1929-06-13

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

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What are the names and salaries of officials of the civil service who enjoy the rank of deputy minister and who may not be actually in charge of a department, exclusive of those reported in unrevised Hansard, April 17, 1929, page 1720?


Mr. RINFRET:: Public Archives:
A. G. Doughty, deputy minister, $9,000. Auditor General:
The auditor general, Georges Gonthier, $15,000 per annum.
Office <of the Chief Electoral Officer:
Jules Castonguay, chief electoral officer, salary $6,000 a year.
Civil Service Commission:
Honourable William James Roche, M.D., LL.D., P.C., chairman, $7,000; Joseph Emile Tremblay, commissioner, $6,000; Newton McFaul MacTavish, M.A., D. Litt., commissioner, $6,000.
Library of Parliament:
There are two joint-librarians, each having the rank of deputy minister; i.e. Hon. Martin Burrell, parliamentary librarian, and M. J. de L. Tache, general librarian. Each receives a salary of $6,000 per annum.
Department of Justice:
E. R. Cameron, K.C., registrar of Supreme Court of Canada, salary $6,000 per annum.


CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE-OFFICERS PENSIONS
Mr. HUBBS:: How many officers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force had their pensions reduced under section (14) subsection (1) of the Pensions Act, in each of the years 1921-2-3-4-5-6-7?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: The information asked for is not available as statistics relating to individual sections of the Pension Act are not kept. To give a correct reply would involve an examination of the file of each disability pensioner since 1920.


IMMIGRATION-R. A. BURRISS
Mr. COWAN:: 1.	Does the Dominion of Canada own the site of the immigration hall at Port Arthur, Ontario, and the building thereon, and, if so, what did the site and building cost?
2.	When was R. A. Burriss appointed immigration officer at Port Arthur; what were the terms of his employment, and is any record available of the number of settlers located by him?
3.	When did R. A. Burriss cease to be immigration officer, and why?
4.	Why has no successor been appointed to fill the office of immigration officer at Port Arthur ?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Title vested in Canadian National Realties Limited.
2.	(a) The record of Mir. Burriss's employment at Port Arthur is as follows-February 1, 1899, as agent for the purpose of obtaining settlers from the United States. The terms of his employment were:-February 1, 1898 to March 31, 1899, allowance of $50 per month for expenses plus a commission of $3 for every male settler over 18 years, $2 for every female settler over 18 years, and $1 for all under 18 years. From April 1, 1899, to October 1, 1899, expense grant of $100 per month instead of $50 per month as formerly. August 1, 1900, placed on the salary basis of $50 per month from the Dominion government and $50 per month from the Ontario government. No commission. May 1, 1901, owing to withdrawal of Ontario government grant, appointed as temporary agent at salary of $1,000 per annum and travelling expenses when

Time of Meeting of Parliament
away from headquarters. September 1, 1901, salary increased to $1,200 per annum, (b) The amount paid to Mr. Burriss on account of bonuses for persons settled by him in Canada in, 1899-1900 was $209.	1900-1901 was $113.
The number of settlers actually located is not available.
3.	(a) December 31, 1911. Ob) No information.
4.	It was not considered necessary to continue an immigration agent at Port Arthur to encourage settlers from the United States; such work is better accomplished by Canadian agents resident in the United States. A full time inspector was appointed at Port Arthur in 1921 and this arrangement is still in effect.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1. In each department, what is ibhe total number of persons Who are filling positions that have been exempted from the operation of the Civil Service Act: (a) as full time employees; (b) as part time employees?
2.	What are the names and salaries or wages of clerks or other employees in any department who have been taken on as labourers or in other exempted capacities, but who are being utilized in occupations that are not so exempted?



GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS SUPERVISION COMMITTEE

Edward Joseph Garland: For the fiscal year 1927-28 what is the total amount of purchases made by the following departments (exclusive of any purchases made on their behalf by the "Government Contracts Supervision Committee"): (a) Indian Affairs; (ib) Interior; (e) Justice; (d) Marine; (e) Fisheries; (f) National Defence; (g) Mines; (h) Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (i) Post Office; (j) Public Works; (k) Public Printing and Stationery; (1) Railways and Canals; (m) Pensions and National Health?



IMPORTS OF WEAVING YARNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. B. PLUNKETT (Victoria):: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to a telegram I received this morning from the city of Victoria. This telegram reads:
Recent removal of 12J per cent duty on imported worsted weaving yarns is jeopardizing ultimate success of plant recently established here. City vitally interested in undertaking owing to having guaranteed bond issue. Understand matter has been discussed in house. Can you advise me what prospects are to get duty reimposed this session.
Mayor H. Anseomibe.
I would ask the minister to give me some assurance which will enable me to send back a satisfactory reply to this city. I explained during the budget debate how the city of Victoria-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member must confine his remarks to a question; he must not make a speech.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: May I ask, then, what
relief will be given to the city of Victoria in this matter?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: The changes affecting worsted yams were determined upon after a careful investigation of the whole industry, and this industry to which my hon. friend refers was started after those, changes had been made.



HUDSON BAY EXPEDITION SUPPLIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition); I have been asked to direct the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the fact that in the advertisements now appearing in Nova Scotia for supplies for the Hudson Bay expedition Campbell's soups are specified, and I understand that these soups are really an American product. The same thing may be said with respect to other supplies. I would respectfully direct the minister's attention to this fact in the hope that he may be able to provide that Canadian goods shall be utilized and not American products.
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I shall be pleased to look into the matter and try to meet my hon. friend's request, which is a reasonable one.



CONTROL OF RADIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. G. BELL (St. Antoine):: There is a rumour to the effect that all radio will be under the control of the Canadian National Railways. Can the Minister of Marine and Fisheries tell us whether there is any truth in that report?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I shall look into the question.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to inform the
[Mr. R inf ret. 1

Supply-Agriculture
house whether the government would take into serious consideration the possibility of calling the next session of parliament about the first of November instead of in February, as has been the case this year?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: After one of my hon. friends on the opposite side introduced the subject yesterday, I had prepared a schedule which helps to indicate the length of sessions in previous years. I shall be glad to furnish the hon. member if he so desires with a copy of that memorandum. I think he will find when the sessions were called in the fall that for the most part they lasted just as long into the following year as they have when the sessions began early in the new year. The house has had experience with both practices. Sir Wilfrid Laurier adopted for a time the practice of having parliament meet in November and it was discontinued later by Sir Robert Borden, largely I think on the representation of members from western Canada who complained that they should not be kept away from their homes so long. However, with respect to the time of the meeting of parliament, that like all others is a matter which the government will have to consider in the light of existing circumstances. I regret I cannot say more than that, but the government will do in this as in all else, what it believes to be most in the national interest.


George Gibson Coote: May I point out that we have now new rules governing procedure and if parliament were called on the first of November there is no reason why the session might not be through by the first of May. It seems to me it would be much better for all members of parliament, particularly those who come such long distances.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Health of animals, administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, and necessary buildings, $2,450,000.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I have a suggestion to make with respect to this vote. There was some discussion on it the last time it was before the committee and in order to expedite the passage of these items I suggest that further discussion of the vote be deferred until we come to the supplementary vote of the same character, No. 361, with respect to health of animals. It would facilitate business if we passed now this large vote in the main estimates, leaving further discussion until we reach that supplementary vote. I have no idea of restricting discussion, but it would make for greater progress in disposing of the smaller items which immediately follow this vote.


Mr. BENNETT:: If it meets with the view of hon. members to the left, I think it would serve some useful purpose to do so. There would be no lessening of the discussion and we would get the matter in hand as we go along.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is all very well, but this vote might be called some night at a quarter to twelve o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be called now, I understand.


William Richard Motherwell: No, we just want to make some progress on the smaller items.


Edward Joseph Garland: If we can have the assurance that this item will be called at a reasonable hour, in order to give us an opportunity of debating it, that might be all right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest that we discuss both items together.


William Richard Motherwell: We might keep at this for an hour and not make very much progress. My suggestion is that we let this go through and then have the discussion on the same item in the supplementary estimates. Then we can make some progress in the smaller items following the main vote.


George Gibson Coote: This seems a peculiar suggestion. If the minister desires to get on with some of the smaller items, why not call those items and let this one stand?


William Richard Motherwell: Very well.
Item stands.
Entomology, $25,000.


Mr. TUMMON:: Under this item I might repeat the question I asked the minister some time ago. Recently there was an announcement that property had been obtained in the city of Belleville for the Department of Agriculture, and I presume that it has reference to this vote. I would be very glad if the minister- would make a short statement as to the work he intends to carry on at that point.


William Richard Motherwell: I am reminded by my deputy that the building in Belleville to which my hon. friend refers is for the purpose of housing all our staff in that vicinity, including our seed inspection and entomological staffs. The purchase has not been completed as yet, but it is in the course of
3G78
Su-p-ply-Agriculture

completion and we secured the building at a very good price, very much less than it could be built for at present.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of Destructive Insect and Pest Act, and necessary buildings, $580,000.
George Gibson Coote: Would the minister tell us the reason for this increase of $50,000?


William Richard Motherwell: The insect invasions of Canada are becoming more numerous and more serious all the time, and we have to spend more money to circumscribe their activities. I have in mind the campaign carried on by the provincial government of Ontario and ourselves against the com borer, as a result of which the com acreage has come back to 75 per cent of what it was before the invasion of that insect, showing that- our activities have been successful in restricting its ravages. Then there is the oriental peach moth; by keeping after that pest continually I think we can save at least a remnant of the peach crop.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What part of this vote is intended for buildings? There is a miscellaneous item which we are told includes the construction of a very costly building, perhaps costing $150,000. I think estimates which deal with the extermination of pests and at the same time include buildings are not very good unless it is indicated just what the buildings are, how much of the estimate is to be expended for that purpose and to what extent there is a co-relation of the activities of this branch of this department with the research bureau, because I take it that you are studying methods by which to destroy these insects and pests which are so injurious to agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the point is well taken. When I took charge of the department I found that there were a certain number of small buildings being erected, costing up to $4,000, without such provisions being made. I consulted the Auditor General about it and he thought if we were going to put up further buildings in connection with these votes it should be so indicated. This reference to buildings was first included in the entomological vote when we erected the rust laboratory at Winnipeg; that was included in the vote after consultation with the Auditor General and it has been continued since. However, there are no buildings anticipated under this year's vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
tMr. Motherwell.]
Salary and expenses of agricultural produce marketing agent in Great Britain, $15,000.
George Gibson Coote: What part of this item is for salaries?


William Richard Motherwell: I believe Mr. Wilson has reached his maximum; I think his salary is $5,200.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Farm economics, including agricultural cooperative marketing, $10,000.
Mr. GARDINER:: I notice this is a new item. Will the minister explain?


William Richard Motherwell: This matter has
been under discussion for several years; it has been more or less in the public mind, and since cooperative marketing is becoming more popular and is practiced more and more throughout Canada it was felt by my staff and myself that it was time we had a central organization, a sort of clearing house for these activities, since some of these organizations are now becoming Dominion-wide and someone should be in charge of work of this kind. Up to quite recently this work has been of a provincial character, but there are now several Dominion-wide cooperative concerns, such as the Cooperative Livestock Growers' Association, the Cooperative Wool Growers' Association and others, and there are a great many activities which necessitate a Dominion branch in charge of that work, in cooperation with the different provincial authorities.
In a word I believe that is the object of this item. We are now advertising for a director for this work, and we hope to secure the services of some well qualified man. Of course this is a Civil Service Commission appointment and will take some time to complete, but we hope the appointment will be made before the end of July. Our intention is to have a properly qualified man commence work with a survey of these activities in order to find out all the different aspects. There are many cooperative activities being carried on; some of them are stock companies, some are pools of a voluntary nature, some have contracts for three or five years, and in British Columbia there is one organization of a more or less compulsory nature, so a survey will be necessary in order to get a line on this work, since we realize that we cannot have similarity in such a large country as Canada.


George Gibson Coote: Will t'he minister tell us
what will be the title of this official?

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: He will be the
commissioner of agricultural economics, and his salary is advertised as $4,320.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Would the minister
tell us if it is proposed to break any new ground in this work, or will the duty of this official be merely to assist existing organizations? Will he go in to new fields and try to develop new cooperative organizations?


William Richard Motherwell: Of course he will
be working in cooperation with those organizations already existing. We conducted a campaign in the county of Essex with the idea of organizing the tobacco growers. We had no officers of our own for that purpose and we applied to Mr. McPhail of the central wheat pool to let us have some men of agreeable personality, skilled in that class of work and possessing knowledge of the whole subject. They sent down three men and we obtained from them a lot of information. Conditions were not absolutely favourable to the continuance of the work which we hoped to take up later on because there was an organization already in existence. There were many problems which made it difficult to go any further, but. this is one of the things which should be taken charge of in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture of Ontario; something should be done for the tobacco growers in western Ontario because they are too much at the mercy of those who buy and the question of quality is not receiving the consideration it Should. This and other matters are largely of federal concern, and I think there is a very decided place for a service of this kind.


Milton Neil Campbell: I desire to commend
the .minister for taking this step, and I trust the venture will be a successful one. May I suggest to the minister that it might be well to spend a little money to look into the whole matter of the cost of distribution. Whether or not you call it cooperation, that is one of the great problems which will have to be solved. A few days ago the hon. members from the maritimes were complaining about the difficulties they encountered in marketing their fish. As the hon. minister knows, we would buy their fish in the west if it could be purchased at a price we could afford to pay, and the same thing applies to British Columbia fruit. It seems to me that this question of the cost of distribution is one which might be taken up by the official whom the minister proposes to appoint under this item. The following appeared' in a recent issue of The Western Producer of Saskatoon: Apples which sell at $2.50 a box return about 50 cents to the producer. If butter which sells 78594-233
at 50 cents a pound only returned ten cents to the producer for butter fat what would the producer of buttter fat do? Would he clamour for | cent a pound tariff to save his business, or reorganize his method of marketing? The fruit grower thinks a tariff of | cent per pound helps him out.
I would like to quote from an article which appeared in the Manitoba Free Press last fall, as follows:
The prairie provinces are the natural market for the fruit-grower of British Columbia, and that market could be greatly enlarged, without waiting for future increase of population, if there could be a reduction in the retail price of the fruit on the prairies. The British Columbia apple is an excellent product and the consumption in these provinces is limited only by the ability to purchase. There is no doubt that the sale now is much larger than a few years ago when the west was suffering from a severe depression. The people are buying more because they are able to do so, and they would buy still more if the price were lowered.	_	_
A very large proportion of the retail price goes to pay handling costs, freight, and wholesale and retail dealers' profits, leaving only a fraction of the price to pay the fruit grower for the care of his orchard and interest on his investment. The handling and distribution charges on a box of apples are given as follows by the Western Producer of Saskatoon after
an investigation of the matter:
Cents
Box	 16
Paiper for wrapping	 5i
Labelling	 1
Packing	 7
Lidding	  1
Superintendence, loading	 10J
Associated Growers' charge	 7
Total handling and	shipping charge. 48
Freight to Saskatoon	 56
Wholesalers' profit	 40
Retailers' profit	 60
Total charges	$2 04
If there is an overhead charge of $2.04 per box, before the producer of the apples gets one cent, then it is a serious matter and something which the department should examine into. These figures are based on carload rates to Saskatoon, but those of us who live in the little outlying villages know that apples have to come from the larger centres such as Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Yorkton and so on, and they are distributed at less than carload rates which runs the cost up much higher. It means that we have to pay $3.50 to S4 per box, and the average small town dweller or farmer is not able to pay that much. I have known of cases where the British Columbia producer got only a few cents per box for his apples, and I think the official whom the minister proposes to appoint should go into this matter, not merely with regard to apples or fish,

36S0
Supply-Agriculture

but he should consider the broad question of the cost of distribution. It seems to me that this cost of distribution is more important than the tariff, and if we spent a little money trying to get that cost down I believe we would get somewhere. It would not only reduce the cost of living, but we would be increasing consumption by enlarging the market for our own products.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, I
cannot take any exception to the remarks of the hon. member but I would draw his attention to the fact that the term "farm economics" is a very wide expression. The qualifications asked for in the advertisement for this vacancy cover exactly what my hon. friend has been discussing. If my hon. friend desires I will read the advertisement, but it takes care of the services to which he referred.


Mr. ROWE:: How large a staff will this
appointee have?


William Richard Motherwell: We are calling for
only a small staff, an assistant and a secretary.


William Earl Rowe: With the head office in
Ottawa?


William Richard Motherwell: There will be just three at the outset.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contributions to Empire Bureau, $25,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: As this is a new vote, will
the minister kindly give an explanation?


William Richard Motherwell: At the empire conference of 1923, this question was tentatively brought up; some progress was made, but it was really just a start. At the conference of 1926, at which the government and the department heads were well represented, the matter was dealt with again and a tentative program was laid out for the establishment of these clearing houses or bureaus, for the centralization of agricultural information from the whole empire. Doctor Orr of Rowatt Institute and Sir Robert Greig were appointed in Great Britain to do the initial work in the matter of organizing these bureaus in the different parts of the empire. Many of the dependencies have expressed a desire to work in cooperation with the central bureau in the United Kingdom. One bureau has been established at Edinburgh, which has to do with animal genetics, or animal breeding. There, all the questions, we will say, of contagious abortion, sterility in cows and many other diseases are studied and the causes worked out. Any information we get in Canada or in any other part of the empire, for instance, when we make any discover}' with respect to any of these diseases, we immediately forward to fMr. Campbell.]
the central bureau which acts as a clearing house and which in turn forwards it to all the rest. All the units of the empire engage in this great work. Therefore we are cooperating with each other, for example one of us finding out something about a particular disease, perhaps not enough to make it public but enough to forward to other workers in the same field of activity so as to put them on their guard as to what course to pursue with respect to the problem. Let me cite the case of rickets in pigs. That comes under the question of animal nutrition. I am sure all farmers in Canada, especially in the west, know what it is to have rickets in pigs. If you once see a rickety pig, you will never forget its appearance. This question is being studied in all parts of the country and if research workers in any country discover something in regard to the cause of it-and it is largely connected with feeding-that information will be transmitted to all other bureaus.
There is another branch that has to do with micrology, that is science which treats of microscopic objects. For instance, it deals with rust and other kindred diseases. We have six of these investigators who are working in cooperation with every part of the empire. Every dominion has joined in this bureau proposition and it is now pretty well established and in line with the central bureau, not only giving information but receiving it in turn.


William Earl Rowe: We have heard about rickety pigs and other things, but we have not heard anything about how the minister is going to spend this $25,000.


William Richard Motherwell: 
William Earl Rowe: What about the other $10,000?


William Richard Motherwell: One of them is
$5,000 and the other is $1,500. They are included in this vote.

Supply-Agriculture


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Where is the main central bureau? Is it in London?


William Richard Motherwell: The central administrative offices are in London under Mr. Chadwick.


George Halsey Perley: Is he in one of
the government offices.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, and the others are located at various points throughout the United Kingdom.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Department of Agriculture, province of Nova Scotia, to complete amortization of the debt against the science building at the Agricultural college, Truro, Nova Scotia, $8,389.08.
Robert Gardiner: Is this the last payment necessary to complete this contract?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dairying, including grant of $5,000 to the National Dairy Council and necessary new buildings, $295,000.
William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister explain the increase in this item?


William Richard Motherwell: This is for a
laboratory to be established at the experimental farm. It is primarily for the purpose of giving us accommodation for conducting our research work in dairying. We have a very important export product in cheese and occasionally we have found trouble with bacteria. It takes some time to develop and we have found difficulty in discovering it without more up to date equipment than we have at the present time. For instance, in Grenville county recently-and the hon. member for that constituency spoke to me about the matter-there was some difficulty in connection with shipments of cheese from certain factories. It was discovered that after the cheese was of a certain age it developed deleterious bacteria. Complaints were made and we took up the problem even with the facilities that we have in this city, and found out the cause of the bacterial action. We discovered that it was due to the preservative that was put in the curd and that should not have been put in. It was thought proper to add saltpetre to cheese to discourage the development of certain flavours. But it was found to have the opposite effect. It was a good thing that this was discovered before it had continued for any length of time, because a number of cheese factories were pursuing this practice and they were notified to 78594-233^	.
discontinue it. Instead of preserving the cheese, it had the opposite effect. We want to do work of that nature expeditiously so as to check any unwise or harmful practice before it adversely affects the cheese.


William Earl Rowe: How many new inspectors are included in this vote?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think any particular inspectors will be necessary on account of the establishment of this laboratory. I think we shall have to have one or two more graders for the purpose of keeping track of the work. This trouble got quite a start before it was drawn to our attention. As a matter of fact it did not develop until the cheese got across the water, and we want to keep closer tab than we are able to do at present. We want to lock the door before the horse is stolen, before any danger arises, and that is why we require these additional facilities.


Robert Gardiner: I notice a grant of
$5,000 to the National Dairy Council. What, in the minister's opinion, are the functions of that council? Is it primarily political, for the purpose of advocating an increased tariff on dairy products?


William Richard Motherwell: This institution was organized before I had anything to do with the Department of Agriculture, but I have found it a very useful organization in promoting the cause of dairying.


Edward Joseph Garland: And the
cause of protection.


William Richard Motherwell: It was organized before I came here, but I do not consider it the better or the worse for that. I remember the late D'Arey Scott, the secretary, and the late Mr. Stonehouse, the president, were there when I had first to do with it. I found they were very efficient officers working for the general promotion of the dairying industry throughout Canada. I have reason to think the activities in that direction are quite as useful still. If my hon. friend has anything he wishes to bring to my attention with regard to the activities of the National Dairy Council, I think I have under my hand a statement with regard to what they are engaged in doing.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the minister not think that the activities of the National Dairy Council have, for the past two years, been directed very largely towards the cause of the protectionist, rather than to the improvement of the dairy industry?
Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: May I first read
this memorandum:
The National Dairy Council is an association composed of representatives of the various branches of the dairy industry. It was originally formed for the purpose of advancing the dairy industry throughout Canada by taking such steps both legal and otherwise as would best bring about the end in view.
One of its first activities consisted in the efforts made to have legislation passed prohibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada. It has also been of considerable service to the dairy industry, through representations to the Board of Railway Commissioners, in having conditions improved and freight charges adjusted in connection with the transportation of dairy produce generally.
The organizations represented in the National Dairy Council are as follows:-
British Columbia Dairymen's Association.
Alberta Dairymen's Association.
Western Ice Cream Manufacturers.
Alberta Producers' Association.
Saskatchewan Dairy Association.
Western Butter Manufacturers.
Manitoba Dairy Association.
Western Milk Distributors.
Dairymen's Association of Western Ontario.
Eastern Ontario Dairymen's Association.
Canadian Creamery Association.
The Ontario Milk Producers' Association.
Canadian Association of Ice Cream Mgrs.
Condensed Milk and Powdered Milk Interests.
Quebec Dairy Association.
Montreal Milk Producers' Association.
Montreal Milk Distributors.
Canadian Produce Merchants' Ass'n.
New Brunswick Dairymen United.
Nova Scotia Dairymen's Association.
Prince Edward Island Dairy Association.
Holstein-Friesian Association.
Canadian Ayrshire Breeders' Association.
Canadian Jersey Cattle Club.
The newly elected president is Mr. F. E. M. Robinson, of Richmond, Quebec, while the secretary-treasurer is W. F. Stephen, of Ottawa, Ontario. The National Dairy Council obtains a grant from the federal government of $5,000 per annum.
I gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River that he thinks these gentlemen have something akin to protective ideas with respect to their industry.


Mr. ROWTE:: They should have too.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend think that with these grants should go a condition that these people circumscribe their views with regard to certain questions? Should I say to Toronto, for instance, which gets a large number of grants: "You must not be so protectionist as you are." I do not see how I could do that effectively.


William Earl Rowe: You will never do it either.


William Richard Motherwell: Speaking quite
seriously, I do not see how we can in a democratic country give grants of this nature and

then dictate what the recipient shall or shall not discuss. I remember that when I was connected with a grain growers' organization myself in the old territorial days we got a very modest grant of $250 from a Conservative minister of agriculture, and I can imagine what remark I would have made if he had said: "We will give you this grant but you must say and talk about the things I want you to talk about." I do not think I would have taken the grant under those conditions, and I likely would have had something to say besides. I cannot imagine any line of advice that could be given to the recipients of these grants that would not be considered wholly objectionable under our conception of demo-cractic government. We are making dozens and scores and hundreds of grants of one kind and another all over Canada, and we have never thought of imposing any such conditions. I may say to my hon. friend that I have suggested to different organizations that it would be easier for me to continue the grants they were receiving if they were not so free in discussing controversial questions at certain times, but I have never thought of imposing any conditions upon them; I just pointed out my difficulties. We have an example of those difficulties right now in the criticism of the hon. member for Bow River, whose opinion I usually regard with high favour, but not this one.


Edward Joseph Garland: I can
imagine no circumstances under which the minister could be silent. As to this particular point the minister's difficulty is quite clear. I should imagine that precisely the same difficulty would meet the Prime Minister, say, when he was selecting his cabinet, that if it were made a condition that every member of the low tariff ministry must be really a low tariff man and never preach anything but low tariff, terrible complications would ensue in the present ministry, and I take it that it would be almost hopeless for them to attempt to carry on. So the same policy is to be carried out in regard to the National Dairy Council that prevails with the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches now-let every man have his own opinions, let him give them out to the world if he wants tq, but when election time comes around we will all tell the people how gallantly we are fighting for low tariffs; but in parliament when the session is on we will make sure there is no material reduction in the tariff.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: With reference to the fist of dairymens' associations which the minister has just read, I would draw his attention to

Suppl y-Agricul ture
a statement made in the house a few days ago by the hon. member for Yale, who said that a large amount of imported Australian butter was being wrapped in Canada in other wrappers and sold as Canadian butter. It is quite evident that the farmers in this country who milk their cows would not be doing that, and evidently it must be the dairymens' associations that are perpetrating this fraud. I would ask the minister to investigate that matter.


Mr. BARBER:: I think we have a right to
an answer from the minister as to whether it is permissible under the regulations to bring in forty or fifty cars of New Zealand butter, work it over in the dairies of this country, wash it and sweeten it, and sell it to the people as Canadian or Ontario 'butter.


William Richard Motherwell: Of course, that is
quite contrary to the regulations, and if my hon. friend or anybody else will supply us with some evidence we will certainly investigate it. We are investigating complaints all the time. There is not a month that we are not prosecuting somebody for some offence under the regulations, and we do not mind taking on one more.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is it not the duty of the department to investigate these complaints of its own initiative?


William Richard Motherwell: It is true that
quite frequently complaints are investigated following reports from our own inspectors; whenever complaints are made we investigate.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The direct charge was
made in this house by an hon. member that certain companies were importing Australian butter, rewrapping it in Canadian wrappers, and selling it as Canadian butter. When these charges are made in this house by an hon. member surely it is the duty of the department to investigate them and try to get evidence substantiating the charges.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: More specific charges
than that have been made in this house. The statement has been made by hon. members that you do not have to go outside of this very district to find that that practice prevails only a few miles from Ottawa.


William Richard Motherwell: I am sure the
Minister of Justice can testify to the fact that hardly a month passes when we are not prosecuting someone for violation of our regulations. In connection with the live stock records here in Ontario, for instance, we prosecuted and had a man fined on four
charges, and the fines aggregated $2,000. There can be no complaint made against the department of reluctance to prosecute offences under the acts or regulations. Just bring us something like evidence and we will investigate it for all it is worth.


William Ernest Tummon: Has the department
made any investigations in regard to this particular matter?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Mr. FRASER:: Have any of your inspectors ever brought to your attention cases of the kind just mentioned where New Zealand butter is being wrapped in Canadian wrappers and sold as Canadian butter?


William Richard Motherwell: One or two. The
inspectors report to the Dairy Commissioner, he reports to the deputy minister, who reports to me. Complaints have come, but we have not had sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution.


Mr. SENN:: Is it not a fact that any dairy company that is sending out butter under its own label has to have that label registered? When they are reworking New Zealand butter and sending it to the market they put it in a different wrapper entirely, so they are not evading the regulations, after all. Is not that the reason that there have been no prosecutions?


William Richard Motherwell: They have to have registered labels for export cheese and butter. There is neither compulsory inspection nor labelling of cheese or butter for home consumption.


William Ernest Tummon: Under the regulations is
it legal for a creamery to put New Zealand butter into their churns, work it over, sweeten it, and put it in pound prints and wrap it, placing the name of their factory on the wrappers?


William Richard Motherwell: That is entirely
illegal.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Wellington):: Does the
minister say it is not being done?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not say it is
not being done at all. We would like to get sufficient evidence to enter a prosecution; but we have not had that yet.


John Ewen Sinclair: Then where is all this New Zealand butter going, what is it being sold as?


William Richard Motherwell: As New Zealand
butter.
Supply-Agriculture


John Ewen Sinclair: lam advised that a number of creameries buy New Zealand butter, wrap it and sell it as their own. Is this really taking place?


William Richard Motherwell: I have not heard
of it.


John Ewen Sinclair: Then what are they doing with carloads and carloads of New Zealand butter that they are buying?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand from my deputy that if the butter is sent out in wrappers bearing a name, without any indication of the source of origin, it is not a violation of the law; but if designated as Canadian butter when really it is of other origin, that is a violation of the law.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any regulation in force which requires that imported butter be sold with the name of the country of origin on the package?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Robert Gardiner: That should be done.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think this discussion is well justified. If the Minister will bring in a regulation requiring that no butter be sold in this country without bearing on the package the country of origin, it would work no hardship on anybody. The minister says that to-day New Zealand butter may be taken into the creameries, rewrapped there and sent out in any kind of package so long as that package does not state that the butter is made in Canada.


William Ernest Tummon: But bearing the name of
the creamery doing so.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, bearing the name of the Ottawa Dairy, the Fraser River Dairy, or whatever other dairy it may be, creating the impression in the public mind that it is Canadian butter. That is wholly unfair. If that is the case, I think the minister would be well advised to bring in the necessary regulation, if one does not exist- he says it does not-to require on the package the country of origin of butter of this character.


James Alexander Robb: Would my hon. friend apply
that policy to all importations?


Edward Joseph Garland: I think so. We rather pride ourselves on our exports of agricultural products; we are proud of our cheese, cream, wheat, beef, and are very glad to have it marked Canadian. I see no reason whatever why goods imported into this country should not be always marked with the country of origin.


James Dew Chaplin: I think the Minister of
Agriculture must realize that such a practice is against the ordinary food laws of this country. This is nothing more nor less than a fraud upon our people, and I think those perpetrating it could be proceeded against under the ordinary common law. It is nothing more, nothing less, than a fraud.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend need not get quite so excited.


James Dew Chaplin: I am not excited at all.
The minister should be excited, but he is not.


William Richard Motherwell: This is not the
time to get excited.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It is too late in the
session.


William Richard Motherwell: I am glad my hon. friend from Bow River has brought up the question. I should like to apply such a regulation to a lot of things, but I understand there is the usual constitutional question to be worked out.


James Dew Chaplin: The British North America Act?


William Richard Motherwell: What has my hon. friend from Lincoln got to say about it?


An hon. MEMBER:: Nothing.


William Richard Motherwell: I thought it was nothing. In Great Britain the British Merchandise Marks Act is gradually being invoked against all importations. I should like to see the necessary regulation apply to practically all imports.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why cannot :t. be done?


Mark Cecil Senn: It is a protective measure of course.


William Richard Motherwell: Why has not the
law been introduced before?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: Why has it not been enforced?


William Richard Motherwell: I have the reputation of introducing so many amendments that until those are consolidated I hesitate to introduce any more.


James Dew Chaplin: I submit the minister has enough inspectors around to ascertain what is going on.


William Richard Motherwell: The inspectors are there to enforce the law. I do not think we can make any regulations under the existing law, in fact I am quite sure about it.

Supply-Agriculture


Edward Joseph Garland: Just why? The minister has said he is in favour of this and would like to have it done.


William Richard Motherwell: Surely.


Edward Joseph Garland: He says difficulties may arise. What are they?


William Richard Motherwell: Constitutional difficulties.


Edward Joseph Garland: What constitutional difficulties?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know.


Edward Joseph Garland: This is the first time I have ever heard of constitutional difficulties in the way of requiring our importers to stamp the country of origin on their goods.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister need not be so fearful about statutory authority in this case, because ether ministers proceed to make all kinds of regulations and orders in council without any statutory authority at all.


Ernest Lapointe: Order.
Mr: MOTHERWELL:	When the same
question arose with regard to the inspection and grading of farm products for home consumption, we found we had to get what is called concurrent legislation. It took us six years to bring that about. That applies now to all products for home consumption under the Farm Products Act. The provinces do not like this sort of legislation very much; they feel that it is an invasion of their legislative domain.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think that is imaginative.


William Richard Motherwell: The western provinces came through quickly, but some of the provinces down here were reluctant. Without a popular demand I hesitate to try this out in regard to butter. This concurrent legislation does not include butter. It does include eggs and the live stock yards, and it does include the grading of all things for export. The concurrent legislation is necessary to cover all things for home consumption but it is not necessary as regards exports.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I can see where constitutional difficulties might arise in the stamping of domestic goods in the provinces, but surely the federal government has complete control in the matter of regulations governing the entry of foreign goods.


William Richard Motherwell: We have no law
of that nature under our department but I can assure my hon. friend and the committee generally that personally I am in favour of it. I am in favour of having the same law that is on the statutes of Great Britain, that is, the British Merchandise Marks Act. I should like to have a similar law invoked in Canada and applied wherever practicable and desirable.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will the minister promise to introduce legislation along this line next year?


William Richard Motherwell: With respect to
hay, I have legislation which has been lying in cold storage since last year, and I have legislation also with respect to maple products, for which a great many people in eastern Ontario and Quebec are anxious. I will seek an opportunity at another session to place that legislation before the house and I hope I shall have then the same buoyant support which the proposal seems to be receiving now.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: The
minister speaks of constitutional difficulties. May I ask him whether he is referring to the Canadian constitution or to the constitution of the cabinet?


William Earl Rowe: It seems to me that the
minister is merely splitting hairs on this question. The government have passed a good many orders in council and made regulations covering far greater scope than this mere detail of bringing butter under the regulations that now exist with respect to eggs and other products for home consumption. They have camouflaged the real situation. There are 25,000,000 pounds of butter coming into this country every year, which the people do not know. The minister takes a side glance in the direction of some of his free trade friends in the cabinet-because now I believe he is a protectionist-to see whether the suggestion which has been made is satisfactory to them. At first when the hon. member for Bow River mentioned it the minister said he would bring in a regulation; but, as I say, taking a side glance at his colleagues, he believed it might be dangerous to reveal to the people of Canada the quantities of dairy products that are coming into this country. It is my personal belief that the government are desirous of keeping from the public the knowledge of how much dairy butter is coming into Canada. The minister says that wherever practicable or desirable the British Merchandise Marks Act could be put into effect here. Well, I suggest that it
Supply-Agriculture

ia not desirable on the part of this government to show to the Canadian people that there are 25,000,000 pounds of foreign dairy-butter coming into Canada.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: The returns must show it.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, they do show it; but
the people do not know it yet. They will not know until next year. So far as this S5.000 grant to the National Dairy Council is concerned, I submit to the minister that when he gives such a grant to a council one expects that the advice offered by that council, and the resolutions which they pass, will be taken into consideration. I ask the minister now where he stands personally in view of the resolution from the National Dairy Council. Some of the most important resolutions that have reached the government have come from that council, and in my opinion [DOT]the grant should be increased to $10,000; because if any council has courage enough to give this government a hint to protect the home markets for the home producer), it deserves every consideration for such advice.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: If that is what the dairy council are doing we had better cut out the grant.


William Earl Rowe: The resolutions of the dairy council are as important to this country as any of the recommendations that are made by the Consumers' League in connection with the famous tariff board.


Edward James Young: We are not giving a grant to the league.


William Earl Rowe: I ask hon. members whether the National Dairy Council's advice would not be of more benefit if acted upon than any advice given by the Consumers' League. I would ask the minister now to tell us where he stands on this question. Does he not believe himself that some protection should be given to the dairy industry of the country? We are importing 25,000,000 pounds of foreign produced butter; there are 1,000 cows less in Canada this year than last year; there is consequent depression in the swine industry which is so closely associated with dairying; and there is an all round depressing effect on the activities of the basic industry of Canada. In view of these facts, will the minister rise in his place now and tell us where he stands personally, independently of the free trade inclination of some of his colleagues?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think that the committee is interested in my personal views on the question; the government's views are one.
IMr. Howe.]


William Earl Rowe: I know what their views are.


William Richard Motherwell: The committee is not interested in my personal views.


William Earl Rowe: We certainly are.


William Richard Motherwell: As regards the suggestion that we are trying to camouflage the amount of Australian and New Zealand butter coming into the country by desisting from giving the facts, the thing is absurd; that question never entered my mind for a moment. As a matter of fact, the question of marking on imported products the country of origin has never before come up in this house, so far as I know, and I am just wondering whether, if such legislation were proposed, it would meet with this uproarious support from certain quarters of the house. Judging from the way the British Merchandise Marks Act has worked out, I believe it is a good thing. I have never seen the act but I believe it serves a good purpose. But it must be invoked with a great deal of caution, because they have met with a good deal of trouble in the old country in imposing it.


William Earl Rowe: It seems to me just as absurd to carry on the way we are doing as it is to make the proposal which has been submitted to the minister. Surely we ought to know the origin of goods which are imported into the country; the place of manufacture ought to be indicated. You so mark your furniture in the Chateau Laurier; surely then it will not be suggested that it is absurd to have foreign products coming into Canada marked to show the country of origin.


William Richard Motherwell: From the departmental standpoint I shall be delighted, ' we shall all	be delighted,	to have
the question looked into during the recess to see whether we cannot bring it in some form or other before the house at another session. Looking at it cursorily, I think it is good; but I found long ago that it is always best to look twice before you jump once, and to be quite sure just where you are getting off at. It looks goods to me and I should like to see it applied all round whenever practicable, but the matter must be looked into.


Edward Joseph Garland: When the minister does propose it and he finds himself instantly met with strenuous opposition from the dairy council, I hope he will not waiver.
I anticipate that the dairy council will be the first body to issue a strenuous protest against the proposed marking of the country of im-Dortation.

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think so;
I think they will be in favour of it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not think so.


George Gibson Coote: Have they ever suggested
it?


William Russell Fansher: The Conservative party has changed over night. Last evening they were opposed to a delegate to the Labour Council even making a speech while she was on her way to Geneva, To-day they would double the grant to the dairy council in order to hawe them go' out and advocate protection, which is political propaganda.
I think this vote is very important; there was a time when a number of the creameries were opposed to the importation of New Zealand butter, but many of them raise no objection now because they have conceived the idea of wrapping it up differently, putting it into different packages and seling it as though it were Canadian butter, and the public does not know the difference. I think a few moments ago the minister became confused with regard to the regulations of his department. We grade eggs and various other farm products, and it does seem strange that we should not be able to grade foreign products or have some way of letting the public know where they came from and what they are like. It does seem to me that if we can have regulations for the grading of our own products we should have some way of grading these foreign importations, and I think steps should be taken along that line.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: This question was first
brought to my attention by the farmers who have milch cows in the province of Alberta. A quantity of New Zealand butter was brought to the city of Calgary, but though I searched through every store in Calgary I could not find one pound of New Zealand butter anywhere. Surely when that amount of butter was brought in it should not require an amendment to the British North America Act to trace it up and see what became of it, because it was never exported as such. Surely a live inspector could find out what was done with that butter, and I think the dairy institutions owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Yale for bringing up this matter in the house.


John Gordon Ross: I do not think
the statement made by the hon. member should be allowed to pass without a word with regard to the situation in other parts of the country. Within the last year I have
been in British Columbia twice, and I think the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Plunkett) will bear me out when I say that in the city of Victoria, New Zealand butter is sold as such, displayed on the counter with a sign on it, and sold for two cents a pound more than any other butter. They are not hiding it there.


Mr. BANCROFT:: While the minister is
investigating this matter perhaps he might find out if any of the members of the National Dairy Council are selling New Zealand butter as Canadian butter. If they are doing so the minister might ascertain whether they are making any profit from it, and if they are making a profit perhaps they might get along next year without this grant.
While I am on my feet I might tell the minister that the producers of cream carry on their organization by taking a certain deduction from the butter fat each month. If the other members of the council are making money by selling imported butter as Canadian butter, they should be able to pay their share of the upkeep of this organization without a grant from the government.


Mark Cecil Senn: A moment ago an hon. member to my left took rather a fling at the Conservative party for changing its attitude overnight, but I notice that certain members of the group to my left have also changed their attitude to a certain extent. They tell us they are in favour of marking the origin of foreign products sold in Canada in packages, and surely that is more or less a protective measure. That is the reason the minister does not want to adopt it, but I am glad hon. gentlemen to my left are adopting our views in that respect.
I noticed that the Minister of Finance asked the hon. member for Bow River whether he would be in favour of that being done with all products, and the hon. member answered in the affirmative. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he is, in favour of taking such action. A few moments ago the Minister of Agriculture declined to give his personal views on this question, when he was asked to do so by a member on this side. Why did he not want to give the committee his personal opinion; is he afraid or ashamed of his views in that respect? Do they differ from the views of the other members of the cabinet, or why is he unwilling to give them? I think we should have some answer to that question.
With regard to the National Dairy Council, the Minister of Agriculture was good enough to give us the names of the former president
36S8
Sup-ply-Agriculture

and secretary of the council. The name of the present secretary is Mr. Stephen, and if I am correctly informed for a long time, and perhaps even yet, Mr. Stephen was one of the political henchmen of the Minister of Finance.


William Richard Motherwell: I have no information as to that.


Mark Cecil Senn: Surely we could not accuse
Mr. Stephen or the Minister of Finance of being in favour of a protective measure of this kind, so if the National Dairy Council have advocated protection for the dairy industry it must be because they have been forced to the conclusion, without regard to their own private views, that it is absolutely necessary for their industry.
In conclusion I would repeat that if the Minister of Agriculture is not ashamed of his own private views on this question I think he should let the house know what they are.


William Richard Motherwell: The committee is not interested in them.


James Dew Chaplin: A few moments ago the Minister of Finance elicited from the hon. member for Bow River his opinion with regard to the imarkmg of goods in general. Now I think the Minister of Finance might tell us his opinion on the same question.


James Alexander Robb: I am not under cross-examination at the moment. My opinion is that we might profitably go on with the business of the house and pass supply.


James Dew Chaplin: The Minister of Finance
is not interested now but he was interested only a moment ago, when he questioned the hon. member for Bow River. I think the Minister of Finance should not cross-examine another member if he is not willing to be cross-examined himself.


William Earl Rowe: I think this is a reasonable
question to ask the Minister of Finance, but he tells us we should go on with the business of the bouse. Every year since I have been a member here the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture have been brought down either on a Fridlay night, when a number of members leave for their homes in Quebec and Ontario, where mixed farming is carried on to the greatest extent-


Ernest Lapointe: They should stay here.


William Earl Rowe: I think that is right, but I
stay here almost as much as the Minister of Justice does. Surely the minister could give us a clear statement as to where he stands on a question of such importance; surely the government cannot camouflage the people all the time. We would like to know where the

government stands on one of the most important questions to the agricultural industry in Canada to-day, and1 if the Minister of Agriculture cannot tell us perhaps the Minister of Finance could give us thait information. Again this year we have the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture coming up at twelve o'clock on the last dhy of the session, since it is generally understood that the house is to conclude its business to-night and prorogue tomorrow.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Earl Rowe: I am not particular about it; it does not matter a great deal whether the house closes this week or next week, but this department is one of the most important in the government, and every year the estimates come down either late on a Friday night or within the last dlay or two of the session. The most important of these estimates have not been touched yet, and now it is twelve o'clock noon on the last day of the session. This is a very important item, and the Minister of Finance says that we should go on with the business of the country.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think these extraneous fiscal matters should be introduced into my estimates. I will have to leave in a few minutes and we are taking up a lot of time discussing a matter which should have been discussed on the budget, and which was discussed.


James Dew Chaplin: The Minister of Agriculture says that he has only a few minutes left to complete his estimates; in future these estimates should be brought down before the end of the session.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think the last remark of the Minister of Agriculture is wholly unfair.


William Richard Motherwell: What is that?


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister suggested that the debate on the budget was the proper place to bring in these suggestions; I suggest that there has never been a more proper moment than the present one for introducing a matter of this kind.


William Richard Motherwell: To discuss fiscal matters?


Edward Joseph Garland: This particular matter of marking. The Minister of Finance is the one responsible for introducing that aspect into it, because in his usual subtle and tricky fashion he asked a question with the obvious intention of using my answer at some future time; there is no doubt in the world about that.

Supply-Agriculture


An hon. MEMBER:: You fell for it.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, I did not fall for it; I knew exactly what his intention was, and I was very careful in making my answer.


John Gordon Ross: Could I ask my non. friend a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: Just a
moment, first of all I want to get an answer from another Liberal member. The Minister of Finance has asked a question and it has been answered courteously, and I would like to ask him if he does not believe in the suggestion which has been offered here of marking packaged goods with the country of origin?


James Alexander Robb: Why limit it to packaged
goods?


Edward Joseph Garland: Naturally the minister realizes that there are some goods which cannot be stamped; we could not stamp steel ingots or articles of that kind.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was in the trade, and we imported many of those articles into Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the minister's view as to marking the goods with the country of origin? That is a fair question and should receive a fair answer.


James Alexander Robb: Some years ago the hon. gentlemen brought up a resolution along that line and I pointed out to them that it was a measure of protection, and I have not changed my view on that matter. There is much to be said for it, but it cannot be done as broadly as my hon. friend suggests.


Edward Joseph Garland: No one
knows more than the minister himself that he is talking utter poppycock when he says that the principle of protection is implied in marking articles with the country of origin. It has nothing to do with protection; it does not enable the manufacturer to charge the consumer any more for the goods, and the minister himself knows that. He is trying to twist things around and has not as yet answered my direct question. Is he in favour of the stamping of the country of origin upon goods imported into Canada, where it can be done?


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: Never
mind, I want to get an answer first.


Ernest Lapointe: What have the views
of the Minister of Finance to do with this item?	.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Minister of Finance started this thing.


Ernest Lapointe: He may have been in
error, but the hon. member is doubly so.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister asked a question in his usual subtle manner, but I knew the workings of his mind. There is no man in the house who is more subtle in tricking a member into answering a question which may be used against him at some future time. I have been fair to the minister, let him be fair to me.


James Alexander Robb: If the hon. member thinks
that I have tricked him into answering a question, I will withdraw the question and I will not use his answer against him.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, the minister is being trickier than ever in making that answer.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think I should suggest to the hon. member that the word "tricky" is not a parliamentary term.


Edward Joseph Garland: If it is
against the rules of the house, I have no desire to use it. I suggest to the hon. Minister of Finance that he is still evading the answering of my question; he is being absolutely unfair. If the minister wants to be unfair I must leave him in that position.


John Ewen Sinclair: Is the
Minister of Agriculture in favour of marking New Zealand butter as New Zealand butter? I have received a letter from a party in my riding claiming that a number of Ontario creameries are purchasing New Zealand butter and selling it under their own creamery brand. Is the minister in favour of marking that butter?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will the hon. gentleman repeat that?


William Richard Motherwell: I am very sorry, but it is necessary that I go.


John Ewen Sinclair: They purchase New Zealand butter and then sell it under their own creamery brand. Would the minister be good enough to find out if that is not contrary to law, and if the department should not consider that butter as being renovated butter?


Ernest Lapointe: As the Minister of
Agriculture has to go to address a religious meeting, I suggest that the item stand, and we will call one item in the Fisheries department.
Supply-Agriculture


John Ewen Sinclair: I have to
attend a religious meeting this afternoon. It will take the minister only a second to answer my question. During the last three or four months over $8,000,000 worth of butter has come in from New Zealand, and where did it go? The people are buying this butter believing that it is Canadian made, and the Minister of Agriculture knows that and does nothing to stop the practice.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, I
will endeavour to answer the hon. member's question when I return this afternoon. In the meantime, let me supplement the explanation given by the Minister of Justice for being obliged to leave the committee at this stage. I am going to the experimental farm to assist the Prime Minister in receiving the pilgrims from abroad.
Item stands.



MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
To provide for an investigation into the life history of the Pacific halibut _ by the international fishery commission appointed under the Pacific Halibut treaty of 2nd March, 1923, $31,500.
Hon, P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries): This item is for the payment of our share of the expenditures in connection with the international fisheries commission.
Mr. McRAE:: Might I suggest to the minister that he represent to the commission the fact that our halibut fisheries are not making the progress in reestablishment which we might reasonably expect. I am told that overfishing is still being carried on in the Hecate strait.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I regret to admit that my hon. friend is practically correct. That condition still exists.


John Anderson Fraser: Is it a fact that under the Fisheries Act the minister has power to prohibit and does prohibit the export of salmon from British Columbia?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are prohibiting the export of raw salmon, but not of salmon in a canned or cured state.


John Anderson Fraser: This is the prohibition of the export of a natural product. Could it not be applied to other products? Why are the fishermen picked out as the only ones whose product cannot be exported? We are asking for some regulation of our wood products in an unmanufactured state. Why are the fishermen picked out as the only producers who are prohibited, under regulations of this government, from the markets of the world?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The request of my hon. friend will have to be made to the ministers looking after other departments.


John Anderson Fraser: Why does the minister pick out producers under his administration as the only ones in the Dominion of Canada who are subjected to that treatment?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I confess that I am not in a position to give a complete explanation to my hon. friend as to that. It is rather a complicated issue and I would ask my hon. friend to be kind enough to give me an opportunity to have a statement prepared by my officials in regard to the matter.


John Anderson Fraser: I shall be pleased to do
that for the minister, but I should like to point this out: my information may be wrong; I am not absolutely certain of it, but I have information which leads me to believe that if the fishermen in British Columbia were allowed to export their fish to the United States, they could get a higher price for their product. Under the regulations of the department they are prohibited from exporting it and consequently they cannot get as high a price for their fish as they could if the market were a local one.


George Gibson Coote: I have always felt that the
policy of the government in regard to the salmon industry is almost beyond understanding. We are worried for fear our salmon will become extinct if we do not protect it with very strict regulations regarding the catch. We prohibit the export of raw sockeye salmon, but we go to great pains to make trade treaties with Australia and other countries trying to get very satisfactory arrangements for the export of our canned salmon to them. I have never been able to understand the policy of this country with regard to the salmon industry. On the one hand we are endeavouring to protect it from becoming extinct, so that future Canadians will be able to enjoy this palatable fish. On the other, we are doing our best to negotiate trade treaties which will enable our salmon canners to export this fish to every country in the world.


Mr. WARD:: I would like to take this
opportunity of saying a word with regard to our western Canada fisheries. A few days ago an hon. member, referring to this department, made a statement to the effect that in all the years he had been in the house he had never known this department to do anything that would assist in turning the fishing industry to any great account. I gather from the remarks of some hon. members that they

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
regard a few oyster beds on the Atlantic or a few salmon on the Pacific coast as the only fisheries in Canada. I represent a constituency with 250 miles of large lake shoreline and I say that from one small lake in that area we produce every year 250 carloads of the highest grade fish produced in Canada. About ten or twelve years ago a hatchery located on an island in lake Winnipegosis was producing annually about 35,000,000 fry, and the annual catch at that time was about thirty-five carloads of fish. Last year and the year before the same lake produced about 250 carloads of fish, principally of what are known as yellow pike and whitefish. This hatchery, which is a government institution, has been for several years producing an average of 100,000,000 fry annually. The same success has been obtained at all the other hatcheries connected with our Manitoba lakes. The annual production of fish in Manitoba has almost doubled within recent years. This, I think, is entirely attributable to the consideration and attention given to that industry by the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It is only fair that I should make that statement and it was unfair for hon. members from the maritime provinces who are finding some difficulty with their oyster beds or western members who are finding some difficulty with their Yankee friends in protecting the salmon on the Pacific coast, to go off at a tangent and think the only fish in Canada are the few that may be produced on the Atlantic or the Pacific coast.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses of the British Columbia fisheries reference to the Privy Council, $15,000.
Alexander Duncan McRae: Will the minister give the committee a little outline of what this item refers to?	,


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to cover the expenses of the reference to the Privy Council of the difficulty which arose in British Columbia. A company requested the department to issue a license to operate a cannery in British Columbia, and the department would not agree to do so, because they were not satisfied that such a cannery should be permitted to operate. The company started to operate without a license. Prosecution was instituted against them and we lost the case before the court in British Columbia, the decision being practically that they could operate a cannery without obtaining a license from the federal government. The court held that it was not within our authority to regulate or to issue licenses to canneries or to
refuse them permission to operate without such licenses. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, and I regret to say that our contention was not sustained there. It was held that the decision of the court in British Columbia was correct, and that the federal authorities had no right to regulate these canneries by the issuance or refusal of licenses.
One other point which is raised in the reference is the power of the minister to discriminate between applicants asking for fishing licenses in British Columbia and elsewhere. This is a very important issue, because if it is established that we have not power to regulate in this matter; that the power to regulate in British Columbia rests with the provincial authorities, it means as a result that the whole administration of the fisheries in that province will probably pass under the control of the provincial authorities, because they can block all the operations of the Department of Fisheries if they have the right to regulate the canneries.


Alexander Duncan McRae: Who is representing the department before the Privy Council?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Eugene Lafleur of
Montreal.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Does the Department of
Marine and Fisheries control canneries, located on interprovincial streams or on lakes within a province?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Everywhere?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I would1 suggest to the minister, inasmuch as this is a controversy of long standing on the coast, that it might be well to have associated with Mr. Lafleur, for whom I have the highest regard, some counsel who is familiar with the controversy.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. A. B. MacDonald is
associated with him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine Biological Board of Canada-(a) purely scientific work, $100,775; (b) practical and experimental work, $200,960;	(c) fish
culture investigations, $47,150.-Total, $348,885.
Alexander Duncan McRae: The amount which it is
proposed to vote for this year, $348,885, represents a very large increase over last year's appropriation of $200,100, an increase of 74 per cent in one year. I think the committee would be interested in knowing how this increase is accounted for.
Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The increase is made up
of the following items:
(a)	For the operation of the biological stations at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and Nanaimo, British Columbia, necessitating additional scientific help for the former and a boat for the use of the latter station to be used on the west coast of Vancouver island, $5,275.


Alexander Duncan McRae: Is that amount for the boat?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It includes the scientific
help required.


Alexander Duncan McRae: All I can say is that any
boat you can get for $5,000 will not go very far in the seas you get on the west coast of Vancouver island. It would not be much better than a rowboat.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a very small boat
that is being purchased on the recommendation of the board. The other details are as follows:
(b)	A new permanent building is required at Halifax. Due to the expansion of the work of instruction to fishermen and fishery officers, the present building in which are housed the laboratories, offices and class rooms, is far too small, so much so that all who applied for instruction this year could not be accommodated, $50,000.
At Halifax a boat is required to be specially fitted to demonstrate the best methods of handling and keeping fresh fish in good condition, $15,000.
The demonstration building requires a second storey to provide space for canning equipment and demonstration work, $9,500.
Eastern Passage marine laboratory, which was built to provide a necessary part of the training of students taking the university course of Fisheries Bachelor of Science, $10,000.
A new building is required at Prince Rupert to house the refrigeration plant for experimental and demonstration work, in view of the advance now taking place in rapid freezing, $16,000.
Refrigeration machinery for the above,

For additional scientific staff and the general operation of the above station, $11,460.
(c)	To provide for a systematic investigation of the oyster fishery and to build a small laboratory for the work, $7,000.
Fish hatchery for experimental and demonstration work, $4,000.
Surveying lakes, especially of the prairie provinces (additional), $3,500.
Incidental expenses, $1,050.-Total, $148,785.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I notice that there is a
large appropriation of $40,000 odd in connection with buildings and equipment and additional station staff at Prince Rupert. Who is in charge of that Prince Rupert station?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Doctor Finn.


Alexander Duncan McRae: Does he live at Prince
Rupert?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Mr. BRADY:: This is a very interesting
and a very important subject. A part of the vote is for purely scientific work of an experimental nature and the other part is for practical work. I do not know how many members are really qualified to express in ordinary terms what a great number of these words mean, for instance, protozoa, diatoms and eopepods. What progress have we made in the study of this organic life which belongs to what is known as the plankton group? This group comprises a very remarkable family of roaming organic life found drifting in the waters, and includes the flora and the fauna of this particular group. A German expedition in 1894 made a thorough survey of this minute organic life in the Atlantic ocean, and I would ask the minister what data is available for us as to what is being done in that particular group?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am sure that my hon.
friend does not expect from me a detailed explanation of the work of the biological stations. I have no hesitation in confessing that I am far from being familiar with these scientific matters. Reports are published by the biological board in which all their activities are discussed. I might mention that one of the great problems in relation to the halibut on the Pacific coast was to prevent discolouration or yellowing, on account of which condition the price of the fish would be reduced by five or six cents a pound. The biological board have been studying that problem, and I believe that they have discovered a cure for the trouble. That discovery will be of great benefit to all interested in fisheries. In fact the head of one of the important British Columbia fishing companies stated that this one discovery and remedy would justify all the expenditure by the biological board.


James Charles Brady: I am pleased to hear the
minister's statement. One of our finest food fish is the famous white spring salmon. I have seen these fish caught in the Dixon entrance as heavy as sixty and seventy pounds. Unfortunately owing to the prejudice against its lack of colour white spring salmon does not fetch more than two or three cents a pound, as against twelve or fourteen cents a pound for our red spring salmon. Would it not be worth while to undertake research work with a view to devising some innocuous method whereby this very valuable food fish could be put on the market as best red spring salmon?
I observe that the department is studying the habits of the wood-boring worm known

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
as the teredo. Unless hon. gentlemen have visited the Pacific coast they can have no idea of how rapidly these wood-borers destroy our wharves. As the minister knows, after a freshly cut pile of about twenty-four inches in diameter has been in the water six weeks it is practically ruined. I would ask that the department continue their scientific wo'k in order to discover measures for checking this pest. How far has the investigation proceeded?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The biological board is
studying the problem. I shall be pleased to draw the attention of the board to my hon. friends' representations.


Alexander Duncan McRae: Although the discolouration
of halibut has been known for some time by the men in the trade who handle halibut in a large way, I notice the biological board take a good deal of credit to themselves for their discovery. The discolouration comes about while the fish are in the hold of the vessel. What we need is some means of preventing this discolouration. The biological board should bend their efforts to a practical solution of the problem.
Progress reported.



REPORT PRESENTED

[Stage Direction]
Seventeenth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.- Mr. Parent.

Mr. A. C. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dun-das):: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Stewart (Leeds):
That Bill No. 348 (letter 19 of the senate), intituled: "An act for the relief of Louis Coit Dargavel," be placed on the order paper this day.


Robert Gardiner: I object.


Hewitt Bostock: If there is objection it is well taken.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock. SUPPLY



MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Alexander Duncan McRae: When the committee rose I was discussing the biological board and I intended asking the minister these questions:
How long has the board been established at Nanaimo, and are all the persons whose names are mentioned in the report on the pay roll of the department? The list is quite extensive and I shall refer to it somewhat in detail later, but it would shorten the discussion if we had now a brief explanation as to how these various persons are engaged.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The station has been in operation for about twenty years. The board is not paid but t'he staff is.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I have reference to the report of the fisheries branch for 1927-28, which is the last one to hand, and on page 110 of which there .appear a large number of names of persons who a,re making investigations and research. I should like to know whether these persons are all in the employ of t'he department on regular salary or, if not, how they are paid.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The station provides facilities for those who wish to make experiments, but these persons are not paid by the department, although their results are available to us. These people are carrying on investigations but are not paid by us.


Alexander Duncan McRae: It seems rather unusual that in the departmental report the department should take credit for the work of so many persons whom they do not pay. These people are not really in the employ of the department. Will the minister tell me how many persons are employed by the department at Nanaimo?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We pay the following
salaries: director, $3,600; captain of boat, $1,800; engineer, $1,560; secretary, $900; cook, $300; maid, $420; caretaker, $900; assistant caretaker, $840. These are the only employees whom we take.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I have been particularly concerned about the work of the biological board inasmuch as it bears on the sockeye salmon situation in our province. I have gone over the report very carefully and I must say I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena, regarding the technical terms which he used so freely this morning. But to me at least this report is net very clear. In this respect I aim sure if would be interesting to know just bow the fiishermen regard the lectures which the board give them on different occasions. I may say that they are sceptical of the practical importance of this biological work; they feel that the work of the board is entirely too theoretical and technical and that not sufficient time is given
Supply-Marine and Fisheries

to the practical phase of the filing situation in our province. They are of the opinion that the investigations of the board are too abstract and academic: to use the expression of the fishermen themselves, you cannot put this knowledge into the can. The particular claim which the fishermen make is that there are too many desk men, what we might call office men, being sent into the field to inquire about matters which responsible fishermen have known for a very long time. I referred the other day to the inquiry into sea lions, when as a matter of fact what should be inquired into is the problem how to destroy the sea lions which are eating up our fish. The fishermen claim that investigators from the board try experiments in artificial planting in areas where hatchery fish would not have the slightest chance owing to freshets on the one hand or where streams dry up. The board officials have net the necessary knowledge and, the fishermen claim, errors are made which could be avoided if practical fishermen were consulted. I mention this matter in order to convey to the minister the idea that the board is not nearly as practical as it should be. I know that these long names which are referred to in the reports of the research department-such terms for instance as protozoa-diatoms copepods and zooplankton, and all that sort of thing-are all right in their place. They refer to the very lowest and microscopic forms of animal life in existence, some that cannot be seen with the naked eye.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What big names.
Mr. MicRAE: Yes I am afraid the sockeye salmon will be in that Class soon. If we cannot get some practical work done by this biological board we will not be able to see the sockeye salmon, not on account of its size but om account of its extinction. I notice that among other things mentioned in the report is an investigation of the life history of the teredo, to which the hon. member for Skeena referred. We all know enough about the life history of the teredo; it lives too long to please us and what we want is some preparation which will prevent the teredo from doing so much harm. We have succeeded now in finding -that method in part through creosoting.
As you read the report the thing that impresses you very much is the small consideration which has been given to the reestablishment of our fisheries; in fact you will find only one reference to it in this research work, and that is the study of salmon scales for the provincial government. That is rather an absurd reference.

I think the department would be well advised to cut out those things in future reports. The report is supposed to be read by members who, like myself, do not follow it very closely, and I suggest that if it were confined to practical matters and written in common trade terms which we can all understand, the government would be saved a lot of printing expense and the members of this house would have more information than they obtain from this report at present.
With regard to field investigations, there again the findings of the board do not deal with salmon. Coming to the heading " Publicity," and as far as I can see that is confined to two small aquariums which are being established at Nanaimo. I submit that if we are going to establish any of these aquariums for the education of the public they should be located in the papulous centres where more people will see them and more good will be done. I have no doubt that these aquariums would be more advantageously located in Vancouver or Victoria than in Nanaimo, where very few people go and where there are very few fishermen. Nanaimo is a coal town and there are no fishermen there except a few Japanese who fish for herring and that sort of thing. Why we should put this biological board in Nanaimo is not clear to me, particularly as it appears from these reports that the beard has an educational duty to perform. I notice they are to build a museum in Prince Rupert; I fear that we have about reached that stage of the fisheries problem in our province where museums will 'be necessary ia order to display the last specimens of that great commercial fish, the sockeye salmon. As far as I can see there is no other useful purpose to be served by these museums and there is no reason why the public money should be spent in this way while we have a real, fish problem to work out.
I have given the views of the fishermen and now I want to give the views of the cannery men, who say there is certainly great room for biological work in the fish business, and that perhaps the reason why this board had not done very much was because they had not much money. Just here I might say that the United States authorities reported a year or two ago that the work done by this biological board was very good, but that it was very meagre. The business interests in my province have expressed the opinion that there is great need for a biological board but that this board is not devoting very much consideration to the practical issues with which we are confronted.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Now I want to refer to the question of fish culture, with which this vote has to do.
There is very little space devoted in the report to the culture of sockeye salmon; some seven or eight lines on page 15 constitutes the only reference. In passing I want to observe that this branch of the service turned out about 105,000,000 fry in 1927-28, which cost us $112,562.35, an average of roughly $1.15 per thousand. This figure is materially higher than what the state of Washington claim it costs them to turn out fingerlings four or five inches long and six or seven months old under the pond system.
I mention this fact to show that it is not a matter of cost with regard to this kind of propagation but rather a question cf courage on the part of our department to get that work under way.
Our investigations have been going on ever since the branch was established in British Columbia forty-five years ago; I presume we have been investigating sockeye salmon since that time. They are the greatest commercial fish we have and they present a teal problem which we must solve. I discussed this matter the other day at some length, and the minister stated in reply that the biological board had been instructed to make a complete investigation and that the department was prepared to follow the recommendations of that board. I must say to the committee that this promises no solution of our problem at all. I do not say that the men who compose that biological board have not the ability to make this investigation if they were so directed. I submit that this board now has been in operation for a great many years, and apparently they are not making any investigation whatever with regard to the rehabilitation of the sockeye salmon fisheries, which the department has said will mount up to at least $35,000,000 a year. There is time enough to get down to theory and theoretical matters later, but I say that before we proceed with the expenditure of the amount of money covered by this vote we should have some further assurance than has been given so far that this increase is necessary. It is not my intention to offer a motion but I do suggest that if we vote $200,100 this year it is enough. I suggest that the minister postpone these additional expenditures and reduce this vote to what it was last year. I think that is a reasonable request until such time as the minister can give us some information to show the effectiveness of this board.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed by the
deputy that the board has been looking into 78594-234
the sockeye salmon question for four years and that they have complete equipment at Cultus lake.
There is another point upon which I am in a position to agree with my hon. friend. He complains that the report is somewhat technical and not. in plain language. I quite agree with him and I will ask the officers of the department to try to make the report more comprehensible to the ordinary man who does not understand the scientific and technical words which are used by members of the biological board.


Alexander Duncan McRae: Reference has been made by the minister to the cultural work which is being done at Cultus lake in British Columbia, and this information will be found on pages 117 and 118 of the report of 1927-28. This is one of the smallest hatcheries we have in British Columbia, and in 1927-28 the expenditure was only $4,819.05. It is only necessary for any member of the committee to read these pages to realize what a feeble effort is made in studying the culture of sockeye salmon. Very few fish are released from this hatchery, and, as stated in the report, during some years none at all return. About 70 per cent of the fish must be accounted for and returns by the canneries in Puget sound south of the line, and I leave it to the committee to say just how valuable that information is. That is not even playing with the thing and it is making no effort whatever to solve this problem. Mr. Minister, this headless department of yours will have to get a move on if anything effective is to be done for the sockeye salmon industry.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I am intensely interested in the subject which he has been discussing and I am very sympathetic to the proposal he has made with respect to the sockeye salmon fishing industry. I have been out to the coast and studied this matter a little, but I am at a complete loss to know just what the hon. member is proposing.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I take it that the hon.
member was not in the house the other day when I made a definite proposal, but I will be glad to repeat it. The Department of Marine and Fisheries, constituted as it is under governments as they must be formed, cannot grasp the situation in British, Columbia. In my talk the other day I suggested that the government should appoint a British Columbia fish commission, to be composed of representatives of the fishermen, of the canneries, and of the business interests in the province, who understand this problem.

3696	COMMONS
Supply-Marine and Fisheries
These men are deeply interested in this matter and would be only too pleased to give their services gratis to their country to bring about the reestablishment of their salmon industry which has been diminishing so rapidly.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is all very well, but I do not know how it would get us very far; I do not see that it is any better than the suggestion of the minister, although I do not see that he is getting us anywhere either. So far as I understand the situation the difficulty has been the depletion of the sockeye run, partly as a result of conditions in the Fraser river itself and chiefly as a result of American trapping. With all due respect to the hon. gentleman, I do not see how that question can be solved other than by the making of an international agreement. If we could secure an international agreement to limit the catch for some years, thus allowing a gerater number of mature fish to go up the river to spawn, I think the industry would find itself rehabilitated much quicker than it would be by the appointment of a commission. It is not commissions that we want, we want a return flow of the fish into the streams. I am only a layman on this subject; I am not a fisherman myself, but for the life of me I cannot understand how the Cultus lake hatchery is going to be responsible for the great increase in the vote this year. I do not think the minister can be serious when he suggests that reason. I have seen that hatchery myself, and I presume that some work is being done at Cultus lake and some at Chilliwack river.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The hatchery at Cultus
lake is for experimental purposes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I agree
with the hon. member for North Vancouver;
I think this vote is out of all reason. Until there is a more definite program laid before this committee, we might return to the old amount. The hon. member is from that part of the country and he knows the requirements out there; he suggested to the minister that this item be reduced to the original amount of $200,000, and in the absence of a more reasonable explanation from the minister I am afraid that I must agree with the hon. member. As to the rehabilitation of the sockeye salmon industry, I think the minister will have to find some way of getting an international agreement on that. Let us get more of the salmon up the stream and we will solve the problem.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman as far as the Fraser river is concerned, but that is only one of the several
[Mr MoRae.]
great streams in our province, in all of which the fish are being depleted. By appointing this British Columbia fish commission the government would be getting the experience of directors who could not be hired for nominal salaries, men who would be prepared to give their time to the development of this great industry. I am led to make that statement by what has happened in regard to the Columbia river. They have a nonpolitical body of citizens in Oregon who have done great work in the reestablishment of the fisheries on that great river. I am confident that the commission I am suggesting would do for our fishing industry in British Columbia what a similar commission has done in the state of Oregon.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Who comprises
the biological board?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Doctor J. Playfair Mc-
Murrich, Toronto, chairman; J. J. Cowie, Ottawa, secretary-treasurer, an employee of the department; Doctor Philip Cox of Fredericton, N.B.; Doctor C. J. Connolly, Antig-onish, N.S.; Professor A. T. Cameron, Winnipeg; John Dybhavn, Prince Rupert, representing the industry; Professor J. N. Gowan-lock, Halifax; Reverend Canon V. A. Huard, of Quebec university; Professor A. H. Hutchinson, Vancouver; Professor W. T. Mac-Clement, Kingston; Professor Marie-Victorin, Montreal university; Doctor E. E. Prince, Ottawa; J. A. Rodd, Ottawa, another employee of the department; A. Handheld Whitman, Halifax, representing the industry; Professor A. Willey, Montreal.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is Professor Connolly still on the board.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: I understand he
has not been in Canada for the last two or three years.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that he attended the last meeting of the board.


Arthur Edward Ross: He is a professor at one of the universities in the United States.
I expected that the minister or his deputy would have been able to give some answer to the questions put and the criticism made by the hon. member for North Vancouver. As a supporter of the biological board I was distinctly disappointed, and if what the minister gave to the committee was a history of the work done by the board, I could not conscientiously vote for half that amount of money. Surely the minister, if he is in sympathy with the work of the board, would say that something had been done. The

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
biological board, constituted as it was a few years ago, was the first to enter a complaint in regard to the fishery situation, contending that the hatcheries were not doing the good we expected them to do. As a result they studied the losses in the fish hatcheries and to-day we are getting some results and cooperation. The minister at least might have given the board credit for that. He might also have given the board credit for having investigated such matters as lobster canning. Although they made an extensive study of that and would have put it where it was before, yet they lacked the support of the department and the officials connected therewith.
The minister might have told1 us, too, that scientific studies must play some part in these classes for fishery officials, but when the classes were started first they lacked absolutely that backing and support. The fishery officials who attended those classes naturally would find the course of study very difficult at the time, the same as any student in a university would, but it would bake only three or four years bo give them a background whereby they would understand what the board wanted. What does the minister expect the board to do? Does he expect the board, composed altogether of scientific men, to go out and examine personally all these things? They cannot do that. They must depend upon the reports provided by the officials of the department and if those officials lack the education and knowledge expected of them, there is only one thing to do: either get a new class of officials, or have the present one educated so that they can supply satisfactory results to the board.
I agree with the statement that a great deal of the work of the board has been done in eastern Canada, and that very good results have been obtained therefrom. I do not know whether one should give the credit to the board or not, but the whitefish supply in lake Ontario, for example, increased very noticeably from 1913 to 1924. In 1913 the catch was only 495,000 pounds, whereas in 1924 it had risen bo 2,653,000 pounds. If cooperation can secure a result like that, cooperation is the one thing that the whole department should strive for. I have a report of the first classes called by the biological board. The superintendent of fisheries pronounced them of no value whatever, though he did not attend one class. He did not know anything about them. That is lack of cooperation. I am sure, however, the board is getting cooperation and better results today. There is a great deal that the minister could have given the committee to-day with 78594-234*
regard to results achieved by the board. If hon. members will look over the reports and papers furnished by the National Research Council, they will find very few practical papers. I am surprised that the minister, in speaking of the people employed, said that they were not paid anything. They are certainly paid the expense of Carrying on that research work. I have tried to find out from the minister and the department how these researches are allotted. By a lot of studying I have obtained the information myself, and there seems to be a lack of direction, of getting finality in this research work. The only papers in the report are the "Bottom fauna of lake Nipigon" and "An investigation into the question of early putrefaction of eviscerated fish in which the gills have been left"; that was given in 1919. I am sure the minister could have given the committee a splendid description of the results secured, if he had taken only the success in regard to the freezing of fish and that kind of thing. The board is at the bottom of all this work. The study of fish is a distinctly scientific subject, and the direction must oome from scientific men with a knowledge of fish history, fish food, aquaculture and so forth. They must also make use of that information, for practical purposes. The department is falling . down, in that respect and also in not placing before the board the information given in the house by hon. members as to where the failure of the fishing industry is taking place, and in not saying to the board:	"Give us a solution
of the problem." The minister can increase the board by giving the western section of the country their own men on it and a field to work in. Salmon life on the Atlantic is altogether different from salmon life on the Pacific, and the western people should have an opportunity of dealing with salmon life on the Pacific. Before I sit down, might I ask what pay is given to the members of the Doard?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No pay.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is one answer wb'ch the minister might have given to the committee.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I gave it this morning.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have been sitting here and I must confess I did not get all this information from the minister.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend was out of the chamber at that very moment, but I gave it this morning.


Arthur Edward Ross: I heard the statement made this morning, and I also heard it repeated this afternoon, that the ministei

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
could get a body of men for nothing. This is a body of men that he is getting for nothing. I know these men. They have been working for the department for years and they have given time to this work. Some of them, owing to lack of the cooperation they desired, have resigned and left the board. I am not altogether pessimistic about the biological board. We need it and we need these men at the head of it, but there must be some driving force behind it. The department must support it and it would be wise to say to the biological board: So far you have been giving a great deal of attention to eastern Canada; put more men on the west and get results there. It is very sad if our salmon industry cannot be brought up in the same way as they have brought up the lake Ontario whitefish industry, and I believe the same results can be accomplished.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine Biological Board of Canada-further I''0'1'1* re9uired-(a) purely scientific work, $10,000.
Mr. MoRAE: What is tills for?
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a further amount required for the biological board for purely scientific work.
Mr. MoRAE: I would like to move that it be reduced to $1.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think my hon. friend is fair in making that request. I have been given the following particulars in regard to the increase in this vote. It is proposed to remodel, extend and equip a building for experimental fish handling, which work it is estimated will cost 84,500. The board also proposes to enlarge and furnish an existing house to accommodate scientific workers with families. This also will cost 84,500. The above extension will be made at the biological station at Sit. Andrews, New Brunswick.
I think after the remarks which have been made by my hon. friend from Kingston City, the department should rather be supported for giving to the board all the money they require to carry on their work. No one disputes the importance of the work which the board has been doing in the past. It is true that I have not given a very lengthy statement of what they have accomplished, but I have never failed to give credit to that very important organization for the good work which they have done. This morning I mentioned more particularly the very important investigations which they have made in British Columbia in regard to the discolouration of halibut. They have found the

cause of the trouble and have suggested a remedy. That is very important and, as my hon. friend from North Vancouver admitted, it is something worth while. In Halifax the board has discovered a method of rapid freezing which is going to prove very advantageous for the fisheries as a whole. I need not say that the department is quite ready to cooperate with the board. While its work is largely of a scientific nature, in practically every country, and perhaps more so in countries not far distant from us, industry is going in for scientific research more and more. I think therefore that we should not be asked to reduce the amount which we are asking the committee to place at the disposal of the board in order to permit them to continue and even extend their works. The request for this increased vote does not come simply from the department but from the board itself. They feel that they need this additional amount to carry on properly the work which has been assigned to them, and I think it would be unfair and not in the interests of the industry which it is seeking to serve to refuse this small additional amount. I can see the point made by my hon. friend that the board's activities in British Columbia should probably be extended further, and that they should be requested to give more of their time to the important problem of reclaiming as much as possible the sockeye fisheries. I can assure him that his views and those that have been expressed by other hon. members will be brought before the board, and I shall ask them to give special attention to the interests of British Columbia during the coming year.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I wish to make it perfectly clear that my sympathy is entirely with the biological board, but I want to make it equally clear to the committee that it is the unanimous opinion of those interested in the industry in British Columbia that the board lacks practical direction. That is not the fault of the board so much as it is of the de-parment. There is an increase of 74 per cent in the vote this year over last year, and I submit that in view of the discussion on fisheries which has taken place in this house in the past week, the minister might very well forego this supplementary vote entirely. The list he has read is for more or less permanent improvements. I think the committee would feel better if we got along without any supplementary vote for this purpose, and next year, as the minister has said, he will be able to come here with the matter better in hand, and the committee will understand better what work is being done and the

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
manner in which it is being carried on. I think the idea that the department should expect people to carry on with those investigators unpaid is rather unreasonable. It is hardly to be expected that men will give the necessary time for these long investigations without compensation. I suggest this to the minister for his consideration. I do think, however, that we have voted enough money for this department this year, and that the minister should not ask -the committee to approve $10,000 more by way of supple-mentaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries branch - contingencies - further amount required, $3,000.
Alexander Duncan McRae: Before we leave these estimates, I notice that $160,000 is provided for fishing bounties. Is this bounty, which is paid under statute, confined entirely to the Atlantic coast?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is by statute, and is confined to the Atlantic coast.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I have only this-to say. We
have fishermen who need help out on the Pacific coast. I have no objection at all to voting $160,000 for the Atlantic coast fishermen, but I think we should consider when the proper time -comes giving equal help to our fishermen on the Pacific coast.


Mr. VENIOT:: This is not given for help
to the Atlantic fishermen, but as their right under a treaty with the United States.


Mr. NEILL:: I protest against the remarks of the last speaker. We discussed this -matter last year. This is a case where my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) was very indignant because I suggested that he give up the graft which the Atlantic fishermen have been enjoying for the past twenty-six years. This money is voted by statute for the improvement of the deep sea fisheries. That is what the statute says and nothing else, but the money has been deliberately diverted from the purpose of encouraging deep sea fishing throughout Canada into a means of giving

I will not call it graft-but a little hand-out to a few fishermen on the Atlantic coast-$1.45 to one fisherman, 89 cents to another, and they call that encouraging deep sea fishing. The money is being entirely wasted from the point of view of the purpose for which it was granted, if it was granted for the encouragement of deep sea fishing. Secondly, the money is ibeoing deliberately diverted from the British Columbia coast, where we are just as much entitled to the bounty as the people on the Atlantic coast. My friends
from New Brunswick will no doubt get up and say, as they did last year, that it has always been so. That was the biggest argument that they could advance, but when did antiquity lend countenance to a wrong? If it has been a wrong, the sooner we stop it the better. The fact hat it has -been done for a number of years does not establish more than that beautiful thing called a precedent. They claim that this bounty was granted on account of some concession given to the Americans in return for which the Americans agreed to pay a sum of money, two or three million dollars, and this $160,000 is the interest on that sum. But that money was not ear-marked for the Atlantic fishermen. It was put into the treasury of the country, into the consolidated fund. * You can read the act under which t-his money is voted from beginning to end and backwards again and you will not find anything in it which says that the money is to be devoted entirely to the fishermen of one province. I suggest that we stop paying this bounty, a little dab here to this fisherman who goes out in a boat, and a little dab there to that fishermen. That does not encourage deep sea fishing. Is a man going to be encouraged to engage in deep sea fishing by giving him $1.35 a year? The thing is ridiculous. This money should be used for some advantageous purpose, such as the development of biological work. I could quote plenty of cases where it could be used to advantage on the British Columbia coast.


Peter John Veniot: Take it all to the Pacific
coast and give us nothing.


Alan Webster Neill: I would suggest that you give it all to the Pacific coast for the next few years to make up for the thirty years during which you have been swiping our share of it from British Columbia. I will not go into details, but there are lots of opportunities on the Pacific coast where money could be well spent in the development of the deep sea fisheries. I protest against this bounty for these two reasons:	The money is being
utterly wasted, and secondly, British Columbia is as much entitled by law to receive a share of this money as the Atlantic fishermen. I do not want my friends to get up and talk about precedents. What the statute says is what counts. The statute must be read by itself, and it says that the money is for the purpose of encouraging the deep sea fisheries of Canada. If there were any other intentions, they do not appear in the statute.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3700	COMMONS
Supply-Soldier Land Settlement

[Stage Direction]
Amount required for soldier land settlement advances and cost of administration of soldier settlement, $1,445,000.
Amount required for general land settlement advances and cost of administration of general land settlement, $1,400,000.
William Thomas Lucas: I want to take up with the
minister the case of a returned soldier in my constituency. It is in connection with a barn built on the Ogilvie farm. Oglivie secured a full loan from the soldiers' settlement board for land and equipment. He ordered lumber to the value of over sixteen hundred dollars from a lumber firm in Edmonton, and engaged this returned soldier to build the barn. Ogilvie afterwards left the place. The lumber company lost the full amount of their account, not being able to place a lien on crown property. I am not fighting for payment of the claim of the lumber company. Like any business concern, they always set aside a certain amount for bad debts, and it was up to them to look after their own business. But the returned soldier is not in the best of circumstances. He was anxious to get the work in order to support his family, and when Ogilvie engaged him this returned soldier aoted in good faith and built a very excellent barn. All he charged was four hundred and eighty dollars. The legion have done their best to help this man, and every time I visit the district they take the case up with me. When I was there last they drove me out to view the barn. This man not only built the barn, but he overhauled the house as well. The board resold the farm to a British family settler. The purchase price of the land to Ogilvie was fifty-five hundred dollars, leaving out the stock and equipment, which are separate items. The board resold the farm for fifty-two hundred dollars, or at a loss of only three hundred dollars. The officers of the department have assured me that the barn added a thousand dollars to the resale value of the farm. In other .words, if the building had not been erected, the board could not have resold the farm within a thousand dollars of the price they received for it.
I have placed the case before the minister on several occasions, in fact it has been pending for several years. He is sympathetic, but he thinks he has no means of getting the money to pay this claim. I would ask him if there is not some way by which he can take care of the debt owing to this returned soldier.


Mr. FORKE:: Mr. Chairman, I admit this case involves considerable hardship to the carpenter concerned, but for the department to deal with it as my hon. friend wishes would

open up a pretty wide field. For the information of the house I might read the statement from the soldiers' settlement board:
This settler was established about 1920, receiving the full amount as allowed by statute to be advanced to soldier settlers: viz: $7,500. The following year he engaged to build a barn, obtaining the lumber on his own credit and hiring a man to build the barn. The soldier settlement board had nothing to do with the arrangement in building the barn. A year or two afterwards he loft the farm and it reverted to the board. No purchaser was found for it until it was set aside for settlement under the 3,000 British Family Settlement Scheme in 1926.
The carpenter who built the barn made a claim on the board for his work, about $480. The board, not being in any way responsible for this debt, have refused to pay same. When the farm was sold to the British family settler it showed a loss to the board of something like $1,700, not including any interest. If interest was included it would be over $4,000. The board has neither power nor authority to pay out any moneys on the private debts of delinquent settlers.
Now, to deal with this case as requested would establish a precedent for ten thousand soldier settlers to incur debits on their own responsibility, and their creditors would look to the board for payment. I admit the hardship in this individual case, but really I cannot see any other course open to the board than to repudiate the debts of soldier settlers incurred on their own responsibility after they have obtained full loans under the act. Unfortunately a principle is involved that we cannot ignore, otherwise we might stretch a point in this particular case.


William Thomas Lucas: The loss on the resale which is given in the statement read by the minister of course includes the original loan for stock and equipment. But the new settler who purchased the farm did not get any of that The land in the first place cost fifty-five hundred dollars, and it was sold for fifty-two hundred dollars; so the actual loss to the board was only three hundred dollars on the farm itself. I think any officer of the department who has seen the bam will frankly admit that if it had not been on the farm the board would not have realized within a thousand dollars of the price on the resale. In order to aid our soldier settlers in 1922, we wiped out approximately eleven million dollars of interest, and the last revaluation will probably involve something like fourteen million dollars. Now here is the case of a returned man who did not go on the land. He is trying to support himself and his family, and in good faith he goes and builds a barn on government property; he does certain work and is not paid for it. He is not asking for

Supply-Soldier Land Settlement
charity; he is simply asking for pay for services rendered. The government in this case have something they have not paid for, and I think it is . the duty of the minister to try to find some means of doing justice so fat as this man is concerned.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: If this were a private matter the man could file a workman's lien and that would stand before any other debt.
I do not think it is quite fair, because the government occupies a peculiar position, that it should simply ignore a responsibility which any ordinary private individual would have to meet. If in private matters it is simple honesty that a workman's wages should take priority to any other claim, surely to goodness the government will not act less honestly.


Robert Forke: I thoroughly sympathize with the carpenter in this case, which seems a hard one. We took the advice of the Department of Justice, but if there is any way whereby we can meet the situation I shall be glad to take the matter up again with a view to having the man paid.


William Thomas Lucas: I thank the minister very
much, and I hope he will not say definitely that he will do nothing.


Robert Forke: I am not trying to get out
of it.


William Thomas Lucas: As the hon. member for
East Calgary has pointed out, if this were private and not government property the man could file a lien and have his bill paid. Is the government going to take a different stand from the position which any ordinary individual would find himself in, and refuse to pay the man?


Robert Forke: My hon. friend must bear in mind that we have to deal with a large number of soldier settlers, and if they could incur private liabilities and charge them to us we do not know what the government would be let in for. The principle is bad; the hon. member can readily see that. Of course, this carpenter has some recourse in relation to the individual who had the farm in the first place. However, I will look into the matter and see what can be done.


William Thomas Lucas: I would point out to the
minister that in the first instance the officials of his department were lax in this matter. They allowed Ogilvie to get into the condition we see in this case and get away scot free, and therefore I say there was laxity on their part.


Robert Forke: This was ten years ago.


William Thomas Lucas: I know; and this man has
been out of his pay all these years. The man is trying to make a living and it is a real hardship on him. The people of that district are incensed over the affair. This man has been held up in connection with $480 worth of work and the whole thing has left a bad feeling in the district. I hope the minister will find some way of settling the question.


Alfred Speakman: The first of the two items comprising this vote is for advances and for administration costs. How much of it will be used for further advances to settlers and how much will be taken up in costs?


Robert Forke: To soldier settlers for taxes, insurance premiums, seed and feed, refund of surplus on resale, initial payment returns, general land settlement, and so on, $690,000.


Alfred Speakman: And the balance is for costs of administration.


Robert Forke: There is $690,000 for advances and $755,000 for administration.


Alfred Speakman: How many men were originally placed under this act and how many are there at present on the land?


Robert Forke: There went on the land
originally 31,360 soldier settlers. Soldier settlers who were granted loans numbered 24,484 and 224 Indian soldier settlers were established, making a total of 24,708 under this particular head. Soldier entries without loan numbered 6,652, bringing the total up to 31,360. Active settlers now on the land number 13,778.


Alfred Speakman: Thirteen thousand out of thirty thousand?


Robert Forke: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: That is worse than I thought.


Robert Forke: Of course, only 24,484 got
loans from the board. There were 6,000 soldiers who took up homesteads without loans.


Alfred Speakman: Of that 24,000 the minister mentions there are 13,000 left on the land.


Robert Forke: Yes. There are 1,266 soldier settlers who have paid off loans and these must be added to the 13,000.


Alfred Speakman: The minister is adding those 6,000 to the 13,000. What was the outstanding indebtedness in the fall of 1922? What was the original outstanding indebtedness and how much has been paid? In other words, what pro-portion of the moneys has been returned?
3702	COMMONS
Supply-Soldier Land Settlement


Robert Forke: I do not seem to have the figures just at hand.


Alfred Speakman: What was the total amount which should have been paid by the settlers from the fall of 1922, when there was a consolidation, up to date? How much was due from them and how much have they paid? I would like to know those figures in order to ascertain just what position we are in, and in order to do so I must find out how much was due and ho>w much was paid. I think the chairman of the board must have that form which is handed out every year showing the amount due and the amount paid during that year, and I only want the aggregate of those sums from 1922 Ito date.


Robert Forke: Perhaps you had better go on while the chairman is looking for those figures.


Alfred Speakman: I will leave it there for the moment, although it is rather difficult for me to proceed as I had intended. Can the minister say what is ithe average size of [DOT] the farms held by the soldier settlers and the average indebtedness, including loans for all purposes, charged against those farms?


Robert Forke: The average size would run around 240 acres, I suppose, but I have not the average loan before me.


George Halsey Perley: While these figures are being looked up for my hon. friend from Red Deer I would like to make a comment which strikes me on looking at this vote. I do not understand how it is possible for the advances at this late date to amount to as much as $690,000 in a year. There are no new soldier settlers going on the land, as I understand it, aqd the advances were supposed to be made long ago.


Robert Forke: Of course we have been paying taxes and keeping the land in good standing; we have paid insurance premiums, seed and feed have been furnished in some cases and in other cases initial payments have been returned. In other words, some improvements have been put on the farms, and those amounts are all charged up against the land.


George Halsey Perley: Are these all fresh advances made to the same men who secured advances some years ago?


Robert Forke: Yes, these are recoverable advances charged against the land.


Robert Gardiner: What was the amount of taxes paid last year?


Robert Forke: About $250,000.


Alexander Duncan McRae: Can the minister say how many soldiers are in arrears?


Alfred Speakman: Perhaps the minister might give me the information I have requested.


Robert Forke: The original loans amounted to $112,551,042, and at present the amount outstanding is $73,100,111.30.


George Halsey Perley: How much of that amount represents arrears?


Alfred Speakman: It would be of particular value if I could ascertain how much in the aggregate was due from 1922 to the present time and how much has been paid by the settlers during that time. That will give me the information I require as to our position in this regard.


Robert Forke: It is a little difficult to get those figures.


Alfred Speakman: I will be satisfied to take the figures right from the beginning but I thought I was making it easier in this way because there was a consolidation in 1922.


Robert Forke: The unpaid interest amounts to $3,854,648 at present.


Alfred Speakman: That is of some assistance to me.


Robert Forke: The total amount due and
unpaid as of October 1 last was $5,392,838. Of all the soldier settlers, 88-5 per cent have either paid in full or paid a percentage.


Alfred Speakman: That number has paid something?


Robert Forke: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: I want to find out the total amount due from 1922 to the present time; what percentage of the amount due has been paid?


Robert Forke: The information I have is
that the initial payments amounted to $6,245,505; the repayments of principal amounted to $20,934,029; the repayments of interest amounted to $12,271,395; making total payments of $39,450,930, leaving a balance due of $73,100,111.
"Mr. SPEAKMAN: The percentage of the total amount due which has been paid is shown for each year, but I want to get the aggregate amount.


Robert Forke: That information is not
divided up in that way.


Alfred Speakman: Then there is no use
of my pressing for an answer.

Supply-Soldier Land Settlement


Robert Gardiner: The minister said that
the amount of unpaid interest up to the present time amounted to over $3,000,000, and the unpaid principal amounted to over $5,392,000; that would be something like $8,500,000 which would be added to the $39,000,000.


Robert Forke: The $5,000,000 includes
principal and interest, and of that amount $3,791,533 has been paid this year to May 31.


Alfred Speakman: How much was due this year?


Robert Forke: This $5,392,838, and of that amount $3,791,533 has been paid.


Alfred Speakman: That is the information I want, only I want it from 1922 up to the present time. I want to know how much has become due in that time; how much has been paid; to what extent the men have fallen behind-the minister has given me the information for last year, but I would like it from 1922 on. I take a great deal of interest in this work and I am trying to find out the result of the experiment. In order to do that I must know how much is due, how much has been paid, and how much is still left unpaid from 1922 to the present time.


George Halsey Perley: Perhaps the
minister could bring down that information at eight o'clock.


Alfred Speakman: I have a few suggestions to make, but I cannot make them until I have that information.


Robert Forke: It should be possible to
obtain that.


Alfred Speakman: There should be no
trouble about it.


Robert Forke: We have it for this year,
and I do not see why it should not be available for the other years.	.


Alfred Speakman: We will let that matter stand for the moment. I have a number of other questions along the same line which I would like to ask the minister. To what extent has revaluation been carried on, that is, how many applications have been made to date, how many appraisals have been made, how many final awards have been sanctioned by the courts, and how many appeals have been filed?


Robert Forke: The number of settlers
eligible to apply was 10,682.


Robert Gardiner: Is that the number of
actual applicants?


Robert Forke: That was the number who
were eligible to apply. The number of applications received was 8,290; of that number, 167 were withdrawn. The number of appraisals up to date is 7,377; the number of appraisals which have been received at the head office in Ottawa is 5,905; the number of final awards approved, 4,598, and the sale price to the settlers, of the 10,682 eligible, $17,007,585.
The board's award to the present time has made a reduction of $3,934,602. Soldiers to the number of 3,372 have given their consent to the award that has been made; 876 have not yet consented; 138 to date have appealed to the exchequer court and 21 appeals have been withdrawn since being lodged. The average percentage of reduction is 23 T per cent.


Alfred Speakman: Does the minister know what percentage of the awards granted were swallowed up in arrears which the men have incurred? The point is this: when an award is made, the settler is credited with that amount as a cash payment. It frequently happens that arrears accumulated between the fall of 1922 when all arrears were reconsolidated, and the time that the appraisal was made and the award given. The practice has been to cancel the arrears to the extent of the award made, that is, to apply it to the man's outstanding indebtedness. It often happens that the reduction granted under the revaluation does not cover even the amount of arrears into which the men have fallen during previous years. In how many cases did the award result in an actual reduction in the annual payments and in how many cases was it absorbed by the arrears?


Robert Forke: Some of those questions are
going to be pretty difficult to answer until the whole thing is wound up. I understand the hon. member's point of view; it is that in some cases the payments may be just as great in the future as they were in the past.


Alfred Speakman: I realize it would be
very difficult to get any such percentage at the moment, but the point is there and the minister is aware of it. In a number of cases .-I cannot say just now how many-the arrears of the man practically swallowed up the amount awarded to him, so that the annual payment was as great as before. This brings me to this situation: during the six years between the amendment of 1922 which consolidated and amortized the outstanding indebtedness of that time, and the fall of 1928, when the appraisals were made, a percentage, how large I do not know, of those settlers fell behind so badly in their annual payments
3704	COMMONS
Supply-Soldier Land Settlement
that the reduction itself of 23 per cent did not meet the arrears. I have cases that I dealt with personally where the reduction granted fell far short of meeting the arrears. I am not going to stress that point as far as I might, but I will give an illustration which will show the committee exactly what I mean and what the situation is. As a matter of fact, I am taking one out of a good many that have gone through my own hands.
This man, an overseas man of British birth, a man who had given good service, returned and bought a quarter-section under the board. His indebtedness at the time of purchase of land, stock and all the equipment he required, was something like $7,300. He fell behind rather badly prior to 1922, but with the reconsolidation of 1922 he made a fresh start. In 1928, when the appraisal was made, he was awarded, I think, $1,600 or within a few dollars of that. It was what he considered and what I consider, too, as a very fair award, and he had no complaint in that regard. But his arrears had accumulated during the six years to $2,300, in spite of the fact that for four out of those six years no interest charge had been made. The committee is well aware of the fact that by the amendment of 1922, the consolidated indebtedness was exempt from interest for two, three or four years according to the ye-ar in which the man had originally purchased the land. Therefore in his case for four out of those six years, from 1922 to 1928, he had paid no interest on his capital, that is, his annual payment was about 50 per cent of the annual payment with interest included. But during that time he went behind $2,300. He received his revaluation which left him with something like $800 of arrears which were not met by the reduction. After revaluation had taken place, the remaining indebtedness was reconsolidated and again amortized into annual payments, with the result in this man's case and in many others with which I aim familiar, the annual payment, after revaluation, was larger than the annual payment before, due to the fact that the arrears in 1928 amounted to more than the award granted. I think the committee will appreciate very clearly that if a man went behind $2,300 in six years, paying,
I think, about $650 a year during two of those years and about $350 during the first four of the six years, the man is going to have very little chance even after revaluation when the annual payment is greater than before, and his actual capital indebtedness, in spite of the fact that he has made fair, I do not say high, payments during the past years, is greater than when he borrowed the money ten years ago.

I am bringing this forward, not by way of criticism of the minister. The minister knows the situation; he understands it and he is just as sympathetic toward it as I am. But to my mind we are approaching the time when we must decide very definitely whether we are going bo forget to a large extent about the capital indebtedness or whether we are going to have the men leave the land, others come on and leave it in their turn, as I propose to show, and finally to allow the land itself to be sold for far less than its value. This man's case typified a problem that has been worrying me a great deal, not just for the sake of the oountry, not just from the point of view of the taxpayer, but because of the human element that is involved.
This is a .man of the very best type. A few days before I came east, he came to see me in order to put his case before me, not to ask anything of the government. He said that they had done fairly by him, but he wanted to ask my advice as to what he should do. He is in the prime of life and has worked for ten years on a quarter-section. City life has no allure for him; his sole ambition is to stay on the land and to make a success of it. He has four young children born during the time he has been on the farm.
That man, of course, cannot stay. If he went in arrears $2,300 in those six years, during part of which time the payments were only half of what he was paying at another time, it is absolutely impossible for him to meet his payments in the future when in spite of revaluation the annual payment is greater than before. That is the very type of man that we are trying to get into this country, that we are encouraging and assisting to come here, a man of good habits, a patriot, a man raising a family, a man whose whole desire was to work on the land and stay there. Yet here is this man with all the necessary qualifications in an absolutely hopeless position. I have been asked why he failed if he was an average farmer. It was for this reason, and the minister and every hon. member who is a farmer knows. On the average quarter-section in the three prairie provinces to-day it is absolutely impossible for a man to raise a family of four children and support his wife and himself, pay the running costs of the farm, and pay a capital charge of approximately $700 a year. I have tried it. I went out with my parents homesteading forty years ago, and for thirty years I have known no other life than the farm, and I know that in my part of the country and in the greater part of the three prairie provinces it is impossible for a man to raise a family decently, pay the running costs of the

Supply-Soldier Land Settlement
farm, and meet a capital payment of six or seven hundred dollars a year. The government has gone a long way to meeting the situation by the revaluation, but I am convinced that revaluation will simply defer the evil day, because in so many oases the amount awarded was eaten up by the arrears, and the annual payments in many cases are as large and in some cases larger than they were in the beginning. There are two or three phases of the situation that make it a very difficult one to deal with. I do not know a farmer in my part of the country who has made six per cent on his capital investment year after year. Our farmers on the average are a little better farmers than the soldier settlers, because a greater percentage of them have had experience, and they also had a little capital of their own, so in general perhaps they are a little better farmers. Then the average farm is a little better than the farm occupied by the average soldier settler, because when the land was first purchased for the soldier settlers it was not the best land that could be bought, partly because the inspectors did not know their job-it was a new organization created shortly after the war, and they had not been trained in their work-partly because the settler himself was not a good picker, and partly because the average farmer would not dispose of his best land. The average farmer cannot make the payments that the soldier is expected to make and live.


Robert Forke: I agree to some extent with the remarks made by my hon. friend for Red Deer. I believe that the board have in a great many cases advised the soldiers who were in such difficulties as my hon. friend mentioned that there was no chance of their ever being able to get on their feet, but strange to say, the board have found that in many cases they wanted to stay on the farm and were perfectly sure that they would make good under conditions that a practical farmer knew would make it impossible for him to meet the overhead expenses and carry on. I do not know what can be done to meet the situation put before the house by my hon. friend. It was really an indictment of agricultural operations as they are carried on throughout the whole of western Canada today.


Edward Joseph Garland: It was not an indictment; it was a mere statement of fact.


Alfred Speakman: I did not state that
the whole of agriculture was in that position, but my remarks applied with peculiar force
to these soldier settlers because they had a capital indebtedness far greater in proportion to their security than the average farmer would be allowed to undertake, because a mortgage company will loan only up to 50 per cent, whereas the soldier settler got 100 per cent.


Robert Forke: I might point out that 1,200 soldier settlers have paid off their total indebtedness, so they have not all failed. They got the 40 per cent reduction on their stock and implements one year, and a 25 per cent reduction the following year, and the interest was also cancelled. Now they are getting a revaluation of their farms. I do not see just what we can do about it. We cannot wipe off all their indebtedness. That would be unfair to those settlers who have paid off their indebtedness. I cannot see any other way than giving them all possible encouragement and assistance if we think there is a chance of their pulling through. If we think they are unable to wipe off their indebtedness, and they have a fair chance now to move off their holding and take up a new homestead, that indebtedness does not follow them to the new homestead. I -think it was a good thing that last year they were given the chance to make a new start. My heart bleeds for these people who are in trouble or in debt, and if anything can be suggested by the committee to assist them in any other way, I shall be only too glad to give it consideration. There is a good deal of truth in what my hon. friend says, and I think it is a good thing for the country to know it.


Mr. JENKINS:: As the minister is going
to prepare figures for the hon. member for Red Deer, possibly at the same time he might compile figures showing the amount overdue by the soldier settlers in the province of Prince Edward Island. I am rather anxious to know how their percentages of indebtedness compare with that of soldier settlers in other provinces. I have the impression that the men who were placed on the land in our province have been doing perhaps a little better than the settlers in other provinces, and I would like to have the figures to see whether that impression is correct. I realize that in Prince Edward Island there were some men placed on the land who never should have gone there, 'some who were quite well fitted for office work, but would never make farmers. Some of these have left the farm and gone into other vocations and are doing very well. Generally I think the soldier settlers in our province have been doing very nicely. I would ask the minister to bring down a statement showing the capital outstanding, the
3706	COMMONS
Supply-Soldier Land Settlement
amount of interest overdue, and exactly how Prince Edward Island compares with the other provinces in the matter of payments. I feel sure that I shall not be ashamed of the comparison, because I know that nearly all the soldier settlers have been doing very well indeed in our province.


Robert Forke: I might point out to the hon. member for Red Deer that out of 15,225 settlers who had payments due last year, 5,747 paid in full. I question whether the average farmer in western Canada made a very much better showing than the soldier settlers in that respect. These were soldier settlers actively engaged on their farms;


George Halsey Perley: Is the amount in connection with the general land settlement advances required for the arrangement with the empire settlement board?
Mr. FORKE; It includes the major part of it. The general land settlement board is really the colonization end of the department.


Robert Gardiner: The minister stated that $770,000 odd would be spent for administration purposes. Does he realize that this amounts to over $56 for each settlement account?
Mr. FORKE; The administration expenses amount to $775,000.


Robert Gardiner: That is a little over $56 for each active account. I submit that under the circumstances there is something wrong with the administration, and the minister should look into it.


Robert Forke: Last session there was some agitation to place the soldier settlement board under the Civil Service Act. Before this was done it was decided to have a thorough in-vsetigation into the work of the board. This investigation is being conducted by the audit department. As soon as I receive their report I shall be in a better position to judge whether the overhead is too heavy and whether something can be done to simplify t'he administration. In the meantime I think some injustice is being done to those employees of the soldier settlement board who have been ten years in the service but are not entitled to superannuation. They are doing their work quite efficiently. Next session I hope to be in a position to submit plans for carrying on the organization and placing those employees who intend to remain in the service in the position to which they are entitled. At that time if there is to be any elimination it can be carried out. The investigation to which I have referred

is being made for the sole purpose of ascertaining whether this is the most efficient system for carrying out the work. It must be remembered that the government has $77,000,000 at stake; therefore it is advisable that the department should be properly administered.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Are there not efficiency experts in connection with the audit board?


Robert Forke: They are under the finance department.


Milton Neil Campbell: Has the minister received any representations fa-om the Saskatchewan association of rural municipalities regarding the payment of taxes on soldier settlement land?


Robert Forke: Yes. The taxation question has been a very difficult one. The hon. member will perhaps recall that some years ago when this question first came up I viewed it from that comer of the house as one on the outside.


Robert Gardiner: Now you are on the inside.


Robert Forke: After I got inside one of my first resolutions was to clean up this taxation problem if possible. I realize the injustice which the municipalities are suffering, and I think I -have made a fairly satisfactory arrangement. I notice that at the last convention of the Saskatchewan association the president said:
In viewing the situation during the past year we find there has been a wonderful improvement in the payment of taxes on soldier settlement board lands, a fact for which we acknowledge our appreciation. The present policy outlined by the board is that all 1927 taxes on purchased patented lands acquired by the board where settlers are in possession were to be paid during 1928 with 6 per cent simple interest. Taxes on this class o-f lands after that date will be paid before due date, if possible, but in case arrears occur statutory penalties will be paid. The board are paying the taxes on abandoned lands leased to civilians where the amount of revenue is sufficient bo pay taxes in full. Where the revenue received is insufficient, the board will apply amount received on the taxes.
I direct this to the attention of hon. members :
The board are also paying taxes on crown lands that have been acquired by the board where the settler has remained in possession continuously. If this policy is adhered to in its entirety, there should be no more question about payments of penalties in the future.
The secretary-treasurer reported to the convention :

Supply-Soldier Land Settlement
Once again your executive have found it necessary to devote their time and attention to this problem, but we are pleased to report that conditions regarding the standing of arrears of taxes on S.S.B. lauds are vastly improved from what they were one year ago. In so far as those lands, which before being acquired by the board, were fully patented and tax paying, and which are still occupied, are concerned, we believe that our difficulties are nearing an end. from the reports which we have received it would appear that the board have paid on behalf of the soldier settler during the calendar year 1928, the sum of $333,374.34-
I hope the member for Argemteuil is listening, because this accounts for a large part of the advances.
-to the municipalities of the province. We are further informed that arrangements are now being made for the payment of arrears of taxes on every parcel of land coming under this classification.
The only point of difference between the board and municipalities is in regard to lands that have reverted to the crown. No attempt is being made to hold those lands, they are placed on the market and sold as rapidly as possible, and will not long be a factor in the tax problem. It must be borne in mind that this is one of the most difficult problems, the government having been in possession of so much land, and it will continue until the final payments have been made by soldier or civil purchasers. The taxes will be a first charge on the crop and on the land, so that the municipalities have not much to complain of in that regard.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am ready to admit
that there has been a very great improvement in the tax situation since the minister made the changes he did some time ago, but there still remains a very grave problem in connection with unoccupied lands. There are a great many of the lands which were not exceptionally good when taken up, and now that they are discarded and left in a very poor condition, the municipality is of course piling up a heavy indebtedness against them. In many cases bonds have been issued against lands which were assessable in the municipality. Schools were built, ordinary liabilities incurred by the municipality against them, anad there is therefore a great hardship on the municipality. I have here a letter from the Saskatchewan association of rural municipalities, a copy of which was forwarded to .the minister, and I will read it in part. It refers to the fact that the department is now paying taxes on these lands, which taxes, before the lands were acquired by the board, were fully paid. The letter states that they
have included in the classification certain other lands, such as school and Indian lands. It goes on to say:
Our most serious grievance however, is in regard to those lands held by the board which have been abandoned by the soldier settler or where his contract has been cancelled. There are large amounts of arrears of taxes outstanding against these lands and the financial position of many municipalities is being undermined through their inability to collect these taxes. With a view to clearing up the whole situation, a series of meetings have been held by the committee of the Western Union of Rural Municipalities, which organization is comprised of representatives of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the Manitoba Union of Municipalities and the Alberta Association of municipal districts. As a result of these meetings, it has been decided to ask the government at Ottawa to so amend the S.S.B. as to replace these lands in the taxpaying category in which they stood before being acquired by the board.
The letter goes on to mention an amendment which is proposed to the act and which these organizations hope the minister will look upon with favour. The suggested amendment reads:
In case any land which has in any way been disposed of by the board to a settler, or which has been mortaged to or charged with the payment of money in favour of the board free from the claims of the settler, it shall be lawful for the board to pay all lawful rates, taxes and assessments chargeable in respect of such land accrued before or accruing after the same becomes revested in the board; and if the board does not duly pay all such taxes, then the lands in respect of which the same are payable, shall become liable to sale or forfeiture or both pursuant to the provisions of any provincial statute for the recovery of taxes.
After all, there is an important principle at stake, I see no reason why the federal government should enjoy any special privileges in this regard. If lands are held in the title of the crown, lands which have been used and against which bonds have been issued and liabilities incurred in connection with improvements made at a time when there were settlers on that land, it seems to me only reasonable to expect that the government should assume the responsibility which any ordinary ratepayer in the municipality or any mortgage company is obliged to assume. I quite appreciate the fact that there has been a vast improvement so far, but I do think that the minister ought to go the whole length. I do not say that the principle should be applied to crown lands not occupied; but in respect to crown lands which have been used and which have once appeared on the assessment list, the board should assume their proper responsibility and pay their share, just as is done by ordinary owners of any other land. Certainly the government should not be in
3708	COMMONS
Supply-Soldier Land Settlement
the position of enjoying the special privilege of having improvements made at the expense of other settlers' lands. The minister mentioned the representations he made and the advice he gave to the government when he sat on this side of the house. At that time he went the whole way, and I suggest to him, now that he is in a position to carry it out, that he take his own advice. Let him take the advice which he gave to the government while he was on this side of the house.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should
like to get some information from the minister with regard to the policy of the soldier settlement board in the matter of the treatment of the settlers themselves. Seizures are made sometimes, are they not? Under what conditions would seizures on a settler be made? Would he have of necessity to be in arrears?


Robert Forke: He would have to be in
arrears and there would have to be evidence that he was trying to evade payment.


Edward Joseph Garland: In other
words, one would not expect seizure to be made unless the man were obviously-


Robert Forke: Trying to evade his payments.


Edward Joseph Garland: Exactly.
I should imagine that would be .the policy. I wonder why it has been changed.


Robert Forke: I did not know it had been changed.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, I may tell the minister that in the west, or at any rate in Alberta, I find a widespread dissatisfaction with the recently adopted autocratic attitude on the part of the board. I have asked the minister these two leading questions in order to get the situation clearly before the committee. Now what would the minister think of a situation like this? Here is a soldier settler, a splendid young chap who served as a captain in the Canadian expeditionary force, has one of the nicest, cleanest and neatest farms in the whole province, his buildings well appointed, and everything in perfect shape. He is a traction farmer-he uses a tractor and is thoroughly efficient. He .s a married man though without children. He had some small arrears running up to September last, but on September 13 the arrears were all paid off by cheque and receipt given. On October 4 the supervisor from Calgary-really from Drumheller though he is attached to the Calgary office-came around to the man and said he wanted his payments. The current payments had become due on 
October 1, amounting to some $500 in round figures. The man was harvesting and thrashing his crop at the time, the grain was running No. 6, the initial payment from the pool was very low, and he had only partly threshed his crop. He requested the supervisor to hold off the claim for a little while. The supervisor had known him for some time to be a first class man and willingly withheld the claim for the moment. Then the soldier settler said to him: "Don't you think it would be possible to secure a stay of collection over this year in order that I may seed some more grain next summer?" The supervisor said, "No; .there is no chance of that." He stated that he had been instructed to make seizure. But, the man pointed out, he did not owe the 'board a cent. He said, "The current payments have only just now come due. How can you possibly make seizure?" The supervisor pulled out of his letter file the seizure papers filled in and dated and signed as of September 15-ait a time when the man did not owe the board a dollar and when even his arrears were very small, and which arrears had been paid off in the meantime. Now here is a fine .type of settler, a man who had never been in any financial difficulties with his neighbours, who had never had any trouble with the bank, and who had conducted his business on a high plane: here he is threatened with seizure. It was a blow such as most of us would not like. How would any hon. gentleman like to be threatened and indeed to be shown the seizure papers a.t a time when he did not owe a single dollar to the person who was going to serve him? As a result of his advice to the supervisor and the supervisor's knowledge of the man himself, he withheld the seizure until he could interview Mr. Woods, .the superintendent, at Calgary. I think that interview took place somewhere near Hanna, prior to October 11, and on October 11 the supervisor again called on .this settler and informed him that he had taken up the matter with the superintendent on October 4 and that the superintendent had instructed him to proceed to the settler's farm and execute the seizure.
Do hon. members realize the drastic action which was advised by the superintendent at Calgary? As I said before, on September 13 the papers were made out ordering the man off his farm; on October 12 the supervisor called again and said, " You will have to make the payments or I will have to seize the farm." It was too late that night to go to the bank, so the supervisor stayed over night and in the morning the settler went to the bank. This man asked tne supervisor

Supply-Soldier Land Settlement
to call up the Calgary office and find out what terms could be secured for the payment of the amount due, as the settler did not have all the cash and might have difficulty in collecting it from the bank on a loan. The Calgary office apparently stated that they would be willing to accept an assignment of his wheat on the wheat pool. The settler then made arrangement to pay some $252 in cash, which he borrowed from the bank, and he gave the soldier settlement board an assignment for the balance on 700 bushels of wheat.
As soon as this assignment was sent to the Calgary office they replied by letter, a copy of which I have here, stating that the assignment was not satisfactory and that the man would have to pay the whole amount in cash. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I do not know one of the mortgage companies, those coldblooded, brutal octopi which we have discussed so much in this house and to which the minister has referred in scathing terms from time to time, that would have acted in such a cold-blooded, brutal manner towards one of its creditors. This is not a solitary case, either. There was another case in that very district, which has been settled; the unfortunate settler managed to make the payment at considerable cost to himself; he had to borrow a large amount of money from the bank and hypothecate other assets in order to make the payments.
Now I want to know first of all why it was necessary to drive this settler into the borrowing class in order to meet a loan which had only just become due. Why did the board have seizure papers made out two weeks before the current payment was due and, above all, when the condition of the crop this year had been placed before the board? The wheat grown on this farm was a No. 6 wheat, low in quality and very low in price, but the board insisted on payment in full in cash. That is not fair treatment; that is not giving consideration to the soldiers; that is not giving them a chance to stay on the land. This man is a particularly high type of settler, judging from the letters he received from the board. Last spring he received a letter asking if he would be able to take some of the empire settlement immigrants, if he could give them work during the summer, and in that letter he was addressed as a No. 1 settler. Now he is informed by the supervisor that in order to justify the seizure papers being made out, he has been demoted and is now a class four settler on the files of the Calgary office. These are all things requiring explanation and in this case, as in several others, I find
a clear indication of a change in the policy of the soldier settlement board since it has become attached to the Department of Immigration, and possibly hopes to become a permanent institution.


Robert Forke: It is no more attached to the department now than it was formerly.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, it is working in close cooperation with it, especially since the soldier settlement board has taken over the empire settlement scheme. That, I think, is more than simply a hyphen between the board and the Department of Immigration; it is an absolute connecting link between the two.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have placed before the minister a clear case, and I want a statement in respect to it. The name of the soldier settler is Captain N. J. MoCrimmon and his loan number is 756.


Robert Forke: While I have mo doubt that my hon. friend has made these statements in absolute good faith, I have had so much experience in looking into apparent cases of injustice and finding that there are always two sides to a question that I very much doubt if the information supplied to my hon. friend, and given the committee to-day, is absolutely correct.


Edward Joseph Garland: That was my purpose in bringing it to the attention of the minister; I want the minister's reasons, either for the position as I have stated it or for a different position, if such is found to be the case.


Robert Forke: I can only state that my instructions to the board always have been that I am more interested in the success of the settler than in the collections, because if the settler succeeds eventually the collections will be made. Of course, the committee will understand that I scarcely know anything about the work of the board unless there are some complaints, and my stand has always been that if the settler is successful the payments will be made eventually. At the same time, often it is just as well that the board does press for payment, because when arrears begin to accumulate sometimes the difficulties pile up, and quite often people are so optimistic that they get into trouble which they are not likely to get out of. If they are pressed for payment sometimes it is for their own good in the long run,
I can hardly believe that Superintendent Woods would act in this way; from my information with regard to that gentleman I have never learned of any such hard dealings
3710	COMMONS
Supply-Soldier Land Settlement
with a man who was making an attempt to meet his payments. I cannot give an answer to my hon. friend to-day; probably I will not have an oportunity to give my answer in the house, but I will inquire fully into the matter and will see that my hon. friend gets full information with regard to this particular case. I am sure this is an isolated case; the actions mentioned by the hon. member are entirely opposed to the policy of the board. We treat them with the utmost leniency as long as there is a chance of payment, but sometimes people are not very anxious to pay and they must have pressure brought to bear upon them.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister's reply may be all that could be expected at the moment, but I have given the name of the settler and his loan number, at the request of the minister. This settler feels extremely hurt over this whole situation. The case is clear, but evidently the minister did not listen quite so intently as I had hoped he might. On September 14 this man owed the board $142.66 arrears. On September 15 that amount was paid in full, so from September 14 to October 1 this settler was fully paid up. On October 1 his current annual payment of $507.08 came due. On September 13 seizure papers were made out, signed, and presented to the supervisor who travels over that country. These papers were made out in the Calgary office and given him to serve on this man if he did not immediately make his payment. This information was given the settler on October 4, just four days after the amount became due and at a time when he was actually engaged in threshing his crop. The actual service of .the papers took place on October 11, after Superintendent Woods had been requested to stay action in the matter until some discussion could take place. This is not an isolated case, and I am simply raising it because it is the one case in which I am satisfied the evidence is clear. The documents in support of the evidence are in my possession, and I am satisfied that the department, will have a great deal of difficulty in putting up any defence. I have received many complaints from the Craigmyle, Rowley and other districts, but I have refrained from taking these matters up because in most instances the only information I could obtain was that of the settler, and he did not always have the real evidence with which I couid build up a case. But I want the minister to take particular cognizance of this matter and if he finds that the statements which I have made are correct I want him to take the
[Mr. Forke.l
most drastic action with respect to the Calgary office. Their activities should be checked up and if they are acting in a dictatorial or domineering fashion towards the settlers, the officials should be removed from the office.


Robert Forke: I have not received any notice of the case mentioned by the hon. member. If he had made that statement to me a week ago I would have been in a position to reply to him to-day. This is the last day of the session and the hon. member is making certain statements.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister has no authority for stating that this is the last day of the session; the session may run into next week or the week after.


Robert Forke: I am in no hurry.


Edward Joseph Garland: If this matter has been taken up * by the settler himself with the Calgary office, and I presume with the Ottawa office, then the whole file should be in the minister'3 department.


Robert Forke: I can get the file, but this
is the first time I have received any notice of the case. If the hon. member had given me this information a week ago I would have been able to have the information before the house to-day and the matter could have been settled. If the hon. member is willing to keep the house sitting for another week, I *can get the information. He is giving what was stated to him 'by the settlers, but there are .two sides to every question.


Edward Joseph Garland: I asked the minister to bring in this information after eight o'clock, along with the figures he is to get for the hon, member for Red Deer.


Robert Forke: It might be necessary to
send to Calgary for the information.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are the records not kept down here?


Robert Forke: They do not know that a
case like that is going to come up; the accounting is done here.


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I
should like to make a few remarks in com nection with the tightening-up process in making collections. I have made inquiries to find out whether or not such orders have been issued from Ottawa, and I assume that there has been a little tightening up.


Robert Forke: The collections have not
been what might have been expected.

Supply-Soldier Land Settlement


Alfred Speakman: When the revaluation
takes place and the farmer is notified of the reduction, the attitude of the board seems to be that the price is at rock bottom and more stringent collection should be made. I have taken up a number of seizure cases this year, but I must say that I have not had one of such outstanding importance as that mentioned by the hon. member for Bow River. When these cases are brought to me I draw the files from the board and arrive at my own conclusions, and I must say that I have no reason to complain of the treatment I have received. I think in one hundred per cent of the cases in which I have taken issue with the board adjustments have been made. I cannot help but think that if the adjustments are made on my request the first decisions must have been arrived at without full consideration, because no department would be willing to overlook their own opinion and accept that of an outsider as to what was fair in the matter. I think this matter requires some careful checking up. I should like to ask the minister a question or two in regard to the procedure of appeal to the exchequer court. A number of men have lodged appeals and they are anxious to know just wha.t arrangements have been made as to the procedure to be followed by the court.


Robert Forke: I think the best explanation would be to read the hon. member's letter.


Alfred Speakman: I referred only to costs, but I desire to know what arrangements have been made as to the sittings of the court and what procedure will be followed.


Robert Forke: I think the hon. member's
own letter is the best explanation I can give.


Alfred Speakman: I want to know whether the court itself had come to a decision as to the time and place of its sittings, and as to the procedure which will be followed.


Robert Forke: The revaluations will be
finished this summer, and the matter is being taken up with the exchequer court to undertake this work at the earliest possible moment. It is just a little doubtful whether Judge Maclean or Judge Audette will be able to find time to undertake the work, but there will be a judge appointed specially who will go west and meet those who are making appeals. All expenses of the court will be paid by the soldier settlement board, with the exception of the soldier settlers' own expenses. The judge also may be allowed his expenses. The Justice department have this matter in hand and I have been pressing them for in-78594-235
formation as to when the appointment may be made; in fact, I expected that the order in council would be issued to-day. The department would like to have all the appeals in before the judge begins to hold court so that it will not be necessary for him to go over the ground twice.


Alfred Speakman: No definite arrangements have been made as yet as to the time and place of sitting or as to the procedure?


Robert Forke: They will be made as convenient as possible for the soldier settlers.


Alfred Speakman: Another matter is the
time allowed for filing an appeal, and in this connection I am a little critical of the action of the minister. When a soldier settler has received an award 'from the board and does not accept it, he is permitted, under the provisions of the act, to appeal to the exchequer court. That appeal has to be made within a given number of days from the time he is advised of the official award. But at the time the first notices of appeal came in, each settler so giving notice was instructed by the departmental solicitor or superintendent that while he could go ahead and this was the way to do it, he must bear in mind that the court in its discretion might assess the whole costs of the case against him.


Robert Forke: I do not think that is the
case.


Alfred Speakman: That is .practically what was in the letter-I am boiling it down: that the appeal would be treated as an ordinary exchequer oourt case and the court would, in its discretion, assess the costs against either party or both. The result, as I was sure it would be as soon as that letter was received, was that the settlers, being in a state of uncertainty whether or not the costs would be assessed against them, and not in the least knowing how heavy the costs might be, would not appeal. To my mind that is why such a very small number of appeals have so far been lodged. The first letter I wrote to the minister was on December 10, in which I outlined the case, but I was unable to receive a ruling until May 6, and that is the point on which I am critical. I believe the ruling itself is fair and just, namely, that the settler would be guaranteed against costs no matter how trivial the grounds of the appeal might be. But that uncertainty, both as to whether he might be assessed -costs by the oourt and as to the amount by which he might be so assessed, prevented many a settler from lodging an appeal. I suggest tha<t a good deal of leniency be shown as to the time within



Supply-Soldier Land Settlement
which an appeal shall be made. It is only a few weeks since the dohbt was removed from tiheir minds and they know now what they may espect in connection with costs if they appeal. I discussed the matter with some of the members of the court and I think the minister will find that the court will fully concur in the suggestion that a good deal of leniency might apply in respect to the time limit, so that men who feel they have a grievance and who, on account of uncertainty as to the costs, did not appeal within the time provided, might have an opportunity of appealing now that that doubt has been removed.


Milton Neil Campbell: With regard to the question of the activities of the local officials of the soldier settlement board in collecting accounts against soldier settlers and the apparent highhandedness, of those officials it is only fair to say this:	I have had referred to
me many cases in which there seemed to be rather officious and highhanded action on the part of the local officials, but I must say that in discussing these cases with the chairman of the board I received as fair treatment as I could expect under the circumstances. We must recognize the fact that these officials are responsible for taking care of a great deal of the country's property, and while we expect them to give all reasonable consideration to soldier settlers, yet on the other hand we must realize that they have a financial responsibility as well. I thought it was only fair to say that the chairman has given most sympathetic consideration to any cases I have referred to him.
While I am on my feet I want to ask the minister whether or not he will make a statement as to his attitude toward the suggestion made to him or his department by the Saskatchewan association of rural municipalities, as I think it is called, as to amending the act so that the department will be liable for the taxes on all lands that have been once occupied as well as the lands that have reverted to the crown, that have been deserted by settlers or on which the settlers have been foreclosed.


Robert Forke: I think the amount of land under this category is exaggerated. The board is selling about 100 farms a month, and in a short time there will be very little land left on the hands of the government. In regard to some very poor land-I have no authority to say this, but I am not at all afraid I can get it through when I want to- we will be quite willing to hand some of that land over to the municipalities for the taxes and let them do what they like with it. It is not worth more than the taxes. This,

however, is a matter of government policy. If the government is going to pay taxes on government property, the board will pay those taxes. Mr. Lamb and others have addressed personal letters to the Prime Minister in regard to this, and it is a matter of government policy.


Milton Neil Campbell: That is all the association is asking for, namely, that in case the board are not prepared to pay the taxes, we permit the municipalities to foreclose on them for tax sales the same as they do with regard to privately owned land'. If the land is not worth the taxes, they are quite satisfied to take it over.


Mr. BROWN:: In view of the fact that
there is a great deal of criticism, some of it fair and some of it unfair, of the board, I may say that I received a letter from one branch of the Canadian legion in my constituency, expressing their very hearty appreciation of the way in which the board had dealt with all the cases of the soldiers in that particular part of the country. I had occasion to visit that branch of the legion in the early part of the winter. They were then discussing the matter in my presence, and since coming to Ottawa I have, as I say, received from them a letter expressing their appreciation of the way in which the board has dealt with the settlers.


Henry Elvins Spencer: ^This item is a doubleheaded one. There is about $1,500,000 for soldier land settlement advances and cost of administration of soldier settlement. Could the minister inform the committee as to the actual cost of administration outside of the advances?


Robert Forke: $755,000. As regards vote
No. 60, soldier and general land settlement, the amount to be voted is $2,845,000. The total amount recoverable is $1,090,000; that all comes back to the government, or at least it stands against the lands. The way in which those estimates are made up in the Immigration department and the soldier settlement board, is very misleading as regards the amount of money that is really being expended. Only about half of the vote is really being expended. Out of the total vote of $2,845,000, $1,090,000 consists of recoverable expenditures. As regards the general land settlement, the administration expenses amount to $600,000 and as regards the soldier settlement, the administration expenses amount to $755,000, making a total of $1,355,000 that is not recoverable.

Supply-Soldier Land Settlement


Robert Gardiner: Would' the minister
state bow much land the soldier settlement board has unoccupied on its hands at the present time?


Robert Forke: I will have that looked up.


Alfred Speakman: How many British
families are now on the land in connection with the empire settlement scheme?


Robert Forke: It is expected that we shall
have a full complement this summer. I think it lacks three hundred at the present time. I want to make it plain that that three thousand family scheme might be never-ending, because you will find some families dropping out every year and they will need to be replaced. But no more families will be brought out next year under that scheme.


Alfred Speakman: What is the average
amount of loan, on account of land purchased, made by the Canadian government to these settlers, and what is the average indebtedness of each family towards the British government? These families, of course, carry a doulble-headed debt. There as the $1,500 received from the British government to assist in stocking a farm, and there is the cost of the land turned over to them by the Canadian government. I should like to find out the indebtedness carried by the average family if the minister has that information, and if not, I should like to have it prepared.


Robert Forke: The average indebtedness
is $3,505.


Alfred Speakman: That is the average
purchase price?


Robert Forke: Yes. The hon. member referred to loans made to British settlers. The Dominion government makes no loans of any kind to these settlers.


Alfred Speakman: You sell them land on
ti-me.


Robert Forke: Yes, but I want to repeat,
because there is a general misapprehension on the subject, that the Dominion government makes no loans of any bind to these settlers.


Alfred Speakman: I was not under a misapprehension. Perhaps I did not put my question clearly. I want to know, first, the amount to which the average settler is indebted to the Canadian government in respect of the land purchased, and second, the amount to which he is indebted to the British government in respect of loans made.


Robert Forke: To get at that figure, you
have first the average amount paid for a farm, 78594

 -235J
which is $3,505, and you have 3,000 families. Multiply those two figures, and you get the total amount owing, less what has already been paid.


Robert Gardiner: You do not collect for the British government?


Robert Forke: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: What is the average
indebtedness to the British government by way of loan, for which you are not responsible but which you collect?


Robert Forke: I cannot give those figures
offhand.


Alfred Speakman: Have these settlers on
the average received $1,500?


Robert Forke: I do not think that the three thousand families have paid as well in proportion as the soldier settlers.


Alfred Speakman: I did not ask that. I asked the average loan made by the British government to each family. I understand that $1,500 is the basis, but that the loans vary. I am trying to find the capital indebtedness of each farm under the empire settlement scheme, and that would include the cost of the land, the loan made by the British government, and the passage money advanced, which is repayable. Those are three types of public indebtedness which these farms would carry.


Robert Forke: I think $800 would be about
the average indebtedness.


Robert Gardiner: What is the averageacreage per farm allocated to the British families?


Robert Forke: Mostly half-sections.


Robert Gardiner: For only a total cost
of $3,505?
Mr. fiORKE:	There are a number of
quarter-sections.


Alfred Speakman: That is a very great
deal more than the 23 per cent reduction that the soldier settlers got on the revaluation. The farms that I have seen are quarter-sections.


Robert Forke: I am speaking without the
book.


Alfred Speakman: I want definite information on this because I have been working on the subject for a long time, and I am being continually asked for information.


Robert Forke: It is difficult to say offhand just how many quarter-sections and half-sections have been occupied.
3714	.	COMMONS
Supply-Soldier Land Settlement


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister give
us the total aoreage allocated under the three thousand family scheme?


Robert Forke: I have not got that.


Alfred Speakman: The terms under which they get the loan from the British government provide for no payments being made for two years, if that is right, in most cases the first payment would be made last fall.


Robert Forke: There is generally one year
of probation, and another year before they make any payment.


Alfred Speakman: As they have only come in within the last few years it is only now that payments are coming due.


Robert Forke: It does not amount to very much yet.


Alfred Speakman: You have not the definite amount, but are of opinion that it is not quite as satisfactory, by percentage, as the soldier settlers. I shall not repeat the arguments that I have already made with regard to soldier land settlement, but most of those arguments apply to this settlement scheme as well. The minister agrees with me, without saying now that the scheme is -damned, that we will take good care to see how it is going to work out before we extend it.


Robert Gardiner: Is the land settlement
board selling to civilian Canadians land on the same terms as granted to the British families, provided that the Canadian settler owns his stock and equipment?


Robert Forke: I do not see any reason why they should not. They are selling this land to Canadian civilians right now on twenty-five equal annual payments.


Robert Gardiner: On exactly the same
terms as to the British?


Robert Forke: Practically the same terms,
twenty-five equal annual payments but if they "fall down in their payments we have nothing to take the place of the British government.


Robert Gardiner: Why do you need the British government when these Canadian settlers have their own stock and equipment? Do you call for any payment down from Canadian settlers?


Robert Forke: A payment down of ten per cent.


Robert Gardiner: That is the difference, and you do not give them two years' probation.
|Mr. Forke.]


Robert Forke: They do not need it.


Robert Gardiner: Do you give them one year's probation?	[DOT]


Robert Forke: I think they get one year.


Robert Gardiner: Are you quite sure of
that?


Robert Forke: It is a matter of adjustment. I think they get as good terms as the British settler.


Robert Gardiner: Not when they pay ten per cent down.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-Dairying, including grant of $5,000 to the National Dairy Council and necessary new buildings, $295,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: If on investigation the
minister finds that certain members of the National Dairy Council are getting rid of New Zealand or other imported butter of inferior quality as Canadian butter, will he discontinue the grant to the council?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, if they are
doing it it is wrong, and we had better stop it by law or regulation, but I do not think we should penalize the council. My hon. friend speaks of "getting rid of" New Zealand butter as if it was an inferior product. I do not know why any dealer in butter should attempt to disguise New Zealand butter, because it is good butter. However, if what is alleged is being done I think it should be stopped. We have investigated complaints but so far we have not got sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution.


Milton Neil Campbell: If large quantities of
New Zealand and other imported butter of an inferior quality are being sold throughout the country as Canadian butter it is a serious situation that calls for drastic action on the part of the Department of Agriculture. The minister seems to think that he has no legislative authority to take action. I think he must be mistaken. If we sell our wheat as being of a certain grade, and it turns out to be of an inferior grade, we have to compensate the buyer or we are liable to a charge of fraud. Certainly the minister must be in a position to deal with this situation.


William Richard Motherwell: This New Zealand
butter is not inferior to ours, and if it is not sold as Canadian butter there is no violation of the law. If, however, it is sold as butter of Canadian origin, undoubtedly there is a violation of the law.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. COTNAM:: Is it the policy of the
government to allow the continued importation of New Zealand butter?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I hope the
house will agree to accept the following motion:
That this house shall not be adjourned at eleven o'clock to-day.
There is a possibility that we may conclude even before eleven o'clock, but I think it is advisable if the proceedings go beyond that hour that we should be at liberty to sit at least as late as we did last night.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Until twelve?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
(Mr. Cotnam) wanted to know whether we would continue the policy under the order in council, applying the Australian treaty to New Zealand. The Department of Agriculture has never undertaken to enunciate government policies; that would be a matter for the government.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Does not the Minister of
Agriculture, as such, know the policy of the government in that respect?


William Richard Motherwell: No; I am not commissioned to make any reply in regard to either the Australian treaty or its application to New Zealand.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Then perhaps the minister knows his own mind in the matter. Does he think that the Australian treaty is beneficial to the Canadian dairy farmers as well as to the mixed farmers of Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec?


William Richard Motherwell: That is a matter
of ooinion, I expect.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I should be glad to know the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture. That is a fair request; he knows his own mind.


Edward James Young: Mr. Chairman- Mr. COTNAM:	Just a moment; I want
an answer to that question.


William Richard Motherwell: I will make a
careful survey of the situation.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Does the minister mean
that while he is making that careful survey the Canadian dairy farmer is to be penalized to the extent of having his market taken from him through the importation of almost thirty million pounds of New Zealand butter every year?


William Richard Motherwell: There is an extraordinary revival of butter making in Saskatchewan and the west generally. During the past four or five months the manufacture of butter in Saskatchewan has more than doubled each month. So that I shall have to reserve my opinion on this question until I see how things work out this summer.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Am I to infer from the
minister's answer that he thinks the treaty beneficial to the dairy farmers, of Saskatchewan at any rate? I am prepared to say that it has not worked out to the advantage of the dairy farmers of Ontario. I can assure the minister that the dairy farmers of Ontario feel very keenly the loss of this market for their dairy products. Perhaps the reason for a part of the immigration which is taking place to-day is to be found in this very fact. Many of our farmers are becoming discouraged in their endeavour to carry on their dairy operations when they seem to get so little cooperation from the Department of Agriculture and this government.


Edward James Young: It appears to
me, after listening to the discussion to-day, that the opinion prevails in some quarters that because the National Dairy Council receive a grant of $5,000 per annum from this government, the government is in duty bound to accept its fiscal policy from that council. I confess I cannot see the logic of that argument. In my opinion any organization receiving a cash grant of public money from the government should keep strictly out of politics. I understand that this organization has been actively engaged spreading political propaganda of a kind not acceptable to a good many people in this country and in this house, and I suggest that before any money is paid to this council thev be required to
Supply-Agriculture

give an assurance that they will keep strictly out of politics and neither interfere nor attempt to interfere with the fiscal policy of the government. Will the minister give us an assurance to that effect?


William Richard Motherwell: I have already spoken to the council of the unwisdom of making themselves conspicuous on certain controversial questions, and have pointed out that it would render it easier for me to keep the grant going and possibly to increase it if necessary if they were not so active in displaying their views. I think there is a marked improvement in this regard. They are not offensive this year so far as I can see.


Edward James Young: But they are
active.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
about their activity, but I cannot see any offensiveness on their part, particularly since the election of the present president.


Alfred Speakman: I wish to make one
or two observations in regard to the question of the marking of goods imported into Canada so as to indicate the country of origin. I support this proposition. The minister, for whose subtlety I have a great deal of respect, when this matter was brought up on a previous occasion, tried to link it up with the general idea of protection. I will not say that he was confused in his own mind, because I am sure he was not; but he did not make any particular attempt to ensure the house against confusion. I may say that I am in favour of a good many kinds of protection, but it is not necessarily the sort of protection the minister has referred to. For example, I am in favour of protectiong the consumer against exploitation, though that is not protection of the sort the minister speaks of; and I am equally in favour of protecting the consumer against fraud or against any uncertainty as to the quality of the goods he buys. I am not prepared to impose a high tariff, but I do support the idea that the consumer should know just where the goods come from which he is buying, what the quality is, and so forth, so that he may make his choice. That is the kind of protection I want. It is the minister's obvious intent to permit a wrong impression to prevail, and I have no wish to see it succeed.


John Livingstone Brown: I have been interested in
this discussion with regard to New Zealand butter being sold under the guise of Canadian butter. In what form does that butter come into Canada? Is it in pound prints or m larger packages?


William Richard Motherwell: In fifty-six pound
packages.


John Livingstone Brown: Then it must be repacked
by someone in Canada. I can understand that the Dominion government might very well require that the packages coming to Canada should be marked with the country of origin, but I can see some difficulty in the way of the Dominion government acting when that butter goes out to the trade and is repacked in pound prints, as I presume it is sold. Then I cannot be just sure, on this question of fraud, whether the objection is taken because New Zealand butter is better or worse than Canadian butter. It cannot be fraud practised on the consumer if, as was stated this afternoon, New Zealand butter is selling in Vancouver for two cents per pound more than Canadian butter.


Alfred Speakman: I consider it fraud
when a consumer is induced to buy something under the belief that it is a different article. I am not referring to the inferiority or superiority of New Zealand butter; I merely desire that the customer may know what he is buying and may get what he wants.


John Livingstone Brown: On the other hand, if this butter is simply going out as butter, not labeled, I do not see how the question of fraud can enter into the transaction.


John Anderson Fraser: There is a bonus of $100
paid to creameries under this vote. Would the minister tell us on what basis that bonus is given?


William Richard Motherwell: This bonus of $100 is intended to assist in the provision of cooling rooms for small creameries which have not a sufficient turnover to justify their putting in a cold storage. That grant is offered the creameries provided they comply with inspection conditions, and of course these cooling rooms cost a good deal more than that. This is an encouragement to them to put in their own money in order to provide the very necessary requisite of a cooling room.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cold storage warehouses, $467,837.
William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister explain
this large increase?


William Richard Motherwell: The increase is
due to the construction, under the Cold Storage Act, of a large warehouse at Halifax and another warehouse at New Westminster. Perhaps I might give the details of this vote:
Fourth instalment to United Farmers' Cooperative Company, Limited, Toronto, Ont., $1,732.

Supply-Agriculture
Third instalment to Eloi Cote, Chicoutimi, Que., $480.	,
Second instalment to Pictou County Dairy Company, Limited, Stellarton, Nova Scotia, $3,500.	. .
Second instalment to A. Landry, Riviere du Loup, Quebec, $875.
First instalment to Nova Scotia Public Fish and Cold Storage Terminals, Limited, Halifax, Nova Scotia, $326,250.
First instalment to Pacific Coast Terminals Limited, New Westminster, British Columbia, $135,000.


William Thomas Lucas: What will be the total cost
of the buildings at Halifax and New Westminster?


William Richard Motherwell: The total subsidy
is 30 per cent of the total cost; we pay half the subsidy the first year while the other half is spread over three or four years, so these amounts will represent 15 per cent of the total cost.


William Thomas Lucas: What percentage is paid by
the government towards the cost of these buildings?


William Richard Motherwell: We pay 30 per
cent of the total, under the terms of the Cold Storage Act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fruit, including grant of $8,000 to the Canadian Horticultural Council, $336,000.
William Russell Fansher: I notice this vote includes $8,000 for the horticultural council. Will the minister tell me the names of the president and secretary of that organization ?


William Richard Motherwell: While my deputy
is looking up that information I might tell my hon. friend that there is an increase of $46,000 in the vote, which increase is largely returnable to the treasury. This amount is to provide for the inspection of fruit in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, and this money will be repaid very largely through the charge of $3 for every car inspected. There is some slight statutory increase in salaries, in addition.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would the minister tell us
who compose the horticultural council and what institutions or societies are represented on it?


William Richard Motherwell: Mr.	Burrows of
Ottawa is the secretary and Mr. J. H. Lavoie, Quebec City, is president. The Canadian Horticultural Council represents 216 horticultural and allied industry organizations having a membership in excess of 85,000. I will give the list of officers.


Mark Cecil Senn: I asked what societies were
represented by that council; are they producers' societies?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, I understand
they are all producers' societies.


Mark Cecil Senn: Will the minister say whether the dealers are represented?


William Richard Motherwell: We will get that
information.


Mr. McMILLAN:: The shippers, the jam manufacturers, and all the manufacturers of these lines are represented.


William Earl Rowe: The consumers' league.


William Richard Motherwell: The membership
of the council is as follows:
Hon. President
Colonel H. L. Roberts, Grimsby, Ont.
Past President J. T. Mutrie, Vernon, B.C.
Members Fruit Growers Thos. Abriel, Nakusp, B.C.
Paul Fisher, Burlington, Ont.
W. J. Tawse, Macdonald College, Que.
H. A. Slipp, Keswick, N.B.
V.	B. Leonard, Clarence, N.S.
Vegetables Growers Fred A. Lewis, Vernon, B.C.
Herbert Sulkers, Winnipeg, Man.
W.	J. Cooke, Kingston, Ont.
Thomas Rowiey, Leamington, Ont.
J. H. Lavoie, Quebec, Que.
*T. J. McEvoy, Montreal, Que.
F. W. Bishop, Paradise, N.S.
Nurseymen E. B. Luke, Montreal, Que.
Florists and Gardeners Chas. Craig, Ottaiva, Ont.
Canners
W. R. Drynan, Hamilton, Ont.
Amateur Horticulturists J. E. Carter, Guelph, Ont.
Western Canada Fruit Jobbers Herbert Emery, Winnipeg, Man.
Eastern Canada Fruit Jobbers W. J. McCart, Toronto, Ont.
Committee Chairmen Publicity, E. B. Luke, Montreal, Que.
Plant Registration and Ornamental Horticulture
W. T. Macoun, Ottawa, Ont.
Transportation
H. L. Roberts, Grimsby, Ont.
Legislation
W. J. McCart, Toronto, Ont.
Standard Score Cards and Statistics Professor T. G. Bunting, Macdonald College, Que.
Markets
Paul Fisher, Burlington, Ont.
371S
Supply-Agriculture

The officers of the council are as follows:
President J. H. Lavoie, Quebec, Que.
First Vice-President Paul Fisher, Burlington, Ont.
Second Vice-President Charles Craig, Ottawa, Ont.
Secretary-Treasurer L. F. Burrows, Ottawa, Ont.


Mark Cecil Senn: The reason I asked the question was that I had heard from different sources that the growers themselves were not represented on the council to the extent that the other allied interests were.


An hon. MEMBER:: Such as politicians.


Mark Cecil Senn: Such as the shippers and can-ners; they appear to be in the majority on the council.


Edward James Young: I do not think we should allow this vote to go through.


William Richard Motherwell: The canners have a representative in the person of Mr. Drynan of Hamilton.


Mr. EVANS:: I would like to ask the minister-


Edward James Young: Have I the floor, Mr. Chairman?


John Evans: I would like to know why a grant is made to this horticultural council. What public service do they perform?


William Richard Motherwell: They look after the interest of the horticulturists and the fruit interests, in the same manner as other organizations. I think it was in 1923 or 1924 that they undertook to institute a registration system so that any new plants, shrubs, trees, or anything of that nature which had been propagated and introduced as new varieites could be registered and recorded.


Edward James Young: I do not think that we should vote this $8,000 to the horticultural council, as their chief activities seem to be in the line of politics. Their chief ambition seems to be to impose a certain fiscal policy upon the government which fiscal policy is not that of the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is yours?


Edward James Young: A year ago last March this organization held a convention in the Chateau Laurier at which they drew up a schedule of values which were to determine the duties to be levied by the government of Canada upon certain imports. The secre-
tary Mr. L. F. Burrows, has an office in this city. I believe that office is located in a government building, and I do not know whether or not he has to pay any rent for it; I do not think he does. He is registered in the telephone directory of this building, and his telephone is attached to our central. In addition to all this, he is getting $8,000 per year and he has been conducting a very active lobby within the very walls of this building. He admitted as much to me last spring, sitting there in the corridor, and I found him there again yesterday although I do not know what he was doing. I do not think it is the function of this government, or any government, to vote public funds to any political organization in order to carry on political propaganda throughout the country.


Mr. STIRLING:: I would like to make a few' remarks in connection with the Canadian Horticultural Council. The view has been advanced that because this council has been dealing with the matter of protection, which the industry considers to be desirable, therefore it should no longer receive assistance from this government. Let us consider for a moment the history of the council. It came into existence at the instigation of the Minister of Agriculture. Prior to that time the minister and his predecessor had found it very difficult to obtain information from the various sections of the industry throughout Canada which have since been affiliated in the horticultural council. When the government desired information in connection with the regulation of the industries they were put to considerable expense in collecting that information in regard to fruit, vegetables, flowers, bulbs, plants and kindred subjects. Therefore the minister decided that it would be a good thing to foster the creation of an association of these allied interests, and the horticultural council came into existence in 1924. It has an office in Ottawa with a resident secretary, and since that time whenever any question has arisen with regard to the allied industries the minister has been able to obtain the necessary information through the machinery so created. The industries organized under that council considered that protection was desirable. Was it wrong of the council to be the means of collecting the evidence and of laying it in an orderly fashion before the tariff advisory board? Under our law we see to it that even a murderer has his case properly presented to the judge. Is it wrong, when the allied interests considered that protection was desirable, whether they be right or whether they be wrong, to use this piece of machinery

Supply-Agriculture
for laying their case before the tariff advisory board? The minister brought this council into existence; it is a child of the minister's. I have never looked upon the minister as a person who would desire to eat his own young, even though on occasions, in moments of vexation, he may desire to bite the one that comes from Weybum. But the council does present the case before the tariff advisory board on such matters as seasonable tariffs. What other organization in Canada could so readily draw together all the points in connection with the case and present it in orderly fashion before that board? I can hardly imagine that the minister will take seriously the plaintive cry of the free traders. It is not many years since forty members from Quebec pleaded with the government for further protection on vegetables. I remember that the petition contained the name of the present Secretary of State before he became such. He probably has forgotten that he signed it. It contained the name of the chief government whip and the names of thirty-seven or thirty-eight other members from the province of Quebec. The president to-day of the horticultural council is Mr. Lavoie, a man keenly interested in fruits and vegetables in Quebec. I cannot imagine that the minister would be so obdurate as to cut off this grant or that the fruit growers and vegetable growers in Quebec, the maritime provinces, or Ontario or British Columbia would be pleased at his doing so. I cannot imagine that the cutting off of this assistance would be popular in Canada, simply because certain free traders asked that that be done. They are perfectly at liberty to follow the dictates of their consciences with regard to their policy; but why should they have such an influence with the government as to get them to withdraw this grant? I suggest that such action would be most unpopular and I can hardly imagine that the minister will listen to this Jeremiah cry.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I have listened to the argument of the hon. member for Yale with a good deal of interest. By the same principle and the same argument, if this vote passes, as it probably will, we should grant $8,000 to the council of agriculture in order that they may be able to present the claims of agriculture. They should be equally important with the council of horticulture as a political interest, and by the same token, a grant of $8,000 should be made to the consumers' league so that they may be able to present their views. I submit that those two grants should be made along the same lines.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to seed fairs, etc., and necessary buildings, also grant of $13,000 to Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $625,000.
William Russell Fansher: What is the nature of this seed, feed and fertilizer control?


William Richard Motherwell: This branch is presided over by Commissioner George Clark and his duties are outlined in the item. Part of his duty is to look after the seeds, including the garden seeds, field seeds, and also the clovers and grasses. The feed is under the Feeding Stuffs Act. That act has been revised in parliament during the last few years. The fertilizers are the artificial ones.
As regards grants to seed fairs, those subventions were made for many years to seed fairs before I had anything to do with the department. The item also covers necessary buildings and a grant of $13,000 to the Canadian Seed Growers' Association. The increase in the vote is due to the necessity of erecting a seed laboratory in the city of Ottawa owing to the old one, which was a private dwelling originally, having to -be dismantled. It was in the way of the new building that is being erected and it has had to be torn down. Therefore in order that we may have proper accommodation, a new laboratory is to be constructed on the experimental farm, for the purpose of housing the staff of the former seed laboratory which was situated near the power plant.
There is $150,000 for the establishment of a seed cleaning plant and storage plant in Saskatchewan. This is expected to be and will be, I think, in the city of Moose Jaw. This building is being erected primarily for the purpose of taking care of the government's cereal products which sometimes require treatment. We have not the facilities at the present time to treat them. For instance, let me take the case of reward wheat, one of our finest wheats, the best I am aware of that has been introduced. It has a blemish called blue smut on the inside of the wheat. It cannot be treated in the regular way that loose smut can. It has to be treated with hot water and we are obliged, for lack of facilities, to send out to 5,000 farmers wheat that is contaminated with this blue smut, and ask them with their lesser facilities, to try to treat it with hot water and thereby kill the germ inside it before they sow it. We have found in the past that it is somewhat dangerous to treat the wheat two or three months in advance, but we found by experimentation last winter that if we treat it and dry it, we can do it safely without retarding the germination of the wheat. The purpose of the new building
Supply-Agriculture

is to treat new varieties of seeds that may develop blemishes so that we may send them out clean to the farmers and not polluted as has been the case during the past few years. Many farmers are complaining that with their scanty facilities they cannot take care of the wheat we send them if it has blemish. We should be able when we have this laboratory in operation to send the seed out in a state of purity, free from disease. We anticipate in the near future to have developed completely-I do not know how many years it will take, but we are working towards it-a rust-resisting wheat. Should we attain that with all the necessary qualifications as to purity, quality, early maturing and prolific power and then find it has some blemish, it is very necessary that we should be able to offset that by whatever treatment is required before we send it out to the farmers. When we get these facilities, it will be incumbent upon the department to supply all the farmers who carry out the experiments, with one bushel of clean wheat.
A similar service should be supplied to adjoining provinces as soon as they are ready to cooperate with the department in that respect. It has always been my intention that it should be so. This vote provides for only one cleaning plant, however, as there is only one organization ready to make use of the service at the present time.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the minister state that he will agree, when the other provinces are ready, to make a grant on the same basis to the other two provinces?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, just as soon as they are ready, we are ready. We will not even wait until they organize as has been done in Saskatchewan. We will be ready to cooperate with the Alberta Department of Agriculture with whom we have had some correspondence.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has the department not already got in touch with the minister in this matter?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. As I understand the arrangement, the Department of Agriculture in Alberta administered the seed plant themselves, but owing to the expense of the business and the owner requiring the plant for himself for some purpose, they are deprived of those facilities. They are trying to meet the situation the best way they can, but even if they do not organize a cooperative registered seed growers' association such as they have in Saskatchewan, we will be prepared to deal in the same way with the de-
[Mr. Motherwell.1
partments of agriculture of the two adjoining provinces for the purpose of giving them the same kind of service. It is felt by a good many that these seed cleaning institutions should not invade the domain of the private seed merchants by handling poultry supplies, bee supplies and artificial fertilizers which cannot be properly considered to belong to a seed cleaning plant, and I am prepared to state that those reservations will be inserted in the lease.


William Earl Rowe: I think the Minister of Agriculture has skated around the whole question and absolutely evaded giving an answer. How much rent is it proposed to ask from the registered seed growers' cooperative association of Alberta? Here you have a $150,000 grant-


William Richard Motherwell: Might I disabuse my hon. friend's mind of the idea that this is a grant? It is the cost of the additions to the government's seed cleaning plant that we require for our own service. It will have a capacity of 100,000 bushels, and we are leasing the balance to the registered seed growers' association of Saskatchewan. The ownership is in the government and the site continues in possession of the government. If we cannot make a satisfactory lease with the registered seed growers' association, the department may have to operate the plant. With regard to the lease, we have not prepared any draft yet except in a tentative way such as I have outlined. I think that there should be reservations in the lease that this cooperative seed growers' association, whose purpose is to handle their own goods largely, should not engage in selling merchandise such as that to which I have referred. In spite of these restrictions there -will be a regular cash rental-


William Earl Rowe: How much?


William Richard Motherwell: We have not worked that out for the very good reason that we do not know if it be worth anything to them this year, because of the lateness in starting construction, and consequently they may have to store some of their grain in some other building and transfer it later. The building season out there for concrete work is very short. The rental for the first year, in my estimation, should be quite small, and after that I think it should be on a graduated scale, starting with say three or four per cent and going up to five per cent or whatever rate government money is worth, and then stop-

Suppl y-A griculture
ping at that figure for the balance of the period of the lease. It would continue at five per cent, say, for ten years, but that is just a tentative suggestion.


William Earl Rowe: The whole thing seem3 to be tentative. It is very strange that this cooperative association of farmers, in whom the minister and I are really interested as members of the same vocation, should be made a gift of a building worth $150,000. It is unfair to every other organized business with which it will come into competition. I would ask the minister what the A. E. Mackenzie Company, the seed distributors of Brandon, the Hogg and Lytle people, the Steele, Briggs people and the Rennie people might have to say about this. I have as much sympathy with cooperative marketing and cooperative production in the agricultural districts as the minister or any other hon. member, but it does seem to me absolutely unfair that the minister and this government should hand out to the registered seed growers' cooperative association a building and establishment worth $150,000, to enter into competition with organized business interests of the same character.
The minister might well take into consideration the progress that has been made in Prescott, Russell, Grenville, Carleton, Renfrew, Lanark, Pontiac, and other counties in the Ottawa valley. They have not been assisted by the department, and while there were only two seed cleaning plants in these counties in 1914, there are now fourteen. In a large seed-growing province like Saskatchewan there is one plant established a.t Moose Jaw, and I ask any hon. member interested in agriculture to say how this is going to be of any particular advantage to the different farmers throughout Saskatchewan. I leave it to hon. members on the other side. I know they will agree with me that this is simply a hand-out from the Department of Agriculture to a purely business and commercial interest. It is one of the examples of ruthless extravagance and political hand-outs on the part of this government. I say that in all fairness to the Minister of Agriculture, whose friendship I have always appreciated. I have never belonged to a cooperative association because they always had some sort of politics mixed up with them. I am a farmer, and I have spent a lot of my time down here. I am interested in cooperative organizations, in cooperative marketing and cooperative production, and I have much in common with every other farmer in this country, but I say that here is a sample of an unjustifiable hand-out, whether it goes to the farmers or
not. As I have pointed out we have fourteen seed cleaning plants in the Ottawa valley, for the establishment of which this government can take no credit. They are operated on a purely private basis and are a benefit to the districts al through the Ottawa valley. They have all the equipment which the minister will provide in this $150,000 plant. They are provided with the clipper cleaner, the Marot grader, the Carter disc separator and all the equipment that you will find in any seed cleaning plant. The products of the registered seed growers' cooperative association of Saskatchewan come down through Ontario and Quebec and every other province of this Dominion. I have every respect for the seed growers of Saskatchewan and I should be glad to see them get every assistance possible, but it is not fair to the farmers of Saskatchewan or to the business interests of the rest of Canada for the minister to hand out $150,000 to a purely commercial organization, and I ask the minister to correct me if I am wrong when I aay that it is a purely commercial organization. There may be some five or six hundred farmers in that organization, but I know well that they paid their manager $5,000 last year, and any organization that can pay their business manager $5,000 a year does not need $150,000 from this government. I say in all fairness to my fellow farmers from Saskatchewan that this is an absolutely unjustifiable hand-out, and of no particular benefit to the original producers of Saskatchewan. It seems to me that the minister could have used that $150,000 to much better advantage if he had spent it like the Quebec government is doing. It grants a subsidy of 25 per cent for the establishment of seed cleaning plants all through that province. They have all the equipment that this $150,000 plant has, but they touch vitally the farmers interested. This is a $150,000 hand-out to the commercial interests of the seed grain trade of Canada. I know that the minister and his colleagues as well as members of both sides of the house are aware that the seed firms I have mentioned are in rebellion against this thing. It is absolutely unfair to the seed trade of the Dominion, and it is of very little benefit to our farmers. I buy hundreds of bushels of grain from Saskatchewan, not for seed but for feed. It is all very well to talk of this vote being for the benefit- of the Saskatchewan farmers, but it is for the benefit of a commercial organization in Saskatchewan.


John Gordon Ross: In reply to the
statement of the hon. member I may be permitted to give an outline of the Saskatche-
Supply-Agriculture

wan registered seed growers' association. He has said that it is a purely commercial organization. That is incorrect. The Saskatchewan registered seed grower's' association is made up of between 1,000 and 1,100 farmers of the province.


William Earl Rowe: Only 750.


John Gordon Ross: Between 1,000
and 1,100. It has 'been stated around the corridors for some time by those who oppose this vote that Mr. A. E. Mackenzie, a millionaire seedsman has described this as a purely commercial organization. The organization functions under a provincial charter, because a special act had to be passed in connection with this seed pool-for it is a seed pool-just the same as a special act had to be passed for the organization of the wheat pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Producers, Limited.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How is this comparable with the wheat pool, which is a truly cooperative organization?


John Gordon Ross: The Saskatchewan registered seed growers' association, or the seed pool of Saskatchewan, is more truly a pool than is the wheat pool.


William Russell Fansher: Is it not a
joint stock company?


John Gordon Ross: No. Like the
wheat pool it was formed under a special act.


William Russell Fansher: I think I am right.


William Earl Rowe: Certainly it is a joint stock
company.


John Gordon Ross: Perhaps my hon. friends will allow me to proceed. All the members of the Saskatchewan seed growers' association have taken stock in the company. That stock was not taken with the hope of ever obtaining dividends, but merely as a donation to the organization and to forward membership in it. It is a non-profit organization so far as the company is concerned. The farmers all over the province who are growing registered seed have it inspected by the government seed inspector; it is shipped to this plant from all over Saskatchewan, the freights being pooled on the inward shipments; there it is again examined, cleaned, and sealed, and then it is sold at the lowest possible price to the farmer. Only a very small spread between the cost of the registered seed and the cost of ordinary wheat going into the market channels is obtained
[Mr. J. G. Ross.l
by the registered seed grower. Because we have not had the proper facilities in Saskatchewan for handling our pure seed, a good many hundreds of thousands of bushels of seed that should have been sowed in the province have gone into the ordinary channels of trade, and in that way the Dominion has lost a great deal of money and a great deal of crop each year. I compliment the minister on his foresight and his business ability in agriculture in loaning this building to an organization such as the Saskatchewan t registered seed growers' association. In the past we have given large grants-never too large-in aid of agriculture. For instance, in connection with the bull loaning policy of the government thousands of dollars were spent every year. A vote of $150,000 for a building to ensure pure seed for the greatest grain growing province in the Dominion is a drop in the bucket compared with the advantage that will accrue not only to the province but to the Dominion generally from the return of a better crop from better seed. My hon. friend objected because a farmers' association wanted to compete with private corporations. These private corporations have been active in Saskatchewan for the last thirty or thirty-five years.


An hon. MEMBER:: Commercial interests.


John Gordon Ross: Yes. Had they supplied the demand for good seed, or registered seed, there would never have been the necessity for forming the Saskatchewan registered seed growers' association. But seeing that that demand throughout Saskatchewan was not supplied, the farmers took it into their own hands, as they have done in regard to a great many other things in that province, and they are making a marked success of the organization. It is only a few years ago that they started into this business, and the production of registered seed in Saskatchewan has gone up by leaps and bounds ever since. My hon. friend stated that the Saskatchewan registered seed growers' association paid their manager $5,000. That statement also is incorrect. The government of Saskatchewan in order to help an organization of this kind has supplied it with a man who costs the province $5,000.


William Earl Rowe: He gets $5,000 nevertheless.


John Gordon Ross: From the government of Saskatchewan.


William Earl Rowe: It does not matter.


John Gordon Ross: I hope it will be continued.

Supply-Agriculture


William Earl Rowe: That government is through now.
* Mr. McLEAN (Melfort): And likely that policy will be through also.


William Earl Rowe: It looks like it.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does my hon. friend say this is a non-profit sharing organization?


John Gordon Ross: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: Do they not sell this seed
grain throughout the Dominion in competition with other companies?


John Gordon Ross: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: Then how are they a nonprofit organization?


John Gordon Ross: It is a pool.


William Earl Rowe: But they sell their seed grain throughout all parts of Canada in competition with other seed companies.


John Gordon Ross: Surely. It is not their seed they handle, it is the seed of the farmer.


William Earl Rowe: But they are in the commercial business.


John Gordon Ross: The wheat pool is in the commercial business too.


William Earl Rowe: Sure.


John Gordon Ross: Have you any objection to that?


William Earl Rowe: It is not too good this year.


John Gordon Ross: I think the wheat pool has been of great benefit to this country, and the sooner my hon. friends realize that organizations of this kind should be fostered by the government the better it will be for agriculture.


William Earl Rowe: It did not do much good
in Ontario this year.


John Gordon Ross: So far the
Saskatchewan registered seed growers' association have been carrying on as a true pool. They have obtained their finances in this way. Every farmer shipping and selling seed through the association allows to be deducted from the sale price of his seed five per cent, and that five per cent is used by the seed growers' association to finance their operations. That is formed into what is called a revolving fund, and at the end of five years
the 5 per cent begins to go back to the farmer to whom it belongs. Besides the seed pool, there is a pool for each kind of seed which is shipped into the plant. The seed growers' association now pool the freight on the seed from all parts of Saskatchewan to their plant, and it is their intention to pool out the freights as soon as they get proper statistics and data on the subject. This building is not given to them; part of it will bs leased to them for the work they are carrying on, and I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will not make that lease too costly to them, because they are doing a work which his department should have been doing in this country for a good many years. If the Department of Agriculture themselves endeavoured to carry out the work which the Saskatchewan registered seed growers are doing to-day it would cost the country a good deal of money. This is a voluntary organization and is the best of its kind for the distribution of those new seeds which are being developed by the Department of Agriculture on the experimental farms. You have here a thousand growers of seeds who specially prepare their land for it, and when a new seed has been developed and the type set that seed can go to an organization of this kind and can quickly be multiplied and developed by growers whose farms are being properly inspected and checked. The seed is kept pure and can be multiplied very quickly so that the country as a whole can get the benefit of it much more rapidly than would be otherwise the case. Too often in this house we criticize the work of the department and of certain servants of the government, or of the people, who are carrying on a great work for Canada in the development of new grains. I have some little knowledge of the sj'stem which is employed, having had the privilege of attending an agricultural college some years ago, and I can truthfully say that there is no work which takes so much labour and shows so little apparent result as the work of Mr. Newman and his staff. I do not think there is any department of the government which has done more for this country than that branch has done in the last few years. It would pay every member of this house to take a trip to the experimental farm in Ottawa and to the experimental farms in their own provinces and see the vast amount of work that is being done, and the great good which is being accomplished by these men in the seed branch and in other kindred branches of the Department of Agriculture. I repeat that there has never been a more forward step taken by the Minister of Agricul-
Supply-Agriculture

tiire, so far as western Canada and Canada as a whole is concerned, than the erection of this building and the leasing of a part of it to an organization such as the registered seed growers of Saskatchewan.


William Russell Fansher: Will this plant be available for the use of all the farmers of Saskatchewan?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


William Russell Fansher: Not only for
those who happen to belong to the pool?


William Richard Motherwell: It *requires only a dollar to belong to the organization. Anyone who is not a member, desiring to ship in a car of seed, can pay a dollar and automatically become a member.


William Russell Fansher: How much
space in the building does the government intend to use?


William Richard Motherwell: We have distributed between 10,000 and 12,000 bushels this year and we may require between 15,000 and 20,000 more.


William Russell Fansher: What is the total capacity?


William Richard Motherwell: One hundred thousand bushels.


William Russell Fansher: And it is proposed to lease the remaining capacity?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


William Russell Fansher: I consider this a good move but it should be undertaken by the provincial government. I konw that in the eastern provinces the seed cleaning plants have been aided with provincial money, and I am at a loss to know why the provinces which have helped seed cleaning plants should be asked to contribute towards a seed cleaning plant for Saskatchewan or for the three prairie provinces. The hon. member for Pontiac suggests that there is need of stimulation along certain lines in Saskatchewan. I notice that a part of the vote goes to fertilizer control. What is the nature of that control, what is the number of inspectors, and so forth?


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps I might
make a few observations regarding the necessity for better seed throughout Canada as well as in the west. During the war there was a good deal of laxity in the matter of quality of production. The demand abroad for food of all kinds, including meats, was so keen that almost annything went, with the result [J. G. Ross.]
that bacon, for instance, deteriorated. The same was true of many of the other farm products, among others grain; because grain was grain and, as I say, everything seemed to go. Shortly after the war, however, an agitation began, to get back once more to quality, and this department, before I became minister, initiated a policy in that direction, in order to place production on a quality basis. And the quality of seed was taken into consideration. We instituted four or five years ago a policy which did not require any particular additional expenditure, except fot the conversion to this special purpose of the subventions which had been given to seed exhibitions in the past. Wherever it was desired to have a seed cleaning plant in lieu of the seed grant for exhibition purposes, we established these small cleaning plants. This was done right across Canada from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island. There are eight or ten of these plants assisted in various ways in Ontario-small plants costing from SI,000 to 11,500 apiece. There is also one in Prince Edward Island, and there is another in British Columbia. Let me try to show how general was the demand that someone should take a forward step of this kind. After all the foundation of satisfactory cereals lies in the improvement of seed: like begets like, pther things being equal. With that principle in mind, the people throughout the country who were either actively engaged in the business or who were looking on interestedly, realizing the importance of the matter, have been passing resolutions urging the desirability of such action. For example, the National Research Council of Canada recently passed a resolution recommending the establishment of seed warehouses for collecting and distributing seed of approved varieties. This resolution states that undoubtedly the use of good seed would go further than any other single factor in improving the quality of the wheat crop. And the agriculture committee of this house, at page 7 of their report last year, made this recommendation:
In order that the high quality of our export wheat be maintained, and in order to discourage, as far as possible, the growth of undesirable varieties of wheat, we would urge that one or more seed warehouses be established for the purpose of collecting and distributing seed of approved varieties, and_ that an experimental flour mill of sufficient size be _ established in order that experimental work in milling and baking may be conducted on a scale that will give results in line with those obtained in commercial mills.
Part of that recommendation is carried out under this vote; the first step in carrying out

Supply-Agriculture
that recommendation is this 8150,000 which is not a grant, as my hon. friend stated, but which is desired in order to construct a government seed warehouse for cleaning and storing seed grain, so that when large volumes of seed which have been held by farmers who cannot afford to hold it over to sipring is being sold, it may be retained by these seed associations in the accommodation we will supply. That has been an important question in the west for fifteen years. The management of the old cooperative elevator at Regina was requested many times to adopt a policy of this kind but they thought they should confine themselves to commercial grain only, and so far as I know this is the first step to be taken in the way of a general policy of this nature. We have taken care of the requirements of eastern Canada by the arrangement with the small plants to which I have referred.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I suppose the title to
this building will always remain in the crown?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, and the title to the site as well.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the business of
this warehouse limited to registered or approved seeds?


William Richard Motherwell: As far as Saskatchewan is concerned it is limited to registered and certified seeds, but conditions may be different in the other two provinces, and I am told that they may require high class commercial seeds to be handled as well. We will vary these services to suit the requirements of the different provinces.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it the idea that this will be the one distributing centre for the three provinces?


William Richard Motherwell: No, we are prepared to render the same assistance to the other two provinces as soon as they are prepared to make use of this service. Then I would like to point out to my hon. friend from Dufferin-Simcoe that in a return made this year to the hon. member for Maple Creek, in which he asked by what amount the revenue obtained from the administration of the Grain Act exceeded the expenditure in each year, or in other words how much the amount collected in fees exceeded the amount required to administer the act, the answer made by the Department of Trade and Commerce was as follows:
1925-	26	
$1,083,6791926-	27	
573.2871927-	28	
625,0431928- 29	672,180
That makes a total of over $2,700,000 collected in fees for weighing and grading in excess of what it cost to administer the act. Having regard to the fact that this large amount of money was levied on the farmers and went into the general revenue, surely it is not too much to spend $150,000 and then charge them interest on their own money. So the committee will see that this is not a proposition which will do any harm; we are simply using part of these revenues to put up a government plant which will be retained in the name of the crown so that supervision may be exercised by whoever occupies the position of Minister of Agriculture in years to come, in order to see that the proper kind of grain is used in these seed houses, and that spurious seeds are not taken in and good seeds contaminated, in order to protect the seed of the whole country from contamination. It is a well recognized fact that Canada's wheat is gradually deteriorating in the markets of the world, and in view of that fact some such step as this is imperative.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not know whether
the minister is trying to block his own estimates, but I should like to ask him if any part of this building has been constructed as yet?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


James Dew Chaplin: Are the plans prepared?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: And the ground purchased?


William Richard Motherwell: The ground was
transferred to the government.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister says, "Look at us; see what we have done. We have collected over $2,000,000 of a surplus under the Grain Act and we are going to spend some of it in this way." By looking at the minister's estimates it will be seen that he is spending it all right; he is a wonderful spender. He says, "Oh, I propose to spend only $150,000 on this enterprise," but I want to point out to the minister that every province in Canada is looking after its own seed grain as far as the cleaning is concerned. Now the minister proposes to go into an enterprise which will compete with private firms in that line.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Does the federal government not pay to the province of Ontario a certain amount for the seed houses in this province?
Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: That is so, and
we do that also in the maritime provinces and in British Columbia.


James J. Donnelly: Has the Department
of Trade and Commerce any authority to collect from the farmers of western Canada over $2,500,000 more than they really need? As I read the statutes, the Department of Trade and Commerce is supposed to collect only enough to pay for the cost of weighing and inspecting the wheat, but I believe that during the last few years they have collected more than they require. What is their authority for doing so?


William Richard Motherwell: The fee is $1 per car for grading and inspection, and $1 for weighing, making a total of $2 per car. The volume of wheat has increased enormously and the revenues have been suddenly inflated; the larger volume of grain has been more economically handled, and therefore the fee of $2 which was about right formerly is now found to produce a surplus.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister tell
us-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Dew Chaplin: I was following the question just answered by the minister.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I would like to bring to the attention of the minister the need of some regulation and control over the sale of binder twine in this country, and I bring it up under this item-seed, feed and fertilizer control- because the inspection of binder twine is administered by the seed branch of the Department of Agriculture.
I wish to take a few moments, Mr. Chairman, to discuss this matter of binder twine, Which is sold in Canada in bales which weigh 50 pounds gross or 48 pounds net. The farmer pays for fifty pounds of twine or the gross weight of the bale. The twine is labelled 500 feet, 550 feet, 600 feet or 650 feet per pound. The 600-foot per pound twine is the twine which is most commonly used in western Canada. A farmer can easily detect short weight in his twine because he can check that quite easily, but he cannot detect short length. To check the twine for length it would be necessary -to unwind the whole bale. A bale weighing 48 pounds of 600-foot twine should measure 28,800 feet, or about 5i miles of twine. Once t.he twine is unwound it cannot be used for harvesting purposes, therefore the farmer should be safeguarded -against short-length twine by the provisions of the act under which the sale of binder twine is regulated. The present Inspection and Sale Act of 1906-*

there has been nothing done since 1906, Mr. Chairman, and since then there has been a great increase in the consumption-does not provide the proper safeguards in this matter 1 would like to read a few sections of this act which regulates the sale and inspection. Section 347 reads as follows:
Upon or attached to every ball of binder twine sold or offered for sale in Canada there shall be a label with the name of the dealer and the number of feet of twine per pound in the ball marked or stamped thereon.
Section 352 reads as follows:
Every dealer who sells, offers for sale or has in his possession for sale in Canada any ball of binder twine not properly and correctly labelled with the number of feet per pound in the ball, as required by this part, shall be liable to a penalty of not less than one dollar and not more than five dollars for each ball of such binder twine

This is the important part of this section: -provided, that no deficiency in the number of feet of twine contained in any ball shall be deemed to be a contravention of this section unless the deficiency exceeds five peir centum of the length indicated by the label.
Section 347 provides for the tag to be attached to each ball, which tag shall state the number of feet in each pound of twine. Section 352 provides that no twine shall be deemed to be short unless the shortage exceeds five per cent of the length indicated on the label. These are the only provisions in the act to safeguard against short-length twine. There is no provision in the act regarding the tensile strength of twine and no provision for the Checking of salvaged or reconditioned twine. It is true that the inspectors in the seed branch of the Department of Agriculture have done splendid work in checking the binder twine offered for sale in Canada, yet their effectiveness is limited by the inadequate act under which they operate. The act states that binder twine can be five per cent short of the length indicated on the tag and still be legal, and that provision makes possible a systematic shortage. Take a bale of binder twine labelled 600 feet -per pound, containing forty-eight pounds net of twine; it should measure
28,800	feet per bale, but the five per cent leeway allowed under section 347 amounts to 1,440 feet, so the manufacturer could sell a bale labelled 28,800 feet, which might contain only 27,360 feet, and which would still be legal under the present act. A farmer purchasing five hundred pounds of 600-foot twine which measured just up to the minimum required by the act would be paying for 288,000 feet and would be receiving only 273,600 feet; he would be 14,400 feet or nearly three miles short.
I went to a few hon. members of this house to inquire as to their purchases of binder twine.

Supply-Agriculture
I went to the Minister of Immigration and I learned that his annual purchase of binder twine amounts to 1,500 pounds of 600-foot twine. The hon. minister believes that he is purchasing 28,800 feet of twine in every bale, but if the manufacturer takes advantage of the five per cent leeway allowed under the present act, the purchase would be 43,200 feet or more than eight miles short in the 1,500 pounds. I went to the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance)

who has moved back to this side of the house-and found that his annual purchase amounts to 1,300 pounds of 600-foot twine; hi3 shortage would amount to over seven miles if the manufacturer took advantage of the leeway allowed under the present act. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Steeds-man) has an annual purchase of 1,000 pounds, and his shortage would amount to
28,800	feet, or nearly 5| miles. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) has an annual purchase of 1,000 pounds, and his shortage would be the same. The hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Milne) has an annual purchase of 600 pounds of 600-foot twine, and his shortage would amount to 17,280 feet, or nearly 3^ miles.
The various brands of binder twine offered for sale in Canada each year are checked by the government inspectors and by some branches of the organized farmers. Those inspections show that some firms put out twine which measures well up to the standard, while others seem to be trying to keep just to the five per cent shortage allowed by the act. I have a few figures which I would like to give, taken from some of the inspections.
Ten bales of binder twine labelled 550 feet per pound, or 522i feet of minimum length allowed under the present act, measured as follows: 507, 528, 554, 559, 594, 518, 550, 555, 560, 597. This was a good lot of twine; there were three short, one correct and six overlength ; the average was well above the lengths Stated on the tags.
Here is another lot of 24 bales of another brand, labelled 550 feet per pound, and which measured as follows: 505, 517, 524, 528, 510, 522, 525, 531, 534, 538, 541, 548, 550, 556, 531, 533, 538, 541, 543, 550, 551, 560, 558, 578.
An lion. MEMBER: Take it as read.


Leland Payson Bancroft: This is a very poor lot; of the 24 bales, two were the correct length, five were overlength and eighteen were short.


William Earl Rowe: Give it to Hansard.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Here is another lot
of thirteen bales, labelled 600 feet per pound, and which measured: 556, 563, 572, 572, 596, 613, 557, 568, 572, 576, 609. The minimum
length allowed by law, as the leeway is 5 per cent, is 570 feet. Two of these bales were overlength and eleven were short.
I have two more measurements which I would like to give. Ten bales of twine, labelled 550 feet per pound, or 522^ feet minimum length allowed under the present act, measured out as follows: 507, 518, 528, 550, 554, 555, 559, 560, 594, 597.
This is an exceptionally good lot. Three were short, one correct and six overlength. Another lot of nine bales, labelled 600 feet per pound, measured out as follows: 565, 577, 600, 600, 605, 613, 613, 616, 625.
This was an exceptionally good lot. There were two short, two correct, and five overlength.


William Earl Rowe: Are these mostly from the
United States?


Leland Payson Bancroft: We have a very small
importation of binder twine from the United States. These figures show that the binder twine sold in Canada varies greatly in the mater of length. If we take one bale of 550-foot twine mentioned in one of these inspections, this bale measured out 505 feet to the pound. This 48-pound bale was 2,160 feet shorter than the length stated on the tag. This bale was found to average 505 feet per pound, or 45 feet short on each pound in the bale. It takes two feet of twine to bind a sheaf of grain. This particular bale tied 1,080 fewer sheaves than it would have tied had it contained the full length stated on the tag. Probably because of the leeway allowed under the present act, the method of measuring binder twine as it is being wound into balls, is the worst hit-and-miss business you ever saw. In fact, it is not measured at all. The twine is wound into balls on rapidly revolving spindles. When the ball attains a certain size, it is shoved off the spindle automatically and a new ball is commenced in its place. I would suggest that each bale of binder twine offered for sale in Canada should carry a label stating the number of feet of twine contained in the bale. That is, a bale containing 48 pounds net of 600-foot twine, would be labelled " This bale contains 28,800 feet of binder twine." No leeway should be allowed. The manufacturers can, if they find it necessary, attach measuring devices on twine machines.
Proof that the 5 per cent leeway is not necessary is found in the advertisements of some of the binder twine manufacturers. I have two advertisements under my hand. This advertisement of a certain company reads:

Supply-A gricul ture

This harvester twine is guaranteed for length, strength and weight-the ball of standard maniia must contain at least 4,400 feet of twine.
That is the 550-foot twine.
If you buy a "cilt-price" ball and it falls only 50 feet short of this standard, the shortage means 25 bundles that must be bound out of the next ball. In such a case, each succeeding ball assumes an additional handicap of 25 bundles. This handicap amounts to 150 bundles by the time you have used a single bale of twine.
Another large binder twine concern in Canada, speaking of their particular 600-foot twine, say:
It is the only twine which is guaranteed
28,800	feet per bale.
All we ask is a guarantee of the number of feet of twine in the bale. The act should also prohibit the sale of binder twine that has a tensile strength of less than 60 pounds.
Another safeguard which should be in the act is to provide for government supervision in all cases where binder twine is salvaged and reconditioned. I have under my hand an instance of some salvaged binder twine which was reconditioned, rewound and offered for sale in western Canada two years ago. This twine was being offered for sale at about two cents per pound below the market price. Twelve bales of this were purchased and weighed. This twine was being sold as 50-pound bales gross weight or 48 pounds net. These bales were weighed by three men, each of whom made an affidavit as to the accuracy of these figures. The gross weights of these twelve bales were as follows:
Pounds	Pounds
414	414
424	43
41	44
Pounds	Pounds
42	424
44	41
414	434
I would suggest that anyone desiring to salvage or recondition binder twine must apply to the minister for authority to do so.
These are the main items that, I think, are needed in an act to control the inspection and sale of binder twine in this country. I know the minister and his departmental officials have been working in this matter, and I hope the minister is in a position to-night to state to the committee that a bill will be brought down that will properly safeguard the farmers in the purchase of binder twine.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member for Selkirk is to be congratulated upon the perseverance with which he has pressed this matter on the attention of the department. I have a bill now ready, and I propose to submit it to my colleagues. If it is favourable to the house, it will then be submitted to the committee on agriculture where the whole question can be thoroughly threshed out.


John Evans: I have one more word to say regarding the seed house at Moose Jaw. I am in complete accord with the proposition that a grant should be made for it. I am not in accord with the method of help that the government is giving to this scheme. The minister has already quoted the fact that the cooperative elevator of Saskatchewan was a success. It was a success for the simple reason that the ultimate ownership of that scheme came into the hands of the farmers themselves under a cooperative plan. I would like to see the government give us the help that is needed to establish the house, but instead of a rent, they should strike a number of years in which the whole sum to the government could be paid back with interest and the ultimate ownership should be vested in the cooperative company of farmers themselves. This is the only way in which it can succeed, and when I say this I have in mind other institutions which have been established on a plan similar to that on which we are now thinking of establishing this one, and which have failed. There is no other way, to my mind, to give us the help we need in this matter than a purely cooperative plan.


William Russell Fansher: Earlier in the evening I asked about the number of inspectors that were engaged in fertilizer control, and I have not yet been able to secure an answer.


William Richard Motherwell: The services that are supplied by this branch cover seed, feed, fertilizer, hay, pests, poisons, binder twine. There are thirty-seven in all.


William Russell Fansher: How many on fertilizer alone?


William Richard Motherwell: They are all qualified to perform any of these services, and they do so as the work fits in.


William Russell Fansher: Has the minister found any violations of the act of late years?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, every time any restriction is imposed upon the public there are always violations of such acts. After the first six months or a year of operation, we endeavour to see that they do not get away with such violations without prosecutions being instituted.


William Russell Fansher: I am in sympathy with the remarks of the hon. member for Selkirk and I appreciate the sympathetic hearing that was given to him by the minister. This inspection might well be extended into other fields. I have in mind at

Supply-Agriculture
the present time the steel products which are used by farmers for roofing and siding on farm buildings. Anyone driving through Ontario or the eastern provinces must have been struck by the fact that steel roofs that have been on a few years become rusty. There is a great loss to the farmers because these products are not made up to a certain standard. I just throw out the suggestion that this matter might be well looked into, as well as binder twine. 1 have had it drawn to my attention by many individual farmers and by agricultural representatives throughout Ontario that it is desirable that steps be taken to see that steel products are manufactured to a certain standard, and that they are properly galvanized.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
For experiments in dehydration of fruits and vegetables, $29,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: I notice
that there has been an increase in this watered stock. I would like to know something about it.


Alexander Duncan McRae: If we cut out the importation of some of the American fruits and vegetables we should not need so much dehydrated fruit, and the vote would be less.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Is not this a provincial responsibility? We were told a little while ago what Ontario was doing in connection with its seed. I think this is something that the fruit-growing provinces ought to do for their own industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Live stock, including grants to exhibitions, feeder shows, etc., $1,530,000.
William Russell Fansher: Why
is there an increase of $50,000 in this vote?


William Richard Motherwell: The work of the live stock branch and of the exhibition branch is constantly increasing. We have a large chain of exhibitions across Canada that seem to require greater expenditure to take care of them. We are continuing the class B fairs. The committee will remember that we discussed them last year. Part of this increase is due to the continuation of the twenty-two class B fairs. We are also giving assistance to various exhibitions in connection with their winter fairs.


William Russell Fansher: The
grants to the class B fairs will be continued?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, to those already established.
78594-236J


William Ernest Tummon: Last year the minister
practically gave the house to understand that the grants to class B fairs would be discontinued, and for that reason a number of us who have class B fairs in our constituencies did not press for grants, but towards the end of the session in reply to a question by the hon. member for Argenteuil the minister said that he would reconsider the matter. I be-live the grants to the class B fairs have been paid during the past year. There are perhaps six fairs in Ontario that come within class B-Kingston, Belleville, Stratford, Peterborough, Lindsay, Renfrew. Of those six I think only Peterborough receives a grant. I submit that the other class B fairs are just as much entitled to the grant as Peterborough. It would save a lot of discussion if the minister would just say that he would treat all these class B fairs alike.


Alexander Duncan McRae: Is the grant distributed with any regard to the percentage of population in the various provinces?


William Richard Motherwell: We are trying to equalize it and have done so to some extent, but it is very difficult. For instance, no matter how you try to equalize it, Ontario gets the most because of the Toronto fair. That really does not belong to the province but is for the entire Dominion. Nevertheless, every province persists in pointing to Ontario and saying: Look at what Ontario is getting. I did take the stand last year as indicated by my hon. friend, but the government reconsidered the matter in view of the very strong feeling that seemed to exist especially in the prairie provinces. They seemed to take the ground that once a B fair always a B fair, so we considered it advisable to continue the grants to these B fairs, holding them down to the present incorporated institutions.


George Halsey Perley: How much are you giving them this year?


William Richard Motherwell: The same as last year, $1,500.


Arthur Edward Ross: We did expect that the minister would keep his word. We did not press the matter any further when he said last year that he would not continue the grants. Then he went west on a trip and afterwards changed his mind. It has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout Ontario that notwithstanding the minister's statement he has carried on the policy that he affirmed he was going to discontinue. Further, when the minister says that Ontario is getting the largest grant, there is the fact
Supply-Agriculture

that one place in Ontario gets the most of it and many other fairs receive nothing. The minister must admit that that policy cannot continue and that he must treat all alike. I think that in all he does he looks at things in a reasonable way, but there is no reason of any sort in a policy under which you give a grant to one class B fair and nothing to five or six other class B fairs. I ask the minister now if he cannot see that his policy is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction. All the rural population feel there is an injustice in this treatment, and I hope the minister will now say, "We will treat you all alike."


William Richard Motherwell: If we give to this
and that fair we shall not be aide to stop until we have covered every little hamlet in the Dominion.


Arthur Edward Ross: If the minister lays down a certain policy of course he will treat all alike so long as they fulfil the requirements of that policy. I am only asking the minister to establish such a policy.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend has made such a courteous representation that I will give it full consideration during the recess.


Alexander Duncan McRae: In view of what the minister has said, will he kindly go back a step and tell me that the fair associations in my province of British Columbia may expect their proportion of this appropriation?


William Richard Motherwell: Since my hon.
friend inquired into this matter we have made a business arrangement with the city of Vancouver for the construction of a winter fair building on the same terms as in Ottawa and elsewhere.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I congratulate the minister on continuing the grants to these B fairs. I feel they have done a great deal of good. As one of those who appealed to him to do this I am very glad to hear his decision.
M. LUCHKOVICH:	I think the grants
should be given to the B class fairs because they deserve them. In my opinion these fairs are doing more to encourage agriculture than the A class. How long are these grants to be continued?


William Richard Motherwell: I am not likely to make any particular effort in the near future to discontinue them after the experience I had last year.


William Earl Rowe: How much of this vote goes
to the Canadian national exhibition?


William Richard Motherwell: The regular grant
of $5,000.


William Earl Rowe: The construction of a very
important building in the Canadian national exhibition grounds is being held up because of certain action by the minister's department. I think he will agree with me that the Canadian national exhibition iplays a much more important part in the agricultural life of this country than probably any other fair throughout the Dominion. Since its establishment the attendance has grown from 100,000 to over 2,000,000. Every province is represented there. It has been truly termed the "show window of the nation." The minister would have been well supported by all sections of the house had he granted the request of the exhibition board for a substantial contribution towards the new live stock building. The very fact that the imperial government have spent over $90,000 on fixtures for the British Empire marketing building in the grounds shows their appreciation of the value of the exhibition for British Empire trade.


Edward Joseph Garland: And for
Canadian trade.


William Earl Rowe: Yes. Hon. members on the
other side may say that the exhibition is of great benefit to the city of Toronto, but I would point out that the 350 acres forming the exhibition grounds are exempt from civic taxation. The minister knows what the city contributes towards this great enterprise, which I submit, is truly the greatest advertising agency we have in the Dominion. I have no hesitation in saying that the Canadian national exhibition does more to develop empire trade than any other organization in this country. The minister might well have included at least that small grant of $17,000 to supplement the city of Toronto's and Ontario's grant. I Should think the committee would approve of the inclusion in the estimates of this sum, or if it is not in the estimates then the amount should be taken from some other vote, for the Canadian national exhibition. I do not consider it a provincial or an Ontario fair; it is a Canadian fair and is advertising Canada to-day just as much as any other enterprise in the Dominion.


Edward Joseph Garland: I must congratulate the hon. member on his loyalty to his fair and to his province. But I would ask him this question:	Has he ever seen
the Calgary stampede?


William Earl Rowe: I saw it in Calgary and also on the Canadian national exhibition grounds, and it was only a minor event in comparison to the Canadian national exhibition.

Supply-A gricid lure


Mr. LADNER:: The world's poultry congress is to be held in London next year. Canada occupies a particularly prominent place in that coming event by reason of the fact that one of her highest and best officials, Mr. F. C. Elf or d, is president of the congress. He is a gentleman with a high reputation and is internationally known. In view of the fact that this exhibition is held once in three years, and considering the rapid development of the poultry business in Canada and its extension to foreign markets,, is provision being made in these estimates for Canada's participation in the congress?


William Richard Motherwell: In the supplementaries there is $25,000 foT the purpose.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Does the minister's department control the regulations in regard to the grading of meats?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What progress have we
made in Canada an the grading of meats for home consumption, including beef, pork, mutton and lamb?


William Richard Motherwell: We have regulations only with regard to beef and poultry. The positions of graders of beef have recently been advertised and are now under consideration by the Civil Service Commission.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The department has
spent a good deal of money to encourage the production of lamb in Canada and has carried on strenuous progaganda to keep up quality. But we are permitting New Zealand mutton- old bucks I believe-to come into Canada for sale all over the country as lamb. What on earth is the use of spending government money to encourage farmers to produce lamb when we allow mutton to come in from New Zealand and be sold throughout the country as lamb? This at once spoils the market for the article which you are encouraging the farmers to produce. I think it is foolish. We ought to have a grading system which will protect the consumer against exploitation in this regard.
Mr. MOTHERW'ELL: We have given more attention in Canada to the grading system than anywhere else on this continent and I think we might fry it out on beef on the voluntary basis before beginning with lamb- even the old fashioned lamlb my hon. friend refers to. The United States has tried the system but it is nothing to write home about. I think, however, that if we in Canada persevere to the end we shall succeed.


Edward Joseph Garland: How long
have the voluntary grading resolutions been in force?


William Richard Motherwell: As regards beef,
the regulations have just been gazetted and the advertisements for graders have been only recently completed. The matter is now before the Civil Service Commission and until we have the graders appointed we cannot consider the adt in force.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
minister anticipate that the butchers are going to ask him to send his inspectors to stamp their meat?


William Richard Motherwell: They will ask the
department to have their beef graded. The regulations apply only to the abattoirs, who have already had several conferences with the beef grading committee which has travelled throughout the country for the last twelve months, and they have agreed to cooperate with us in a voluntary way.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is there any constitutional difficulty in the matter of beef grading so far as the provincial governments are concerned?


William Richard Motherwell: We have no difficulty. and in any case the provinces have passed the necessary concurrent legislation,.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If the department can'
prevent mutton being sold as lamb they should take steps in the matter at once.


William Richard Motherwell: I appreciate my
bon. friend's support of the general policy of meat grading. We are now at the stage where home consumption is satisfied by home production, and we intend to try out the system with beef before applying it to lamb. We have had a number of representations, and I expect to go to the Pacific during July, when I shall make diligent inquiries into the desirability of pursuing the grading system further in the direction indicated.


William Earl Rowe: Does the minister propose tc make to the Canadian national exhibition the grant I suggest? The exhibition is worth more than $5,000, especially when they are putting up a building of such magnitude as the one I have mentioned. The Canadian national exhibition contributes $36,000 annually in floor space to the British Empire marketing board and when it can do that surely it is only reasonable that this government should give that fair $17,000.
Supply-A griculture


William Richard Motherwell: I find myself very much an sympathy with my hon. friend's representations, but I think he and I could make better progress if we did not say so much about it to the house.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would like to ask the minister if his department is responsible for the health of the animals imported into Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, certainly.


Edward Joseph Garland: And I
understand there is quite an expensive quarantine establishment maintained?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: With very efficient officers?


William Richard Motherwell: I hope so.


Edward Joseph Garland: The point I Wantt to get at is that the minister is taking all possible precautions to prevent diseased animals and animals likely to be diseased from coming into contact with our own animals?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then I would like to know why this department has seen fit to deduct $10 per head from the remuneration or damage paid the farmers who have had imported hogs slaughtered for hog cholera. Perhaps I had better put it this way: It has been brought to my attention that at least in the province of Alberta several farmers were induced to import some Chester white hogs. An active campaign was carried on by the importers and by the federal and provincial Departments of Agriculture to prevent the farmers from importing those hogs, but in spite of the information they received they did import them. This importation could be made only through the quarantine station and after the officers undertook to see, as far as they could, that the farmer and the country weTe protected from any possible contact with hog cholera. The Chester whites came in; they were in quarantine; they passed quarantine and they went out to the farmers. Possibly as a result of the importation of those hogs, and possibly because of some other reasons, hog cholera broke out and many herds were slaughtered. The farmers were to be paid a certain amount of money, about 75 per cent of the value of the animals, but in the case of the Chester whites the department saw fit to deduct $10 per head in addition, so that instead of the farmers
TMr. Rowe.]
receiving 75 per cent of the value of the hogs they received 75 per cent less $10 per head.
The shocking thing about it is that when I wrote the department protesting against this deduction of $10, the reply from the department under date of May 8 advjses me that it is true that the Department of Agriculture is responsible for letting these hogs into Canada; they admit responsibility, but say that the hogs were permitted entry only after the quarantine period. That is all the more damaging to the department. The officers of the department examined these hogs thoroughly, or at least they had every opportunity to do so; at all events these hogs spread hog cholera and now the farmers concerned are penalized in this way; they are stung twice, first on the Chester whites as breeding stock and then by the fact that they were disease carriers. The department comes along and deducts $10 per head from their remuneration. I cannot understand that, and I want the minister to let the committee know just why the department has taken this unfair advantage of these farmers.


William Richard Motherwell: Both the Department of Agriculture at Edmonton and the federal department did everything the law allowed them to do to exclude these animals altogether. They were quarantined at the point of entry, as my hon. friend indicated, but evidently the signs of the disease were not distinguishable at the time of the quarantine. We have a working arrangement with the United States under which they recognize our certificates of cleanliness and we recognize their certificates on all animals, but apparently in this instance some of these certificates have not been absolutely reliable. I can assure my hon. friend that if I had had any kind of weapon with which to keep out these hogs they never would have entered Canada, but my hon. friend must remember that once a minister begins to exclude animals from the United States there is always the suspicion that he is doing so to protect the home market.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not protesting against the minister's action in quarantining the hogs or trying to keep them out;
I think he acted wisely, but why penalize the farmers $10 per head extra?


William Richard Motherwell: This matter has not been brought to my attention until now, to my recollection; the outbreak occurred when I was absent from Canada, and since then we have been fairly busy. I will make inquiries into the matter.

Supply-A griculture


Edward Joseph Garland: That is not good enough. Here is a farmer who is entitled by larw to 75 per cent of the value of the animals slaughtered. The department is supposed to protect him against the introduction of diseased animals, but failed to do so. I am not blaming the department; accidents will happen, but as a matter of fact the department did fail. The farmer was not onlly stung with these hogs as breeding stock but, after the department's failure, he is penalized another $10 per head. That is absolutely unfair; under the law the farmer is entitled to the whole 75 per cent of the value of the animals slaughtered, and as representing tlhe interests of these men I must insist on that 75 per cent being paid in full. The department has no legal right to deduct an additional $10 per head; that is a clear swindle on the farmers who are concerned in this matter.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon. friend has not the right angle on this question. I understand the situation now better than I did when my hon. friend introduced it, and under the law the minister may or may not pay compensation. We may exercise our discretionary power in that matter, and if there are any peculiar or exceptional circumstances under which this contagion broke out, indicating that the farmers were responsible for it-


Edward Joseph Garland: But the farmers were not responsible for it. What chance has a farmer to inspect hogs in quarantine?


William Richard Motherwell: If the farmers had not b'it bo freely when they were exploited by the men who imported the animals there would have been no difficulty. I would have liked to stop these men from buying the animals, but there was no provision by which I could save them from themselves. This expense was loaded on the country as a result of the importations; if there had been no importation there would have been no trouble, but the farmers insisted on buying these hogs against the advice of all the officials. They brought the animals in; they were primarily responsible for the introduction of the disease, and the officers of the department considered themselves justified in withholding a portion of the compensation in order to indicate that farmers always run a risk when they import animals of that description against the advice of the provincial and federal officials.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It seems to me that the Department of Agriculture could have prohibited these hogs from being brought in.


William Richard Motherwell: How?


Henry Elvins Spencer: If they are allowed to come in under proper inspection then there should be some responsibility upon the government.


William Richard Motherwell: If the hon. member will agree to give the department the authority to exclude animals which are under suspicion I can assure him that I will be delighted to take the initiative in asking for that authority by way of legislation or regulation. At the present time I do not think we have the regulative powers to do it; there is no law that I know of upon which regulation could be based. I feel now and I felt then that the goverment of the day should have the authority to exclude suspected animals coming from a country which was filled with hog cholera. But if I had taken that action I know the attitude which would have been taken by many hon. members in this house; they would have opposed it upon the ground that there was an element of protection introduced by the exclusion of animals under the guise of trying to keep out suspected animals. Section 6, as amended, reads:
The minister may order compensation to be paid to the owners of animals slaughtered under the provisions of this act.
It is entirely optional and sometimes we exercise that option. I am open to further information on this point. I think that the officers were justified in only allowing part compensation to the farmers who were responsible for bringing in these diseased animals from the United States.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Were the purchasers of these hogs notified that they would be penalized, as it were, if hog cholera were found? If it was intended that an extra charge should be made, I think it would have been only fair that these farmers should have been notified.


William Richard Motherwell: There is enough in my hon. friend's contention to justify my reviewing the case. My officers are very careful in deciding a matter of this kind and I am disposed to take their finding until I have further evidence placed before me that it is wrong.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am very glad that the minister has taken this attitude. I think he realizes the hardship imposed upon
Supply-A gricul ture
. COMMONS
these men. They are not rich men and they cannot afford these losses. They have had to wait, a long time for their payment, and they are asking for interest. They have had to go to the bank and borrow money, not on the $10, but on other moneys due them; they had to borrow money to carry on their spring work instead of being able to carry on with the indemnity from the department. They have suffered a heavy string of hardships throughout this whole matter, and I hope the minister will reconsider the whole question. When the minister suggests the meaning of the word "may", I would refer him to his hon. friend the Minister of Justice from whom he will probably get the information that in most of these cases the "may" is taken as an imperative; that is, it shall be paid. It is not used in the ordinary colloquial way. I have not read the section but I presume that the "may" is not altogether discretionary; it may be, but I would like the minister to look into it. I wish to put a letter on record so that the minister will have it before him when he is considering this case. I protested to the department because of this reduction, and I received the following reply, dated May 8:
I have your letter of the 6th instant, with reference to the Chester white hogs imported and subsequently slaughtered suffering from hog cholera, and in this connection I would advise you that it is true that the Department of Agriculture is responsible for letting these pigs in, but they were permitted entry only after all the quarantine period which the law allows had been served. That is, they were kept in quarantine for thirty days after entry-
And yet the department did not find a trace of hog cholera. The letter continues:
-and were released on a certificate from United States veterinary officers stating that they had come from a herd which had not been serum treated, and they had not been in contact with any herd in which hog cholera had been present six months prior to entry. Consequently, this department did all it could to protect the health of our Canadian live stock in this particular matter.
Apparently they failed in this case. The letter continues:
The trouble is that the pigs were sold to Canadians by a bunch of sharpers-not to use any stronger term-who apparently found some way of deceiving the United States officers, and in getting certificates which apparently were quite in order. These imported hogs were sold to our Canadian farmers in face of all the information given to them about the breed of pigs that should be used in Canada to get the best results, and in face of the strongest representations of our federal officers and, I believe, of the provincial officers as well.
On that point Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the department and to the minister that very frequently there are others be-
(t'r. E. J. Garland.]
sides farmers who are stung by sharpens once in a while; even the department has been stung at times. That is no legitimate reason why the farmers should be refused tlheir fair compensation. The letter continues:
The farmers were deluded into these transactions by the hope of extraordinary gains. For instance, they were told by the agents of the United States company selling these pigs that "all their sow pigs from the first two litters would be bought at a stated price

$25 at that time, provided they weighted 125-135 pounds at six months and met the standard of the open gilt sold the farmer." We think that this is one of the reasons why farmers were induced to act against the well-known recommendations both of the provincial and federal departments of agriculture. They were also warned of the risk of the introduction of disease.
We put t'he Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the track of these agents, and finally the traffic was stopped, due partly to the fact that the dealers did not live up to the promise of taking the young pigs off the hands of the farmers, and partly because we made things so hot for them that they desisted.
Under the circumstances I felt that we could not justify anything in the way of paying for these imported pigs at t'he expense of the country which had already suffered so much on account of the introduction of disease due to the persistence of these farmers in acting contrary to the recommendations of both departments. So far as the law is concerned, we could, of course, pay for these hogs, but I am still of the opinion that we should not do so.
Yours very truly,
J. H. Grisdale,
Deputy Minister.
While some blame may be attached to the farmers for acting as they did, we must admit that even the minister himself sometimes acts contrary to the advice of 'his own officers, and very properly so. For some reason, or other the farmers thought that they were in for a killing; they were, but it was not the kind of killing they expected. Under all the circumstances, I hope t'he minister will give consideration to these men and allow the additional $10 per head.


William Richard Motherwell: I wish to assure
the hon. member for Bow River that I had no desire to be harsh with these farmers who were misguided, or who exercised the wrong judgment in this matter. As my hon. friend says, we are all disposed to do that; if we deprive everyone in the world of the initiative to d'o right or wrong we would soon have a breed of people who would not be worth their salt. While I am open to further information I am closed to importunity, but we would need a little more information before we would be justified in changing the decision. I would direct the attention of my hon. friend to the section of the regulation

Supply-Agriculture
under which the officers acted, and I think in view of the circumstances they acted quite properly. Section 2 reads in part:
Such compensation may be withheld-
I agree that sometimes "may" is not permissive, but is rather mandatory and might mean may or shall; but I do not think in this case any such discretion can be exercised in respect to the use of the word "may":
Such compensation may be withheld in whole or in part whenever the owner or the person having charge of the animal has, in the opinion of the minister, been guilty in relation to the animal of an offence against this act, or whenever the animal being a foreign one was in his judgment diseased at the time of entering Canada.
It is evident to my mind it was this latter proviso upon which the officer acted. Notwithstanding that, I have lost enough animals myself during the last almost fifty years in the west, before there was any compensation, to know exactly how a farmer feels when he finds his animals have to be slaughtered without reservation on account of any kind of contagious disease like glanders, cholera or the like. My disposition would be to err on the side of leniency if the circumstances of the case warrant that conclusion.


William Russell Fansher: In western
Ontario last fall there was an outbreak of hog cholera in some of the counties such as Essex and Kent. The hogs were inspected and slaughtered. Recommendations were sent in for compensation, but this spring I received communciations from different farmers complaining that as yet they had not received compensation for the hogs. I should like to ask the minister whether all those claims have been paid?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


William Russell Fansher: Could some
means not be provided whereby the compensation could be paid more promptly? It seems a hardship to many farmers, at a time when they are expecting this money to meet fall expenditures for taxes, payments on implements and other things, that they should lose their entire herd and then have to wait until the spring before they can receive from the department the money which is granted as compensation for losing their hogs.


William Richard Motherwell: This is the first
time for many years-and we simply did not anticipate it-that we have had such a large amount of bovine tuberculosis in a certain area in the province of Quebec along the United States boundary. This ate up our money so rapidly that we ran out of funds
and the payment of those overdue accounts had to be extended into the current year. The reason was an underestimate of our requirements. It was due to the fact that we had these outbreaks of hog cholera in Essex and Calgary quite beyond our anticipations. In addition to that, there was the large percentage of bovine tuberculosis that was quite beyond any of our experience during the last seven or eight years. We shall be more on our guard this year. We shall simply have to stop the work if we find that we run into an unexpected lot of diseased animals of any kind that is going to take up our money. We will simply not contract the debt and we will let the work stand until the current year comes around, rather than contract the debt and have the people complaining of not being paid. With the additional amount provided in the supplementary estimates I do not think we shall have any difficulty this year.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister would 'be very unwise to carry out a policy of that kind and I do not think he is serious in his suggestion. If he finds an outbreak of hog cholera anywhere, I am sure he will take all necessary precautions.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not mean to suggest that I would not take care of hog cholera outbreaks.	.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am sure
the minister did not. How did the difficulty ever arise? Would it not have been possible to secure the necessary money by governor general's warrant? Has that not been done in other cases?


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. gentleman is asking a rather awkward question. I had no thought of discontinuing the work in connection with any contagious disease such as has been referred to, but in the case of the large areas in which we eradicate tuberculosis, we can stop the operation of that at any time. I would not suggest not dealing with an outbreak of hog cholera. As regards governor general's warrants, the government do not like to exercise that option any more frequently than they have to.


Edward Joseph Garland: I agree
with that, but there are occasions when they have been used.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend
knew how valiantly I endeavoured to meet these accounts, I do not think he would complain.


William Russell Fansher: When were
the farmers recompensed for the slaughter of those hogs?
Sup-ply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: In tihat district they were all completed about five or six weeks ago. I think everything is cleared up in the districts that have complied with the "cleanup" conditions.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act does the department grant remuneration to farmers who have experienced the loss of cattle suffering from hemorrhagic septicaemia?


William Richard Motherwell: That does not come under the Health of Animals branch.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Is there any way whereby the department can grant remuneration in cases of that kind?


William Richard Motherwell: Not that I know of.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In regard to imports of mutton from New Zealand and elsewhere, is it possible for the Department of Agriculture to arrange that the statistics be kept in such a way that we can tell what quantity of lamb and what quantity of mutton come in? At the present time the whole thing is so jumbled up that one cannot tell what it is.


William Richard Motherwell: We will try that out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of Animals, administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, and necessary buildings, $2,450,000.
Harry James Barber: I wish first to register a
protest against the delaying of perhaps the most important estimate until the dying hours of the session. I want to draw to the attention of the committee what I consider a very raw deal that has been handed out to the dairymen of certain sections of the Dominion.
I refer to those areas in which the department is carrying on a campaign to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. I do not think any hon. member objects to the action of the department along those lines. We want to-clean this up, but the unfairness comes in when the farmers, the dairymen, are called upon to pay about 75 per cent of the cost. I have two complaints to make. The first is the compensation that is allowed, and the second is the delay in payment. As I have said, the compensation is sufficient only to compensate the man for about 25 per cent of the cost of replacement of his herd. This means that the farmers, in order to protect the consumers of milk and in the interest of the public health of the country, are contributing 75 per cent of the cost. In regard to the compensation I cannot hold the minister altogether responsible because the compensation is provided for by statute.

As perhaps hon. gentlemen are aware, a good grade cow is valued under the act at $50 and the compensation allowed is $33.33. It would cost the farmer to replace that cow to-day $125 to $150. For pure breds the maximum valuation under the act is $150, and the compensation two-thirds, or $100. As far as the Fraser valley is concerned, last year the third test was made in that district, and 286 cattle were slaughtered for which the average compensation, including pure breds, was a little over $39. This is not sufficient to enable the farmer to replace the cattle in his herd. To increase the compensation it would no doubt be necessary to amend the aict. Therefore I cannot hold the minister entirely responsible for the amount of the compensation awarded, but I do hold him directly responsible for the delay in the payment of this compensation. Provision was made in the estimates last year, on the basis of the loss not being over perhaps It per cent; I believe it was under that. But an estimate was made and a sum provided in the estimates. I find to-day that in respect of the cattle slaughtered last October and November the farmers of the Fraser valley were deprived for five or six months of the compensation that was awarded to the amount of $10,050.30. I consider that the minister is altogether responsible. I have under my hand a letter from a man in my district in which he says:
It seems to be an unfortunate fact that throughout the Fraser valley district, tuberculosis is more or less prevalent. Although it is claimed that the average affected is low-[DOT] ranging perhaps approximately one per cent of the total dairy cattle-yet in some sections the loss has been heavy and I know of instances in my own district (Matsqui) whore some farmers have lost the greater part of their herds. One farmer has lost his entire herd. I have lost eight head out of approximately twenty. The compensation value arbitrarily placed upon these condemned cattle in my herd was $32 each. I am assuming that other owners of condemned cattle have been promised payment on a similar scale, which is approximately about twenty-five per cent of their commercial replacement value. Cattle were found to be affected by tuberculosis in the opinion of the department's veterinary inspector, and were condemned in October of last year. To date no payment has been made that I can ascertain in our district (Matsqui). It all seems manifestly unfair, particularly as in some instances where the loss of cattle has been great and the entire herd taken the farmer has been left absolutely without means to carry on because he has not the means in the absence of any remittance from the government to even partially replace his dairy herd.
I wish briefly to put this before the government:	I think the compensation is too low,
and in order to eradicate bovine tuberculosis

Supply-Agriculture
we should not expect the farmer to pay 75 per cent of the cost. In addition, there is no reason whatever for the delay of five or six months in the payment of the small amount of compensation provided. In regard to my district, I charge that this amount has been transferred to meet payments in other districts. This amount was included in the estimates last year. It was the third and final test for bovine tuberculosis, and the officers of the department could estimate the losses. They knew what the probable losses would be, but over $10,000 has been held back from the farmers in my district. I think that that is very unfair, and I lodge a strong protest against the action of the minister in that regard.


William Richard Motherwell: As to this raw
deal that my hon. friend speaks of, he is an hon. member who usually uses very moderate language. I would say to him that there are hon. members whose constituencies had overdue accounts ten times as large as the one he mentions, and when the circumstances were explained to them there was not a word of complaint. My hon. friend represents the beautiful valley from which the cities of New Westminster and Vancouver get nearly all their clean milk, and it was for that reason that we started a campaign early in that section to ensure to those cities the best milk supply obtainable. I would also point out that Canada gives larger compensation for this class of diseased animals that are slaughtered than any other country in the world, and 33^ per cent higher than is granted in the United States. I hope that such a delay in the payment of compensation will not occur again, and it probably will not because we shall have to have more leeway. I say further that there was no disposition on the part of the department or of my officials to discriminate against my hon. friend in the matter of the time when the compensation should be paid. There was only one place in connection with which we did give a preference, and that was with regard to the animals slaughtered for hog cholera. We paid the compensation in that case; we had sufficient money at the time to clean up the disease earlier in the year. The owners of these animals were peculiar sufferers, and we paid the accounts around Calgary before paying other accounts in the eastern provinces, for the reason that Alberta had the first outbreak. But there was no discrimination against my hon. friend. The amount he mentions, $10,000, was not a big amount when compared with what other
parts of the country had to put up with. There was no raw deal in connection with it at all, but a good service was rendered, and the compensation was paid just as promptly as we had the money to do it.


Harry James Barber: In regard to protecting
the cities of New Westminster and Vancouver, I am not blaming the minister for that, but the figures I have given show that the farmers of the Fraser valley are paying about 75 per cent of the cost of cleaning up bovine tuberculosis.


William Richard Motherwell: Not at all.


Harry James Barber: Yes, according to the replacement value, and I consider that that is very unfair. As far as the other matter is concerned, I think the minister will agree that he knew that the third and final test was coming on in the Fraser valley and that a certain amount would be required, something like $14,000. Of that amount $4,000 was paid, and the other $10,000 was transferred to some other district.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is
quite off his eggs.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I think the Minister of Agriculture is very fair-minded and very sympathetic. Speaking of hemorrhagic septicaemia in cattle, I would draw to his attention a case, of which he is no doubt aware, which occurred in North Renfrew about a year ago. I understand that a case of hemorrhagic septicaemia was discovered and diagnosed as such by the veterinary surgeon who was called in. Several farmers in the district became very much alarmed and asked the veterinary surgeon to inoculate their cattle against this disease, which was considered very contagious. The cattle were inoculated in good faith by the farmers of the district, but the serum was not satisfactory and many of the cattle died, in fact whole herds were wiped out. I am not blaming the veterinary surgeon, for I know he is a reputable and reliable man, nor am I blaming the firm that supplied the serum, but it was very unfortunate indeed for the farmers. I have always found the minister fair minded, and I would ask him if he cannot under the act compensate these farmers for the heavy losses they sustained, or at least make them some compassionate allowance.


William Richard Motherwell: Hemorrhagic septicaemia is not a contagious disease, nevertheless it is fatal. It can be taken care of by the farmers injecting their cattle with an immunizing vaccine. As my hon. friend indicates, we have on more than one occasion made
Supply-A griculture

compassionate allowances, but I would have considerable hesitation in doing so in connection with losses due to this particular disease, because we would then have to apply the same principle to losses from all diseases, whether contagious or not. This is not a contagious disease, and therefore we are not justified in dealing with it under the act. My hon. friend certainly has my compassion, but I do not know how I am going to exercise it in the way he suggests.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The circumstances were rather unusual in this case, because the vaccine was administered in good faith, and it is very unfortunate that these farmers in trying to protect their cattle against an outbreak of the disease should have incurred very heavy losses. I know some of them will not recover financially for several years. I would urge the minister to make some allowance to these farmers. Otherwise the case will drag on in the courts, and from what I know of the circumstances I am afraid those interested will not recover much, if anything; by way of damages.


William Richard Motherwell: Will my hon. friend send me a communication detailing the circumstances so that we may have the matter looked into?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister; I shall be pleased to do so.


John Anderson Fraser: Last year I put before the minister the case of an official of his department in the city of Kamloops. It was for payment for the inspection of 146 stock cars. Unfortunately I had to leave before he came to a decision. His decision was against me. I want to review the case to-night to a final conclusion.


William Richard Motherwell: Go to the mat, as it were.


John Anderson Fraser: Yes. Must I take up the time of the house to Teview this case? I am quite prepared to do it, but I think he is fully advised of all the circumstances. The man earned $146. Your officials are prepared to say that he performed those services and earned the money. Still you refuse to pay him. Am I to understand that you still persist in that attitude?


William Richard Motherwell: I have not reviewed the case for the last few months, but I think the man was paid a full time salary, and when he was doing this car inspection he was just simply putting in part of his day's work. If we recognized the right of any officer to

be paid two salaries, one for full time and the other for extra work, we would be running into all sorts of difficulties, because an embarrassing precedent would be set. For instance, our seed branch staff of thirty-six men perform services of five or six different kinds. This man-his name is Smith, is it not?


John Anderson Fraser: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: Smith was given
full salary as a fruit inspector, and in addition he was inspecting stock cars. Well, that was part of his day's work. When he was doing that he was not inspecting apples.


John Anderson Fraser: I want to put the minister right on the statement he has made. That man never inspected one stock car during the time he was inspecting fruit cars. He put in from twelve to fourteen hours every day during the whole time he was employed in the fruit branch inspecting fruit cars, and every single stock car was inspected after hours. Does that meet the situation?


Ernest Lapointe: Was he instructed to do so?


John Anderson Fraser: He had an official appointment and was discharging the duties of that appointment.


William Richard Motherwell: The official correspondence does not indicate that the work was done after hours. The question was raised and this is the first time we have been told that it was extra work. I do not doubt my hon. friend's statement. It is generally understood that when an officer on full time pay works out of hours he is not so well qualified for his full time pay. We were under the impression that we were paying two men, both of the name Smith, and there being as a matter of fact only one man in the case this gentleman enjoyed two salaries for a period: and having received that double salary for a while he thought he was entitled to it for good. But after we discovered that the two Mr. Smiths were in reality only one Mr. Smith we reduced the salaries to one.


John Anderson Fraser: Let me state the matter
further. This full time job lasted only five months, at a salary of $125 a month, making $625. The total the man earned for the two jobs was $S25 a year, and out of that $825 you deduct $146. Now he earned that $146. He inspected the cars and earned the money and you have refused to pay him. Is that a fair proposition? He was engaged for five months and that engagement as junior fruit car inspector was entered into with the full con-

Supply-Agriculture
currence of his superior officer. In the first instance he was a stock car inspector and nothing else, and when this other position was open he made application to the Civil Service Commission, who appointed him with the full knowledge of his superior officer. His total earnings, as I say, for the whole year amounted to $825 and the department has deducted $146 which it has refused to pay him for work done overtime. He discharged his duties as car inspector to the satisfaction of the department and was paid $125 a month, and after hours he inspected cars, for which work he is entitled to $146. But that is not all. Had you told the man at the end of the first month that you would not pay him, the situation would be different; but you allowed it to drag for five months and at the end of that time refused to pay him. That was the first intimation he had that he would not be paid. Now I am not making this appeal, especially at this Late hour of the session, without .justification. I submit that the man is entitled to this $146 and unless the minister assures me that he will be paid I will give him all the trouble I can before he gets his estimates through.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not a Christian spirit.


Alexander Duncan McRae: He hasn't been to church today. Now, Mr. Chairman-


John Anderson Fraser: Just a moment; I have the floor. I want an answer.


Ernest Lapointe: We have spent more
than $146 since you started.


John Anderson Fraser: I haven't started yet.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend
isn't through yet-


John Anderson Fraser: I want your answer.


William Richard Motherwell: This matter was
brought to my notice on more than one occasion and it is so complicated that I do not know whether my hon. friend's recital of it is correct or not, not having the file before me.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Give him a cheque
for it.


William Richard Motherwell: No. The matter
was submitted to the Civil Service Commission and they decided that we should not pay it, and we submitted it to the Justice department, whose decision was the same. Am I to override these two decisions? I thought it my duty to be guided by their advice. I asked the deputy to review the whole oase and I read the whole file myself; and I asked the deputy to get an opinion from both these
bodies. He did so and I have acted on their advice. We do not want to hold back money that belongs to someone; we should be delighted to pay it and be through with this fracas that has occurred every year.


John Anderson Fraser: I do not question the minister's statement that the payment has been turned down by the Civil Service Commission, but this is the first time that he has given me that information.


William Richard Motherwell: It is just this winter that both decisions have been given.


John Anderson Fraser: H the minister had information of this nature he should have communicated it to me but he has not done so during this session. I have the file with all the correspondence and there is absolutely nothing on that file to indicate what the minister has just informed me. This is the third session I have been following up this matter. I had it before the minister last year when I followed it through the department from the junior officials right up to the minister. I went into the matter with the greatest care and I now tell the minister that I am' convinced that this man is entitled to the money he has earned. He is entitled to the $146. I want a satisfactory assurance from the minister on this occasion.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: A cheque.


John Anderson Fraser: Yes, I must have a cheque.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not intentionally hold back the information with the idea of springing it on my hon. friend in the house; not at all. I read the file last winter and asked my deputy to get a decision. But I have had a few other things to do since then and have not inquired what the decision was; I have only just now got it. The hon. member cannot therefore say that I have taken an advantage of him and sprung something to disconcert him when bringing up his case. I did not know until now what the decision was.


John Anderson Fraser: If I cannot press the matter without bringing in the political end, I am prepared to bring in the political end now. I have submitted every argument and I have followed the matter with the greatest care. I do not want to make any rash statements and I wish if possible not to touch the political phase of it.


William Richard Motherwell: What is that political end?
Supply-A gricul ture


John Anderson Fraser: The minister informed me that there was no reason for the dismissal of this man except a political reason.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
must have been dreaming.


John Anderson Fraser: I am not dreaming; I came to that conclusion by deducting.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Anderson Fraser: As I say, that is what I concluded by deduction; it was not a straight statement by the minister, and I am going to tell the members of the committee exactly why the minister will not pay this man this $146.


William Richard Motherwell: Let us have it.


John Anderson Fraser: Yes, we will have it. In the first place let me tell the minister how I arrived at that conclusion. I met the minister in his office by appointment to discuss this matter, and when I went into his office I said, "Now we will have a talk about this Smith claim in Kamloops." The minister said, "Smith? Oh, yes, that is the man who was carrying your voters to the poll on election day." Is that not political?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, on his behalf.


John Anderson Fraser: On your behalf. You did not get that information from me; I did not have it at the time and I did not know what the minister meant, because this man had never submitted the political part to me. When the minister made that statement I immediately wrote Smith and asked him about it. To give the committee the whole situation, I would like the committee to understand that I met Mr. Smith only once in my life, and I never knew him until he got into this trouble with the department. He is not even an acquaintance of mine. He lives in the city of Kamloops, where he was performing his duties for the department, and I have followed this matter up consistently and persistently only because he has been so unfairly dealt with in a political way.
I wrote Mr. Smith and asked for an explanation of the minister's remark. He said, "Yes, I quite realize what this means. On election day I had a lady friend working in the Kamloops hospital. It was a rainy day, and on my way to vote I called around to take this lady friend to the polling booth in my automobile. I took her there and back to the hospital. When I returned to the hospital I was met at the door by the matron, who asked me to take 'two patients from the hospital to the polling booth, since it was a

wet day and they would not be able to get to the booths unless they were taken there. I consented and took the two ladies down to the polling booth. I did not know either of them; I had never seen them before; I asked no question about their voting or anything else. I took them down to the polling booth and I brought them back to the hospital, and unquestionably some of the zealous friends of the Liberal party observed me, a government official, twice go to the polling booth and deliver voters, and they so reported to the minister."
That is the reason underlying the refusal of the Department of Agriculture to pay this $146. I am sure the minister does not want this kind of thing to go on, after all, but the fact of the matter is this: I am convinced that he has had communications from the Liberal organization of the city of Kamloops; he has been apprised of these facts; he refuses to pay this bill and discharges the man. This man is a returned soldier with a tubercular affection; he was ordered to the hospital and did not put in a proper application for leave of absence. For that reason he was discharged from the employ of the government.
I submit with all the force at my command that it is not fair or right to discharge an official in that way, particularly a returned man who has tubercular trouble and who received only $825 per year. I want to hear what the minister has to say in this regard.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend has indicated that this money has been withheld because of the fact that this gentleman took a number of ladies to the polling booth. I do not know that that is such a serious offence, but I can assure my hon. friend that that was not part of the evidence upon which the Department of Justice based its decision. I do not think that information was sent to that department and I am sure the Civil Service Commission had not that information. My remark was only intended to let my hon. friend know that I had some complaints of that nature. At any rate, Mr. Smith was continued in our employ for some time after this dispute about salary.


John Anderson Fraser: No, you are wrong.


William Richard Motherwell: That is what the file indicates, and he was let out finally for an entirely different reason. I have not the file here, but my recollection is that he was signing blank certificates indicating that these oars were inspected, and farming them out to a substitute, and we never knew whether or not the cars were really inspected. That was the diffieultv.

Supply-Annuities to Widows


John Anderson Fraser: When this man was ordered to the hospital by the doctor he did ask a man to oarry on his work and he did sign these blank certificates. There is no question about that; I am not disputing it, but what could the man do? Kamloops is a long way from Ottawa. If a man is ordered to the hospital by his doctor what better can he do than to put in a substitute during his absence? Let me tell the minister that- the man who did the inspection while he was in the hospital had helped him in the stock car inspection previously and was acquainted with the work, so the inspection was carried on just as efficiently during his absence. I submit that this is only a paltry excuse.


William Richard Motherwell: Then will it suit my hon. friend if I submit this question a second time to the Civil Service Commission and to the Department of Justice? We will submit all the evidence on the files and all the additional evidence my hon. friend has in his possession, and if they say I should pay this account it will be paid. Is that fair?


John Anderson Fraser: This man inspected 146 cars for you, to the satisfaction of your officials. Why should that question be referred to any ether body? Your own officials will certify that the work was done efficiently and this man is entitled to that $146. If it were only for one month I would not have persisted in the matter, but when you drag a man along for five months and allow him to fill a dual position I think in all fairness you should pay him without referring his account to any commission. You could put a special vote in your estimates to-night if you wanted to, and it is only fair that you should do so.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think I could do that.


John Anderson Fraser: You can do anything you like in matters of this kind.


William Richard Motherwell: No, we cannot raise the amount, although I think it could be reduced. I could not override the decisions given by the commission and the Justice department. They will have to rescind their decision after hearing new evidence, before any different action can be taken.


John Anderson Fraser: I quite understand the limitations imposed on the minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have spent over half an hour on this item of $146. I have no doubt as to the sincerity of my hon. friend and of the minister, but if we passed to another item and allowed these two hon. gentlemen to have further conversation with
respect to the particular matter under discussion, they could possibly come to some agreement.


Alfred Speakman: I would like to ask-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Allow this item to stand in the meantime.
Item stands.
Pensions-To hereby provide, notwithstanding anything in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act or any other act or law, for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to Mrs. Beatrice Bell, widow of the late Graham A. Bell, of an annuity at the rate of $1,750 per annum, to commence from April 1, 1929, and continue thereafter until the remarriage or death of the annuitant, $1,750.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will someone explain
just why this item appears in the estimates? I would like to know what principle governs
these cases.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Allow the item to stand and it can be taken up when the minister gets the information.
Pensions-to hereby provide, noth withstanding anything contained in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act or any other act or law, for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to Rebecca J. Farrow, widow of the late Robinson Russell Farrow, of an annuity at the rate of $1,411.60, to commence from October 3, 1928, and to continue thereafter until the remarriage or death of the annuitant, $2,109.79.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Could we have some information on this item?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we had better pass to the next item and allow that one to stand.
Pensions-To hereby provide, notwithstanding anything in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act or any other act or law, for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to the widow of the late Chief Justice Taschereau, of an annuity at the rate of $1,200, to commence from April 1, 1929, and to continue thereafter until the remarriage or death of the annuitant, $1,200.


Mr. HEAPS:: I should like to know why it is necessary to provide for pension in a case of this kind.


Ernest Lapointe: This is a vote to cover a pension to the widow of the late Chief Justice of Canada, who had been the Deputy Governor General and a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This ease was called to my attention by various members of the house and especially by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). This lady was in difficult financial circumstances, and in consideration of the fact that her husband had served this country for so many years, parliament considered the pay-

Supply-Annuities to Widows
ment of an annuity. I hesitated in recommending this because I thought it might create a precedent, but upon investigation I found that a precedent had 'been already created. I found that Lady Lafontaine, whose husband had been Chief Justice of the Appeal Court of Quebec, had been granted a pension. I found also that Lady Cartier had been granted a pension and so I recommended to the Minister of Finance that this item be included in the estimates.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What was the income of the late Chief Justice? I believe he died before the salaries were increased, and was receiving $7,000 per annum.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: When did the
Chief Justice die?


Ernest Lapointe: I think it was in 1905
or 1906.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has this pension been paid since that time?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When did it
commence?


Ernest Lapointe: This is the first year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Why should it
commence now?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there some
special need at the present time?


Ernest Lapointe: That has been represented to me, and I must say that the most insistent representations were made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the Minister of Justice always acquiesce in representations made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey?


Ernest Lapointe: Apparently she was mistaken, for she told me that her friends would support it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If any other representations
are made to the hon. minister by the hon. member for Southeast Grey will he acquiesce in them?


Ernest Lapointe: Not necessarily.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is very difficult to object to a particular item of this character, and it is next to impossible to decide wisely when we do not know the circumstances connected with the particular case. Perhaps it is not desirable that all the conditions should be revealed to the general public, but I think we are creating a very dangerous precedent when we begin to pick out certain individuals and take the public money to pay pensions to them. I do not see

why one particular class of people should be considered in a different light from those in another class, or one individual be given assistance denied to another. As my hon. friend behind me suggests, if you select the widows of judges, why not the widows of former members? Why not people outside of politics altogether? In connection with the old age pensions we were very particular to insist that the beneficiaries should have their private affairs examined very carefully, and if they have any other income, that is deducted from the amount they would otherwise receive from the public funds. I do not think it is a good principle to begin to pick out this, that or the other individual who happens to have some particular friend in the government and pay them annuities out of the public funds. Probably any one case out of a thousand which might be brought here would arouse our sympathy, but I cannot support this particular case without having all the details placed before the committee.


Milton Neil Campbell: I desire to support
what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. Anyone drawing the substantial salary of the late Chief Justice Tasche-reau should have provided for his widow through insurance. Most of us are forced to get along on smaller incomes than that, and we are compelled to take cut the necessary insurance to provide for our wives and families. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, this is establishing a very dangerous precedent. I do not know just what representations were made to the hon. minister by the hon. member for Southeast Grey, but I know that this is the first time that he has acted in conformity with her representations.


Ernest Lapointe: She is not the only one who made the representations.


Milton Neil Campbell: If the minister will go
through Hansard, he will find many other representations that the hon. lady member has made that are more deserving than this one, but that he and his colleagues have totally ignored, and I certainly cannot subscribe to the principle contained in this item.
Mr. HEAP'S: From what the minister has said, it would appear that this lady has been a widow for about twenty-four years. This is an extraordinary procedure, to my way of thinking. After this lady has been a widow for twenty-four years, it is proposed to grant her a pension of so much per annum. If there were any necessity to give her a pension, it should have been granted imme-

Supply-Annuities to Widows
diately she became a widow, and not twenty-four years afterwards. I am inclined to think, if this matter were allowed bo stand over until to-morrow, we might get a little information. We do not know the position of the lad}', whether she has an income from any other source or whether she is really in need of the amount it is proposed to give her each year. I do not think the minister has given that information.
Mr! LAPOINTE:	I said that this item
was inserted because it was represented to me that she was in need of it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am informed-I do not
know whether my information is correct or not-that there are immediate relatives of hers who are well able to take care of the lady in question, and who ought to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member's information is wrong.


Alexander Duncan McRae: This is a very bad precedent to establish and I entirely agree with what has been said on this subject by other hon. members. I will move that this item of SI,200 be reduced to $1.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire to say that I
withdraw the item.


Alexander Duncan McRae: That is satisfactory.


Ernest Lapointe: I inserted it because of
representations made to me by members on the other side, of both oppositions.


Mr. MANION:: The minister says: "Of
both oppositions". He absolutely adheres to the statement that members on our side of the house asked for this pension?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. Last year I had
representations that this should be done.


Robert James Manion: From members of the
Conservative party?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. However, it is
dropped.
Item withdrawn.
Pensions-To hereby provide, notwithstanding anything in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act or any other act or law, for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to Mrs. Beatrice Bell, widow of the late Graham A. Bell, of an annuity at the rate of $1,750 per annum, to commence from April 1, 1929, and continue thereafter until the remarriage or death of the annuitant, $1,750.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member for Peace
River inquired about this. Major Bell died on January 13, 1929. Under his will, made some years earlier, his estate was left entirely in trust for his three sons and no provision
was made for his widow. The late Major Bell had served the Dominion for over thirty-eight years and was eligible, in respect of length of service, for a pension of $7,000 per annum, which he could claim when he reached the age of sixty; his age at his death was fifty-four years. He had been a contributor for thirty-five years to superannuation fund No. 2, under the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act, and had contributed sums amounting to $3,510.36, which were entirely surrendered to that fund due to Major Bell's oversight to elect to transfer to superannuation fund No. 5. Had Major Bell died -prior to January 1, 1925, Mrs. Bell would have been eligible, under the Widows' Annuities Act of 1927, to receive a pension of $1,750 per annum; or had Major Bell elected to transfer to superannuation fund No. 5, Mrs. Bell would also have been eligible, without any cost to Major Bell, for an annuity of $1,750.
Major Bell could, under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act of 1924, have elected to transfer from superannuation fund No. 2 to superannuation fund No. 5, and by an additional contribution equivalent to the difference between the 3^ per cent rate of contributions to fund No. 2 and the 5 per cent rate of contributions to fund No. 5, plus 4 per cent simple interest, have provided for an annuity for Mrs. Bell of $3,500. It seems reasonable to consider that Major Bell's apparent neglect to provide for Mrs. Bell must have been occasioned through his devotion to his work having kept him from giving sufficient consideration to the situation in which Mrs. Bell might be left in the event of his leath. So we are giving the superannuation as if he had transferred to superannuation fund No. 5.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What was the estate of
Major Bell when he died, and is anything being done by the sons for their mother?


James Alexander Robb: I have no information. All I am interested in is the obligation of the state to a public servant who served the public for thirty-eight years and who contributed to that superannuation fund.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Again in this case I think some of us can appreciate the sympathy extended by members of the cabinet to the widow of a colleague, and that is undoubtedly to be commended. On the other hand, it seems to me that we in this house ought to act in such a way that we can justify our action -before the public at large, and that the precedent will constitute a general law. We are often accustomed to listen in


Milton Neil Campbell: I understand there is
fundamental difference between this item and the one we were discussing a few moments ago, and that is, had Major Bell's payments to the superannuation fund been applied differently, this would have given his widow a pension to the extent of $1,750 a year. Is that correct?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Milton Neil Campbell: So far as that is concerned, it puts the matter in a different category from the other; 'but I want to remind the minister of this: there are many

civil servants who have paid large amounts of money into that fund and yet on their dismissal or death there is not a dollar coming to them or their dependents. I discussed a case with the minister last year of a poor man whose wife at that time was sick in hospital, and who was absolutely penniless. He had paid $350 into the superannuation fund, but due to a technical fluke, if I may call it that, he was not able to secure anything. The treasury board did have the power under the act to repay him that money, but they absolutely refused to do so. If they were not prepared to do so in that case, where this man and his family were in a state of absolute penury, I say it is rank injustice to do it in this case. I am not complaining of the case before us so much as I am complaining of discrimination. If the law ca,n be got around in this way or switched around-


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Is the hon.
gentleman sure of his facts when he states that the treasury board refused to pay that man anything when they had authority to do it in a case such as 'he mentions? I have been a member of the treasury board ever since coming to Ottawa and I have no recollection of a case of that character ever having been refused by the board. While I am on my feet may I say that if it had not been for an oversight on the part of this official his widow would have been entitled to $1,750 per annum under the law, and I do not believe that there is a man in this House of Commons who is going to deny to any individual what he would have been entitled to receive but for a technicality. I can assure my hon. friend that the treasury board will not turn down a case such as he mentions if the facts are properly brought before it.


Milton Neil Campbell: They did turn it down.


Charles A. Stewart: I should
like to be sure of that before taking my hon. friend's word, although, of course, I must accept his word.


Milton Neil Campbell: I gave the facts to the
Minister of Finance last year when his estimates were before the committee.


Charles A. Stewart: I have never known the treasury board to turn down a case that could possibly be justified, and I resent accusations of that character.


Milton Neil Campbell: The same accusations
were levelled at the Minister of Finance last year and he accepted them.


Charles A. Stewart: All I have
to say is that this minister is not accepting them.

Supply-Annuities to Widows


Milton Neil Campbell: Perhaps not, but the
Minister of Finance is in a more responsible position than the Minister of the Interior, and he did accept them. The man was dismissed. The act-I am speaking from memory-gives the treasury board power to deal with cases of that kind, but it did not make it compulsory for the board to pay the man, and I say that if you can deal with cases like the one before us by putting an amount in the estimates to correct an injustice-I am not complaining so much of this particular case because I think it is only correcting an injustice-I say that you should do the same in other cases.


James Alexander Robb: I do not recall the case to which my hon. friend refers, but the treasury board have one rule that they follow, and they are compelled to follow it under the act. If the official was dismissed for irregularities, for theft in office or being drunk on duty or anything of that sort, then under the act we cannot pay him, but wherever under the act we can legally pay him, the treasury board is disposed to deal generously with the public servants.
Another hon. gentleman a moment ago referred to those in minor positions. The Civil Service Superannuation Act provides the same privileges for the lower paid servants as for the higher paid, except that the compensation is based upon the salary and the amount that has been paid in. My hon. friend from Mackenzie has very correctly stated the position. I am not going to argue it at any length, but if hon. gentlemen do not wish to pass this item the responsibility will not be upon the government.
I repeat, Major Bell died on January 13, 1929. Had he died on January 1, 1925, under the law Mrs. Bell would have been entitled to exactly the amount that we are asking the committee to vote to-night, so we are only giving her what, she is entitled to under the law.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say
that in succeeding parliaments, innumerable cases of this kind will undoubtedly arise. I have no doubt that a great many civil servants have not taken the precaution of protecting themselves by coming under the provisions of the Superannuation Act, and from time to time parliament will have to do something of this nature to look after such cases.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will they all be treated
the same way?


Charles A. Stewart: Exactly, as
provided under the act. I want to put myself
on record as saying that I am prepared to vote in parliament the sums necessary to compensate these people if through any lack of attention on their part they have failed to take advantage of the act.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do I understand that
Major Bell has paid in sufficient in the way of premiums to warrant his widow receiving this amount of SI,750 had he not made that slight error?


James Alexander Robb: Exactly.


Mr. QUINN:: I have no opposition whatever to offer to this item, but I have a case to submit to the committee. It is that of a man who has served, not for twenty or thirty years, but for fifty-two years. This man entered the service of the imperial government in the year of confederation, in 1867, may I say to the Minister of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: Why say it to me?


Felix Patrick Quinn: Because I want the Minister of Justice to pay special attention to this. This man entered the transport service of the imperial army at Halifax and served continuously from that time until the transport service of the imperial government was turned over to the Canadian federal authorities. He continued to serve until 1919. Now here is where I condemn the Tory government, or the Union government, whichever you choose to call it.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: It is all the
same.


Felix Patrick Quinn: A rose by any other name
would smell as sweet. This man .served his government and his country for fifty-two years and nine months as a captain in the transport service at Halifax. He was dismissed with a paltry gratuity of $900, not $900 a year, but a lump sum gratuity of $900. I brought this matter to the attention of the Hon. E. M. Macdonald when he was Minister of National Defence, the very first year I entered this parliament, in 1926. I also brought it to the attention of the present Minister of National Defence, and in all fairness to the minister, I wish to say that he saw no way of providing for this man. He is now eighty-five years of age, and since 1919 he has been living, I do not know how, on this paltry gratuity of $900. If an item is brought down in the supplementaries under any department, I do not care which, I guarantee to the Minister of National Defence that not a member on this side of the house would oppose it, and I appeal to the minister to include such an item this session. I am suggesting it to the Minister of

Supply-Annuities to Widows
National Defence, to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Justice-that they put an item in the supplementary estimates to pay that man an annuity until the day he dies. He is eighty-five years of age.


Milton Neil Campbell: They will not need to
pay him very long.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I submit you are not dealing with all civil servants along the same lines when you deny this man a small annuity for superannuation.


Milton Neil Campbell: Lest there might be a misunderstanding in the case of the civil servant that I mentioned a moment ago, I may say he was dismissed, not for any of the offences mentioned by the Minister of Finance, but for inefficiency, although, speaking from memory, I think he held the position for over three years, which would seem to negative even that charge. I am not particularly objecting to the estimate; I would be prepared to support any similar vote where money had been paid in and through some technical error it had not been properly applied. But I say if the principle is going to be invoked in one case let it be invoked in another. The principle on which this government acts seems to be: to him that hath shall be given, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. The higher up civil servants and their dependents are well looked after, but the poorer civil servants-this man drew a salary of only $70 a month-could not secure $350.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: Mr. Chairman,
I wish to protest against passing this item in favour of Mrs. Beatrice Bell, for the same reasons as those set forth a moment ago when opposition was taken to a vote for a pension to Lady Taschereau. If the act allowed a pension in the present case, the house would not be called upon to approve of this item. No exception should be made. The same rule should apply to everybody. If Lady Taschereau has no right to a pension, in consideration of the services rendered by her husband who, at his death, was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, I deem that the services rendered by Mr. Bell do not warrant any more the granting of a pension to his widow.
I wish to add that I was informed that Mr. Bell left to his children an estate of $75,000, and nothing to his wife. I cannot see why the government should be called upon to support the widow when her husband could have left her a sufficient amount to provide for her needs. I am opposed to this item and I trust that the hon. members of this house will concur in my views.
[Mr. Quinn.)


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not going to oppose this grant, but how can a member go back to his constituents and say, "I voted for such and such a grant, but I cannot do anything for your case because death took away your husband just two or three months short of the time when he would have qualified for superannuation." This is a letter from the chief accountant of the Finance department in reference to the case of a widow in my constituency:
Under the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act, to which your husband was a contributor, it states that no allowance may be granted to an employee who has less than ten years' service. At the time of Mr. Hamilton's death his service was only nine years, five months and twenty-five days.
Here is a case where the man lived within four or five months of the time when he would have qualified for superannuation and left a widow and daughter without means of support, yet nothing is granted to them.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I would ask the Prime
Minister if the committee in approving this vote may consider that the precedent so established will be the policy of the government with respect to future cases of this kind.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING': Each case, I think, has always to be considered on its merits. If another case presented itself in which the circumstances were as distressing as these are, I have no doubt the house would take the same view'.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I do not think that quite answers my question. There is a principle involved here. I quite agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said a few moments ago with respect to this case. Many hardships, many injustices, many unkindnesses are suffered by people under circumstances very similar to those surrounding this case. When considering such a case as this where the husband has left what might be considered a comfortable fortune to his family and has deprived his wife of any participation in it, it is only fair that we should also take into consideration many of the smaller claims as outlined by members on this side of the house. It is only right that an equal measure of justice should be accorded to these minor claims that have even more merit than the one in question.


Mr. BENOIT (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to state in this house that the government of Canada must not consider itself in the present circumstances, in the light of a charitable institution. I am told that Mr. Bell earned much more than Sir Elzear Taschereau, I therefore cannot understand

Supply-National Dejence
why we should grant a pension of SI,750 per year to the widow of an official who received an annual salary of $12,000. I must further add that if Mr. Bell left his estate to his children, the latter should have sufficient filial affection to look after their mother. I strongly protest against the passing of this item for a pension of $1,750 for the widow of Mr. Bell.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, in- view of the attitude of the committee the item is now dropped.
Item withdrawn.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What about the premiums that have been paid in?


James Alexander Robb: The law takes care of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I promised my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre that I would move the adjournment of the house at twelve, but if it is desired to continue-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know whether the house would care to go on a little longer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not see, Mr. Chairman, that we are making any progress. We cannot possibly finish to-night, and I think we ought to carry out the arrangement as to the hour of adjournment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are certainly not getting through many items.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at twelve o'clock (midnight).
Friday, June 14, 1929