. With 
them the pioneers problems have gone, but we are confronted day by day with changed problems that require new methods; the discovery of those new methods with accuracy and knowledge requires further experimentation, and I believe that it will be many years, if ever, before the time comes when we can do without our experimental farms. We have stressed in this house, and stressed rightly, the value of scientific research as applied to industry. It is my impression, and I think it is an impression which is shared by all those who have any knowledge of the subject whatever, that there is no occupation which more definitely requires the application of scientific information, which more definitely calls for further scientific research than that very occupation of agriculture. Dealing as we do, as every farmer must do, with nature itself, facing the varying climatic and soil conditions, and working as it were in the very laboratory of nature itself, it seems to me that there should be brought to the assistance of that occupation all the knowledge which can be obtained on the subject. I am perhaps more intimately acquainted with the experimental farm at Lacombe. I no longer represent that particular district, but my interests are the same as they were previously. I have spoken on the subject before. May I say again that I would be very sorry at any time to see a diminution of the interest taken in this matter, and I would be glad at any time to welcome an increase in the attention paid to those farms. They have done excellent work, as far as I have seen in my experience, and I think the money spent on these farms has been well expended. It is not merely a matter of discovering new seed varieties, or discovering the best method of caring for stock. There is another aspect to which I have referred before, and to which I shall refer again, and that is the protective effect. I do not see the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) in his place, but I know that he takes strong exception to the word "protection." But there is one form of protection with which I am in favour, and that is protection against the exploitation of the people of this country, and these farms are one of the best means of preventing the exploitation of farmers by unscrupulous men who at all times of the year come forward trying to sell some particular kind of seed which they say is of great value, which turns out to be of no value. The farmer is not in a position to experiment with these seeds. It would be ruinous for him to attempt to do so. His time is too precious. The work of the farms is experimental not commercial work,

Supply-Agriculture
and I disagree with those gentlemen who speak without knowledge, who say that the experimental farms should be self-supporting. That is not the purposes of these farms. The idea is that these farms Should carry on experimental work, such as no individual farmer can do. In that way we would increase the productiveness of the farm and the profits to the farmer. I am a farmer myself, but I think we in this house all realize that any grant which will assist better production in any line of business and lower production costs, or which will increase or improve the value and variety of products and will improve the possibilities of selling any product in the country, will be money well spent.
Again I urge upon the minister that he give his full support to these farms; in fact I know he will, and this house is more and more realizing that point, and will not only grant, without undue criticism, but will welcome the appropriation of money for additional expenditures when it can be proved that the result will be beneficial, and that the money will be spent in the most economical and efficient manner.
I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Skeena in connection with agricultural training for young men. I am very much in sympathy with that point of view, and I speak of it because of some experience I had or because of some observations I made of the work being done in the agricultural schools. That work is carried on to a limited degree, it is true, in Alberta, but I may suggest to the hon. member that it was carried on by the provincial government. They endeavoured to train young men and young women, to give them a more scientific knowledge of the greatest occupation in the world -and I believe it is the greatest-and to elevate that occupation in their minds, so that their mental concept of farming should not be that of a servile occupation but that they should be imbued with the idea that agriculture in its proper sense is one of the greatest and most useful occupations in the world.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Last year when the
minister's estimates were before the house he informed us that it was his intention to rent forty acre plots for demonstration purposes at Spirit River, Waterhole and McLennan in the Peace River country. Can the minister tell me what has been the result of that policy?


William Richard Motherwell: My recollection of
it is that we were unfortunate in that the gentleman who had charge of this work, Mr. Fixter, passed away, with the result that we 56103-37J
have not been able to follow up the work as accurately as we would otherwise have done. We have a successor in mind, if we can land him. I do not know whether we can or not, but I think he will make a good man if we can obtain his services. When I had the privilege of visiting that country in 1925 I sized it up with the idea of establishing these demonstration plots, because they cost only four or five hundred dollars apiece, and they are in new districts. I do not know where we can spend money to better advantage. I do not want to hold out any temptations to new men to apply for this because of its being something of a government, nature, but there is no place they can serve the country better than in that district. In reference to an experimental farm such as the hon. member for Skeena has been advocating, I think it will possibly come, but in the meantime we have a substation at Beaver Lodge; Mr. Albright is in charge and is doing very good work. It is a privately owned farm, and probably we are geting better value for the money expended than we vi'ould in any other way, but neverthless the system has disadvantages that I need not enter into. If our friends will get the idea of keeping me on the job long enough I may get out to those places, or if some of the older farms are taken over by the provinces we shall be able to go further afield. There is no doubt that the hon. members for Skeena (Mr. Brady) and Victoria (Mr. Toimie) are right, that country requires a full-fledged farm; but I have to make my coat suit the doth. Give me more cloth and I will try to meet all these demands, although personally I am not very much in favour of multiplying these farms in the older provinces. British Columbia now has as many full-fledged farms as any of the other provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: One.


William Richard Motherwell: British Columbia
has four; Saskatchewan also has four, and so has Quebec. Therefore if we gave British Columbia one more she would have more full-fledged farms than any other province. But that of itself does not nullify the need in the district of which my hon. friend spoke. As I said before, if I am responsible for this work sufficiently long I think I will get around there. There is no question that both there and in the Peace River we have very promising centres for the settlers that are pouring into this country. With regard to those three or four units, the late Mr. Fixter visited all the locations. Before he reached Spirit River he received through the mail protests against these little 40-acre plots. The

Supply-Agriculture
objectors did not think that the plots looked like farms at all; they wanted full-fledged experimental farms or nothing. We received no protests from Waterhole or McLennan Junction. As I said before, on account of Mr. Fixter dying last summer we were unable to follow up these activities. I should like to hear my hon. friend's opinion regarding the suitability of these three points.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Chairman, if it was the intention of the department to go ahead this summer, I would not have any criticism of the location, but I do think Peace River deserves a full-sized experimental farm. The Ron. member for Victoria, B.C., suggested that it would be a good thing to have an extension of the central experimental farm, and the minister said that he had had considerable difficulty to keep distinguished visitors from noticing the weaknesses of the present situation, due to the fact that the central farm has become too small. It may be very important for us to have a fine gateway to show distinguished visitors, and I am in favour of it; but it is just as important that we give full recognition to the people who are pioneering in northern British Columbia and Northern Alberta. I would prefer a fullsized experimental farm for the Peace River country, but if the minister says we cannot have that, why, we ought to proceed with this other plan in the meantime, without, however, losing sight of the full-sized farm. The work being done at Beaver Lodge is in my judgment very valuable and is appreciated in Peace River. I do not know of anything more valuable to the average farmer in that country than the results of the experimental work done by the superintendent of the station.


William Richard Motherwell: In the event of our establishing a full-fledged farm in Peace River, would my hon. friend suggest that we keep the Beaver Lodge farm going too?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It would depend on the looation of the experimental farm. When the day comes to establish a full-fledged experimental farm, I hope the site will be selected on the basis of the suitability of the soil and the location to serve the whole country, and that no political considerations will be allowed to enter into the selection. If the site selected is near the present Beaver Lodge farm, then of course that farm can be dropped; if the site is at a distance, it will be necessary to consider whether the demonstration farm should be still carried on.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: Mr. Chairman, I
should like to put in a word of appreciation 
for the good work that is being done by what might be termed these pioneer illustration stations. I do not know just how many are in operation, but I am very well acquainted with the excellent work that is being done by at least one of them located near my home town. It was established, I think, in 1923. We were very fortunate in getting an able man to take charge, a good practical farmer. For the amount of money expended, I would venture the opinion that the work done is much more beneficial to the farmers in the surrounding country than even that done by the central farm. The acreage is about 40 acres, and the rental 8200 a year. Annually at this small station we have what is called a field day. Last fall I was fortunate enough to be able to attend. There were, I should judge, from 120 to 125 farmers present, some with their wives, to receive instruction and listen to the lectures given by two men sent out from the Swift Current central farm. It was a very interesting day. The farmer in charge of the station had plots of different kinds of clover, wheat, oats, corn, and such like, as well as some fallow ploughed land. One of the lecturers took the people from plot to plot and outlined what was being done. Following that a free lunch was served, and the people sat down beside the farmer's house and listened to some very instructive lectures. I think many of those assembled came from fifteen or twenty miles away to take advantage of that field day. It was the consensus of opinion that not only was that particular day very profitable to the farmers of the community, but the illustration station was of great value to them because they were able to call up the man in charge and get his advice as to different crop rotations. I was going to suggest that it might be profitable, and certainly not very expensive, to have more of these illustration stations in the pioneer districts. My own constituency is about eighty miles from north to south and approximately 150 miles from east to west, and in that area I believe there are only two or possibly three of these stations. When I was fifty miles away from my own town I found that inquiries were being made from the station there. I suggest to the minister the advisability of having more of these small stations established in good central localities, because one station should not serve a greater radius than possibly fifteen or twenty miles. In the pioneer districts of the western part of Canada I am sure it would greatly benefit the people if a good many more of these stations were

Supply-Agriculture
established, and it would not be very expensive to the department. I wonder if the minister could tell us just how many of these stations are in existence in Saskatchewan, and the amount of money expended on them.


William Richard Motherwell: There are about
twenty-five stations in Saskatchewan. There were three in my hon. friend's riding, but I am not sure whether or not the first one is still in existence; there is one down in that point of land near Empress, I believe. In the whole of Canada we have 169 of these stations, and the average cost is about 6200, ranging from 810 to 8500 or 8600. There are two or three special stations, one of them in what we call the burned-out area south of Yellow Grass. We have a very difficult problem there; a lot of the soil has disappeared, either from the effects of fire or from wind; it has a remarkable faculty of being blown somewhere, but we do not know where it goes. In those areas we have special demonstrations which cost a little more, but the average is about $200. Then there are a number of small stations up towards Hudson bay, which are about half as large as this room, and their average cost is very low.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: How many
of those stations are in Ontario?


William Richard Motherwell: About twenty.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I would like to add a few words to the eloquent plea advanced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady) for an experimental station in central British Columbia. That huge country is bound to develop but it requires some assistance, and it seems to me to be a good investment for the government to make plans immediately for the establishment of an experimental farm somewhere in that country. I come from southern British Columbia, and there is an experimental farm in the constituency adjoining mine, at Agassiz. I believe that farm has done a lot of good; it has been very well conducted and is a credit to the department in every way, but I have been wondering whether it would not be possible to do something more in that connection for the benefit of that particular part of the country where the conditions as the minister knows, are somewhat peculiar. Most of the land in the Fraser valley was heavily timbered; most of the timber has been removed, leaving a great many stumps which have been there for many years, and our people are faced with the problem of getting that land into a condition
which will permit of cultivation. When the stumps are removed we will have land there which cannot be surpassed, as the minister is well aware; he visited that part of the country quite recently and is familiar with the conditions. We were not able to put on a hail storm for his benefit, as was done by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar), but I think we showed him everything there was to be seen', and he was very good in going round and visiting the small and large fairs which we have everjwvhere during the fall sea-son. He saw what can be produced when the-land is cultivated, and I think he saw some-other things also.


William Richard Motherwell: Not enough of
them.


William Garland McQuarrie: He saw some of the
Liberal politicians and tried to instil a little courage into them, but as results have shown he did not succeed very well. However, we were glad to see him and we would like to have him come back any time.
I should like to know from the minister whether the program mapped out in regard to these experimental farms includes anything in the way of investigation or experimentation to find the best and most economical methods for clearing land such as we have in the Fraser valley, because that would be very valuable knowledge indeed. It is very hard for the farmers themselves to bear the expense of clearing lands unless some new method is devised for getting rid of these stumps. I suppose the minister has considered this subject, because the government attempted to place returned men on land which was covered with stumps, and in quite a number of cases these men found it impossible to succeed. I think they had the industry; they worked hard enough, but conditions were such that success was almost impossible.	As the minister
knows, under present methods it costs from $100 to $500 an acre to clear land, and it is a question whether the land when cleared is worth that high figure.	If we can only
devise some new method of getting rid of these ancient stumps there will be a great deal of land put under cultivation which is capable of producing fruits and vegetables as well as grains, and about everything else that is grown anywhere outside of the tropical regions. There is an immense area in the Fraser valley which should be made available for agricultural purposes. I think possibly I represent the finest agricultural district in the whole of British Columbia, and that means a
Supply-Agriculture

good deal. I am sure I am safe in saying that I represent more farmers than any other member from British Columbia, and I would impress upon the minister the necessity for making some intensive study of the best method of clearing up our lands.


William Richard Motherwell: As my hon. friend
has raised not a new question but one new this afternoon, I think I will be justified in making some comment in that connection. We have figures because we have cleared up some of these lands in British Columbia, for instance at Sidney, but I hesitate to give the information to my hon. friend because I am afraid it would not be very conducive to immigration; the clearing of the land would cost too much. The situation is just the same as it was with the farmers in Ontario a hundred years ago. If the people of that time had known how much it was going to cost in money and labour to clear the land they might have hesitated about tackling it. Nevertheless they did tackle it and once they got interested they forgot all about the cost. They had more in the way of strong arms and healthy bodies than they had cash in the bank, and they kept working away until they cleared the land. That is the only course to follow in the case of these British Columbia lands that I know of. If you want to charge up the cost of clearing that land you must bear these facts in mind: You have to blow the whole thing to pieces with dynamite, and then as a consequenc of turning the under soil over on to your top soil you have to use fertilizer-the whole cost is a serious deterrent to settlement. Of course in the case of a man who wants to go in and make a home for himself regardless of the cost it is a different matter; but if he sits down, as a man should do when he wishes to build a house, and considers the cost he will never start it. This statement, of course, is not very encouraging.


William Garland McQuarrie: That hardly answers
my question.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not care to
give the figures. It is very expensive if you charge up everything. But if you are really desirous of building a home, and you like the climate, and you clean up a little bit every year and have good health, you will get a good farm by the time you are ready to pass away.


William Garland McQuarrie: Of course you will
have a good farm, but the minister has not dealt with my question at all.


William Richard Motherwell: Do you want me
to give the exact figures?


William Garland McQuarrie: I am not asking for
figures. What I am asking is this: Is the department conducting any experiments as to the best and most economical method of clearing lands? The minister throws up his hands and says that the only way to clear lands is to get in and take out stumps- that is, follow the strong arm method; but sometimes it has been possible to use brains as well as strong arms. The question I am asking is: Has the minister access to brains, and is his department doing anything to investigate this particular matter?


William Richard Motherwell: Not for publication purposes. We are not only investigating but we are doing the actual work and know the actual cost. There has been some experimental work done, but primarily for clearing the land in Agassiz. A large part of that land is mountainous, and of 1,300 acres possibly only about 300 acres are tillable. The rest is so mountainous we could not convert it into arable land. There is some work being done in the direction my hon. friend suggests but it does not require experimenting. I do not see any particular advantage in finding the cost. The proper method to follow in a case of that kind is to take the timber off the land and commercialize it to the best advantage, apply it to whatever purposes it is most suitable for, and then blow out the stumps with dynamite. By so doing, however, you create big holes so that you would think you were in some shell-scarred region in France or Flanders. It is very expensive land to clear, because it i3 so heavily timbered, and then one has to use fertilizers, thereon in order to bring it into proper condition for production. We can give the desired information, but it would not be conducive to promoting the settlement of these timbered lands, which after all make expensive farm lands unless all the timber thereon can be used commercially.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I do not think the Minister of Agriculture is treating the hon. member quite fairly in refusing to answer the question on the ground that it may not conduce to furthering the immigration plans of the government. No greater condemnation of immigration plans with respect to British Columbia has been made in this house than the one uttered by the minister when he intimates that not only would labour extending over years be involved in clearing out a farm, but that the man would probably be in his grave before he had succeeded in getting a farm. I do not see why the information cannot be given.

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: I will give it to my hon. friend, but I do not think it will serve any good purpose. The land at Sidney is heavily timbered, and in some places the cost would be $500 an acre.


John Wesley Edwards: I wish to ask the minister for some figures that may not be quite so horrifying. How much of this item is to be devoted to increasing the area of the experimental farm in this city? I believe that farm is entirely too small. It is carrying on work which, it must be admitted, is in the interest of all the other experimental farms in Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: That is it.


John Wesley Edwards: And the area is entirely too small, in my judgment.


William Richard Motherwell: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not know whether or not my information is correct, but I have been told that there is one block of land adjacent to the farm, of about 200 acres I think, which is being held at $600 per acre, and that the government is negotiating for the purchase of this particular block. I have also been informed that there is another farm, also close to the experimental farm, and of about the size and the same character of soil, which can be obtained for $200 an acre. I do not know whether or not these rumours are well founded, but I do think that the area of the farm here should be increased. Of course if the land can be obtained for $200 per acre it would be foolish to buy it for $600, even though some warm personal friend owned it. I have had the privilege of visiting pretty nearly all the experimental farms throughout the Dominion, and I believe they are doing a good work. I believe also that the work can be improved, and doubtless will be in years to come, as, under proper guidance, these farms make use of advanced scientific methods. Again let me remind hon. members of the house who advocate experimental farms or stations for their own particular district or province not to lose sight of the special scientific work, chemical and otherwise, which is being carried on here at Ottawa and under very cramped conditions.


William Richard Motherwell: In reply to my hon. friend I may say that Mr. Booth is asking $600 an acre for 321 acres, which will amount roughly to $190,000, but I am disposed to think further in the matter before acting. Not but what the land is worth the amount asked.
but in order to afford satisfaction to all parties, especially the taxpayers, I think the matter should be submitted to the exchequer court in order to get a valuation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By expropriation?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. We have
prices on three or four areas adjoining the Booth farm, submitted by the owners, and these will constitute, I presume, a basis for valuation if it is necessary to take the matter to the courts. We have tried to get a satisfactory adjustment with Mr. Booth, but before I should feel justified in paying $600 I think the fair thing to do would be to refer the question to the exchequer court.


John Wesley Edwards: What about asking prices on the other farms?
Mr. M'OTHERWELL: They run from $300 to $450.


John Wesley Edwards: How do they compare as regards suitability?


William Richard Motherwell: Some of them are excellent, but they do not begin to compare with the Booth farm for proximity, convenience and general suitability.


John Wesley Edwards: You have
some pretty good land in the experimental farm as it now stands. I do not know, but it seems to me that it might be worth considering whether in an experimental farm you should get the very best soil on the face of the earth or whether, on the contrary, it would not be advisable sometimes to carry on your experiments on average soil.


William Richard Motherwell: That is what the Booth farm is.


John Wesley Edwards: If the Booth farm is average then the others are under average.


William Richard Motherwell: The Caldwell farm, between the two highways, is on the whole heavier and more productive land; it is above the average in the neighbouring country. The Booth farm is nearer the average of the adjacent lands which it would be intended to serve.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The minister remarked
that a man going in for agriculture should not count the cost; he should just work away without giving any consideration to that question. The minister touches a very vital point when he makes this statement. If you look at the manufacturing industry you find that one of the first things they do is to count the cost. They take into consideration capital
Supply-Agriculture

expenditure and all expenses in connection with operation, and then they go to the utilities commission or some other commission and, getting their cost recognized at the figure they quote, they fix a profit of eight or ten per cent over and above that, and then a tariff on top of all that lest the industry fail. Now if a man is going into the business of agriculture why should not his calculations be made upon exactly the same basis? We have been talking about agricultural fairs. Perhaps I might mention that in the town of Olds, Alberta, in the constituency from which my hon. friend (Mr. Speakman) comes, they have induced a number of students to attend the agricultural college; and so keen is the interest which these young men are taking in their studies that it has been found necessary to increase the dormitory accommodation this year from one hundred to two hundred and fifty students. These young men are filled with delight at the prospect of taking up agriculture. They are taught everything that relates to the industry and are acquiring a love for the country. In my judgment there could be nothing more tragic than to have these prospective farmers, on leaving college with a roseate picture of farm life, disillusioned when they have to face the actual facts of farming as it is carried on in the country. The finer things in connection with farming have been expatiated upon to-day, but it would be a sad thing to see these young men, after taking up farms, drift away into the cities bankrupt because of their inability to meet expenses. The department should take these facts into account and have agriculture placed on the same basis as industry.


Miss MACPHAIL:: It is all too true
that practical farmers are contemptuous of scientific methods, but a great many farmers are coming to the conclusion that this is an unsound policy. It is not wise, and they are coming to realize the benefits of experiment and of the application of scientific principles to the carrying on of their business. But when the practical farmers of Ontario read that the department is contemplating paying $600 an acre for an extension to the experimental farm in Ottawa they will naturally want to know whether the department also contemplates an experiment to prove that anyone can make a living paying such prices for land. At once they will say that there is something wrong with the purchase: either the minister and his advisers do not know the value of land, or the man from whom they bought it is a tool of the government, or something else equally nasty. If experi-

ments can be carried on in other parts of Canada as well as in Ottawa, surely it would be wiser to buy land which is not so close to the city; for $600 an acre is not the value of farm land. Such a purchase only lays scientific agricultural experiments open to the contempt of the practical farmer, and this is the feeling that generally prevails. As the hon. member (Mr. Adshead) says, boys who are attending agricultural schools are taught scientific methods, and they will have to apply those methods under practical conditions. The minister said something true when he suggested that there was no need to count the cost. The farmers have to work almost from the time they are born until they die, and if they are lucky they will be buried.


William Richard Motherwell: I can assure my
hon. friend that the owner of the Booth farm is not in league with the government.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I did not say so; I
said you might lay yourself open to the charge.


William Richard Motherwell: That is one of the alternatives; either we do not know the price of land or we are in league with someone. I have had two or three conversations with this gentleman and I do not blame him for trying to get all he can out of the government. That is a common practice. On the other hand, it is my business to protect the treasury, and' that is one reason why I say I should not be the one to determine the question on behalf of the government. The exchequer court is the proper authority. I do not want to go to my hon. friend's constituency afterwards and have it said that it was I who paid $600. The fair way to settle the matter is to let the exchequer court, with all the evidence before it in regard to the value of adjoining lands, adjudicate and decide the amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The responsibility for
the selection of the site would be yours.


William Richard Motherwell: As regards the
comment I made respecting the cost of clearing land, I wonder how many gentlemen in this house who have cleaned heavy timber land would have jumped joyfully into the work if they had calmly contemplated the cost. I do not want to terrify anybody, and while I am aware of the biblical injunction to sit down and figure out the cost, I think that applies rather to building a house than to clearing land. I take off my hat to the old pioneer settlers of Canada, those of the maritime provinces and of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, who had to establish

Supply-Agriculture
farms in heavily wooded' lands. I do not fancy that they sat down and calculated the cost, because they had no cash to start with. They built up their farms by their strong right arm, working hard from early mom till dewy eve.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did not pay $600
an acre.


William Richard Motherwell: Nor were there any high-powered tractors or donkey engines to take out the stumps in those days; they had to do it themselves. Many farms I know of were originally cleared by means of a two-year old steer at the short end of the yoke and a fourteen-year old boy at the other.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Would the minister like
a boy of his to be at one end of the yoke?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. if necessary,
and I should be proud to think that he was capable of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


William Richard Motherwell: There is no "oh,
oh!" about it. What would they have done in the old days when they were on part ration from the British government and had to use every device they could think of in order to be self-sustaining? If one boy would not do I would put two on. I am talking about conditions one hundred years ago; I am not advocating this method to-day.


Mr. VALLANCE:: The hon. member for
East Calgary has asked a question about counting the cost. I would ask him, as a pioneer I understand in western Canada, just how many would have pioneered in that country if they had counted the cost. Those of us who pioneered did not count the cost in dollars and cents, and some of us are probably living to-day to see the harvest reaped from those early efforts of ours.
Now that this estimate is up I feel I should be remiss in my duty if I were not to mention that in my constituency we have an experimental farm. It was established some years ago. I was one of the early pioneers in that country, and I am sure that the assistance it has given to the farmers in that section of the country cannot be measured in dollars and cents. When the great western plains were opened, particularly that part known as the Tramping lake country, extending between the northern and southern Saskatchewan rivers, the territory was wholly new and we had to experiment. It has been repeatedly said during this discussion that the farmer cannot afford to experiment, but I must say that we were greatly pleased when the Scott experimental farm was
established, demonstrating to us not only the kinds of grains we should grow, but also the varieties of fruits and trees that were best suited to that area. On the first of July, as is our custom, we had a field day at the Scott experimental farm, and I am not exaggerating when I say that there were seven thousand people gathered there. Almost any day in the summer, and particularly on Sundays, if you visit that farm you will find people there from as far south as Kindersley and Rosetown, as well as from a great distance to the west and north. I hope that this estimate will be approved by the committee.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. member for Skeena because the country in which I pioneered twenty-two years ago was then in the same condition as the area for which he is pleading to-day. I think it behooves this or any other government in Canada to establish experimental farms or stations as circumstances warrant in any large section such as the Skeena country, and the government should be encouraged to do so.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have been very much
interested in the recital of the early experiences of the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan. With a two-year old steer at one end of the plough and the Minister of Agriculture at the other, I should have thought it would have been a very pertinent question to ask, which is the bull?
I have been rather impressed with what has been said concerning the central experimental farm and the purchase of high priced lands. In considering the situation we must be careful to remember that the overhead expense is on the central farm already, and if you buy land for one hundred or two hundred dollars an acre situated at some distance from headquarters, it is eventually going to cost you just as much as to buy land near the farm for five or six hundred dollars an acre, when you take into account new buildings and the great loss of time through running back and forth between the central farm and the new purchase.
Another point that I would stress is that an experimental farm can never be in the ordinary commercial sense a profitable farm. The profit from an experimental farm is lying in the files and records of experiments which have been completed by these farms, and in the information which has been printed and distributed Tor the use of farmers throughout the country. Everyone must realize that when you are farming on a plot of one-fortieth of an acre, with the large
Supply-Agriculture

amount of handwork and labour necessary under those conditions, you can never hope to make that farm a commercial success.
The statement has been made that the cost of clearing land in British Columbia would be $500 an acre if you wanted to establish an experimental farm there. I cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged. I pointed out a little earlier in the afternoon that British Columbia is an immense country, with varying conditions. In some places the timber is very heavy; in other places it would hardly be necessary to do any clearing at all. It is true there is not much land of the latter kind, but in the dry belt there are many areas that can be ploughed with comparatively little work, and that would be principally the removal of stone and brush. However, with regard to the big problems in connection with land clearing in British Columbia, we feel that one of the most important is that of making use of the waste material which remains on the ground after our high lead system of logging has removed the commercial timber from the land. That is a problem which I think the research council should investigate very carefully to see if we cannot get some revenue from the use of these waste products through the development of salable by-products of various kinds. Scientists have informed me that there are excellent chances for development along these lines. In clearing land in British Columbia in the ordinary farming sense-at all events if there is a Scotchman at the helm-the land first cleared is that which is most easily cleared. You get the slash off your land and sell the timber for what you can get; then after you have done the burning you at once seed the land down, and you find that grass easily takes hold with the little dressing of potash that there is in the ashes left on the surface. Then you graze it with sheep or goats, which will eat off the grass and the young willow sprouts so that the willows will not grow up again; and when the stumps begin to rot, you commence your land clearing as opportunity offers. You can begin to take your stumps out at the end of eighteen months or two years, using either powder or stumping machines, whichever is the cheaper. There is a great variety of land out there, and some of it will cost from forty to fifty dollars an acre to clear, under the conditions I have described.


William Richard Motherwell: I am afraid that
unless I make a further remark about pioneering a wrong impression may be left in the minds of those who are listening to this discussion or who read the report. In order to 
counteract the shock which the hon. member for Bow River got at the thought of human labour being used in the way I have described, and to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member (Mr. Tolmie) as to who was the fourteen-year old boy, let me say that I was speaking of conditions in Ontario one hundred years ago, and I do not think you will figure that I was very much in evidence at that time. So far as counting the cost is concerned, whether it be in labour and privation either in the east or on the prairie, there is no one that I know of who has the real farming or home-building instinct who does not feel that all the labour and hardships were worth while once he experiences the joy of owning his own land and of having his own roof over his head.


William Garland McQuarrie: May I suggest that
though the minister may not be one hundred years old he may be one hundred years behind the times.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the contribution of the hon. member for New Westminster.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Apparently this
is a field day for the farmers; and as we have heard from every other province in the Dominion I think I might say a word in regard to Prince Edward Island. I wish to speak in favour of these experimental plots. In my county I think we have three of them, and they have proved very successful and very beneficial. I wish to refer for a moment to the experimental farm or station in connection with the fox industry at Summerside. I think the minister has just said that that experimental station cost around $14,000 a year. To my mind there is no better expenditure of public money in the Dominion than that incurred in connection with that experimental station. Last year it was estimated that the silver fox trade from Prince Edward Island alone, including live foxes and furs, amounted to something over $3,000,000, and when you apply that to the whole Dominion you have some idea of what the silver fox business means to this country. It is regrettable that the people of Canada are not engaging in that industry to a greater extent than they are. The people of the European countries are going in for it very strongly. This year we had hundreds of buyers from European countries, especially from Norway, who bought large quantities of the best of our breeding stock and took them over to Europe. The experimental station at Summerside is doing excellent work. The breeders contributed a large number of the foxes to that station; the
r EBRUARY 17, 1928
Supply-Agriculture
government did not have to buy them, and the work is being carried on by Doctor Ennis Smith, formerly of Ottawa. The information published in the bulletin Doctor Smith is getting out will be of great benefit to breeders.
I wish to ask the minister a question in connection with the work at the central experimental farm in the matter of clover which will withstand the winter climate of eastern Canada. One of the greatest difficulties the farmers in Prince Edward Island meet is to get a clover which will carry through the winter and from which they can expect to get a second crop. At this farm in Ottawa a few years ago I was shown a plot which I was informed had been in clover for seven years, and it was still producing a splendid crop. I should like to know if any advances have been made in that direction and if the minister has any information which he can give us along that line. It is an important question to our people; if we can get a clover which will give us two or three crops it will be a great advantage and a great help to us. At present we sow clover seed very extensively; we get a crop one year, but in another year it is gone.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals-administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, and necessary buildings, $2,270,000.
An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not by a
jugful. I will ask the minister to allow this item to stand. There are some orders for returns to be brought down shortly which will give us information in this connection.
Item stands.
Entomology, $25,000.


William Richard Motherwell: This is for the
office at Ottawa.
Mr. AD3HEAD: How many experts are engaged by the Department of Agriculture, and are they from Alberta university, or where are they from?


William Richard Motherwell: This vote is for the office at Ottawa. We should be willing to provide an escort and take anybody there.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I want to know how many experts are engaged.


William Richard Motherwell: The head of the branch is Mr. Gibson, and the next in command is Doctor Swaine; I will give the names of the others later. The next vote deals with the entomologists employed in the
branch. This vote is for supplies for the office, specimens of insects, and equipment to improve the sight. You will have to have very much improved eyesight to identify these small insects.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Are the men engaged
there from Canadian universities?


William Richard Motherwell: About twelve or
thirteen.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of Destructive Insect and Pest Act, and necessary buildings, $500,000.
Simon Fraser Tolmie: We have an increase here of $57,000. What is that for?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, there is an
increase in the work all along the line in the various laboratories and a very considerable increase is due to the flat rate increase to the staff of $120. That takes quite a bit of it. Then take the root rot question in the west, the new insect pests and new enemies all along the line, which increase the necessity of preparing to fight them.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Does that necessitate the
employment of some new men?


William Richard Motherwell: It will necessitate
engaging some new men.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: How many?


William Richard Motherwell: We have just decided to establish a new staff, one man being already engaged, and we have already secured one of them at the university at Edmonton. The Hon. Mr. Hoadley of Alberta has drawn my attention to the fact-and I have been aware of it myself for about eight years- that one of the species of root rot is making considerable headway in northern Saskatchewan and Alberta. We have done a good good deal of work, but it is now developing into a very potent enemy. It lives in the soil and there is no way of killing it except by sterilizing the soil, which would be impossible without a laboratory equipment. That has been supplied by the Alberta university, and we are going to provide the men. We hope to carry out a working arrangement with Alberta similar to that which we entered into with the Manitoba government with respect to the rust laboratory in Winnipeg. We put up the building, and the provincial government supplied the land, power, heat and water.


John Millar: What plants are attacked by the root rot?


William Richard Motherwell: Cereals and a certain number of our native grasses. It is not known whether the disease was imported from
5S8
Ministers of the Crown

Europe or is to some extent indigenous to the prairies. I do not think it has been prevalent in the open prairie country. It was noticed first- in northern Manitoba, and seems to have spread westward to the northern part of Saskatchewan and Alberta. It is not now so noticeable in northern Manitoba.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How many of the employees in these laboratories are graduates of Canadian universities?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that with the exception of one in the city of Ottawa they are all Canadians.


Mr. LUCAS:: What progress is being made in the prevention of rust?
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from February 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Church for the second reading of Bill No. 26, to amend the Railway Act.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker, I
gave my undertaking to the hon. member moving the second reading of this bill that it would not be proceeded with in his absence. Now I understand that a motion of this kind cannot be allowed to stand. I made that agreement in ignorance of that rule, and I am soiry, but I hope the bill will not lose its place on the order paper. I think I had the floor when the house rose on the previous occasion, and in order to keep this item in its proper place I will move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN

[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (for Mr. Jacobs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 28, to remove the necessity of the re-election of members of the House of Commons of Canada on acceptance of office.

He said: In the absence of the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill I should like it understood that if the bill would have to be dropped on account of his absence I would rather have it proceeded with and sent to the committee on privileges and elections.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: I do not oppose the
second reading of the bill, on the understanding that it will go to the committee on privileges and elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on privileges and elections.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (for Mr. Jacobs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 29, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: In the absence of the hon. member I move that this bill be referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would rather have it
stand.


Mr. DUNNING:: It is understood that
the motion stands, and that the bill is not dropped from the order paper?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it stands.
Motion stands.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committe of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Buildings-Nova Scotia-
Halifax-immigration building-payment to department of Railways and Canals for accommodation.. .. $25,000 Halifax-repairs to buildings and wharves at R.C.N. barracks and
Il.M.C. dockyard	 45,000
Halifax-Rockhead hospital-repairs
and improvements	 5,700
North Sydney public building-addition	 7,500
Truro-tractor for postal purposes. .	1,300
Mr. CANTLEY:: I should like to call the
attention of the minister to the fact that the first two items appearing in this vote are simply interdepartmental accounts, and the only amount which he proposes to expend for public buildings in the whole province of Nova Scotia is $7,500 to complete or make a small addition to a public building at North Sydney. Last year the sum total for new buildings in

Supply-Public Works
that province was about $6,000. I submit that in view of the large votes for public buildings in other provinces, most of which I take it are fully justified, Nova Scotia is getting much less than justice.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: There is no information, I take it,
that my hon. friend requires in regard to this vote. The amount is practically the same as last year-there is a light increase.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member says
that the first two items in the vote are interdepartmental accounts. Is that so?


John Campbell Elliott: They are very largely departmental.


Mr. ERNST:: I would remind the minister that I pointed out to him last year that in the estimates for 1926 there was a vote of $10,000 for a post office at Mahone Bay. That item was not included in the estimates for last year, and the minister gave me many ingenious and conflicting reasons why it was not included. I wonder if he could tell me why it has not been found necessary to revote that money this year.


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid I cannot add
anything to what I said to my genial friend last year. The condition of things is much the same as it was a year ago.


William Gordon Ernst: Apparently it is going to
stay that way.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Why is the tractor required for postal purposes at Truro not charged to the Post Office department?


John Campbell Elliott: That department makes
the request to the Department of Public Works for a tractor to carry the mail back and forth, and we supply it.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Why should it not be
charged to the Post Office department?


John Campbell Elliott: Apparently everybody
comes to the Department of Public Works.


William Gordon Ernst: I should like to ask the
minister definitely if the administration has concluded that the expenditure at Mahone Bay will not be made. Has the administration definitely abandoned the idea of erecting a public building there?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I should say to
my hon. friend that Mahone Bay is in the same situation as a number of other places as to which similarly urgent requests have been made none of which are included in these estimates. By that statement I do not mean to say that these works are definitely abandoned. They will receive consideration just as soon as it is possible to get the money to carry out the work.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the minister not tell
me why that work is not necessary now if it was necessary in 1926? Business has expanded since then and the Minister of Finance has spoken about a handsome surplus this year. If in the state of public finances in 1926 the work in question was necessary, why is it not necessary this year?


John Campbell Elliott: Apparently there are more urgent needs now to provide for the increased business of the country than there were in 1926. That is the best explanation I can give my hon. friend. In the opinion of the departmental officials, from the reports we get other works are really more urgently required in order to facilitate the carrying on of the business of the country. I think that is all I can say.


Mr. QUINN:: Is that a reasonable excuse to give the committee in face of the fact that there is an increase of $15,000 over the previous year for repairs to the royal Canadian naval barracks and wharves in the dockyard at Halifax, although we have no navy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a principle involved in this matter. An appropriation wras made in 1926 for a building at Mahone Bay. Obviously that money would not have been placed in the estimates had it not been required for the public service. I know that with respect to certain western appropriations the war necessitated their being withdrawn and dropped, and a change of government has prevented their ever finding a place in the appropriations since. But here you have a public building that in the opinion of the then government-and the same government is in office to-day-was a necessity. The item for that public building is now dropped, and I think this house has a right to know exactly why it is dropped. If it is for political reasons, say so and be done with it. If it wras in order that when the election came on you might have all your votes for public buildings that year for the purpose of influencing public opinion, as has been done in the past, let it be admitted. Let there be frankness in this matter; let us know exactly why this appropriation has been dropped. I think it is not an unfair thing for the committee to know the reason.
Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: I am perfectly willing to answer any question asked by my hon. friend, or by any other hon. member opposite. I would call my hon. friend's attention, to this very vote, No. 123, and ask him to tell the committee whether he really thinks these particular estimates for Nova Scotia were prepared with a view to meeting political exigencies, when the fact is that there is in the estimates not a vote in favour of that province so far as any of the ridings represented by members on the government side are concerned. If he will look over the list I think he will come to the conclusion that anything but political expediency has actuated the preparation of the estimates. As regards Mahone Bay, I may observe that I have heard of the place before; I heard about it last year and I shall probably hear more about it again. I do not object to that; it is quite within the rights of my hon. friends to refer to it. But in the opinion of the department the needs of other places are more pressing at the present time than those at Mahone. I cannot add anything to this statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I direct the attention
of the minister to the fact that the appropriation in question was apparently required in the public interests in 1926. A gentleman named Duff was defeated in that constituency in the election of that year, and he has stated that upon his having so requested the item was dropped from the estimates. That is the reason he gave last year for its having been abandoned. Now, is the public service of this country to be thus conducted? That is the question that this house has a right to have satisfactorily answered. Is the hon. gentleman who now represents Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), and who stated in this house that he advised that the vote be withdrawn from the estimates, to determine whether the community affected shall or shall not be given a public building? The country has a right to know, and I submit that the minister should give the committee an explanation.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is making a slight mistake when he says that this vote was included in the estimates by the government now in office. He will remember that between the government of that day and the present administration there was another government which held office for three months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they brought in no estimates.


Ernest Lapointe: I would point out that
the Minister of Public Works at that time was not the present minister, and the two might have had different ideas regarding the necessity for a public building there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are entitled to
something better than that.


Mr. HOCKEN:: According to the minister, it does not depend upon the change in ministers but upon the change of opinion on the part of departmental officials. What brought about that change?


Mr. McNUTT:: Will the minister oxplain the item, "Truro-tractor for postal purposes, 31,300."?


John Campbell Elliott: This vote is to provide
for the installation of a tractor at the railway station. The request comes from the deputy postmaster general, and the object is to facilitate the transportation of mails. It is the kind of tractor usually used for this purpose.	-


George Taylor MacNutt: I am glad to learn from
the minister that the postal business of Truro is growing so rapidly as to necessitate the use of a tractor for the moving of mails. This brings up the question of the post office building at that point, which was erected some forty-four or forty-five years ago. At that time the population of the town was about three thousand; to-day it is approximately three times three thousand. Every effort has been made in recent years to provide a suitable building for the requirements of the people in Truro, and about 1912 or 1913 the department sent down an architect named Mr. Rankin to look over the situation. After several days spent there he worked out a plan which he presented to the government with an estimate of the cost of remodelling the building, but after considering the question the government decided that it would not pay to remodel it. It was felt that the cost would be too high and that even with the proposed remodelling the town would still have an old building. The building to-day is in very bad condition, and the cost being paid upon the repairs year after year would almost cover the interest charges on a new structure. I regret to tell the house that the site which was purchased for the new building in that town in 1914 for $17,000 had been sold at a loss to the country of nearly $10,000-$9,200 to be exact. As happened in other places during recent years there was a considerable decline in real estate values there, but nothing to warrant the lot being sold at such a loss. It seems to me that,

Supply-Public Works
in view of the many promises which the town has received for the construction of a new post office building, it is not very creditable to the government that this ideal lot-in fact, the most suitable lot-should have been sold at such a loss. I regret exceedingly that there is no mention whatever in these estimates of any proposal for a new building in the town of Truro. The minister may depend upon it that the day is not very far distant when a new post office building will have to be erected there. I repeat, it is a disgrace that the country has lost almost $10,000 on the magnificent lot which was acquired for the promised building.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: Is the $7,500 for the
North Sydney public building for additional work, or is it for repairs?


John Campbell Elliott: It is an addition.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Returning to Mahone
Bay, I think a frank explanation should be given the committee; ministerial sidestepping of the question is not altogether the thing for us. The Minister of Public Works has the advantage now of having his deputy beside him. Will he tell us on whose advice the estimate of 1926 was prepared? What officer of the department recommended the construction of the building, and what officer of the department recommended the withdrawal of the item? It is within the recollection of a good many in this house that during last session the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough informed the committee that the vote had been struck out on his advice. And he happened to be the defeated candidate for the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg. Why was the building not necessary after his defeat if it was necessary before the election? That estimate was passed in the spring of 1926, when the government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was in power. True, the personnel of the government has changed in the interval, but the government in power to-day is to all intents and purposes the same. If in the judgment of the government of that day it was necessary to construct the building in 1926, what has taken place in the interval to cause the government to change its view? And if it did change its view, as obviously it has done, on whose advice did it do so? The committee is entitled to know.


John Campbell Elliott: Of course there have been a great many changes since 1926. In regard to this item I should be very glad to obtain for my hon. friend any information which is in the departmental files. The information we have here relates only to the items that
are in the estimates. My hon, friend will readily understand in view of the large number of post offices and harbours throughout the country that one cannot bear in mind all the things relating to these post offices and harbours that are not mentioned in the estimates. I remember the discussion last year. All I can say to my hon. friend is that the situation is no different now from what it was when this house last year decided that the reasons then given were perhaps the best that could be given as to why an item was not included at that time. I should think that the point of my hon. friend's suggestion-it is more than a suggestion; it is almost a statement-that this has been omitted for political reasons is completely answered when you see that there is no provision made in the estimates for any post offices in the province of Nova Scotia in any ridings represented by Liberals.


Hugh Guthrie: There were in 1926 prior to the election.


John Campbell Elliott: I was mot in the department at that time.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That does not answer the question at all. Why not ask the deputy?


William Gordon Ernst: If the minister was at all familiar with the situation in Mahone Bay in 1926 he would have realized that a vote was included in the estimates that year because there was a pressing need in the community. The present building is entirely inadequate. It is small, cramped, in fact it is unsightly, and it is in one of the prettiest little country towns in Nova Scotia. The reasons which made this expenditure necessary in 1926 are even more cogent to-day. I should like to know from the minister if the statement made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough last year was correct, that he had that item withdrawn from the estimates. If he is unable to answer, I suggest that the items stand until he gets the information.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think I had an interview with the hon. member for An-tigonish-Guysborough while these estimates were being prepared.


William Gordon Ernst: I was referring to last year's estimates.


John Campbell Elliott: That is a year further
away, and perhaps my recollection does not serve me quite so well. What my hon. friend says about the building being worse now than it was two years ago does not apply only to the post office at Mahone Bay. The same
Supply-Public Works

is true of a number of post offices from one end of this country to the other; it is true with regard to a number of post offices down in Nova Scotia, places at which post offices are not being provided for in these estimates.


William Gordon Ernst: I think the minister should answer the question. I do not know whether he is in a position to contradict or affirm the statement made by the hon. member for Antigonfish-Guysborough. I suggest that the item stand until some better explanation can be given.


John Campbell Elliott: May I call attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that we are not now voting on an item for Mahone Bay? That is not before the committee.


William Gordon Ernst: We are voting on the estimates for public buildngs for the province of Nova Scotia, and I am suggesting that such an item should be there.


Mr. IRVINE:: I personally would like very much to hear the minister answer that question. Of course I have often heard such charges as are being made here to-night, and have put them down as political talk, but I should like to know what are the facts in regard to this matter. Is it true what the hon. member says? I think the minister might well give an answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has said
that by looking at the estimates one would at once realize that political considerations did not influence the government in the preparation of the estimates for Nova Scotia. Knowing what we do with respect to certain public expenditures contemplated in Halifax, we have not the least doubt that the minister for that province is responsible for these estimates, and we do know that nothing is in the estimates at this time for Nova Scotia, but at the appropriate moment there may be sums available in order to secure the votes of the electorate of that province when election time comes round. There is no question about that at all. We have it in relation to what took place in Halifax not long since, and I say that it is high time that the provinces should not be deprived of their due portion of public moneys for public services required in order that those sums may be put in the estimates at the fitting moment for the purpose of influencing public opinion at the time of an election.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely my
hon. friend does not suggest, and surely no hon. member from Nova Scotia would enter-
tain the belief, that any expenditures made by the government in the great port and city of Halifax would be made for political purposes? Surely not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely not? I happen
to know the hon. gentleman's history in that regard in his own province, and it is so nearly alike to what I suggested a moment ago that there is no doubt at all that at the appropriate time the discussion with respect to expenditures in Halifax, which are not these expenditures at all, will come before the house, and I say that the same directing mind that desired to prevent and that did prevent, expenditures there is responsible for there being no provision for public expenditure in Nova Scotia in the estimates at this time. I say it is not fitting that the province should thus be deprived of public moneys necessary for carrying on the public services.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is an item occupying a full page of estimates for Nova Scotia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is under harbours and rivers; I am not discussing those particular expenditures. It is the " harbours and rivers" touch this year, you see; it may be dredging next. My hon. friend seems to understand the allusion. The point I desire to make is this: Having regard to what did transpire, and to this expenditure for harbours and rivers, about which there is a singular history in Nova Scotia-is the Minister of the Interior familiar with that history?


Charles A. Stewart: I have voted a lot of estimates for Nova Scotia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For harbours and rivers?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, and
dry docks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the item should stand because this is the only occasion upon which an opportunity will arise for the discussion of the question of public buildings in Nova Scotia. That question is limited to this one item, No. 123; that is all the public buildings there are for Nova Scotia. With respect to New Brunswick the policy seems to be very clear, that dredging, not being very spectacular, will be done this year, but when you come to Quebec and Ontario and the other provinces you will find quite a number of items for public buildings. For instance, I see an item of $15,000 to finish a public building at Wainwright. The Minister of the Interior might be able to explain that.


Charles A. Stewart: I am quite ready.
Supply-Public Works


Richard Bedford Bennett: Saskatchewan stands in
much the same position. Certain buildings there have been started and have to be
finished. It is the same with respect to Manitoba. In Quebec there are a considerable number, in Montreal alone quite a number of items, involving large sums of money. The minister realizes that that is so, but the item we are discussing is the only one with respect to public buildings in Nova Scotia, and I certainly desire to know what has been done by the province of Nova Scotia that it should be penalized because in the exercise of a sound discretion it did not see fit to yield to the views that were pressed upon it by the Minister of National Defence. Surely you cannot penalize a province for not taking bad advice, if the Minister of Justice suggests that that is what should be done. I say no; they should be rewarded.


Ernest Lapointe: I would not penalize
them, I think they suffer enough by the representation they have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a singular thing
that that is exactly what the electors of Halifax thought when they rejected the Minister of National Defence. I do think the minister must be fair with this committee and tell us what were the guiding principles which led to Mahone Bay, with all its requirements, being denied the post office which the Prime Minister said the government accepted the responsibility for. The utterances of the hon. member, whose classic smile we are all delighted to see in this house, whether he is edifying us with an account of the wrongs of the auditor general or the advantages of doing dredging work at the proper season in Nova Scotia-these are a matter of profound indifference. But I do submit that the minister should give us some explanation.


Mr. DUFF:: I am sure we are all pleased
to see that the hon. member is taking an interest in an item of $10,000 which was dropped from the estimates last year in regard to public works in Nova Scotia. He seems to think there was some political influence brought to bear when this item was dropped. That is quite true, and perhaps if I give the house the reason why it was dropped the leader of the opposition will be satisfied. I might say that when I asked the previous Minister of Public Works to include in the estimates an amount for the building at Mahone Bay politics was furthest from my thoughts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Duff: Hon. members are saying
"carried" because they do not want to hear 56103-38
the explanation. But after I had worked two years with the Minister of Public Works to get the item in the estimates and the announcement was made to the world that such an amount had been' provided for, the very gentlemen who said I was playing politics were the father and the brother of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. Consequently when I found that politics were being played I advised the minister-I do not know whether or not he took my advice-to drop the item; because, Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, I did not have politics in my mind when I asked for it. I did not want politics to interfere, and when my hon. friend said I was playing politics and the post office would never be built, I thought it my duty to tell the Minister of Public Works, the architect and everybody else that the building at the present time was not necessary.


Mr. HAY:: It seems to me this would be
an opportune time for us to take counsel together in regard to the expenditure of public money in Nova Scotia or in any other province where the amount is only $10,000 for a public building. I know nothing about the amount that was dropped from the estimates, but if only $10,000 is required, if that is all that locality needs, it would be well for us her'e and now to scrutinize all such amounts for public buildings in Canada. There is hardly any way of ascertaining what may have been in the mind of the hon. member or of the government, but we ought to recognize that the appropriating of public money for the purpose of getting votes is a delusion. My hon. friends across the way laugh, because they have been guilty, as perhaps another party may have been guilty, of voting public money for public buildings where their candidates were more often defeated than elected, and I think rightly so. Public money ought to be wisely voted and wisely expended. We all recognize that in our own municipalities we desire public money to be spent and large buildings erected, thus creating a vast liability upon the country and the government. We have throughout Ontario- and I assume it is true in other provinces- buildings going to decay, buildings which are of no commercial use, of no commercial value, which ought to be sold to insurance companies. If they cannot be sold to those companies then they should be sold by public tender and auction, in order to reduce the overhead as far as the government is concerned. We have an opportunity of recognizing, I think, that the expenditure of public money is a matter that should be judiciously and carefully scrutinized, and we should also recognize that the expenditure of public

Supply-Public Works

money where it is not necessary is not a vote-getter, but rather recoils against the parties who do that for the purpose of electing a candidate or promoting their interests in an election. Before spending money we should look into it as a business proposition, and knowing what has happened in these small communities we ought to rise to the occasion and spend public money only where it is requisite and necessary.


Thomas Cantley: Will the minister tell
me what is intended to be done in regard to the building at New Glasgow which I spoke to him about? Is it the intention of the government to provide in the supplementary estimates of this year for the necessary alterations to that building?


John Campbell Elliott: I recollect the New
Glasgow matter on account of the interviews I had with my hon. friend in regard to it, but there is no decision to make public expenditures this year other than those we are asking for in the estimates that are now before the house. I know of no decision in regard to any buildings other than those asked for here.


Thomas Cantley: May I remind the hon. minister that I had what I consider to be a distinct undertaking on his part that he would this year, in the preparation of his estimates, include an amount for that building and recommend it to council? Am I not correct in that?


John Campbell Elliott: I would not like to say
to my hon. friend or to anybody else that anybody has had anything amounting to a definite undertaking from me since I have been in charge of this department to provide any building at any place. I remember the interview I had with my hon. friend. I recall very well the strong^ilea put forward, but I have no recollection of making any definite promise to him or to anyone else that what he asked for would be done.


Thomas Cantley: I think I can refresh
the minister's memory when I point out that in his office after we had discussed this matter he stated that he would make a memorandum in regard to it, so that he would have next year a clear understanding and recollection of what we had discussed and what we had arrived at. I think if he will look in his office he will find that memorandum, and the statement I have made will, I am sure, be borne out by that memorandum. I ask him again to include in the supplementary estimates this year an amount sufficient to carry out the suggested alteration in that building. He is thoroughly

aware, and so is his deputy, of the necessities of the case. The matter has been presented to him not only by myself but also by the Liberal candidate in the county and others who are thoroughly aware of the situation. It is not fair to treat the people of New Glasgow as he has been treating them during the last two years, and I appeal to him to do justice. I recollect very distinctly the interviews we had.


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Chairman, while I do not claim to remember all the details of the situation, I recall very distinctly the interviews to which my hon. friend refers. I would remind him that the representations made to me with respect to the condition of the building at New Glasgow are not by any means more urgent or-shall I say?-pathetic than those which have been made on behalf of at least fifty other places throughout the country. There is a strong demand for public buildings to provide for post offices, customs and other public services. My hon. friend must recollect that I do not get anything like the money for this department that I ask the treasury board and the Minister of Finance for, but I can assure him that I shall be very glad to look up the memorandum and reconsider the requirements of New Glasgow along with those of other towns when these matters are receiving attention.


Thomas Cantley: We discussed this case last session, and at that time I thought the minister had committed himself; I think so still. There is not very much use in telling the committee that other towns are asking for public buildings; I am not interested in them at all. The fact is, the situation in New Glasgow is intolerable. The minister knows it, his officials know it. Two different plans were made and submitted, and then revised plans were made. All the facts are thoroughly well known to the department and to the minister, and again I ask him to implement what I understood to be the definite promise given by him to me last session.


John Campbell Elliott: What my hon. friend regards as a promise, Mr. Chairman, shows how dangerous it would be for me now or at any other time to say positively that anything will be done to carry out his request. I do not think he will go so far as to say that I have definitely promised to look after his requirements in respect of New Glasgow. Nor do I think that any hon. members on either side of the house will say that in regard to any of the representations they have made to me-and they have been fairly importunate-I have ever given a definite assur-

Supply-Public Works
ance in their favour until the votes asked for appeared in the estimates. As I have already said, I have to convince the treasury board and council of the necessity for these expenditures before they can be passed, and sometimes I have trouble even after getting my estimates beyond that stage.


William Gordon Ernst: I was much surprised at the admission of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) that he had prevailed on the minister in a moment-shall I say?-of weakness to agree to the item of $10,000 for Mahone Bay being dropped. But I was all the more surprised at his explanation of its disappearance inasmuch as last session he gave the house a somewhat different explanation-that the people of Mahone Bay had asked that this money be not put in the estimates. I took the trouble to trace that statement to its source, and found that if the people of Mahone Bay had given any such instructions they were narrowed down to a very small circle. I think the present statement, if traced, would be found to be equally without foundation.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I made a certain statement about two persons who deliberately said I was playing politics in regard to this item, and I submit the hon. member is absolutely out of order in questioning my statement.


William Gordon Ernst: I am not questioning the
veracity of the hon. member for Antigonish-GuySborough, I am questioning the sources of his information-something entirely different. In regard to statements made by other people, unfortunately I cannot trace them all down myself, although I have knowledge of some of those people; consequently I chink that when those statements are investigated it will be found that the hon. member has been misinformed. In view of the statement now made by him, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works if he approves of his conduct of the business of this country being so influenced- that whether or not a community is to get a post office depends on the dictation of one man. That is the question at issue. Is one man, because he has been annoyed, to be allowed to convince the minister that such public expenditure is not necessary? That is exactly what the hon. gentleman says he has done. I think the minister owes the committee an explanation.


John Wesley Edwards: Explanation!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
56103-38J


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: Mr. Chairman, before this item passes-


John Wesley Edwards: Let the minister answer.


Ernest Lapointe: He has nothing to answer.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If he cannot answer, his
predecessor can.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The item is not carried.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Mr. Chairman, last year I brought to the attention of the minister, and the year before to the attention of his predecessor, the deplorable and inadequate condition of the postal service in the town of Oxford, Nova Scotia. The Department of Public Works is fully aware, as is also the department of the Postmaster General, of the conditions existing there. The post office in Oxford is conducted in a shack. A plan has been submitted to the department showing the inadequate accommodation. Not only so, but resolutions have been passed by the town council and petitions have been presented by the ratepayers and the board of trade praying that some remedy be applied, and suitable premises be acquired. It seems to me that the post office service in all parts of Canada should be maintained at a certain standard at least. The standard of the postal service in Oxford is a disgrace to the Dominion. I brought this to the attention of the minister last session, and it is my purpose to do so every session until this condition of things is remedied. I would ask the Minister of Public Works to reconsider the statement he made to-night and include in the supplementary estimates a vote to provide at least decent postal accommodation for Oxford. I might point out that Oxford is a very important postal centre, a great many rural routes radiating from it. The people served by the post office at this important centre are entitled to better conditions. The population of the town is approximately 1,500, and the annual revenue of the post office is upwards of $5,000. If I mistake not, two or three years ago the Post Office Department, through some-of its officials, recommended that better accommodation be provided at this point.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to
go into the matter carefully, but it is quite impossible for me to say at the moment what may be the outcome. We will give the hon. member's request the very best consideration that we are capable of.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: While the minister
seems to be so lavish in dealing with Nova
Supply-Public Works

Scotia, I should like to remind him that there is in my county a small town, St. Fabien, with a population of three thousand, which needs a post office very badly. I hope when he is considering the demands coming from hon. gentlemen opposite he will not forget the county of Rimouski.


John Frederick Johnston: I think I should point out to the committee that under standing order 58, subsection 2, the rule is laid down that speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. The discussion with regard to this post office at Mahone Bay might have been taken up more properly under vote 125, but certainly when we start to talk about public buildings in another province the discussion is altogether out of order.


Eugène Fiset: I am only afraid,
sir, that by the time all these other requests Teceive consideration there will be no money left.


Thomas Cantley: I am not finished with
the New Glasgow post office yet. That building was constructed about fifty years ago, at a time when the population of the town and the immediately surrounding country which it serves was very much less than it is to-day. The situation there is very acute, as the minister knows.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Cantley: Who is talking about
order now? Last year plans were submitted to the minister; later, after discussion with his staff, revised plans were prepared and submitted to him; we discussed the whole situation on several separate occasions, and in the end I received, from the minister, as I said before, what I considered to be a definite gentleman's agreement that he would put in the estimates for the present year, and submit to and support before the treasury board, an amount sufficient for this work. I would ask him now if he did so.


Ernest Lapointe: That is secret; he cannot say that.


Mr. POULIOT:: Shall we be able to make
certain observations with regard to public buildings when the Quebec vote is reached?


John Frederick Johnston: Certainly.


John Wesley Edwards: Just on the point of order, Mr. Chairman; I have no wish to oppose the ruling, but I would like to get it quite clearly in my mind that under this

heading of public buildings it is only permissible to discuss those buildings already in Nova Scotia, or those which should be there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: I mean that literally. The discussion must not go beyond those buildings already there and other buildings which, in the opinion of members from that province, should be erected there. Is that right? A discussion of buildings in Ontario, for instance, would not be allowed at this time, in your judgment?


John Frederick Johnston: That is right.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: This discussion has been going on for some time, and without wanting to be unfair it does look as if Nova Scotia is being penalized. We have no vote at all for any public buildings in Nova Scotia while there are ten votes for Quebec immediately following, totalling over a million dollars. I would like to know why that condition has come about. Last year a delegation from my county came to Ottawa asking for the construction of a post office in the town of New Waterford. This is an incorporated town with a population of over 10,000 and the post office is in the back part of an old store. That delegation was composed of prominent Liberals from that county, and I refrained from accompanying them or from taking any part in the matter for fear the government might believe I was after some credit. I thought there would be a vote last year; I understood the delegation received assurances that something would be done for them, and I know they are looking for a vote this year. Surely such principles are not going to be tolerated, the government is not going to sit by quietly and allow such implications to be made, as we heard from the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). However, that building was either needed in Mahone Bay or it was not needed. If it was not needed the amount should not have been placed in the estimates, but once there it should not have been removed to suit the political desires of my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough, for whom I have the utmost respect.
I want to plead again with the Minister of Public Works, and to ask him if he will not consider the necessity of the town of New Waterford. I venture to say that of all the applications now before the government or to come before the government, none are

Supply-Public IForfcs
more1 deserving than, that of the town of New Waterford. I submit the matter to the Minister of Public Works in the hope that he will consider it when making up the supplementary estimates.


John Campbell Elliott: I know something about the town referred to by my hon. friend, and the post office there is doing a good business; if I am correctly informed there is quite a mining business there. It is just like many other places; it would be much better if a new public building could be erected, but as I recollect from our reports I do not think the condition of the building can compare with that of some of the others which we have had to refuse. However, I shall be very glad to give the question consideration when the supplementary estimates are made up. By doing that I do not want to be understood as making a promise that this will appear in the supplementary estimates, because I am not going to do that with regard to any application.


William Duff: I am sorry my hon. friend thought it necessary to criticize any remarks I made, especially in view of the fact that I am very strongly in sympathy with the idea of a new post office building in New Waterford. Last year, when this delegation was here, although it was entirely outside any constituency in which I have any interest, either as the member or otherwise, I accompanied these gentlemen; I do not see why the hon. member did not come along, but I was good enough to take this delegation to see certain influential persons in Ottawa, and the least he might do is to give me credit without criticizing me. Again within the last month I had a very strong telegram from a prominent citizen of New Waterford asking me to get a vote put in the estimates for a new post office for that town, and again I approached influential members of parliament in regard to the matter, so I think the least my hon. friend might do is to thank me for my good intentions.


Finlay MacDonald: Far be it from me to take away any credit at all from my hon. friend. I know exactly what he did last year and how enthusiastically he' worked, and if I have any regret at all it is that the influence of the hon. gentleman in having items included in the estimates is not so great as it is in having them removed therefrom.


Mr. HEPBURN:: I do not think it is fair
to the minister to ask all these picayune questions and make these trifling interjections at this time. We all realize they are inspired
more by politics than anything else. It is time we devoted our attention to business rather than to a controversy between two hon. members. It would seem from the arguments advanced here that when the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) was getting a public building it was politics in the eyes of my hon. friend opposite, but if the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg could get a public building it was good business. No one need be under the impression that only hon. members opposite have need of post offices. I think every member on this side has grievances in that regard which he could ventilate if he saw fit to do so. So much has been said about Mahone Bay that the time wasted and the expense-incurred through that discussion would represent a sum more than sufficient to build the whole town.


William Gordon Ernst: Very well, let us start.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Let the minister go on
with the public business, and if hon. members opposite have that interest in the public welfare which they claim to have they will show some desire to cooperate in the despatch of public business.


William Gordon Ernst: I was not aware that any
personal reflection had been cast by me upon the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, although the hon. member who has just spoken suggested that there was. If there is any suggestion that I made any such reflection I deny it emphatically.
I want to ask the minister, in view of the explanation given by the hon. member (Mr. Duff)-I am doing it in all seriousness-for the dropping of this vote, if he will not give an assurance that this item will be placed in the supplementary estimates. I also think it is the duty of the minister to inform the committee as to whether the dictates of a member who may happen to be annoyed governs the policy of his department.


William Duff: I never get annoyed.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


William Gordon Ernst: No, Mr. Chairman, I have
asked th.e minister two questions and I want to get answers to them.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I was astonished to find
that any member of this house thought the minister ever gave an assurance in a matter of this kind. I have been as importunate in the matter of post offices as any hon. member. There are post offices needed urgently in three different towns in my constituency, and I have not been able to get any assurance that they will be provided. Lest the minister
Supply-Public Works

may perhaps be impressed by requests from hon. gentlemen opposite I want to remind him, if there are to be any appropriations for post offices in the supplementary estimates, that I have three very urgent demands from my constituency.


Ernest Lapointe: Name.	.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You will have another
session.


John Wesley Edwards: I think the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) has put a question to the minister which affects every member of this house and every part of this Dominion. We have an hon. gentleman getting up in this house and declaring that at one time in his somewhat zig-zag political career he had importuned the government to build a post office in a certain place. Through the exigencies of politics he was obliged to run in. another constituency. Whether that fact had anything to do with bringing about a change in his mind or in his attitude we, of course, can only conjecture.


William Duff: What do you think yourself?


John Wesley Edwards: We have it from the hon. gentleman's own statement that at one time he thought a post office should have been built in this place, and he importuned the government along that line. Now he goes to the government and asks them not to build a post office where formerly he said it was needed. The hon. member for Lunenburg has put a proper question to the minister in asking whether or not he subscribes to that doctrine. The minister, remains silent on the matter, and unless he answers the question I say that he is indicted as agreeing to that kind of policy and saying that he, in the expenditure of public money, is influenced by that spirit. It does not come well from the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough, it seems to me, to say that there is no politics in this sort of thing. There is politics in it. Politics of the most partisan character is spread all over it.


William Duff: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: I say it is up to the minister to answer that question. It was a proper question, and it should be answered in the public interests.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh no, it is not carried.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to answer the question of my hon. friend if no other member has any questions to put before I do so. My hon. friend who has just spoken has

very properly urged the claims of a certain section of his riding to a public building, and I suppose there is no hon. gentleman here whose claims should be entitled to more consideration at my hands. He urged the matter sincerely upon my consideration, and I think he will agree with me that when I was not able to meet his views I was guided by official reports and the needs of various communities. That is what has actuated me in preparing these estimates. I do not want to cast any reflection on the criticisms which have been made, but those criticisms might have had some justification if either last year or this year any substantial number of post offices had been granted to constituencies represented by Liberals, Conservatives, Progressives or the members of any other political party. The grants for this purpose, since I have been in charge of the department, have been reduced to the barest minimum consistent with the necessities of public business. Now what we are considering is not a vote for Mahone Bay, or any other place in the riding represented by my genial friend; we are considering vote No. 123 involving an expenditure of $84,500, and the only objection that I have heard so far to that vote is that it is not large enouigh. There has not been one single objection against any item in that vote, and I do not consider the criticisms which have been made are well founded, in view of the fact that throughout the Dominion constituencies represented by both political parties have been treated in the matter of these grants in the same way.


Robert Gardiner: We have heard a great deal about public buildings that are not included in the vote. I think perhaps it would be well for the committee to get down to business and discuss the items that are actually before us.


John Wesley Edwards: 
Hugh Guthrie: The question has not yet
been answered; in fact, two or three questions have been asked the minister and so far he has failed to reply. It is idle for the minister to get up before an intelligent committee like this and discuss other post offices which may be in the estimates but which are not in this particular vote. This is a specific instance wherein a post office was recommended by the officers of the Public Works department. Can we have that report? What were the reasons given by the officers of the department when the building was originally authorized? I assume it was stated in that report that the building was urgently required. Who, then, was the officer that made the report? Has any officer of the department either withdrawn or overridden that report, or does the report still stand1 as indicating the view of the department, and is it among the files of the department? And why was the item withdrawn? If it was urgently needed in 1926 why is it not needed tc-day? We were told yesterday that there is some $40,000,000 of a surplus in the treasury. Why not implement this promise made to the people of Mahone Bay prior to the election of 1926? Cannot the minister answer this question in a direct way instead of side-stepping, as he did five minutes ago when the question was put? Does he approve a procedure whereby a defeated candidate in a particular constituency can override the vote of the House of Commons and say, "Drop that item, I was beaten in that constituency"? If that is not playing politics in an important department of government, then I do not know what is. This committee demands some explanation of that procedure.


John Campbell Elliott: I thought my hon. friend
was in the house when I made the explanation-


Hugh Guthrie: I have been here all
evening.


John Campbell Elliott: -that so far as the decision was concerned as to what should be included in the estimates, I took the reports that were before me at the time the estimates were being prepared and arrived at the best conclusion I could. I have no recollection of my hon. friend having interviewed me; I know he did not interview me this year in connection with Mahone Bay or any other place.


William Duff: Nor last year either.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not recall his having
interviewed me. My recollection is that for a considerable period of the session, while the estimates were under preparation he was not in the house. Naturally, my recollection of the matter is not as vivid as it was a year ago, but I know that for reasons that were considered sufficient then the vote was passed without an item for Mahone Bay. I want to assure my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) that there is no ground for his standing up and saying, upon an examination of these estimates, that they have been prepared with a view to meeting political emergencies.


Hugh Guthrie: I have said so.


John Campbell Elliott: Well, I say it is not so.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: We must all admire the
ingenuity of the minister; he has been asked half a dozen times to answer a simple question and he has skated around it about as smoothly as anyone I have seen in the house. This, I submit, ought to be done: until the minister is able to answer the questions that have been put by the hon. member for Frontenac and the hon. member for South Wellington the item should stand.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the question?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Upon what grounds was that post office recommended for Mahone Bay? We should have the report of the officials and then we should have an explanation as to why the item was withdrawn. That is what this side of the house is asking for, and that is what the minister will not give us. He has shown himself, I must admit, extremely clever in getting around the question, but I do not think we shall be satisfied until we have been given an explanation as to why this building was recommended, what was considered the necessity for it, why the item was withdrawn, and whether the minister gave his approval. Does the minister approve of the principle of a defeated candidate having an item removed from the estimates?


Mr. ROSS (Mbose Jaw):: The minister is being attacked as a very astute politician. May I point out that the hon. member for South Wellington stepped in at an opportune moment while the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. MacNutt) was discussing some property that had been bought at one time

Supply-Public Works
by 'the department and had subsequently been sold at a very much lower figure-at a loss of $10,000, I think. If this item has to stand pending the obtaining of information for the committee, I should like to have the minister bring down information showing when this particular lot was bought, by whom, and from whom. The fact that such a lot as the one referred to in the locality mentioned by the hon. member for Colchester was bought at a sum representing $10,000 more than its present value is something that does not look very good, at least to me. The hon. gentleman says that the town has grown and its business is greater than it was before; but certain property purchased by the Conservative government is not worth nearly as much to-day as the money originally paid for it. I say, I want to find out whom the property was purchased from.


Mr.   TOWARDS@Frontenac: The hon.
member makes one statement which will apply generally to the whole Dominion. He says that in this particular case property purchased while the Conservative government was in power is not worth nearly so much to-day under a Liberal administration. I am not going to quarrel with the hon. gentleman on that point; probably he is right. The people of Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, are realizing that property is not worth as much to-day under this government as it was some years ago.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I say it is not worth what was paid for it.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon.
gentleman speaks of the opportuneness with which certain members get up on this side, but I notice that he did not give the Minister of Public Works a chance to rise and reply to the hon. member (Mr. Hocken). The hon. member for Moose Jaw put himself in the breach to protect the minister or to give him a little longer time to think the thing over. Well, I submit that in all conscience the minister has had sufficient time to think it over. He might avoid for the time being the tactics which he evidently learned from that venerable Liberal statesman, Oliver Mowat, who used always to say, whenever any embarrassing question was asked him, "I shall take it into my most serious consideration." That was as far as one could get with that statesman, and evidently the Minister of Public Works is adopting the same method of argument. Here we have a statement from the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) that at one time he applied to the government for a post office in a constitu-

ency which he formerly represented, on the ground that such a building was very much needed. He used all his eloquence and exercised all his influence to have that building put up; it was sorely needed. That is fact number one. Fact number two: The people of that constituency got tired of him and refused to elect him again. Take along with that the next fact, which follows in chronological order. He comes to the government and says, "What I asked you before to do, I ask you now not to do. Do not give this constituency which refuses to express confidence in me the post office which they needed a year ago, and which they still need." I ask the minister again if he subscribes to that doctrine, if that was one of the things that influenced him and his department in refusing justice to this particular place. He has not seen fit to answer that question, and I repeat that until he does answer it he stands in the position of accepting that policy for his department and for the government, namely, that when a Liberal candidate happens to be defeated in a constituency he can come to the government and express his annoyance at the people who defeated him by influencing the government to withhold necessary and just grants to that particular constituency. That is the question, and I say that the minister ought to answer it, and tell us whether that was one of the representations he received that influenced him in cutting this item out of the estimates.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. friend in not answering his question, but I thought I had answered it already. He seems to be under the impression that at some time the estimates being prepared by me included an item for a post office at Mahone Bay, and upon that foundation he built up a splendid argument which made me think what an ornament the legal profession lost when the medical profession got my hon. friend. Might I just say in answer to him, and I think this will answer completely both his question and that of my hon. friend from Toronto, that they have both been going on an entirely wrong assumption, because never was there at any time an item for Mahone Bay in either the main or the supplementary estimates prepared by me. So I could never cut the item out. What may have taken place before, I am not in a position to say. I can only say that I certainly would not have cut out from the estimates for political purposes, an item that was already there. I do not think my hon. friend would charge me with that.

Supply-Public Works


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenae):: I should
like to return the compliment so graciously paid to me by the Minister of Public Works;
I should be lacking in courtesy if I did not do so. He is a brilliant member of the bar, and for him to pay me the compliment of saying that the legal profession lost a bright and shining light when I joined the medical profession I take as a very great compliment indeed, coming from one who is so pre-eminent in the legal profession. It is because of my great and high regard for the hon. Minister of Public Works and for his integrity that I am endeavouring to get him to answer the question, so that he can protect himself against a wrong impression. I confess that I am still in doubt whether or not he or his department was influenced by the efforts of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, and I do not want to go out of this building to-night with any doubt in regard to that matter.
I do not want to leave here with the impression that he was improperly influenced by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough in not putting this item in the estimates. It does not matter at all whether the item was in the estimates before or since he became Minister of Public Works. The item was in the estimates of the Public Works department, and to that extent the government of the day had recognized the justice of the claims of Mahone Bay, no matter whether the present minister or his predecessor included that item. I am asking the minister if he has been influenced by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, who says that he influenced somebody.


William Duff: I did not say that I influenced somebody.


Alexander McKay Edwards: My hon.
friend from Antigonish-Guysborough has stated that he told them not - to put this item in the estimates. Now whom did he tell? He did not tell me. He went to some member of the department and told them, and tried to influence them; and that he was able to influence them is evidenced by the fact that the item has been cut off the estimates, although Mahone Bay was a place that evidently the government had felt should have a post office. Because of my love- for the Minister of Public Works, because of my high eseteem and very great regard for him, and because he is new to the job, I should like him to clear himself of any possible misunderstanding in this matter by getting up and telling the house at once that he was never mfluenced one particle
by the representations made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. Immediately he says that, he will rise in the estimation not only of every member on this side, but of every member on the other side as well.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If I wei e of an irascible
temperament I should have a right to feel peeved because, when the hon. Minister of Public Works was paying fhe hon. member for Frontenae the compliment of saying that he would have made a good lawyer, he left me out altogether. Howeeer, I am not of that temperament. I have not for one moment during this debate thought that the influence that was exerted was brought to bear on the present Minister of Public Works. But we have with us to-night his predecessor, and if influence was exerted it must have been upon him, if not upon the present minister. There must be something on the files of the department which will give some explanation of this whole transaction, and I suggest again, Mr. Chairman, that this item be allowed to stand until the minister has had the opportunity of examining his files and bringing down a reasonable explanation of all the circumstances.


William Thomas Lucas: The minister stated a while
ago that he did not prepare the estimates last year which included a post office for Mahone Bay. I should like to ask him if he did not bring before the house last session, the supplementary estimates that were not passed the session before, and then ask this house to endorse them, which the house did. I think I am right in that.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: The other government did that.


William Thomas Lucas: Oh, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: I remember that last
year our friends opposite complained very much because an item of $12,000 was put in the estimates for a post office at Kensington, Prince Edward Island, and we spent a most interesting evening listening to our friends opposite opposing that item. This year, on the contrary, they do not ask us not to build a post office; they are asking us to build one at Mahone Bay. As we say in French, "autre temps, autres moeurs".


An hon. MEMBER.:: That is what Taschereau says.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: We have been
listening for several hours this evening to
Supply-Public Works

hon. gentlemen opposite complaining because the government is not spending $10,000 to build a post office in a place with a population of six or seven hundred.


William Gordon Ernst: Twice that.


Arnold Neilson Smith: Even so, I
maintain that hon. members opposite should congratulate and not blame the Minister of Public Works for refusing to spend money on . public buildings in a place of that kind.


John Wesley Edwards: It is all right to spend half a million dollars at Washington.


Arnold Neilson Smith: Washington is
going to spend half a million dollars in Ottawa. Is that wrong? I honestly think we should get on with the business of the country. People are anxious that we should not waste money by remaining here longer than necessary, talking about such ridiculous things as the building of a post office at Mahone Ray. We should proceed with the business and pass the vote.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: What my hon.
friend from Camrose said about the estimate is quite correct; these estimates were prepared in 1926 with the Mahone Bay item included. The estimates were partly passed in the session of 1926. After the election in the fall of that year, when the present government came back to power, my hon. friend became Minister of Public Works, and the remainder of the estimates of the previous session were brought into this house and passed right here, including the vote for a public building at Mahone Ray.


Ernest Lapointe: Without any discussion.


George Halsey Perley: No discussion and no consideration. The present minister was the Minister of Public Works when these items were passed in this house. Now what happened? I had a good deal to do with administering the department during the short time the Meighen government was in power in 1926; and I would say to the hon. minister and to this committee that before the Mahone Bay item was put in the 1926 estimates there would be on the files of the department reports from officers of the department in Nova Scotia as to the necessity of the erection of this public building. Based on that report the then Minister of Public Works put the item in the estimates. The present minister had nothing to do with that, but he was minister when it was put through without discussion in the fall of 1926. Then what happened? When the items for the next year are being prepared the basis on which they 
are first made up is the previous estimates. The Mahone Bay item therefore must have been struck out of the 1927 estimates by somebody; the name would be there unless it had been struck out. There would be some report in the department before the minister would strike out the item, unless he did it entirely of his own volition without reference to the officials of the department. What the members on this side of the house have asked, and quite properly, is that the minister should provide the committee with a copy of the report from the engineer's department on which the item was put in in 1926, also a copy of the report of the officers of the department advising him that the item should be1 struck out in 1927. As I understand the methods of the department that is what happened. There must be a basis, a report or recommendation of some kind, on which the previous minister inserted the item, and there must be something on file in the department on which the present minister based his decision to strike it out in 1927. We ask that that be provided, and I do not think our request is at all unreasonable.


Ernest Lapointe: I have heard many
theories presented to-night, and I am surprised at the theory suggested by my hon. friend just now. He says the estimates of the year must necessarily be based on the previous year's estimates.


George Halsey Perley: Not necessarily, but usually.


Ernest Lapointe: I might remind my hon friend that when he was himself a minister of the crown he was not absolutely faithful in following that theory. He was a prominent member of the government which took office in 1911. I do not know if other members of parliament have had the same experience, but I was a member at the time. There were items in the estimates concerning my own constituency in the session of 1910-11, prior to the election. There was a dissolution of parliament on the reciprocity issue, as my hon. friend remembers.


George Halsey Perley: Very well.


Ernest Lapointe: His leader took office. He was a member of the government, and by some mystery which my hon. friend might explain, these items disappeared. May I add that I did not whine? I took my medicine, and there were many on our side who did likewise for years. An hon. member on the other side made the comment that there are some items for public works in Quebec in these estimates. Maybe Quebec had been deprived

Supply-Public Works
for so long-ten years-that there must be something now in order to repair the loss. But during the whole of the time we were sitting on the opposite side my friends and I took our medicine and did not whine, session after session. But let me say that the estimates are prepared as a new piece of legislation every year. My hon. friend says this item was in the estimates; why did it disappear? It disappeared because the government did not put it back in the estimates. It is asserted that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is responsible for the estimates. Well, the estimates go before the treasury board and council, and when they leave council they are far different from what they were when my hon. friend brought them in. Last year we had this same discussion and finally the Prime Minister said, in answer to a question which had been repeated as many times as the question has been repeated to-night, that the government was responsible; and the government does take the responsibility. There are questions of policy in that respect as in any other respect. When the estimates are discussed in council the general policy of spending public money for the building of new post offices i3 discussed. Why should we distribute public buildings in Nova Scotia because that province is represented by Conservative members in this house? I cannot see that. It seems to be offered as a reason for the government's erecting buildings there which are not-given to the other provinces. I agree with the leader of the Progressive party when he, says we are wasting the time of the house and the country in discussing Mahone Bay on an item of public works for Nova Scotia. I would ask my hon. friend to accept the very plain and satisfactory explanation which has been given by the Minister of Public Works.


George Halsey Perley: Does the Minister of Justice think the item should have been dropped for the reasons given by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough? We on this side do not claim that public buildings should be erected in Nova Scotia because they are represented by Conservative members; far from it. The minister simply ignores the point at issue. Is the Minister of Public Works or is the government ready to say that this item for Mahone Bay should have been dropped for the reasons given by the member for Antigonish-Guysborough?


Ernest Lapointe: It has been dropped
for the reasons whidh have been given by the Minister of Public Works.


George Halsey Perley: He did not give
. any reasons. If the Minister of Justice
says-


Ernest Lapointe: He has given the
reason, that it is the policy of t'he government not to build so many public buildings at the present time. We are economizing; we are decreasing the public debt; we are reducing taxation.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I appreciate the attitude
of my hon. friend from Stormont (Mr. Smith). It must surely appear to him to be a waste of time to continue this discussion, but I wish to direct his attention to the fact that the responsibility rests entirely upon the government. The government, through its ministers, has absolutely refused to answer reasonable questions.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Oh yes, I think so. A
very serious principle is involved in the questions which we are putting to the Minister of Public Works and to which we are trying to get answers. Here is an appropriation put in at the desire of a man who was cultivating the constituency.


Mr. DUNNIN  G@: It was put in by the government.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It was put in by the
government at the request of a man who was cultivating the constituency. I think ne admits that.	.


An hon. MEMBER:: He says so.


William Duff: No, I denied it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have a great admiration for the frankness of my hon. friend (Mr. Duff). Well, this item is put in because he wants to cultivate that constituency. Then an election js held, and the constituency rejects him; whereupon he comes along and says, "I will get even with you fellows," or something to that effect, and feeling that way he persuades one minister of public works, or another minister of public works, or some person in the department, to strike the item out. He says so himself; there is no doubt about that. Now, what we want is the information from the files of the department giving the reasons for putting that item in and for taking it out. If public business is to be conducted in the open and these appropriations are to be made upon their merits, this question must be answered. We are entitled to an answer, and certainly if there is any resourcefulness on this side of the house we will get the answer.
Supply-Public Works


Alfred Edgar MacLean: In answer to
my good friend from Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken), I may say that my understanding of the situation is this. Those votes were in the supplementary estimates. We had a vote for our province in the same estimates. Those estimates lapsed on March 31, and it was necessary to have the votes embodied in the main estimates for last year. My hon. friend will agree with me on that score.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That does not get at the trouble.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I had an estimate for my own county. It would have been dropped the same as the Mahone Bay estimate if I had not kept persistently after the department.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Well, the point
I want to make is this:	The hon. member
for Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) failed in his duty -he admitted that last session on the floor of the house-in that he did not press for that vote to be included in the main estimates.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No.


William Gordon Ernst: The hon. member cannot
find any statement of mine to that effect; the contrary is the ca<se. I may say that I also have been persistent in my requests since the main estimates were submitted last session.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: This is not the
only vote that was dropped from those supplementary estimates; there were hundreds of others, and they were not included in the main estimates. It is up to the member for the constituency to see that the votes he is interested in are so included. It is too late after the main estimates are brought down to complain that his votes are not in. The place to take that matter up is the department, and I think the minister has shown that the vote in question was not included in the main estimates last year along with a great number of others. I notice there was $20,000 voted for Prince Edward Island in 1927-28 which has not been used. We would like to have another post office down there, and I suggest to the minister that this money should be used for the purpose of the erection of a post office building in Alberton in my province.


William Thomas Lucas: I should like to ask my
hon. friend (Mr. MacLean) what system he pursued in persuading the Minister of Public Works to look after his constituency; did

he use blarney or the big stick? I happen to be one of those unfortunates who had a vote dropped in the supplementaries, and although I used my best endeavours-and I am Irish too-I was not able to persuade the minister to reinstate that vote in the main estimates last session. But, seriously, Mr. Chairman, I think we have a very important principle to decide. To my mind it is a disgrace to the public life of Canada that a body of men who pose as being capable of administering our national affairs should stoop to the small practice of cutting out a vote for a particular constituency because the electors of that constituency did not see fit to return a member in support of that government. Are we to understand that the people are to be bribed with their own money and that the public works they are granted depends on how they vote? The Minister of Justice gave what he described as a parallel case, but it was not. I take it, Mr.. Chairman, that when those supplementary estimates were brought down in 1926 by the present Minister of Public Works, and he asked this house to endorse them, and they were endorsed, every one of them, those supplementaries should all have been placed in the main estimates for last year to be voted on by this house. It is a different question entirely where you are preparing new estimates.


Ernest Lapointe: 
William Thomas Lucas: I presume that was a change of government.


Ernest Lapointe: That changes neither
the theory nor the principle.


William Thomas Lucas: In this case the government
came in and changed its own estimates. Anyhow, does the minister think that is right?


Ernest Lapointe: I think a government
must assume responsibility for the estimates which are submitted to the house every session.


William Thomas Lucas: Those estimates had been
submitted to, and endorsed by, the house.


William Gordon Ernst: By the same minister.


William Thomas Lucas: By the same minister, and
yet when the main estimates were brought down the same session certain of those supplementaries had been dropped. I think an explanation is due from the Minister of Public Works.

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: The Minister of
Public Works has, I think, met the situation fairly and reasonably. But I have some knowledge of the former estimate which is under dispute. We know that during the war years there was a cessation of public works, particularly the erection of post office buildings, throughout the Dominion. We came into power in 1921. We continued that policy, and in 1922, 1923 and 1924 I do not think we were able to prevail upon the treasury board to allow any appropriations in the estimates for the construction of public buildings, although the public service throughout the country demanded such accommodation. No one will deny that during that period the necessity for the construction of these buildings existed. In 1925 I did prevail upon the government to the extent of commencing a small program.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


John Warwick King: Well, that is all
right. A small program was undertaken after I had pointed out to the government that there had been no construction for ten years and that the needs of the country were so great that the government should begin the construction of some public buildings in a small way. As for the selection of the points where these public buildings should be constructed, as the minister in charge at the time I am prepared to take the responsibility. Surely, however, no hon. member will contend that the government, having accepted that policy on the advice of the minister of the day, having voted supply and then having been out of power for a few months and having been returned to office, had not the right to change its policy. The Minister of Public Works may have differed with me there, although I do not say he did; neither do I say that if I had continued in that department I should have been able to prevail upon the ministry to continue that program. I am of the opinion that the public service throughout Canada does require a large expenditure in order that there may be proper accommodation not only for the service but for the employees engaged in it. However, you cannot eat your cake and have it too, and yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) made statements in this house which I am sure were of great interest to the people of Canada. In fact I am inclined to believe that the judgment of the government was better than mine, and that for the time being the cessation of the construction of public buildings was a wise policy, a policy which has probably been one of the factors which made
it possible for the government to relieve the burden of taxation and to reduce in some degree our enormous public debt.
With regard to what happened in connection with the re-voting of supply after the defeat of the King government in 1926, we know that the incoming government desired to pass these estimates en bloc, and endeavoured to do so. They were not allowed to do that, however, and they carried on during the interval by means of special warrants. When we returned to power it was understood, in order to clear up the financial situation, that it would be wise to vote the supply brought down in the winter of 1926 before the main estimates for last year were brought down.
I do not believe it can be contended that the estimates of this year are to be the basis of the estimates for next year or the year after. Each year is treated by the government with regard to the condition existing at the time the estimates are under consideration, and any one who has served in the ministry knows that the instructions are given out some weeks before the preparation of the estimates is begun.


George Halsey Perley: We do not object so much to the dropping of ,this item as to the reasons given by the hon. member (Mr. Duff) for its disappearance. In order to get on with the work, therefore, may I ask the minister if he will bring down copies of all the reports advising the construction of this building at Mahone Bay, and also copies of the files of record at the time the matter was dropped?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to produce for the inspection of the committee any files we have with regard to this or any other public building either in or out of the estimates. But in addition to that I want to clear up what I feel to be a misapprehension entertained by the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) and my hon. friend from Camrose (Mr. Lucas). The estimates to which they were referring were not, as you remember, the estimates that were presented last year; they were the supplementary estimates of the year before, and were presented either in the fall of 1926 or in the early part of the session of 1927. As I said before, no estimates prepared by myself contained the item with reference to Mahone Bay. Those estimates lapsed on March 31. They were not struck out; they went out of existence automatically on account of the ending of the fiscal year. This building at Mahone Bay, and the one to which my hon. friend from Camrose referred, were not reinserted for the reason that the government
Supply-Public Works

considered that other expenditures were more necessary. I want to give my friend an answer which I hope he will consider straight and satisfactory. He asked me as to whether or not I was influenced by the suggestions made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. I think he heard my hon. friend state that he had never spoken to me about it, and I have no recollection of his ever having done so. Therefore I am quite sure he is correct when he makes that statement, but at any rate I can say positively that I was not impressed by any such requests. They never came to me, so I could not have been impressed by them.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: May I ask the predecessor of my hon. friend whether the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough made representations to him to have that work stopped or struck out of the estimates?


John Warwick King: As Minister of
Public Works I found that most of the members came to my office and made quite proper representations in connection with matters pertaining to their districts, and I imagine the hon. member referred to came to my office and made representations similar to those made by other hon. members on both sides of the house.


William Gordon Ernst: The explanations which have been given make it more important that the item be allowed to stand until such time as the fife is produced. The minister has stated that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough did not speak to him in connection with this matter, while the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough positively states that he influenced the minister. That makes it all the more necessary to have the file produced in order to see what method was adopted by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, and I therefore suggest to the minister (hat this item be allowed to stand until the file is produced.


John Campbell Elliott: I have already stated to my hon. friend that I have no objection to producing the file, and I think my hon. friend should take my word for it. I say the file will be produced, and whatever correspondence took place will be laid on the table. On that undertaking I think my hon. friends might see their way clear to allow the item to pass.


James Dew Chaplin: A moment ago the minister said he would not produce the files of anything except the items in the present estimates.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Dew Chaplin: Do I understand the minister to say now that the file having to do with this particular matter will be produced?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Then I presume the minister will allow the item to stand.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Let the item stand. We may get information about it which will alter our view.


John Campbell Elliott: I call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that that file has no reference to, or no bearing upon, the items under discussion.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: But the items under discussion offer us the only opportunity we shall have of discussing the matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think so. I submit that we ought to have the information we are asking for before this item is disposed of.


George Halsey Perley: If the minister will provide the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg with the files that refer to Mahone Bay, and allow him to discuss the matter on "harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia", if he chooses to do so, will that be satisfactory?


John Campbell Elliott: Quite satisfactory.


George Halsey Perley: Then the minister will give us the assurance that the hon. member (Mr. Ernst) can discuss the Mahone Bay matter, when he has the papers, under the item: "harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia"?


John Campbell Elliott: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: Another night of it!


William Gordon Ernst: I must confess that I am still not satisfied, because when the vote for harbours and rivers is up it may mot be possible for me to be present. Therefore I will ask the minister to allow this item to stand until such time as the file is here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, mo.


William Gordon Ernst: I should hate to have to talk until 11 o'clock in order to explain my position. The Minister of Public Health (Mr. King) has advanced contentions which in reality are not arguments at all and have nothing to do with the question at issue. We n.ow get back to the basic issue, which is that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has stated that he did certain things; he had a certain vote put in the estimates and afterwards had that vote taken out. He has stated

Supply-Public Works
that two years in succession. Now what possible objection can there be to allowing the item to stand and then producing the file containing the papers referring to this matter, so that we can discuss it at a future date?


John Wesley Edwards: I submit that this is a request which has frequently been made in this committee and agreed to. You do not make any progress by simply crowding an item through. I am sure I am right in stating that neither the minister nor any member of the government has the slightest intention of preventing further discussion of this matter, and where can the discussion more appropriately take place than under this item? Let the item stand, as has been done hundreds of times in my experience. Whenever there was a decided difference of opinion, or when members have asked that certain items should stand until further information is forthcoming, the request has been acceded to no matter what government was in power. Why should my hon. friend object to such a procedure? If the government has confidence in the honesty of these items it should be the first to meet that request and say "very well; let us get on with the business; we will take up something else, and when you have had an opportunity to look into this matter we will resume the discussion." My hon. friends are not losing any time by following this course, but they cannot crowd an item through in the face of general opposition.


Charles Avery Dunning: "Crowd"?
Mr. EDWARD'S (Frontenac): If the government persists in its course I cannot use any other word. Why not let this item stand and go ahead with other items?


Charles A. Stewart: Is there any objection to the items in question? Has any information been asked for in regard to them?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: Not a bit.


John Wesley Edwards: Excuse me, but I am afraid my hon. friend and I do not see this matter in exactly the same light. I endeavoured to put myself straight by asking the chairman a question some time ago. If I understood him correctly, and I think I did, he considered the discussion was perfectly proper. I understood the government also considered it proper. I understood it was permissible to discuss public buildings under this vote, even though certain public buildings may not be mentioned in it, and I think that is the proper course to pursue. We shall not be doing wrong if we follow the general principle that where there is a decided difference of opinion, and further information is asked for, we allow the item to stand, as has been done hundreds of times in this house.


Ernest Lapointe: I would agree with my hon. friend if the item in question was for Mahone Bay, but there is nothing concerning that place in this item. The items here relate to Halifax, North Sydney and Truro. Item 125 deals with Dominion public buildings generally. There *is where the whole discussion should properly have taken place, as was stated by the chairman. Why not wait until that item is reached, if you deem it necessary to renew the discussion, and then you will have the file promised by the Minister of Public Works.


John Wesley Edwards: I appreciate the point of the Minister of Justice, but under our constitutional system when a government comes to the house and asks for supply, it is the right of any member to bring any grievance to the notice of parliament, and to ask for redress before any money is voted. That is the democratic principle of our British institutions, and it is one which has always been recognized. I recognize my hon. friend's point that the discussion might be taken up under item 125, but I maintain nevertheless that the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg has a right to make representations with respect to any grievance before supply is granted on any item.


Charles A. Stewart: I would
agree with the hon. member if any question were raised with respect to any item in this vote. But inasmuch as no question has been raised nor any information demanded regarding any items enumerated in the vote, it seems a strange thing for hon. gentlemen to ask that the whole vote should stand when they can discuss the matter later in the light of the information contained in the papers to be brought down. The request of my hon. friend does not exhibit any desire to expedite public business.


John Wesley Edwards: May I ask my hon. friend one question: Does 'he not recognize the soundness of the principle that any member representing the people has a right to make representations with respect to a grievance and to have that grievance rectified by parliament, or by the government, before any supplies whatever are granted?


Charles A. Stewart: That right is not being denied. The hon. gentleman is right when he says that items are allowed to stand with respect to which information is
Supply-Public Works

desired. But no information is sought with respect to the vote under consideration, and a promise has been given to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg that as regards the item he has in mind the information will be brought down and he will be given an opportunity to discuss it. I fail to understand therefore why this particular item should stand.


William Gordon Ernst: One word in reply to the
Minister of the Interior. He seems to have overlooked the fact-possibly he was not here during the whole discussion-that there are two aspects to this question. There is the aspect of the vote for the post office at Mahone Bay which was dropped last year from the main estimates that were tabled. There is also the question of the principle as affecting the estimates under consideration and other estimates. Certain representations were made by the hon. member for Ant.igon-ish-Guysborough, representations as to the principle upon which votes got into the estimates and were taken out. Before any estimate passes the house it is really the privilege of the house to know whether or not that principle governs in the voting of public money. That is really the question at issue apart altogether from the question of Mahone Bay. And that is why I ask that the vote stand.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will admit that the principle can be discussed on any vote which comes before the house on any occasion. The right to discuss that principle is inalienable; any member can invoke it on any vote which comes up. There is therefore no reason why this particular vote should be held up, for it does not touch the principle just enunciated by my hon. friend any more than does any other vote. In view of the fact that the Minister of Public Works has promised to bring down the papers I submit that the item should be allowed to pass. The minister's word is good when he promises, although I admit he is the hardest man to get to make a promise. However, he has definitely promised to bring down the papers with respect to this matter, and so far as the general principle is concerned it can, I say, be discussed on any vote. It is not correct to say that any gentleman is being denied the right to air a grievance affecting a matter of principle. I urge my hon. friend, on the very ground he himself takes with regard to the principle at stake, to allow the item under discussion to pass on the understanding that he may discuss that principle later. He may discuss it not once but one hundred times if he wishes to do so; there can be no difficulty about that. Other-
wise he must take the responsibility for merely obstructing until eleven o'clock, and that I do not think is desired. Surely this meets my hon. friend at all points. The hon member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). who is leading the opposition at the moment, suggested the course I am urging, and if we adopt it we can make some progress, at the same time giving the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg every opportunity on another occasion to discuss both the principle and the specific matter relating to Mahone Bay.


William Gordon Ernst: It is not my purpose to
obstruct, and I appreciate the honeyed words of the Minister of Railways. But the assurance which he gives is somewhat broader than that suggested by the hon. member for Argenteuil and accepted by the Minister of Public Works. If the Minister of Public Works will assure me that on some other vote I may discuss not only the principle but the particular question with reference to the post office, I am content. I am not discussing the matter merely for the sake of obstruction.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend said something about not being able to be here during the discussion of the vote for harbours and rivers. If he is not here when item 125 is discussed I will undertake to hold some other item to enable him to bring the matter up. He might let the item pass now,


William Gordon Ernst: That is perfectly satisfactory.


Thomas Cantley: Any arrangement as to
the Mahohe Bay matter reached by or between the minister and any member on this side does not interest me in the slightest. My well-beloved and usually generous friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), made some reference to the granting of post offices to constituencies represented by Conservatives. I am not asking for a post office and I have not done so. What I am asking for is to have repairs and alterations made to a building which is about fifty years old, the necessity for the repairs and alterations is admitted by the department, having been a matter of knowledge to them for several years. The request has been supported by the gentleman who opposed me in the county of Pictou, and correspondence from him is on file in the department in which he urges the importance of the work. I obtained from the minister last year what I consider a gentleman's agreement and I do not now propose to be put off without a definite assurance that something will be done in the matter within a reasonable time.

Supply-Public Works


George Taylor MacNutt: I have deferred discussing the question I am now going to bring up until the matter of the Mahone Bay post office should have been settled or an answer given by the minister. Since we have failed to secure any satisfactory reply in that regard I wish now to refer to the item of $1,300 for the tractor for postal purposes at Truro. I shall ask the minister a question which I am sure it is within his power to answer. But before doing so I want to take up the reference which the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) has made to my remarks concerning the purchase of a certain lot in Truro. In Hansard of February 15 the following questions and answers are given:
Truro Post Office Site
Mr. MacNutt:
1.	On what date was a lot in the town of Truro, Nova Scotia, purchased for a new post office site?
2.	What price was paid for said lot?
3.	To whom was said lot sold?
4.	What proportion, if any, of original lot was sold for church building purposes?
5.	Who was purchaser of remaining portion of lot?
6.	What price was paid by each of the two buyers ?
Mr. Mackenzie King (for the Minister of Public Works):
1.	July 11, 1914.
2.	$17,000.
3.	Part of site (100 feet by 165 feet) to St. James Presbyterian church for $3,300 and remainder of site (124 feet by 165 feet) to G-eo. L. Brenton for $4,500.
4.	5 and 6. Answered by No .3.
Now the committee will see that a very valuable lot in Truro, for some reason or other, was sold at a loss to the country of almost $10,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: Was it ever worth what
was paid for it originally?


George Taylor MacNutt: At the time these lots
were bought real estate values were higher than at present.


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1914?


George Taylor MacNutt: In 1914. In that town
prices were then high and this price was not considered exorbitant.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: From whom was it
bought originally?


George Taylor MacNutt: I did not ask that question, but I understand that it was bought from a widow. I know that in the town in which I live, Stewiacke, a lot was purchased for a post office from the widow of one of the strongest Liberals there.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is that the same lot?
56103-39	'


George Taylor MacNutt: No. In the town of
Stewiacke to-day we are carrying on our post office business in a little ten-by-twelve office which is utterly unfit for the purpose. I hope the minister will not decide to dispose of that lot, which was bought in 1914, in the same way that the department did in the case of the lot in Truro. In view of the report from the architects of the department, to the effect that the building at Truro could not possibly be remodelled except at an enormous cost, almost equal to the amount that would furnish a new building, I should like to know from the minister upon whose recommendation the department has acted. The people of the town of Truro feel this very keenly. They feel that they have received a black eye by having this lot disposed of at the price which the department realized. I hope the minister has the information available so that he can give it to us to-night.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to be allowed
to say a word in regard to the Truro situation in reply to what the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. MacNutt) has just said. In December, 1926, at the request of the board of trade of the town of Truro, I visited that town. I arrived at nine o'clock in the morning, on my way from New Glasgow to Moncton, and met the members of the board of trade and some members of the city council. I went down with them, examined both properties thoroughly, and made a thorough examination of the present post office accommodation. At their suggestion, as Postmaster General, I recommended to the Department of Public Works that the lot purchased in 1914 between the two churches be disposed of because according to their opinion, in agreement with my own, there was sufficient real estate attached to the present building at Truro to add all the modern improvements necessary to give Truro all the postal and customs accommodation it would. need for the next twenty years. I had the chairman, the secretary, and other members of the board of trade with me, and we fully discussed the matter. We returned to the station awaiting the train I was to take, and there it was decided that I should recommend to the Minister of Public Works the sale of the property thrrt had been bought in 1914, and recommend also the necessary improvements to the present building along modem lines. The present building can be improved, and a modem up-to-date addition can be made to it on a property the rear of which is vacant to-day, sufficient to give the town of Truro all the postal and customs accommodation that it will need for the next

Supply-Public Works

twenty years, without having to build a new building on a new site. More than that, the site of the present post office at Truro is the best available site in the whole town. It is more centrally located than the property that was purchased between the two churches at Truro, and I might add that there was a decided objection from the adherents of both churches that a public building should be put up in between the two churches. There is the history of my investigation as Postmaster General of the conditions at Truro, and it was upon my recommendation as Postmaster General that this property was disposed of. But before I took that action, I received the recommendation of the members of the board of trade at Truro, who met me at the station and visited both sites with me.


George Taylor MacNutt: I am very glad to have the minister acknowledge that he is responsible for the sale of the lot in the town of Truro. I am receiving letters frequently, and recently almost daily, asking me to have this matter brought up in the house, and these letters are not all from Conservatives either. I would like to know the gentlemen who accompanied the minister on that occasion.


Peter John Veniot: The chairman of the board of trade was one, and the secretary of the board of trade was another.


George Taylor MacNutt: Evidently a change has come over the people since, from the information I am receiving. I am very glad, however, that the onus of the sale of this lot in the town of Truro is now placed upon the shoulders of the Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: And upon the members of the board of trade of Truro. They recommended it.


George Taylor MacNutt: I will allow them to speak for themselves. I think I would take the opinion and the judgment of such men as the architect to whom I referred earlier in the evening, Mr. Rankin, who spent several days in that town making a report on the old post office, rather than the report of the Postmaster General, notwithstanding the high opinion I hold of his judgment. I think there is not a member of this house on either side who has ever made an attempt to remodel an old building, and this building is forty-four years old, who did not regret before he got through that he had ever started. The report I have referred to, which is on file in the Public Works department, shows that the cost of remodelling the old building to put it in the condition the public service requires would be almost equal to the cost of a new building, and even then you would still have [Mr. Veniot.l
an old building. I need not refer to the condition of the present building. The minister says that there is a lot of room in the rear. We know that there is room at the rear in nearly all our public buildings, but I say that the building will be entirely inadequate when it is completed and the cost will be so great that it would almost build a new one. I appeal to the Minister of Public Works, before attempting to spend a large amount of money on the Truro post office, to go very carefully and take the advice of his architects, who have already reported on it.


Robert Gardiner: I vrould aek the minister to give some explanation of these different items.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my bon. friend
was not in earlier in the evening when I gave an explanation.


Robert Gardiner: Yes, I was.


John Campbell Elliott: The first $25,000 is a payment to the Department of Railways and Canals for accommodation. It is really in the nature of a rental agreement. It is the amount that after considerable negotiation was arrived at as a fair price.


Robert Gardiner: What accommodation
was secured?


John Campbell Elliott: It is the immigration
building. We were able to arrive at that arrangement with the Department of Railways and Canals. This is the amount we paid last year, and for some years past I think. The item of $45,000 is required for repairs to buildings and wharves at the Royal Canadian Naval barracks. These are rather extensive repairs. First, there are general repairs to wharves and cambers, $20,000; reconstruction of foundation of thirty-ton crane, and erection of crane, $15,000; repairs and construction of parade and recreation ground, $10,000, or a total of $45,000. The next item of $5,700 is required for repairs and improvements to Rockhead hospital. This has been requested by the Department of Health. The alterations asked fpr consist of installing door bells, electric fixtures, and other items, eighteen altogether. The next item is $7,500 for an addition to a public building in North Sydney. If my recollection serves me aright, that is for customs purposes. It is a one storey building at the rear of a public building, and it is necessitated very largely on account of the seizures of liquor. They already have so many seizures on hand that their accommodation is practically all taken up.


James Dew Chaplin: Is it not a fact that seized liquor is immediately destroyed?

Supply-Public Works


Peter John Veniot: No.


James Dew Chaplin: What is done with it?


Peter John Veniot: It is kept for thirty days before it is destroyed.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is consumed.


James Dew Chaplin: Who consumes it? According to the Postmaster General the building is needed to hold the liquor for thirty days so that it can be poured down the sewer.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say it was poured down the sewer; I said it was destroyed.


James Dew Chaplin: Did the hon. member not say something about thirty days?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: According to this other
minister the building is required to hold liquor for thirty days so that it can then be destroyed. If that is the only use for the building the government had better make a change in the law, save the $7,500 and destroy the liquor at once.


John Campbell Elliott: This addition was asked for by the Commissioner of Customs in a letter dated the 18th of November, as follows:
I have to request that a one-storey brick building 30 feet x 70 feet be erected at the rear of the North Sydney, N.S., public building in order to provide adequate facilities for the examination of importations and more especially for the safe custody of seized goods.
This accommodation is absolutely necessary, as North Sydney is the headquarters for our preventive service operations around Cape Breton island and it is impossible to obtain the required security in rented premises. Alcoholic liquors constitute the bulk of the seizures, and the goods have to be retained for long periods on account of actions pending in the courts.


James Dew Chaplin: Quite satisfactory.


Arthur Edward Ross: As a matter of information regarding the naval barracks, did the minister state how many men are retained there on service or kept in the barracks?


John Campbell Elliott: The request made for this accommodation does not, I regret to say, state the number of men.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is it used now as a barracks, or is it in preparation for a new navy?


Mr. RALSTON:: This is an item which has been passed for a good many years. The amount is generally $30,000. Last year, however, there was no vote at all, and the additional $15,000 is on account of the repairs required.


Arthur Edward Ross: I should like to know what corps is being held in those barracks.


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell the number of men,-probably about 200. The naval stations are situated at Halifax and Esquimau.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is this $25,000 for the accommodation of immigrants? Can the minister tell me how many immigrants came into Halifax last year?


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid my hon. friend will have to ask the Minister of Immigration that question. This is the amount of the rental for the immigration halls at that point. As I said before it has been paid for a number of years. Formerly there was an arrangement by which the departments divided the expense in a certain way, and it did not work out satisfactorily. After considerable negotiation an arrangement was made for a lump sum of $25,000 to be paid by the one department to the other.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings, New Brunswick-St. John quarantine station, Partridge Island-repairs and improvements, $13,600.
Mr. BELL (St. John-Albert):: Will the
minister give me some information as to the details of this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
for general repairs and improvements to St. John quarantine station as requested by the Department of Public Health through the deputy minister in a communication dated December 2, 1927. The memorandum is as follows:
The proposed works consist of a large number of small miscellaneous items which are estimated to cost $13,520. They are as follows:
Alterations and repairs:
(1) Power House:
Cut out defective bricks in external walls and replace with new and coat walls externally with three coats minwax.
Construct one new store for bunkering coal, in location to be decided between Public Works department resident architect and medical superintendent.
Provide six ladders for fighting fire which may occur in the various buildings, (twenty feet to thirty feet long).
Cut opening between boiler room and main hall 2 ft x 3 ft for ventilating and heating purposes, provided with trims complete.
And other similar details which I shall be glad to read if my hon. friend desires them.


Mr. MacLAREN:: May I ask the minister if there is any special condition about New Brunswick to account for the presence of only-one item in the estimates for the province- $13,600 for the St. John quarantine station? There is no epidemic in the province so far as: I know. Why therefore this special and sole attention to the quarantine station? It is
Supply-Public Works

unfortunate if the quarantine station has the effect of keeping out of the province all votes for public buildings.


John Campbell Elliott: Do I understand my hon. friend to object to the vote?
Mr. MaeLAREN: Yes, I am objecting to the smallness of the vote.


John Campbell Elliott: I can assure my hon. friend that the vote is adequate to make the required improvements in the economical manner in which we make them.


Mr. PRICE:: Mr. Chairman, I have been very much amused by the defence offered by the government to-night of public expenditures, particularly those in the maritime provinces. Especially amusing was the explanation given by the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) of the extensions to be made at the Truro post office. It is becoming, a habit with the government to fit up old buildings as best they can, jack them up, piaster and replaster them, leaving them in an unsanitary condition, in those constituencies where the Liberal candidate was not successful at the last election. In 1885 a post office was constructed in the city of Moncton when the population was about five thousand. That building has been condemned from time to time by the architect of the Public Works department, by the architect of the Po3t Office department and by every other official who has inspected it. Yet the gross postal receipts have increased from $65,000 to over $400,000 a year, with net receipts of over $300,000, standing I think about sixth in the whole Dominion in so far as revenue is concerned.
A few moments ago members of the government referred to orders in council, and the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) stated that having been out of power for something like two months, the items they had placed in the estimates had no effect whatever on their being returned to power again. That is a very weak argument, and I think no one realizes it better than the hon. gentleman himself. However, he put it over in very good shape.
The discussion on the Mahone Bay post office vote discloses the fact that a defeated and disappointed Liberal candidate was able to prevail on the minister to withdraw that vote for what was admittedly a public necessity. If that is what this government is ready to do on the recommendation of a discredited candidate, which means that they are prepared to accept the responsibility of withholding from the general public in any constituency a post office or any other necessary public building, then I say the time will come when the electorate will deal with that government.

In the city of Moncton a private individual, a supporter of the present administration, purchased a property for something like $17,000. Four or five years ago, possibly six, but I think no more, the government, having been impressed with the necessity of building a post office in that city, selected t(he very property that this gentleman had purchased. An election was in sight, and I presume it was thought proper to pay a respectable price to the owner, and they handed him $49,000. This property they rented afterwards at $40 a month, and to-day it is occupied by an employee of the Canadian National Railways at a rental of no more than $49 per month, the government paying the taxes-a very fine income from an investment of nearly $50,000.
Now, from time to time the government has promised the people of Moncton a post office. As a matter of fact the present building is not sanitary, and it is so inadequate that the government has found it necessary to go to a middleman and get him to rent a place across the street and sublet it to the department. That is the condition of affairs there to-day-the government instead of renting the property from the owner is renting it from a middleman.


Peter John Veniot: Not for the post office.


Otto Baird Price: That is the practice of this
government. As I say, the people of Moncton require a new post office building. The old building has been repaired from time to time, and instead of putting up a new post office- which, as I have shown, is very badly needed to carry on properly the business of the department-the government are subjecting the postal employees to the inconvenience of looking after the public business in a building which has been condemned and which is inadequate and badly located.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, February 20, 1928