1933-03-31

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Auguste Bur-dayron.-Mr. Myers.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Nora Tulloch Carr.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Alberta Grace Wood.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Hilda Nice Allen.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Mary Louise Robinson Reid.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Elizabth Bernstein Sohmerling.-Mr. Lawson.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: Mr. Speaker, I received a letter this morning from a western farmer inquiring if it is a fact that a recent order in council has been passed applying a dumping duty to the importation of timothy seed.


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, a special value for duty was, at the request of the seed branch of the Department of Agriculture and supported by the deputy minister of that department, placed upon timothy seed. It was represented that a large amount of timothy seed was to be shipped into Canada. For those reasons the value for the duty was fixed. Upon further inquiry by the Department of

Agriculture it was found that the situation wa3 not as grave as was apprehended, and in those circumstances, having in the first place relied upon the Department of Agriculture, I relied in the second place upon that department, with the result that the fixation was removed.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to certain phases of taxation proposals contained in the budget, there has arisen some misunderstanding.
I thought I had made it abundantly clear in the statement which I made in the house on the 29th instant, that it was not intended to tax interest on Dominion of Canada or Canadian National Railway guaranteed bonds paid to non-residents.
This exemption was granted because, while there is no doubt of the power of parliament to impose such a tax, as is done in the case of other countries, nevertheless misunderstanding might arise in the mind of the nonresident investor who had purchased dominion securities issued in his own country and payable in his own currency.
In view of the fact that other public bodies and many private corporations have issued and sold abroad securities payable in an external currency with either the implied or stated obligation to pay without deduction, it has now been decided to extend this exemption to all interest payable by any Canadian debtor to non-residents on obligations which by their terms are payable in a currency other than Canadian.
To summarize briefly in order that absolutely no misunderstanding may exist:
(1)	The five per cent tax on non-residents does not apply to interest on any Dominion of Canada bonds or bonds guaranteed by the dominion.
(2)	The five per cent tax on non-residents does not apply to interest on the obligation of any provincial, municipal, corporation or other debtor payable in a currency other than Canadian.
(3)	The five per cent tax on non-residents does apply in the case of interest payable by Canadian debtors (other than the dominion) in Canadian funds and to all dividends.

Hudson Bay Railway
(4)	In the case of residents of Canada the tax of five per cent applies on interest or dividends paid by Canadian debtors and cashed in a currency at a premium over par of Canadian funds.
With respect to the requirement that all Canadian residents shall, on and after April 1, file ownership certificates when cashing coupons, I desire to say that suggestions of evasions have given the government some concern and I wish to announce that a special measure will be introduced immediately which will require that all taxpayers shall make a statutory declaration when filing their returns that all such interest has been included.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce):: May I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) apropos of the remarks he has just made, what the situation will be when an American holding company, the stock of which is largely owned in Canada, receives its dividends on Canadian securities.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry, I was interrupted and did not hear the first part of the question.


James Malcolm: I was asking the Minister of Finance how he was going to treat an American holding company which had among its securities large blocks of Canadian government bonds, when the stock of the holding company is owned by Canadians.


Mr RHODES:: I think the statement
which I gave covers the question submitted by the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) but if not, I will take it as a notice of question and give a succinct answer on Monday.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Would it be the intention of the government to go after persons who have not made in their returns a statement of the bonds they hold?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Very much so. That is
not only the object of the announcement made in the budget, and the provision now before the house for consideration in committee of ways and means, but also of the further announcement I made a moment ago with respect to amendment of the Income War Tax Act.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Will the government go after these people for the years in which they had not declared these bonds


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If they did not pay,-yes.



JUDGE RUTHERFORD


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). I have received a number of letters protesting against the action of the Radio Commission in banning Judge Rutherford's lectures. I may say most of the letters have been sympathetic towards Judge Rutherford, but to-day I received one from a friend who is not an admirer of Judge Rutherford's lectures, but who has frequently asked just what the situation is. I should like to know, myself, just what measure of responsibility, if any, the government has in the matter. I should like to know further, if in the event of placing a motion for the production of papers on the order paper, any documents could be had? Perhaps the Min-* ister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) would make a brief statement as to what the exact situation is.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU:: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to state exactly what the position is, since the ruling of the Radio Commission about Judge Rutherford's speeches. I will take this question as a notice and will give a more definite statement on Monday.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: I have
under my hand a letter and also some newspaper editorial comments relating to the opening up in the coming summer of the Hudson bay route. These articles point out that there is prospect of a large number of cattle being shipped out by that route in the spring, and that ordinarily the N. B. McLean would go through to Churchill somewhere around the first of July, arriving about the 10th. The suggestion is made that if this boat could go in earlier and open up the route, a larger number of these cattle could go out. I wonder if the minister is in a position to state that he will look into the matter and if possible have the route opened up earlier and made available for the shipment of cattle.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: In regard to opening the
route earlier I am afraid that nature is in control. Last year there was an opportunity to ship out cattle, we were bombarded with
The Budget-Mr. Golding

requests to put up pens and so on, which we did, but there were no cattle shipped. Every reasonable step will be taken by the government, in fact has been taken, to give opportunity for shipping out cattle, and I am sure that if the western people wish to ship them they will not find any particular obstacle.



TRAWLER LICENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. \\. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg): May I ask the lion, acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) whether he is prepared to make an announcement of the governments policy with reference to licensing steam trawlers for the coming year?
Alfred Duranleau: I hope Mr. Speaker, that I shall be in a position to make a statement on Monday.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 28, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. N. Rhodes (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston.
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (South Huron) :: Mr. Speaker, just before the house closed on Tuesday evening I was going to point out that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) in his speech had rather dared the members from the rural constituencies to vote against this budget. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not approve of that line of debate, because I think we should all use our judgment on matters of this kind without any intimidation or coeroion. In regard to the budget itself, certainly there are some things in it which are acceptable, and there are some which are in my view objectionable, and I would not think for a moment of swallowing it holus-bolus. I want to refer in a few words to our recent by-election held in South Huron.
An bon. MEMBER: Oh forget it!


William Henry Golding: During that campaign we had some rather peculiar appeals made by our Conservative friends. We had in the constituency five cabinet ministers. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals

(Mr. Manion) told our people that this was no ordinary by-election, indeed he is quoted as having said that it was rather a plebiscite or referendum, and that the eyes of the whole world were on South Huron-


An hon. MEMBER:: Ft sounds familiar.


William Henry Golding: -and that for the time being we were to forget politics and vote our approval of the empire treaties. I might say his audience was just a little curious to know how they were to forget polities, but the minister cleared that up by asking them to vote for the government candidate. The good old Tory way of forgetting politics- vote for the Tory candidate!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Tories are strong on
that.


William Henry Golding: Then we had in addition to the Minister of Railways and Canals, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland). I want to say this, that they created a splendid impression in my constituency, they endeavoured to put their case fairly before our people from their point of view, they endeavoured to keep the debate on a high plane, and if they failed to secure the necessary votes to elect their candidate it was not due to any shortcoming on their part. I admire the debating abilities of these hon. gentlemen, and although we engaged in that contest there is no reason why we should not be the best of friends, and I want to tell them that I have every respect for them. However, rve Liberals felt that if the government wanted to submit a plebiscite or referendum on this question that was quite all right, but we believed they were using the treaties as a screen to cover up the record of the government, and for that reason, as far as we were concerned, the fight was on. And by the way, I want to pay tribute here to my opponent in that campaign, -who certainly conducted a good, clean fight.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce speaking in my home town made the statement that the greatest problem confronting the government at that time was fthe agricultural problem, and he endeavoured to point out that for that reason the house needed representatives who wo-uld be in a position 'to give expert advice. Now, sir, we absolutely agreed with the minister, that this government did need someone to give expert advice with regard to agriculture. But while we agreed to that we felt at the same time that it rvas rather a reflection on our late

The Budget-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
member who, while he sat in this house, had endeavoured time after time to give expert advice, though needless to say that advice did not receive any consideration.
During that by-election every Conservative speaker endeavoured to paint glowing pictures of the benefits that would be derived from the empire treaties. A manifesto was issued by the Conservatve candidate setting forth how important these treaties were to our constituency but, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives failed to tell our people that in order to secure the privileges of the British market the duties against foreign goods would be raised, and that the duties and taxes on even British goods would still prohibit those goods from entering Canada. I need hardly say that our people resent in no uncertain way the tariffs imposed by this government, which they feel are strangling trade and making it increasingly difficult for the basic producer even to exist. It is clear to all that we must have revenue, Mr. Speaker, and if tariffs are prohibitive that revenue must come from taxation, which adds to the cost of manufactured goods and of necessity adds to the price paid by the consumer.
1925
1926 1930 1932
Let me point out as emphatically as I can that the farmer is being absolutely crushed by the burden he is being called upon to bear. The manifesto to which I have already referred endeavoured to show how, as a result of these treaties, commodity prices had begun to soar, and at that time prices were a little higher; of course the treaties were given all the credit. But the electors refused to believe any new batch of promises. It was impossible to look into the faces of the electors of South Huron without realizing that they were in earnest and that they were in no mood to further entertain the glorious promises of things that were to be attained by high tariffs.
At the close of that campaign word went out, I do not know why, that a very light vote had been polled. The press was not responsible for that because I have personal knowledge that the newspaper men did their best to get the correct figures but were unable to do so. The statement was made that only about ten thousand votes were polled, and I want to give the figures to show how erroneous that statement was. In recent years the votes polled in that riding have been as follows:
Progressives	Liberals	Conservatives	Total4,105	4.061	3,965	12,1311,680	4,947	4,694	11,3216.370	5.217	11.5876,176	5,827	12,0037,046	5,057	12,149
The vote during the by-election of 1932 was the largest vote polled in recent years. I submit these figures, Mr. Speaker, to show the interest taken in that by-election and also to show that our people desired to protest against the high tariff policy of this government. Since I have been in this house I have listened very closely to the discussions of the problems confronting the government.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly be accused of having trespassed very much on the time of this house, but I should like to make a few observations with respect to the budget, dealing more particularly of course with those items having to do with agriculture.
First I should like to express my congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) on the splendid way in which he presented the budget. Certainly it was a timely and very concise review of the whole financial situation of Canada as well as of the
record of the government during the past year. I should hesitate to participate in the debate at this time, Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the fact that I represent an agricultural constituency in the province of Saskatchewan, and I consider it my duty to express to the government the appreciation and satisfaction with which the budget will be received in the constituency of Qu'Appelle.
I realize that it would be almost impossible to get unanimous agreement in this house on any matter of policy, but I think there are two or three points on which all hon. members should agree. When we consider the general situation to-day surely no one would expedt the Minister of Finance to bring down a balanced budget. With existing world conditions, the uncertainty of trade, fluctuating prices, ever decreasing revenues and our fixed and uncontrollable expenditures, how could we have a balanced budget? In the next place I think no government since confederation has been faced with a situation more difficult or critical than that which has faced the present government. The Prime

The Budget-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
Minister (Mr. Bennett) and his colleagues have had to make serious decisions, not after days of deliberation but on the spur of the moment, many of them affecting not only our national credit but the very life blood of our country. A wrong decision or a wrong step might easily have spelled disaster, but we on this side of the house believe the government have met every reasonable demand that has been made.
We expect reasonable and constructive criticism, Mr. Speaker, but beyond that I think we have a right to expect fairness and cooperation in dealing with a difficult situation. The depression has been world wide, but I think in some respects we can charge the late Liberal administration with some knowledge that the depression was coming on and with a failure to take any action to meet it. In proof of that I need only refer to the statement made by the late Sir Henry Thornton before the railway committee, I think in 1931. He said that as early as 1928 he had warned the government of the disaster that was coming, and he justified that statement by showing that the railway revenues were falling rapidly. That was in 1928. Then in 1929 we had what was known as the pork barrel year for the Canadian National Railways. In that connection I need only refer to the speech that was made by the present leader of the opposition in that year, in his famous five cents speech. What was that a reply to if it was not to a request for help from the western provinces to relieve the unemployment situation? I might also refer to the statement made by the Hon. Charles Dunning, in his final message to the Canadian people when he was leaving office. He said that it was their duty, realizing that the incoming government would have to deal with very serious problems in the most critical period in bur history, to give the government their moral support. But what kind of support have we had, Mr. Speaker? We have had nothing but adverse criticism from the opposition, and the serious and critical situation in this country has been capitalized to destroy the morale of the Canadian people and their confidence in this government.
I wish now briefly to review' some of the things which this government has done particularly for agriculture since taking office. In the first short session in 1930 two measures were introduced, the first granting $20,000,000 for unemployment relief, and the other dealing with some two hundred odd items in the tarriff, being those items which the Prime Minister and his government believed would

do most to correct the adverse trade balance at that time. I may say that that increase in the tariff had the desired result.
Then in 1931 we had a complete revision of the tariff, and after that revision the average percentage of increase in the whole tariff was only slightly more than under the regime of the Liberal party. True, there were many items in the tariff which received a considerable increase but, in the words of the Prime Minister at the time, this raising of the tariff was used as an instrument in the hands of the government to correct the unfavourable trade balance, and, Mr. Speaker, it had the desired result. Up to that time we had an unfavourable trade balance of 8103,000.000, and I was pleased the other day, as I am sure were all hon. members of the house, to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) and also the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) say that this year we shall have a favourable trade balance of some $70,000,000. What has that meant? It has meant that an unfavourable trade balance of $103,000,000 has been changed to a favourable trade balance of $70,000,000, or a change for the better of $173,000,000 odd. It has meant the difference between solvency and bankruptcy for this dominion.
In the budget brought down by the Prime Minister, then acting as Minister of Finance, in the session of 1931, the bonus of five cents a bushel for wheat was granted to the western farmer. I am particularly interested in that bonus as I was the first member of this house to move on the floor of this chamber for such a bonus to agriculture. I did so on April 13, previous to the bringing-down of that budget. When that proposal was brought down in the budget hon. members of the opposition, particularly those from the west, opposed it strenuously. But under that bonus, Mr. Speaker, the government has paid out some $12,000,000 to the people of the western provinces, and I would ask, when has any other government done such a splendid thing for agriculture in this country? The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), speaking a day or two ago said that during that session the Liberals for two months less two days opposed the granting of that bonus, trying to show that it would go to the exporter or to the railway companies, and not to the farmer. That is not a correct statement, because it will be well within the memory of hon. members who were in the house at that time that after the Minister of Finance had brought down his budget, some two weeks

The Budget-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
later he made it clear to the house and the country that the bonus would go direct to the farmer by a separate cheque.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Quote your authority.
Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle)): My authority is the Hansard of that year.


Mr. YALLANCE:: Read it.


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. member for Melville also stated that they had opposed the bonus strenuously. In that connection I should like to quote from the report of a speech made by the hon. member in Saskatoon on November 25, 1931. He is reported as follows:
The five cent bonus on wheat was held by the speaker of no use to the farmer. Continuing, the hon. member recounted the fight put by the western members in the opposition to the five cent bonus on wheat, and added that they had had a hard time to convince the government that the bonus would not go to the exporter.
There never was any intention of the bonus going to the exporter or to the railway companies or to anyone but the western farmers, and at the very time my hon. friend was speaking he knew that the bonus had been paid for two and a half months to the farmers by separate cheque.
I would further remind the house of the guarantee which this government made to the wheat pool in Saskatchewan. This government guaranteed the sum of 815,000,000 to that great cooperative organization in Saskatchewan, and that sum has not yet been repaid, but it saved the organization from insolvency, and saved also the farmers of western Canada. The credit can go to no one but the Prime Minister and the government of Canada. That guarantee to the pool has saved the investment of thousands and thousands of farmers in the province of Saskatchewan who have an investment, small in some cases, it is true, but considerable in others, in each one of the twelve hundred elevators in the province.
It is also within the memory of this house what a strenuous time we had in the session of 1932 getting the relief measure through the house to grant seed to the farmers of Saskatchewan. That measure was held up for six long weeks and not until seeding time was upon us and the farmers required the seed was the government able, by the application of closure, to get the measure through this house in order to make the distribution of seed possible. That is something which the
western farmers will never forget. They will never forget the obstruction of the opposition in this house to that measure.
Then again last fall we had this government coming forward and doing something for agriculture by supporting the wheat market. The grain trade and the western farmers in the fall of 1932 were faced with a very serious situation owing to the fall in the price of wheat, and the government, after consulting with all the interests concerned, the grain trade, the wheat pool and the banks and the premiers of the three prairie provinces, decided that the best thing to do was for this government to support the market. What has this meant? I need only refer hon. members to the statement made by Professor Swanston of Saskatchewan university. He is one of the leading economists and he stated that this action by the government averted a national calamity and saved the farmers of western Canada many millions of dollars. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) chooses to call it gambling, but call it what you will, it was the right thing for the government to do. In the very near future when this plan shows a handsome profit, hon. members opposite no doubt will want to know what we are going to do with the profits.
I come now to the Imperial economic conference agreements passed last October. What has been the result of these agreements? There has been a surprising increase in our export trade, so much so that Canada has attained fourth position in trade with Great Britain. During the first six months of the crop year 1931-32 our exports of wheat to Great Britain amounted to 66,705,000 bushels while for the same period in the crop year 1932-33, they amounted to 112,529,000, an increase of one hundred per cent. The increase in our exports of flour to Great Britain for the same period amounted to twenty per cent, while the increase in bran and shorts amounted to 645 per cent. Our exports of oats during the same period of 1931-32 totalled 5,153,000 bushels and in 1932-33 they had increased to 7,500,000 bushels, an increase of forty-five per cent. The increase in the exports of barley was from 68.000 bushels to 190,900 bushels, an increase of three hundred per cent. The exports of bacon for the first two months of 1931 amounted to only 120,000 pounds; for the first two months of 1933 they had increased to 4,264,624 pounds, an increase of some 3,450 per cent. Canada can increase her exports of bacon to the United Kingdom thirteen times before she reaches the limit of her quota.

The Budget-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
The increase in the export of ham was 158 per cent. Because of the trade agreements the embargoes which previously existed against our cattle entering Great Britain have been removed. The result has been a revival in the exporting of cattle and it is quite possible that this year we will export 100,000 head of cattle. Such a movement would relieve the domestic market to a great extent.
I come now to another item in which I am particularly interested as it affects the province of Saskatchewan-poultry. The records show that for the last ten months of 1931 our exports of poultry amounted to 56,175 pounds while for the same period in 1932 they had increased to 1,203,000 pounds. A trial shipment of 800,000 pounds of dressed turkeys was made last December as an experiment under the new agreement. These turkeys were dressed by the individual farmers in Saskatchewan to government standards; each bird was tagged separately and they all graded very high. The farmer received an advance of eight cents per pound and those birds sold on the British market at the top price of thirty cents per pound. Under the adverse exchange of twenty-five per cent they netted the farmer nineteen cents per pound, but under the present rate of exchange and with the help of the agricultural stabilization plan a similar price would net the farmer twenty-four cents per pound. These birds were superior to the home grown British bird and sold at a premium sufficient to overcome the adverse exchange. In 1932 Great Britain imported 74,000,000 pounds of dressed turkeys, fifty per cent having come from Russia. The parties who went over in charge of this shipment returned w7ith an order for 2,000,000 pounds of turkeys. The whole shipment came from Saskatchewan. While it has been known for many years that we produce the best wheat in the world, we now have the record for producing the best poultry. I hope that the report on this trial shipment will be distributed among the farmers of western Canada so that advantage may be taken this fall of similar shipments.


Mr. SPENCER:: Alberta has taken more
prizes in wheat than has Saskatchewan.


Ernest Edward Perley: They may
have taken more, but Saskatchewan always takes the first.
I could refer to other primary products such as cheese, eggs, tobacco, apples and so on; I could refer also to the increase which has taken place in our export trade to countries other than Great Britain, but I have not the time available. Not only has the

volume of exports increased but the value has increased even in the face of adverse exchange rates.
We come now to the budget. I was very much interested in hearing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) announce the setting up of an agricultural stabilization fund. Such a fund will materially add to our advantages in the British market. In the case of a steer weighing 1,200 pounds it will mean practically another $10; it will mean two cents on every pound of bacon; it will mean eleven cents for every hundred pounds of milk used in the manufacture of cheese and it will mean three cents per pound on our poultry. The total results will mean a possible distribution this year of $10,000,000. For the information of the house, I would say that since the announcement of the budget the price of hogs on the Winnipeg market has increased very materially. Not only will we have the benefits from a possible distribution of $10,000,000 but there will be an added stabilization and support of the domestic market. Upon all occasions the opposition has opposed bonusing of any kind, but what do we find now? They are opposing this splendid arrangement because it is not applied to the export of all primary products. They know that that would be impossible as it would take $100,000,000. Where would the money come from? However, it would seem that at last they 'have been converted to the principle of bonusing. When we have this splendid arrangement, why do they not come forward and support it as they should. I challenge hon. members opposite from Saskatchewan to go back to their respective constituencies and explain why they oppose this budget.


John Vallance: The trouble is that
most of us, under the new redistribution, will not have constituencies to which to return.


Ernest Edward Perley: While the
hon. member has one now, he would not have one anyway after the next election.


John Vallance: I am willing to take a
chance on that.


Ernest Edward Perley: They know
wheat is enjoying, under the agreement, a preference of six cents in a sheltered market where it is agreed to take 150,000,000 bushels more, and it would be impossible to bonus wheat in a market where there is such a surplus.
Let me now deal with the subject of butter. True, it is not bonused, but the reason is that our production of it is not on an export basis, and I am surprised to hear

The Budget-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) even mention the word "butter," that cheap spread, as I think he called it in his speech; I think that was the term he used. He knows the government have had many decisions to make and have been confronted with many difficulties in prohibiting the importation of butter in order to preserve the home market for our producers. I have been reviewing Hansard and1 I find that during 1923, when the hon. member was Minister of Agriculture, he introduced an amendment to the Dairy Industry Act, as reported on page 4251 of Hansard of that year, to provide for the importation of renovated butter. Now, everyone knows what renovated butter is-


William Richard Motherwell: I never did.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is butter
that is tainted, mouldy and not eatable. After it goes through a certain process by the use of chemicals, it is called " renovated," and the hon. member wanted that to be permitted to be imported to compete against butter produced by our own dairymen. What a wonderful gesture in favour of agriculture!


William Richard Motherwell: Better than oleomargarine.


Ernest Edward Perley: We all
remember how for six weeks during last October and November hon, gentlemen opposite wailed about the adverse exchange; they admitted that the agreements were all right, but, oh, they would be nullified by the exchange! Well, we see the effect of the agreements in the increase in our trade, and now when the government has made provision for correcting the exchange, why do hon. gentlemen opposite not support it?
This budget will do much for agriculture. It certainly will encourage the farmers of Saskatchewan and of western Canada generally to change their system from simply grain growing to more diversified farming. This will mean that millions of acres fewer will be seeded to wheat; it will help in the disposition of our surplus and it will, as I say, encourage our farmers to go into a better system of farming. For the information of hon. members I might say that Saskatchewan's capacity to multiply her production and to produce new wealth is practically unlimited. In view of the fact that in western Canada in ten years we produced $6,000,000,000 of new wealth, I venture to say that if we have normal climatic conditions-and tha"t is all we need-we can repeat the production. That time will come and we shall be on the spot to take advantage of it. The govern-



S3719-227

[Stage Direction]
ment expects, and reasonably so, and I believe the people of Canada expect, that our business men and agriculturists will develop our export trade. Under these favourable treaties we have made, we have an opportunity such as we never had before. Increased export trade, to my mind-and I think I reason correctly-means an increased domestic market, and an increased export price means an increase in the price of commodities for domestic consumption. As I understand the matter, this is the purpose of the establishment of a fund to stabilize the exchange in connection with the export of our primary products. This was the purpose announced by the Prime Miinster (Mr. Bennett) a short time ago and I know the government will see to it that the benefit will accrue to the farmer. That is what they did with respect to the five cent bonus on wheat and they will see to it that the same thing occurs in this instance.
I wish to refer briefly to the speech of the Prime Minister on reciprocity or, rather, on the resolution of the hon., member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). Our leader gave a splendid and timely review of the whole situation in Canada, going back to before confederation, and discussing the policies of the different parties in regard to reciprocity. I was pleased to note that the great Conservative party had stood foursquare on the question ever since that time. I was also particularly pleased and the people of the dominion were pleased, if I may judge from the many favourable resolutions and comments I have received from my constituents in regard to that speech, to hear the Prime Minister announce that he and his government are prepared at any time to receive any reasonable, fair, equitable proposition from the United States. When the time comes that the president of that great republic makes a gesture toward Canada in the way of a trade agreement, the people of Saskatchewan, yes, of Canada, I think, want our leader (Mr. Bennett) to be the man to negotiate that treaty. I am sure they will not want the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) with his policy of fear, trembling and conciliatory approach. I could quote from his budget speech as reported on page 1403 of Hansard of 1929, when he made a statement to the effect that they would not increase the tariff against the United States for fear of retaliation and would not dare to increase the British preference for fear such action might be misunderstood. That was certainly the philosophy of the do-nothing politician. I have under my hand the report
[Stage Direction]
3588	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Parley (Qu'Appelle)
of a speech made a few days ago by a leading statesman, in the United States when he was speaking with respect to trade with Canada. He said that the United States could no longer treat Canada as a bully treats a small boy; that Canada now had as prime minister, a businessman, a man of ability, and one who had the courage of his convictions. They respected our Prime Minister.
I want to refer briefly to a very important announcement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to the effect that the government proposes to appoint a royal commission to investigate the whole question of our banking and monetary system. That is a timely announcement by the government and I trust the Prime Minister will be as fortunate in choosing the members of that commission as he has been in laying his hands on the right men for the other commissions that have been appointed.
During the summer there is no doubt that the world monetary conference will be held. I trust our prime minister will be able to attend it and that there some international standard of exchange may be set up, because that is what we need. I hope also at that conference the delegates may have occasion to discuss the question of the revaluation of gold, because in that way something might be accomplished to help materially to solve our financial problem. I am sorry my time is so limited that I cannot speak with respect to the inflation policy about which we have heard so much from the C.C.F. corner of the house. It certainly is not sound, and all I can propose to do is to consider it from a standpoint of what has happened in those countries which have tried it, namely Germany, Russia and some others.
.Australia is practically the only country to which hon. members opposite now wish to refer, and I say that in some of their comparisons they are very unfair. I find on looking up trade statistics and comparing Australia and Canada that under the two systems obtaining in these countries during the past six months Canada sold 55 per cent more wheat while Australia, during the same period, sold 32 per cent less wheat. Comparing the prices obtaining in the two countries we find that on March 14 this year sixty pounds of wheat at the Australian seaboard was worth only 32 or 33 cents, while Canadian farmers were receiving net at Fort William 35 cents. So, while prices are very low, I admit, I dlo suggest that we are in the more favourable position.
I contend the Minister of Trade and Commerce so completely answered the argument

of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth that it is hardly necessary for me to proceed further in that connection. I think we will agree the budget gives a complete statement of revenues and expenditures. It sets out the many fixed charges we cannot get away from, and deals particularly with railway deficits. At this session the railway problem is certainly being grappled with by the House of Commons and the government. And at this point I should like to mention the matter of freight rates, and to express my appreciation of the splendid support the Minister of Railways and Canals is giving us, and of the fact that he made it possible this year to have a reduction of some fifty per cent in the differential as between domestic and export rates in western Canada. Ever since coming to this house I have been associated with that problem, and on every occasion I have endeavoured to support a reduction in the rates. Having due regard to the difficult situation in which railway companies find themselves to-day I say the reduction is a grand gesture on their part.
In the budget address the Minister of Finance spoke concerning certain public economies. There are many ways in which we can economize, and in connection with which preparations are being made for economies. However, I say that this action should have been taken between the years 1926 and 1930. That was the time when our public accounts, public expenditures and public debt increased by leaps and bounds. That was the year when public economies should have been put into effect. Of course under present conditions it is necessary to increase our taxes in order to provide funds with which to carry on. There have been many increases but I believe hon. members will agree that in nearly every instance the tax has been imposed against those people best able to bear it. There are certain nuisance taxes, such as those on stamps, and postal notes, which are employed at all times by any and all governments facing emergencies.
In conclusion I wish to protest against certain attacks which have been made upon the province of Saskatchewan, and upon this government for the assistance it has given to that province. I refer particularly to the attack made by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). I think his attack was certainly uncalled for, but the hon. member is noted for making similar attacks. When he speaks, as we know he does, for an important wing of the Liberal party, his state-

The Budget-Mr. Hurtubise
ments will not soon be forgotten in the province of Saskatchewan. I admit that province has had difficult and trying times, but with the experience of the past five years and the indomitable courage of our ancestors, we will pull through. I venture to say that under normal circumstances, and normal climatic conditions, within the next ten years Saskatchewan will make an even greater contribution to the export trade of Canada and to the earnings of our railway companies than any other province in the dominion.
These are critical days for governments and nations. Giants of industry and of finance, along with great statesmen, have broken under the load. And when the history of this period of our national life is written, the members of this government will rank high and the name of the Prime Minister will be recorded as that of the greatest statesman of his time within the empire.
Mr. J. R. HURTUBISE (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I do not purpose to go into a discussion of the financial situation of our country, because I do not pretend to be a financial critic. However after following the debates in the house and considering the downward trend of our financial situation I feel it my duty to make a few observations and express my sincere opinion. I hope no hon. member will suggest that my statements will be prejudiced or biased in any way.
At the outset may I follow the example of hon. members who have preceded me and congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) upon the able manner in which he delivered his budget speech. I fully appreciate the work and worry it involved. May I also congratulate the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) upon the masterly way in which he replied to the budget speech. My further congratulations would be extended to the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Golding) who in his maiden speech acquitted himself so well. Even with my years of experience I do not believe I could hope to do as well.
My remarks may appear obvious, but sometimes in life we do not see the things that are staring at us and within our grasp because of the allurement of distant attractions or because of our entanglement with matters foreign to our needs and ideals. Economically our country is in the most critical situation of its history. The situation is such that no time should be lost in arguing utopian theories which have been offered to the world, put into practice 53719-2274
from time to time in different countries and discarded as inefficient. To-day we have reached the point where privileges to special interests should be set aside and forgotten. Let us turn our minds to governmental measures and regulations which will ensure to our country liberty, security and progress.
I hope those who have satisfied themselves as to the impracticability of their doctrines and policies will prove their good statesmanship by discarding those policies and adopting radical measures which will be for the good of the country as a whole. To accomplish anything we have to be broad enough to admit our mistakes. Much has been said about capitalism. My submission is that the capitalistic system has given a great impetus to modem progress. However it has brought with it great abuses which are the cause of our being on the verge of a catastrophe. Our aim should be not to do away with such a system, but to correct its defects and avoid future disasters.
Our main duty should be to face our obligations and to honour them. But to-day we are working under a great handicap. The world is so fettered with war debts that its capacity to pay is crippled. The productive capacity of nations and individuals has been overtaxed, and unless some concession is made we are close to a general 'breakdown the effect of which cannot be imagined. I hope that at the world economic conference to be held in London there will be enough men of courage and Christian spirit to bring about an economic disarmament which will release international trade, promote sympathy and cooperation between the nations, and rid the world of this exclusive and bigoted nationalism. In our country we have come to the time when we cannot borrow any more money, and we wonder if we will be able to pay our interest and amortize our debt as it stands. For some years past, for each $100 we spent we had to borrow $34 and add it to our debt. This cannot continue. Great Britain was faced with the same situation but she took means to get out of the impasse and to-day she is in a very satisfactory condition compared to other nations of the world.
I do not believe that all the schemes advocated lately will cure our present financial difficulties; neither inflation, reflation, technocracy, socialization, confiscation of capital, nor "cooptisation," will replace a well balanced and controlled capitalistic system. I am convinced that the state can and should prevent the concentration of wealth and potential

The Budget-Mr. Hurtubise
wealth in the hands of a few, and thereby control the sources of credit of t'he country. We should never have permitted the creation of fictitious capital and the watering of stocks with the support of the banks. It has drained the savings of the public, who have been fooled under the paternal eye of the state, and to-day when the state wants to float a loan it finds the "bas de laine" empty, and instead of being helped out of the crisis by its citizens it is faced with the obligation of helping those same citizens on whom it had relied. I hope the lesson will make the state wiser in the future. We have come to a point where the positions of the different governments, federal, provincial or municipal, should be well-defined. The present government, which did not want to meddle with provincial or municipal affairs, has so meddled with them, has promised so many things before, during and after election, that we have a situation now where everybody is leaning on it for support. The federal government should keep out of purely provincial and municipal matters, withdraw from business enterprises, and adhere to functions of purely legislative and regulatory nature. If the provinces want to go into public ownership, old age pensions, mothers' allowances, accident insurance and highway construction, let them do so, but the federal government should be wise enough to keep to its constitutional functions.
I listened with great interest to the debate on the resolution of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to renew the Relief Act of 1932 as amended. I have much sympathy with the minister in his task of dealing with unemployment. The other evening when he and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) were pleading for cooperation and sympathy I could have told them they already had mine, because I believe that with the methods employed to-day, that is since 1930, they have only been experimenting, and instead of making progress they have become engulfed. They have been marking time, not adopting any measure of a national, practical or curative nature. They have only used palliative measures. In their ambition to implement their promises to end unemployment, "in giving work instead of conferences," they have forgotten that the situation is national in character, that the machine will never be able to reabsorb the hands which it has discarded, that this situation is likely to last for a longer period than might be expected, that some national policy such as suggested by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) will have to be adopted. There is still time

to adopt such a measure, to call to the help of the government the best and most competent minds of the provinces and the dominion, and to make a classification of the unemployed as suggested by my hon. friend the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), that is of common labourers, technical workers, farm hands, trades and professions. Then the government could prepare a proper program; and not deal with the matter in a haphazard way, giving to provinces and municipalities money over which it has no control, and which often is unwisely spent and sometimes misappropriated. Up to now we have spent $123,000,000 for which we have to be taxed, and which has not ameliorated the general condition one iota.
The only part in the Minister of Labour's program which I believe is sound and national in character is the back to the land movement, to which he has given special attention and upon which I sincerely congratulate him. In that I am with him 100 per cent. For two years I have cooperated with the municipal and provincial representatives, and I am glad to say that in my district we have succeeded very well. As long as it is handled by people who have at heart the success of the plan, and who are not primarily interested in keeping an easy job, it will be a success, and will be a great help to redistribute our population on its normal basis.
Some may say: What is the use of putting people on farms when so many are now being dispossessed by foreclosures caused by the heavy burden of taxation and the lack of protection by legislation? This brings me to the farming situation. I believe agriculture is our main industry. I repeat what I said last year; a country with a prosperous agricultural population is a prosperous country. But what chance has the farmer had in recent years? He has been one of those who suffered most from the application of the Conservative policies these last three years. By reason of a narrow national and imperial trade policy the doors of the markets of the world have been slammed in his face, and to-day he can only dispose of a small portion of his products, for which nevertheless this government takes great credit.
Seeing the great malaise in the agricultural community the government has proposed a stabilization fund. Already the press has proclaimed the great benefits that will accrue to the farmer. But wait for the boomerang from this legislation as a result of its discriminatory character.


An hon. MEMBER:: It has started already.

The Budget-Mr. Hurtubise


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: Yes. I do not believe in bonusing any particular class of products. There will be criticism and demands from those whose special products are omitted, and retaliation from nations exporting those bonused products. This will not cure the agricultural situation; what we need is a change in our fiscal and trade policies. In the meantime, before we have a change of government and before the farmers all become bankrupt, why not give the farmer the same guarantee against bankruptcy that has been given all other large financial institutions? We have seen the government taking great care to protect Canadian National bondholders and making loans to the Canadian Pacific Railway; in 1930, 1931 and 1932, guarantees were given the wheat pool, and there have been guarantees given with regard to the Manitoba savings bank, the Beauhar-nois project and the government of Newfoundland. These make up the huge total of $3,714,663,000. What has the farmer and small urban proprietor received by way of protection? They have been given nothing, though they are the people who will have to pay a great part of these taxes.
How long are we to have this class legislation? How long will the farmer and small proprietor be burdened with taxes which are more than they can bear? This budget is a discrimination against those least able to pay. The exemptions under the income tax are reduced from $2,400 to $2,000, and from $1,200 to $1,000, while the exemption for a dependent child is reduced from $500 to $400. Incomes of $2,500 will pay $15 instead of $2, which is an increase of 650 per cent; incomes of $50,000 will pay $10,069 instead of $8,962.80, which is an increase of only 14 per cent. This is the way in which those least able to pay are affected.
How are the veterans affected by this budget? During the course of his speech the Minister of Finance said:
-pensioners who are in the employ of the government and who are paid the salary of the position, action will he taken whereby the payment of pension will be suspended during the period of such employment.
The next day I received telegrams of protest from the various veterans' organizations in my district, and the newspapers throughout Canada reported similar protests from all over the country. I hope the government will reconsider this action, which is a breach of contract. Many veterans are holding their jobs because they are partially disabled; they would not be there if they could do a normal
man's work. I believe that already the veteran has made a great contribution to our country, and if we cannot compensate him for his sacrifice at least he should not be further taxed.
Now what about excise taxes, Mr. Speaker? Refined sugar is taxed 2 cents a pound or $2 per hundred pounds; unfermented wort is taxed 25 cents a gallon, malt syrup to 50 cents a pound, malt powder 50 cents a pound; all cheques, bank receipts, money orders, travellers cheques and post office money orders to an amount of less than $5, with the exception of creamery cheques, which formerly were exempt, are now taxed; on postal notes we must pay 3 cents instead of one cent, and on matches in small packages there is a tax of three-twentieths of a cent. The sales tax, which in 1930 was one per cent, was increased to six per cent in 1932 and remains at that figure. In this way those least able to pay are affected.
What about the customs tariff? I do not want to say very much on this subject, because there will be other occasions to discuss the items affected by the Imperial conference and the new schedule. Let me say, however, that considering the downward trend of our financial situation I believe the time has come when this government should stop and start again on fundamental, national and constructive policies. They should not keep coaxing the people of Canada to wait in the hope that matters will adjust themselves. In 1930 we were told to wait until the government machine got working, and we waited though we were promised during the election campaign that we would have better times in a few days. In 1930 we were told also to wait until after the Imperial conference, and we waited. In 1931 we were told to wait for the revision of the tariff, and we waited. In 1932 we were told to wait for the effects of the Ottawa conference, and we waited. Now in 1933 we are told to wait for the world economic conference, and we are waiting. I wonder, however, if the people of Canada will wait indefinitely; I am afraid they will not.


Mr. POULIOT:: We do not need waiters; we need statesmen.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we are told to have patience and courage, and I believe the people of Canada should be congratulated on their manifestation of both during the last few years. They are still patient and courageous, not because they still hope for the success of
The Budget-Mr. Willis

the present administration but because they have a great and resourceful country, and because soon they will be given a chance to put in an administration which will change this policy of blocking and stifling trade and give us another era of prosperity through Liberal administration and freedom of trade.
Mr. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Souris): Mr. Speaker (Mr. Stewart, Lethbridge), may I compliment you personally upon your recent elevation to your present position.
'General depression has always been the greatest election general of opposition forces. It rides upon the worries of the people and creates a condition in which few arguments are necessary in order to show the superiority of those in opposition over those on the government benches. General depression has conquered practically all of the governments of the world; his four horsemen, hysteria, anxiety, worry and gloom, ride fearlessly throughout the country, complete masters of public opinion.
In the province of Manitoba those who are opposed to the present government have built up a body of public opinion which is quite ready to blame the present administration for the lack of rain from the skies, for grasshoppers on the face of the earth and for the lack of moisture beneath the earth. Matters which five years ago would not have been considered by the most vivid imagination, in its most fertile moments, to be connected with the federal administration even by radio, now are said to come under its control and mismanagement. But to those fair minded individuals who are still willing to listen, to read and to judge by the facts I desire to address myself.
It will not be sufficient for my present purpose to indicate that the party which is now seeking power is the party that in 1929 and 1930, facing a rising depression, was unwilling or unable to do anything to save the country from the throes of distress. Neither will it be sufficient for my purpose to indicate that this country of ours has weathered the storm better than any country in the world, according to the admission of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Rather will it be my purpose to indicate the efforts which have been made by this administration for the purpose of alleviating the distress of agriculture. I should like to refer firstly to those measures which have been taken to aid the wheat growers of this country.
First, there 'have been sent out to the different trade centres throughout the world

trade commissioners and assistant trade commissioners in order to help sell our wheat.
Secondly, it may be pointed out that for the ten months ending January 31, 1933, we have sold 34,000,000 more bushels of wheat than we did in the same ten months ending January' 31, 1932.
Thirdly, it may also be of interest to note that for the first time in the history of this country we have had a government which recognized the difficulties of the western farmer by making an adjustment as between east and west whereby the western farmer got a bonus of five cents a bushel on his wheat, which has meant the payment to the farmers of western Canada of a sum of $12,706,000. This has been the first government to recognize that necessity. May I say to those farmers who happened not to have any crop that whether they receive part of this money or not, the benefit was felt throughout western Canada.
Fourthly, I should like to refer to the question of freight rates because I recall that in my campaign of 1930 I lost literally hundreds of votes because those opposed to me at that time declared that if the Conservatives were elected to power there would never be Crowsnest rates allowed on the Hudson Bay railway. But one of the first things which this government did on coming to power was to give us the Crowsnest rates on that route.
Fifthly, I should refer to the fact that under the Imperial conference agreements we receive a six cents a bushel preference on our wheat, due to the imposition of a duty of six cents a bushel on wheat entering Great Britain from other countries. Of course, we have to sell our wheat at the world price. The benefit of this preference was brought vividly to my attention when I 'happened not very long ago to be in Fort William, where I saw beside an elevator the grain vessel, Le Moyne, with a capacity of 600,000 bushels of grain. If that grain vessel had been from Russia, before it could have been unloaded in Great Britain it would have had to pay a duty of $36,000, but if it were loaded with grain from Canada it would have to pay nothing at all.
Sixthly, I should refer to those measures which this government 'has taken to support the wheat pools of western Canada, and thereby support the general price, and lastly, I should refer to the measures which have been taken to support the market itself.
Contrasted with those policies let me indicate what was the policy of the previous administration as we have it from the lips of

The Budget-Mr. Willis
the then Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), who at page 948 of Hansard of March 14, 1929, said:
The Department of Trade and Commerce is not exercised over the sale of such commodities as wheat, because those commodities find their own markets, but we are interested in assisting the sale of manufactured products.
And that from the party which is being painted in western Canada as being the only one to help agriculture, and as not being tied up with the moneyed interests.
I should also like to quote what the exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said when he was speaking at a meeting in Quebec, as reported in Le Soleil of August 8, 1931. The translation is as follows:
What can be said of those who have just voted $15,000,000 to give a wheat bonus to western farmers, whilst they did not give anything to our farmers, who cannot sell their butter? Is this not sectional politics?
Yet our Quebec (Conservative) representatives have swallowed these insults. It is what they deserve to punish them for all they have said against us.
Let me quote also the words of another member of the government of that time, the ex-Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin), who, with the ex-Minister of Justice and the exMinister of Trade and Commerce can be counted upon, I think, as being certain cabinet members of any government of the Liberal party which may come into force in this country. As reported in the Montreal Gazette of June 18, 1932, he said, in part, as follows:
What is happening to-day as regards Port Churchill? We have Hon. Dr. Manion acting like a beggar in the street, begging people to ship some grain over the Hudson Bay railway to Port Churchill. So eager is he to get some grain there that he is offering free elevators, a cut in railway rates, and also a bonus to compensate for the higher insurance rates out of Port Churchill. That is what the Bennett government is ready to do. Sane merchants doing a regular, reasonable business in grain do not want to send their grain through Port Churchill at the present time, and Dr. Manion is running around begging them to do so, and saying that the government will pay. That means that we will all be taxed to meet the promises of partisans who have involved themselves in a chimerical project.
May I indicate the situation in which we were placed by the previous administration in regard to tariffs, and this I think will prove conclusively that at the time we took office the markets of the world had already been closed to our wheat. The duties placed against our wheat as of August 1, 1930, when the Mackenzie King government was still in power,
by some of the countries of the world were, to mention but a few:
Cents per bushel
Italy	 86
France	 85
Germany	 97
Greece	 56
United	States	 42
Japan	 34
Those were the tariffs placed against our grain and the then government did nothing.
Let me turn now to the question of live stock in this country and indicate what the policies of this government have been. First, there was the sire policy, which has meant the improvement of live stock throughout this country. Then there were trial shipments sent to the old country in order that they might see the quality of our Canadian live stock. We had also feeding experiments carried on by the Department of Agriculture which demonstrated that you could then market home grain by feeding it to live stock at an increase in price of some 36 cents a bushel.
Then under the Imperial conference agreements we received concessions in regard to live stock which we had not enjoyed for some thirty-seven years previously. Canadian cattle exporters are placed on an equal foot'.ng with their competitors in the British market for the first time in thirty-seven years. The segregation of store cattle from fat cattle moving on export is no longer required, and fattened store cattle are allowed to move freely to inland points in Great Britain. The old policy of branding the cattle on the cheek on arrival is no longer required, nor is it now necessary for a veterinary officer to accompany the cattle on the ocean voyage. The period of quarantine has also been reduced to one clear day.
Again, in the budget which has just been brought down we have the stabilization proposal which has been made by the Minister of Finance. May I quote his exact words on that subject, which will be found at page 3226 of Hansard:
It is proposed to establish a fund to be known as the agricultural stabilization fund.
From it there will be paid to exporters to the British market the difference between the price actually received and the pound sterling valued at $4.60. In other words, to the extent that the pound sterling falls below $4.60 the difference will he made good from this fund.
This will apply to the following commodities: animals, meats (including bacon and hams), poultry, fresh fish, canned fish, tobacco, cheese, milk products, canned fruits, canned vegetables, maple products, eggs and honey.
It is calculated that that will mean a bonus of some twelve per cent for our exporters of
The Budget-Mr. Willis

these commodities to the British market. In addition, it will mean an increased price for these products in the home market. This proposal must be regarded, as indeed it is by every minister of agriculture in the provinces of this country, as a tremendous step in assisting those who are raising live stock. Contrasted with that, when the Mackenzie King government was in power, the markets
Cattle
ad valorem
Live hogs	per pound
Sheep and lambs	per head
Live poultry; chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys,
and guineas	per pound
Beef and veal	per pound
Mutton	per pound
Lamb	per pound
Pork	per pound
Poultry, dressed or undressed	per pound
Eggs in the shell	per dozen
Wheat	per bushel
Oats	per bushel of 32 pounds
Barley	per bushel of 48 pounds
Wheat flour	per 100 pounds
That is what was done under the regime of the administration that took the attitude that we must not provoke the United States. The result was that that market was completely lost.
I come now to the question of hogs. Under this government we have the brood sow policy carried out by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). We next have the quota established by the conference agreements. This will permit the export of 280,000,000 pounds of hams and bacon, a total which far exceeds any possible production in this country. Then we have the boys' and girls' swine clubs which are carrying on a very useful work.
I should like to refer again to barley. Manitoba produces more barley than any other province in Canada. This government put on a duty of twenty-five cents per bushel against com coming into the country. The result has been an increase in production of 13,000,000 bushels in 1932 over the production of 1931. Imports of corn from the United States have deceassed by twenty-five per cent or some 3,000,000 bushels, thereby providing an additional market in this country for barley. The home consumption of barley has increased and we find that the amount in storage is 
to the south were closed to us, and they continued closed1 up to the time this government came into power. I should like to indicate the American duties on a few items; first, under the tariff as it was in 1920; second, under the Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922 and, third, under the Hawley-Smoot tariff of 1930. The items and rates of duty are as follows:
	Tariff	Tariff
Tariff	Sept. 21,	June 17,1920	1922	1930Free	lie. per pound	2ic. per poundif less than	if less than1,050 pounds;	7,001 pounds;heavier 2c.	heavier 3c.Free	per pound	per poundic.	2c.Free	$2	$3lc.	3c.	8c.Free	3c.	6c.Free	2Jc.	5c.Free	4c.	7c.Free	fc.	24c.2c.	6c.	10c.Free	8c.	10c.Free	30c. (increased to 42c. on April 8, 1924)	42c.6c.	15c.	16c.15c.	20c.	20c.Free	78c. (increased to $1-04 on April 8, 1924)	$1.05
much less than previously, it being 6,000,000 bushels in 1932 as compared with 11,000,000 bushels in the previous year. A new market has thus been provided for our barley.
Butter has been discussed in this house upon many occasions. The policy of this government has been to decrease the importations of butter from abroad. The result has been an increased production with an expected depressed price. However, the price of butter in this country is the highest upon the whole continent. The production has been increased from 258,000,000 pounds in 1929 to 330,000,000 pounds in 1932 while imports have been decreased from 36,000,000 pounds in 1929 to
238.000	pounds in 1932. Exports have increased from 1,400,000 pounds in 1929 to
3.500.000	pounds in 1932. This increase has been largely due to the concessions obtained at the recent conference whereby a duty of fifteen shillings per hundredweight was placed against foreign butter by the United Kingdom. Action has recently been taken in order to impound butter which has come in from New Zealand. It will be seen that the new New Zealand treaty is of some use. There was also the action taken by the Minister of Agriculture in stopping butter coming into the country

The Budget-Mr. Willis
from Australia before the treaty was completed. In addition to and tied up with the same matter we have the inquiry now going on before the agriculture committee into the price of milk and as to whether or not the consumer gets a fair share of that price. I ask the house to contrast this present situation with that which obtained under the old New Zealand treaty where that country shipped into this country some 36,000,000 pounds of butter per year. That was a tragic mistake which probably cost the then existing government its power. I have never been able to understand the attitude taken at that time, nor have I been able to understand the attitude taken since. If the New Zealand treaty was right, why was it abrogated? If it was wrong, why is it now defended.?
Because of the grading policies of this government the per capita consumption of eggs in this country is the highest in all the world, it being thirty-one dozen per person. Our markets have been increased and this government is responsible for the fact that we sold 100,000 pounds of poultry to the old country just at Christmas time. This was largely due to the Imperial conference agreement and the ten per cent preference given to Canadian poultry. The quality of our poultry has been improved through the inspection and certification of flocks. This government has been interested in the creation of new grasses, notably the crested wheat grass created by Doctor Kirk. The work of the publications branch of the department is being carried on and any farmer can obtain the information he desires upon a particular subject by simply writing to the Department of Agriculture, Ottawa.
The question of markets must always enter into any discussion regarding agriculture. We have already upon Hansard the results of the
1918
1920
Average for 5 years, Conservatives
1922.
1923.
1924.
1925. 1926
various tariff measures of the United States and it will be noticed that that market was closed to us before this government came into power. A great opportunity is open to this country, of which the Prime Minister is fully aware, in the possibility of a reciprocity treaty with the United States. Such a trade treaty has many possibilities, particularly with regard to live stock. I would not favour a treaty which might exist to-day and be cut off to-morrow but a treaty similar to those which we have with other parts of the British Empire and which run for a period of years would be of inestimable value to Canada. President Roosevelt appears to be anxious to enter into such a treaty.
As I have indicated ahead}', the other markets of the world had been closed to us and last year the only market that remained as a possibility was the British Empire. To those who claim that the Imperial conference agreements have been of no use, may I say that in the ten months ended January 31 last we have increased our exports of wheat, oats, flour, beef, bacon, hams, pork, canned meats, poultry and milk by S15,826,000. We now occupy fourth place in the British market and fifth place in the markets of the world. And it must be remembered that we have only some 10,000,000 people. As far as markets are concerned for our size we are enjoying larger markets than those enjoyed by any other country in the world.
I should like to refer to the tariff situation as it has existed under the different parties. I intend to quote from the government publication Trade in Canada published by the Bureau of Statistics. I desire to show the average rates of duty on dutiable imports and also on all imports for a number of years, as follows:
Average Rates of Duty on
Dutiable imports	All imports
23.8	13.0
, 21.5	12.1
21.5	12.3
22.5	14.7
20.6	14.1
21.9	13.2
24.5	16.2
24.9	16.7
. 22.9	15.1
23.3	15.1
. 24.7	15.5
. 24.0	15.7
Average for 5 years, Liberals
The Budget-Mr. Willis

1927		Average Rates Dutiable imports	of Duty on All imports
1928			
1929			15.8 15.6
Average for 8 years, Liberals, 1922-1929			
1930			15.9
1931			
1932			19.7 17.3
Average for 3 years, Conservatives			 25.1	
Increase in average Mackenzie King tariff, 1922 to 1929, over previous Conservatives tariff, 1917-1921 on dutiable imports 2.2 per cent.
Increase in average Bennett tariff, 1930-32, over previous average Mackenzie King tariff on dutiable imports 2 per cent.
That is somewhat important in my opinion in view of the way in which elections are conducted in western Canada. We were told in the west in. 1930 that we must vote for the low tariff party. Had the people done so at that time, they would all have voted Conservative, but they did not. As usual, Mr. Bamum was right; the people like to be fooled. That is why those who believe in low tariffs did not vote Conservative at that time and that is why my hon. friends to the extreme left of the Speaker are smiling now; they realize the truth of that. The Progressive farmer group at -that time took the stand that they would not join with the Liberal party, because they in faot were a higher tariff party than were the Conservatives.
Let me now deal with other matters which I desire to discuss. It is always recognized, I think, that the price of wheat in Canada is -the life blood of the country. In the district from which I come we have had a series of crop failures for some three years. The situation there has now got beyond the municipalities; they have no more money and no more credit left. It may be truthfully said that if an accurate survey were made of Manitoba, it would be found that all those municipalities where there is actual distress are within my constituency. On the other hand, the moneys of the province and of this dominion have been scattered all over the municipalities of Manitoba; they have not been given out on the basis of need, for if they had been given out on that basis, ninety-five -per cent of them would have gone to the constituency of Souris.
In that constituency what is needed at the present time is action. Each day I receive petitions, from the municipalities of Edward,

In their first full calendar year in office the Mackenzie King government increased the average tariff by 4.3 per cent, and similarly in the first full calendar year the Bennett government increased the average tariff by 1.6 per cent.
Arthur, and Brenda in particular, and other municipalities within that area urging that action be taken. I received to-day a resolution from the M-elita board of trade asking that action be taken at once. They point out that if action is not taken, the people themselves will be on relief and will be thrown upon -the public treasury. The cost of such action is small, providing it is measured by need and applied under proper supervision. There is only a small territory there in distress, but that territory needs action at the present time. Due to the difficulties that have recently existed In Manitoba, there does not seem to be any coordination to bring about the desired result.
I could cite the -action taken -by this government in regard to relief and it appears to me -that the government has placed in that province sufficient moneys if they were properly given to the people in need. For instance, from January 1, 1932, to March 16, 1933, we find there has been a total advance t-o Manitoba of $15,432,496.59, on which has been credited as having been paid back, $2,916,434.85. On direct relief there has been paid -to that province $1,839,717.73; public works amounting to $2,542,821.47 have been undertaken and paid for and there have been advances and loans amounting to $10,910,629.45. Those are moneys which have been advanced by the Dominion government -to the province of Manitoba.
Due to the crop failure, debts in that particular locality are beyond payment. The mortgage companies have been acting very well inasmuch as they have not forced foreclosures. But what the mortgage companies seem to have overlooked is the absolute incapacity on the part of the farmers to pay

The Budget-Mr. Bertrand
off those mortgages, due to interest accumulation. If the mortgage companies would carry on an investigation at this time, they would find that it would pay them to write down those mortgages, lest they kill the bird that is laying the golden eggs. Interest rates are high and I am glad to note that the government is to offer a new loan at four per cent, because this will have the effect of setting interest rates in this country on a lower scale, as where the people can buy high rate government bonds, they will invest in nothing else.
As regards farm implements, I am of opinion that at the present time they are at a price at which they cannot be bought. It is said by the machinery companies that they are paying a great deal for advertising and a great deal in order to collect payments. But I would point out that in the district from which I come there is at this time practically no advertising at all; there is no credit and therefore there is no reason why the price of these machines should not be cut down at least one-third. If the machinery companies find that they cannot operate on that basis, then they should not give us such luxurious machines as we have had in the past; they should cut out the fads and give us implements like the ones we had twenty or twenty-five years ago; that is the only way out. Unless they decrease prices, sales will not be made.
I am hopeful that at the world economic conference which is to convene shortly, something will be done about trade restrictions. Like many on this side of the house, I am of the opinion that world tariffs in general are too high; I am also of the opinion that an individual country cannot lower its tariffs unless all other countries do likewise at the same time. But there is at the economic conference a great opportunity, particularly for Canada and the United States in the way of decreasing tariffs instead of operating as we have done in the past on the basis of narrow nationalism.
It is important, I think, to note where there are possibilities of increased purchasing power. If there were increased purchasing power in Europe at this time, we could sell everything we grow in this country. It may be of passing interest to say that in 1930 there were spent in national defence in the world $4,126,000,000. War dets in 1920 amounted to $125,000,000,000. The war debt to the United States as November 15, 1932, amounted to $10,598,000,000. There is owing to the United States for 1933 alone $288,000,000. If some agreement can be made for the cancellation
of war debts in general in both the United States and in Europe, and some arrangement can be made to cut down in regard to national defence, there will be left open for the purchasing of goods throughout the world such large amounts of money as will take us out of the present depression and create a demand for everything we have to sell.
I have tried to show in the time at my disposal the condition of agriculture, as it was during the term of the previous administration, and the treatment given it by the administration now in power. It is true that due to lack of purchasing power prices have not increased, and prices cannot greatly increase until we have that increased purchasing power. In the summary I have made I have tried to show precisely the efforts made on behalf of Canadian agriculturists. I have also indicated the public attitude to-day in regard to governments. May I issue the warning to our people that before they change they should stop, look, listen, read, and compare the record of the past administration with that of the present.
May I close with a little story which I believe aptly suits present conditions, a story of King Charles as he was riding alone in the forest. While riding he met James, who desired to succeed him, surrounded by a cavalcade of horsemen, James stopped Charles and reprimanded him in these words, "You, the King of England, should not ride alone." Charles turned to him and said, "James, brigands do not live in England who would kill me to make you king." Similarly, there are not sufficient political brigands in Canada who would place the present right hon. leader of the opposition in the position of the present Prime Minister.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Wait until the next election.
Mr. ELIE O. BERTRAND (Prescott) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, in rising to comment upon the budget, I do so fully aware of the difficult period through which the country is passing; may I, therefore, assure you that I shall be as impartial as it is possible in reviewing our economic and social situation.
Previous to broaching the subject matter of this debate, I beg of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) not to be offended if I do not wholly reply to his statement on the budget. During thirty minutes he lauded the policy of the government since its advent to power and endeavoured to pick out flaws in the late Liberal administration. He closed

The Budget-Mr. Bertrand
his remarks by stating:	After three years
of this excellent administration the farmers of this country are at bay; I must request the government to see that the manufacturers of farm implements reduce their prices; I further request the government to create the means by which the farming classes may earn a livelihood and to also help them in every possible way, because the people I represent are in the greatest distress.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Mr. BERTRAND (Translation):: It is,
sir, quite easy to establish comparisons in a partial way and then draw conclusions apparently favourable. When the hon. member for Souris next meets his constituents, might I suggest to him that he ascertain their views on the conditions that prevailed between 1922 and 1930, in contrast with those existing between 1930, and 1933.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	A
marked difference!


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Previous to the remarks I intend to make on the budget, I wish to sincerely congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), not so much for his speech itself, but for his clear and frank statement of our economic situation. According to his budget statement, our liabilities are increasing by leaps and bounds and all classes of society are suffering from the present economic crisis. A superhuman effort must be made to safeguard our national credit, and this, by increasing certain imposts and creating new taxes.
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) on his masterly description of our economic situation. The hon. Minister of Finance alluding to our financial situation, but especially to our national liabilities and obligations, outlined the difficulties through which our country was passing.
I shall quote a few figures which will show our total indebtedness, the main cause of our economic depression.
The school, municipal, provincial and federal indebtedness amounts to $4,600,000,000; the total debt of all railways in Canada to the enormous sum of $3,500,000,000. I also wish to point out that bank loans to private individuals and business concerns, in order to foster trade and industry, have reached the fabulous amount of $2,500,000,000. I further wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that there exist other liabilities of which we could only get accurate statistics recently, such as mortgages on farm lands
fMr. Bertrand.]
which amount to $700,000,000 through the country. These figures furnished by the Bureau of Statistics, do not include mortgages on city properties and accounts due to merchants, doctors, blacksmiths-
Mr.LAPOINTE (Translation): To lawyers!


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: It would be better to dispense with their services.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Translation):: At times, they do render services.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Not
always! The known liabilities of the people in Canada have now reached the fabulous amount of $12,000,000,000. If our debt, sir, has reached that unheard of figure, it does seem extraordinary and very irrational that the rates of interest should vary from 4, 4J, 5, 5i, 6 and 7 per cent to 8 per cent in Eastern Canada; while in the West we find that the rates of interest on loans are as high as 10 and 12 per cent.
It is, therefore, very hard, I think, to establish the average rate of interest that the people must pay on these various liabilities, but we can safely state that this average is about 6 per cent, yearly, forming an amount paid in interest by Canadians of approximately $732,000,000. Therefore, if the interest of our national liabilities amount to the enormous sum of $732,000,000 and must be paid by Canadians, and our population is about 10,000.000, let us divide this yearly interest by the latter figures, the result is $73.20 per capita. Taking the case of an ordinary' family usually comprsing five persons, by multiplying $73.20 by 5, we find that the head of a family, therefore, is forced to pay either directly or indirectly the amount of $366 per year, and this, as interest only. I wonder, sir, how are the Canadian people going to bear up with such a burden.
Then to these interest charges, we must add the liabilities incurred for local improvement, municipal and county taxes and the outlay necessary' to carry on the administration of the various provinces, all of these greatly increase -the burden already' too heavy which the people must shoulder. I, therefore, really think that some relief must be given, in the very near future, to our people. On whom does the burden of these taxes fall most heavily at present? Not long ago, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), stated that 1,300,000 people were receiving direct assistance from ou-r various governments. We cannot, therefore, ask these people to pay their quota of these imports, since they depend solely on the relief contributed by the state government, their

The Budget-Mr. Bertrand
province and municipality or these three organizations combined. The burden must therefore fall on the rest of the population.
The other class to which I want to refer are the farmers who comprise more than 45 per cent of our population. If there are 1,300,000 unemployed, comprising over one-tenth of our population, the farming community which cannot be placed among the unemployed and being the majority of our employed papulation, must naturally be called
All countries.. . British Empire..
These figures, therefore, show an extraordinary decrease in farm returns. After all, the latter must necessarily depend on these returns to meet the taxes of the state, the provinces, and municipalities, as well as other charges with which it is burdened.
Let us now examine the farm exports, of field orops, for the twelve months ending in October of each year:
1929		 $524,828,419
1930		 336,362,550
1931		 218,175,958
1932		 211,176,931
It is therefore not astonishing as the member for Souris, himself mentioned a few moments ago, that the farmers of his constituency are in a different situation. The same applies to all farmers throughout the country and it is caused by the lack of farm returns or a great decrease in such returns, while fixed charges remain unchanged.
I shall now quote figures with reference to exports in live stocks and their by-products, for the twelve months ending in October of each year:
1929		 $146,629,066
1930		 100,288,057
1931		 73,752,819
1932		 58,290,769
The decrease of more than 60 per cent in these exports certainly adds to the depression in agriculture.
The prices of farm products have decreased in the proportion just mentioned. I must also add that in Ontario, where I reside, taxes have risen more than in other sections of the country, and are extraordinarily high. To such an extent that a committee representing 31 municipalities of this province stated only recently, after having made an absolutely . accurate calculation of their taxes, from 1904 to 1932, that the increase amounted to 2,800 per cent since 1904. This statement was recently forwarded to the government of
upon to bear a heavier burden than all other classes of society.
It might perhaps be interesting to examine more closely the situation and find out what are the conditions at present prevailing among our farming class. I have obtained statistics which prove in what state agriculture has been left in, and, so as not to repeat the arguments previously set forth, I shall endeavour to bring out new proofs. I shall quote our total farm exports, for each fiscal year, to all foreign countries and the British Empire:
1929-30	1930-31	1931-32$368,792,277	$269,858,864	$198,476,699199,604,065	149,468,827	110,159,169
Ontario and the information was given out by Mr. F. D. Tolchard, secretary of the association. Therefore, these figures cannot be contradicted.
This has placed us, in Ontario, in such a plight, that excellent families of farmers, who settled here, a number of years ago, and established their children on the land find themselves to-day, unable to continue farming. In my constituency, taxes are our greatest burden. At one time money lenders endeavoured to collect the payment of money due to them, so as to naturally protect their own interests; however, to-day, they are less exacting than they were heretofore. The rates in interest have been lowered in many instances and, in numerous cases, new mortgage deeds have been agreed upon for an amount not exceeding 50 per cent of the original debt. However, this is not sufficient, if we wish to keep the farmer on the Canadian soil, especially in the county I represent. Those that are desirable on the farm are forced to leave owing to the burden of taxes which weighs so heavily on them. Municipalities to meet their liabilities are forced to find the money somewhere and they have reached the stage where they must necessarily collect the taxes, and in many cases, by means of seizure. They must auction off all seizable chattels allowing the farmers to stay on their land with two hundred dollars' worth of implements, live stock and poultry which cannot be seized according to law, and which are not sufficient to permit them to continue their operations. L nder such circumstances, we are wondering how the farmer will till his land and how we shall safeguard agriculture which, after all, is the fundamental industry on which has rested for a long time past, the whole economic structure of our country.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: By allowing this situation to become worse, not only
The Budget-Mr. Bertrand

will the farming class suffer, but all classes of our population will necessarily feel the effects. The evil is far greater than one imagines. Certainly special consideration, at this session, should be shown to this class of people,
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) brought down the budget, I heard with great satisfaction his statement that a conversion loan would be effected at an opportune time in order to lower the rate of interest on our national debt. Rest assured, sir, that this measure will receive our full support. I would request the hon. Minister of Finance to go one step further; first, to reduce the rates of interest on our national debts in order to alleviate the burden of taxation to our people, particularly from the viewpoint of safeguarding agriculture; furthermore, I would request him to fix a very low rate of interest not only on our national debt, but also on all liabilities contracted by the people of Canada. That might immediately result in preventing large financiers from drawing so large incomes, but in the long run it would tend to place on a same level the various classes of society. This would be quite a progressive step to relieve the burden which bears directly or indirectly on our farming community.
Over a year ago, I had the opportunity of referring to the same subject and also requesting the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to lower, to 2 per cent, the rate of interest on our national debt. I do not wish to convey that he accepted my suggestion, however, I am pleased and take pride in noting that events have proved that I was right. I, therefore, request that the national debt be converted to one bearing interest at 2 per cent, and if this conversion is not accepted with good grace, then it should be made obligatory. This would be a kind of communism of the mildest type as a sop to the distress actually prevailing in all classes of our society. This rate of 2 per cent interest should also apply to all liabilities which I mentioned a moment ago.
Now, sir, I shall endeavour, in a few words, to show the fallacy of the argument set forth by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who tried to prove that the volume of our trade had not decreased since 1930. In support of his argument, the hon. minister pointed out the fact that, in 1930, our exports amounted to $895,000,000 and that, in 1932, if our products had been estimated on the price obtained in 1930, our volume of exports would have amounted to $840,000,000; there was, therefore, only about 5 per cent decrease. That may be so as far as the volume of our exports is

concerned, hovewer, let us face the facts as they are; is the heavy burden of our liabilities not greater than in 1930 or 1928? There is no question that our liabilities and taxes have greatly increased since 1928.
I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce -let him reply later-how will the farmer be able, when his farm returns decrease in the proportion which I shall establish in a few moments, to meet heavier liabilities than in 1930 and especially than those of 1928.
In 1928, the value of Canadian field crops amounted to $1,053,817,000; while in 1932, they had dropped to $416,5S6,000. Therefore, if we follow the same line of argument, as did the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, it would mean a loss to the farmers of $637,231,000 or 60 per cent of the value of their crops. Their live stock in 1928 was estimated at $197,880,000 and, in 1932, at $70,211,000, consequently, there was a loss, for the farmers of this country, amounting to $127,669,000 or 65 per cent. Further poultry and eggs were estimated at $106,653,000 in 1928, and in 1932, at $54,490,000, again there was a loss of $52,163,000. How will the farmer be able to carry on with increased taxation placed upon his shoulders, when he has to put up with such reduction of the value of its products on domestic or foreign markets. Certainly, the farming community is the most affected throughout the present depression.
Other classes of society do not feel the pinch of the crisis as much, may I mention, for instance, money lenders who benefit by high rates of interest, large business undertakings, financiers and banking institutions- if the latter can be classed with the others. In 1928, an amount of $184,079,154 was distributed in dividends and, in 1932, $164,962,592; therefore, only a 10 per cent decrease in their revenues. These profits taken on the public of Canada necessarily reduced the purchasing power of our people. That is certainly an obstacle which disturbs the monetary equilibrium of this country.
This evil must be remedied. These large financial organizations and industries are protected while other classes of society do not enjoy the same privileges. Bondholders are 'thus highly favoured. In 1928, the dividends paid on bonds amounted to $335,000,000, while in 1932 they amounted to $400,000,000, namely, an increase of $65,000,000.
If the situation is actually as I have described it, I really think that the minister will not hesitate to do his utmost to reduce the rates of interest to the lowest mark pos- . sible-if it cannot be done willingly let it be compulsory-to reestablish the economic equilibrium of all classes of society.

The Budget-Mr. Bertrand
In support of my contentions, I wish to quote an exoerpt from an article which I recently read, and which expresses entirely my views. I shall read it in English. The article bears the heading:
Capital is not sacred.
This is from a broadcast address by Archbishop John T. McNicholas, O.P., over the Columbia system (Catholic Northwest Progress).
There is nothing sacred about capitalism; yet it need not be abolished, provided its flagrant abuses be corrected. If they be not corrected, there is serious reason to fear its violent overthrow. There must be in the future a fairer distribution of profits in the economic world. The accumulation of the fabulous fortunes of recent years must be rendered impossible, as contrary to commutative, legal, or social justice by the force of public opinion, through legislation.
I really think that this excerpt gives a fair description of the changes that should take place in improving our capitalist system and of what I have in mind.
Since, sir, financial questions have been broached, may I refer briefly to the Canadian National Railways? I aim aware that certain measures have been submitted to the house, I shall, therefore, only briefly refer to the subject. The liabilities contracted by the Canadian National Railways have reached, at present, more than $2,300,000,000 and, of this amount, the sum of $974,481,382.28 is guaranteed by the Dominion government. Notwithstanding this fact, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), when making a statement recently on our railway situation, emphasized the fact that the Canadian National Railways were the property of the bondholders. If such be the case, sir, the situation is very serious. Would it not be more simple, instead of planning a forced merger or system of cooperation on our railways, to oblige the bondholders or proprietors of the Canadian National Railways to take back their property and thus lighten our national debt. I realize that from the government's viewpoint, this would amount to a breach of contract. However, I do not hesitate in suggesting such means, and I am jfully conscious of the responsibility I take in advocating this policy.
The capital invested by the bondholders of the Canadian National Railways cannot be regarded as a sacred thing. If the economic situation has actually become so serious that it threatens the credit of this country, a measure of the nature suggested above should be enacted to force the bondholders to take back their property and then apply the amounts thus saved to relieve the present plight of our people.
When speaking on last fiscal year of Canada, we were informed recently that the deficit
of the said year had simply been added to the national debt. The impression created was that we would not hear any more about it and that the national debt would be increased to $2,599,089,000 for 1933. One must bear in mind that our debt has been greatly increased since the advent to power of the present administration, because in 1930 our debt amounted to $2,177,763,959. Therefore, it has increased to the extent of $421,375,041 since that period. This increase only refers to the national debt. It was stated and repeated in the house, that our liabilities abroad should be paid by our exports and by the various services which we might render to countries to which we were indebted; that gold was not the only commodity which could be exported from one country to another, but it was simply a help to trade from an international viewpoint.
Let us, sir, examine the reason of the constant increase of our national debt and liabilities abroad, as well as the effect of such an increase on our people, as a whole.
Canadian exports at the end of October, 1929, amounted to $1,280,684,667; in 1930, to $945,614,514; in 1931, to $634,564,116; in 1932, to $516,098,451. Should our exports continue to decrease yearly, it will become most difficult to make both ends meet. While our national debt has increased over $421,000,000, the means to refund this debt decreases. Moreover, the revenue derived from our exports, acccording to the latest statistics I was able to obtain, has decreased from $1,280,000,000 in 1929; to $516,000,000 in 1932. It is absolutely necessary that our exports should increase, if we wish to relieve the present situation and foster the interests of Canada.
I note that my time is almost up; I regret so, because I still have many arguments in support of my contentions. However, I should not like to close my remarks on the budget without alluding to the new taxes which will be levied. I had the opportunity, over the week end, to meet a great number of my constituents, and to explain to them what would be the new burden of taxation that they would have to shoulder. I must draw the attention of the government to a remark made, not by one or two people, but by hundreds of my constituents. They were, indeed, ready to make all possible sacrifices to help our country, because they have faith in the future of Canada, their fatherland, which they helped to settle, where they have toiled and where they wish their children to carry on and transmit an heritage which is particularly theirs, as French Canadians. However, they were shocked to find that the government

The Budget-Mr. Bertrand
decreased the duties on cigarettes and spirits not so long ago while increasing the duties on commodities such as sugar and other articles of first necessity-indispensable to our families who have little means-such as molasses, rice, tapioca, sago, corn syrup, which are indispensable and very difficult to raise in this country,


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear!


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Such
measures are absolutely inconceivable and I have no hesitation in stating that my constituents are greatly shocked at the fact that the government has reduced the duty on cigarettes and spirits while increasing the duty on first necessities of life.
I wish to be candid and avoid all partisanship, as I stated at the outset of my remarks. But the people say that by this duty reduction, the government meet the wishes of large tobacco companies, protect them and allow them to realize as large profits as before and this is due to reduction of duties. As to the large financial interests which control the sale of spirits in this country, the government- although business is continuously decreasing- find it possible to help their trade and assure them of substantial returns by the reduction of duties on liquor causing necessity to add new taxes on necessities of life of the people of this country upon whom fall the new taxes. I deemed it my duty to openly make this statement, in the house, on behalf of my constituents, and to be bold enough to state exactly how conditions are.
In closing my remarks, sir, I wish to state that so far as our financial situation and the difficulties encountered in the administration of the country, at present, the hon. Minister of Finance and the government have certainly our best wishes. At times, they ask us to cooperate, we can extend to them our best wishes, however, when it is a question of cooperation, how can we cooperate with them in applying a policy which tends, as we can prove, to protect the interests of great financiers, while the less privileged classes of society are ignored and are not treated as they should be according to the measures enacted by the government. I state that we must absolutely oppose these measures which are detrimental to the large majority of our people, and that it is our duty to do so, because, we, the Liberal party, wish to see that our legislation tends to distribute the burden of taxation among all classes of society. We want the burden to weigh more heavily on those who can afford to pay, and infinitely less on the shoulders of those who are unable to bear the burden.

An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Hear, hear!


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: This, we want for the greatest welfare of our people, so that peace may reign among all classes of society, that all races in this country may be on the best of terms, that all classes be placed on an equal footing and, finally, that Canada may become greater, more united and prosperous.
On motion of Mr. Simpson (Algoma) the debate was adjourned.



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
Miscellaneous services, including salaries and expenses of experts employed temporarily, $50,900.
Jean-François Pouliot: Who are these experts?
Hon. R. J. MAN'ION (Minister of Railways and Canals):	This item provides the continuance of the annual vote formerly provided under the title of surveys and inspections. It is provided in order that funds may be available for any special services, investigations or examinations that may be required in connection with railway matters or matters in relation thereto and to pay the salaries of official car porters and other salaries and incidental expenses for the maintenance of the official cars under the jurisdiction of the department, including governor general's cars. The services of experts have to do with such matters as the St. Lawrence canalization scheme, or similar matters, and the men in the department, who are regular employees of the department, receive extra compensation for that work.


Mr. SANDERSON:: There is an increase of $8,900; what is that for?


Robert James Manion: When this item was up previously the hon. gentleman asked me with reference to this increase and I gave the wrong information, because unfortunately I could not put my hand on the details. I gave some figures then which were a little out, but I will give the actual figures now. This item is made up as follows: administration of the department, $3,822; government official cars, salaries of porters, S10.638; repairs and maintenance, $15,000; governor general's cars, $7,000. This next item is where I fell down previously; I forgot it for the moment: Beau-harnois surveys and investigations, $14,000,

Supply-Railways and Canals
and unforeseen expenses, S440. The reason for the increase, which I gave incorrectly the other evening, is the Beauharnois surveys and investigations, the point being that until very recently the Beauharnois works, so far as the government was concerned, were carried on by the Department of Public Works. That work was transferred to this department and at present we have, as we had during the construction work, two engineers who were taken over from the Department of Public Works, whose business it has been to check up the work being done to see that the company kept within the agreement with the government. This $14,000 is an increase, but there have been decreases in other items amounting to about $5,000, so that the total increase is only about S9,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask if the porters
are classified as experts, and if so as what?


Robert James Manion: They are expert porters
but are not classified as such.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand that they
are both porters and butlers at the same time.


Robert James Manion: The porters on the cars,
so far as I know, are exactly the same men who have been on the cars for some years. I do not think there have been any changes. They are called porters and do that work and also what might be called butlering, if you will, and cooking.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many of them are
there?


Robert James Manion: Two for each car.


Jean-François Pouliot: And how many cars?


Robert James Manion: Three.


Jean-François Pouliot: Including the governor
general's?
Mr. MANIO'N:	No, that comes under a
separate item.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have no objection to
the governor general and the government having special cars, especially when there are only three. On the other hand, I have always spoken strongly in this house against private cars for the superintendents of the railway, but I do not know when I shall have another opportunity to speak on this question, so I wish to take advantage of this opportunity. I wish to thank the minister for his courtesy when I mentioned the matter to him. The questions I wished to ask unfortunately were disposed of by another member of the cabinet than the minister himself when they came 53719-228
up in the house. I want to protest as vigorously as I 'Can against all sorts of foolish expenditures that are being made by the superintendents of both railways. They should not be entitled to a private car. It is all right for the governor general and the Prime Minister and other members of the government to have a private oar when they go on a long trip. I am not narrowminded enough to criticize that and I never have, provided the expenses are reasonable. On the other hand, 1 think it is foolish to allow the superintendents to travel around in luxurious private cars, with butlers and expensive food and all the glory of the Queen of Sheba, and I think a stop should be put to it, especially when the common necessities of life like sugar are being heavily taxed. The Prime Minister says that we have lots of unavoidable expenditure in connection with the railways, but this is foolish expenditure, insane expenditure, which cannot possibly be justified, particularly when we see engineers of the railway going about from station to station on an ordinary handcar to make their inspections. The superintendents travel about in their special cars on important trips, presumably. They sit in their private car and say they are there to work, but if they want to work while on the train they can just as easily do it in a stateroom in a Pullman oar. Very often I have met ministers of the crown travelling around as ordinary mortals in Pullman ears, and they arrive at their destination just as safely a3 'the superintendents travelling around in their gorgeous private cars. We must come down to earth and realize that that land of foolish expenditure must be put a stop to right now. I am sure that the Minister of Railways is all right in this matter, and I do not put the blame on him at all, but rather on those who refuse to answer members of the House of Commons when they 'ask the government for legitimate information. I am here to look after the interests of the country as a whole, and I am prepared to do it, and I shall bring these facts before the house at every opportunity. At the present time when more than half the railway men of this country are out of work, we see a man in Quebec who is not qualified, who was recommended by Lord Shaughnessy, but who did not appoint him to the Canadian Pacific Railway, but recommended him to the Canadian National Railways, and he is now the fifth or seventh wheel of the coach. The only tiling he does is to look at himself in the looking glass. There are four special cars for the superintendents around Quebec and Levis, which is one more than there are for

Private Bills

all the members of the cabinet. I have nothing against these people personally, but we must be sensible in our expenditures and in tames like these when there is so much suffering we must take from those who have too much to help feed those who have not enough. That seems to me only common sense. I know that the minister understands me and I hope that he will tell the members of the cabinet who do not understand common sense that they must come back to it before they can be called supermen.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Has the minister the amount spent on surveys separate from investigations?


Robert James Manion: I explained that to the committee when the hon. gentleman was out. There are two engineers, Mr. Lazier and Mr. Hand. Mr. Hand has been taken over from the Public Works department by the Department of Railways and Canals because it must be remembered that under the late government and under this government until recently the Beauharnois project was handled through the Public Works department, but a few months ago it was transferred to the Department of Railways and Canals. The duties of these two engineers are to see that the Beauharnois Power Company remain within their agreement with the government of Canada in the construction work. Their whole purpose in these surveys is to see that the company does not do anything contrary to its agreement.


Mr. GARDINER:: Why was the change made from the Department of Public Works to the Department of Railways and Canals?


Robert James Manion: Offhand I could not say definitely except that canals are generally under the Department of Railways and Canals. I think that is the whole purpose in making the change. Probably it never should have been at first under the Department of Public Works, but it may have been put there for good reasons which I do not know about.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-staff and repairs, $2,738,720.
Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask if the government has reached a decision with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway and if the question will come before the house this session?


Robert James Manion: The matter is still in the position in which it was when I answered a similar question some time ago. In all probafMr. Pouliot.]
bility the matter will not come up this session unless the treaty is ratified by the United States congress.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask what estimates will be taken up this evening?


Robert James Manion: It is private bills for the first hour, and the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Jean-François Pouliot: Any other departments?


Robert James Manion: I think not. Agriculture will probably take the whole two hours.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 47, respecting The Canadian Anthracite Coal Company, Limited-Mr. Stanley.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. D. MORAND (East Essex) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 51, to incorporate Devonshire Jockey Club.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur) in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. HEAPS:: Could we have an explanation?


Mr. MORAND:: This is a bill to convey
to the creditors of the old Devonshire race track the rights which they enjoyed under the original charter. It became necessary for the creditors to put this race track into bankruptcy and it was found that the courts were unable to transfer any rights other than the physical rights. No new race track is contemplated; it is intended only to permit the creditors to enjoy the benefit of the assets of the present race track.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. J. COWAN (Port Arthur-Thunder
Bay, for Mr. Casselman) moved the second reading of Bill No. 56, respecting the Nipis-sing Central Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 41 to incorporate the Sarnia-Port Huron Vehicular Tunnel Company.-Mr. Gray-Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur) in the chair.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bury in the chair.
Agriculture - for experiments in fruit products, $10,000.
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: The last time we were in committee there were two questions asked to which I promised to give answers. The first was in connection with the grant to the Canadian Horticultural Council. That was under the heading of Canadian Horticultural Council under supplementary estimates, 1932-33, vote No. 333, $5,000.
The second question was with reference to the contribution of the United States to the International Agricultural Institute. The contribution passed March 13, 1933, was $48,500.


John Livingstone Brown: What are these experiments that are being carried on? We have been experimenting for a long time.


Robert Weir: The purpose of these experiments is to see whether some value can be obtained from fruits, in particular apples of a low grade, by making juices to replace some of the common soft drinks now in use like coca cola and so forth. Experiments are being carried on at Middleton and Kentville, Nova Scotia, the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa, and Summerland, British Columbia. This sum of $10,000 has chiefly to do with apparatus, salaries and equipment necessary for this work.


Mr. DUFF:: I notice the minister said that experiments were being carried on at Middle-53719- 228J
ton, Nova Scotia. Will he be good enough to explain what the experiments are, how much the government is expending and why it is carrying on experiments at that particular place. Who is getting the benefits of this?


Robert Weir: We have a laboratory at the Scotia Gold Products plant at Middleton, the purpose being to test out ciders made from different kinds of apples in various states of ripeness, making special experiments in these juices, following the principle used in the old country of making a cider without the use of pasteurization.


William Duff: How long has this experiment been going on and how much has it cost the country so far?


Robert Weir: Two years, and I believe at Middleton, Nova Scotia, the cost was a little over $2,000 last year.


William Duff: Why should it take two years and $2,000 to conduct this particular experiment? Surely scientists or whoever are in charge of this should not take two years to find the value of this experiment.


Robert Weir: This amount, of course, is mainly to purchase equipment, and some applies on salary. The work is of a very technical nature. We think the results so far are satisfactory. Similar experiments are being and have been carried on in England for quite a number of years. If we succeed in making a satisfactory product from these lower grade apples available in Nova Scotia, as the low grade apples in the culls run around 60 per cent, this will mean a very much enhanced price for this class of fruit to the Nova Scotia fruit farmer and relieve the fresh fruit market of this load of low grade product.


William Duff: This does not seem to be a
very satisfactory answer. I can understand the department spending three or perhaps six months in an experiment of this kind, but I gather from the minister's statement that they have put scientists or officials of the department into a private enterprise at Middleton, Scotia Gold Products, which manufactures cider and other things. I cannot understand the necessity of having one or more men there for two years. Surely if the men are capable, it should not take two years to find out whether they can do anything with this product. The apple is a very simple product of the farm. It should not be very difficult for these officials to discover whether a particular
Supply-Agriculture-Fruit

grade of cider or something else can be made from this fruit. Is it not a fact that these men are in this factory, and that really, while the government is paying the money, they are doing work for this particular organization?


Robert Weir: The only wage we are paying at this plant is that of one scientist. We have the services of the best scientist we could get for this work. The process, as I said before, is complicated, and whether or not the hon. member is disappointed with the results this man has obtained so far, we feel he is the best we can secure for the work.


William Duff: I am not disappointed; I am not paying this scientist's wages. The government is paying him and the government and the minister should be disappointed. It seems to me there should be no necessity for this scientist to be in this plant for two years. Surely, if he knows his business, as I presume he does, there is no reason for his being in the plant for two years endeavouring to find out whether apples can be made into some liquid. Why is this man there all this time? The government should know now whether he has been able to discover something which will he a benefit either to the government or to the department, and if he is not able to carry out some particular investigation, it is time for the government to bring him back to Ottawa and put him to work on something else.


Robert Weir: I do not know of
any question that has been asked.


William Duff: I asked why the government
is keeping this man at this private plant. It is a private corporation and the government is paying this man's salary. The minister also said that this scientist was sent there to make a certain test as to what could be done with apples. After two years the government should be able to decide whether this man has made the proper investigation and the result of it. I have asked a question

and the minister should be able to answer it-as to what value this man is to the country in the capacity of an official connected with this plant.


Robert Weir: One of the results
of his experimental work is a development of fruit concentrates. Last year in this connection there were exported, I believe, 35,000 gallons. The results of these experiments have been made known to all cider plants in the dominion. Many different problems preatr. Duff.]
sent themselves along this line of the study of fruit juices for cider and other beverages. In England, the best men they can get have been working along similar lines for years. We sent Mr. Davis, one of our men, over there three years ago to make a special study. He remained a year in the old country gathering all the information he could and then returned to Canada. We received the benefit of that and he is continuing with this investigation. One of the results has been the development of fruit concentrates. What they are trying to do, as I said at the outset, is to find the best combination of fruit that can be used and under the best conditions it can be used to produce the best product without pasteurization.


William Duff: The result of having this man at the Middleton plant is that he is making money for a private corporation. If he has been there two years, surely there is no necessity for keeping him there any longer. If I understand correctly he is there looking after the private interests of a private corporation. A minute ago the minister said the man in question made certain juices from fruit. What part of the fruit juice is being exported from the plant as a result of this scientist's investigation?	.


Robert Weir: The man is at a
private plant because by having him there we save the government the expense of building a plant to carry on experiments. One result of his work has been that the plant exported 35,000 gallons of fruit concentrate. It is much cheaper to have a man work in a plant already erected than to erect a laboratory for the purpose. The knowledge obtained is not the special property of the plant in which he is working, but is spread throughout the country.


William Duff: What does the minister mean when he states that 35,000 gallons of concentrates were exported? Are these concentrates just the ordinary cider in bottles that the company sends all over the country?
Mr. RYCKMA.N:	Or is there something
in it?


William Duff: Yes, or is there something in it? The Minister of National Revenue is interested in that phase of the matter. I may say, for the information of the Minister of National Revenue, that I have heard there is more than two per cent alcoholic content in these concentrates. Perhaps the minister had better investigate.

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit


Robert Weir: My information is
that there is no alcohol in the concentrates.


William Duff: Evidently the Minister of
National Revenue is suspicious. 1 suggest he get in touch with the Minister of Agriculture and have the official send him samples. I am sure the Minister of National Revenue would be able to tell whether the alcoholic content was more than two per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why would the minister know?


William Duff: Because he is a good judge.
There is a good deal of complaint in Nova Scotia about the federal government spending all this money, and having an official at a private plant for over two years. I could understand an official being sent to experiment for three months, but surely there is no reason for having him there so long. The minister should give a better explanation than he has given so far why this man is paid a salary for two years, a man who is really an official of a private plant, and doing work for that plant instead of for the government.


Robert Weir: He is not doing
work for the private corporation, but for the government, and the entire industry in Canada. Any discoveries made as a result of his research are immediately available to all similar plants throughout Canada.


William Duff: That does not seem a reasonable explanation. What experiments could he make? What results would it take two years to obtain when only the simple process of making cider from apples is involved? That is all that is being done in the plant. They take apples, grind them up and put them into bottles in cider form. Surely there is no necessity to keep an official at that plant for two years. I want to tell the minister this is nothing more or less than a case of the government keeping an official who, if withdrawn to-morrow, would be replaced by that private corporation. And in that event the private concern would have to pay his salary.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury):: Shall the item carry?


William Duff: No.


Mr. DONNELLY:: This is an item for $10,000. The minister has told us that $2,000 is used at Middleton for experiments on cider. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough seems to think that the official does nothing but drink cider. Probably that is true, but the other $8,000 must be spent somewhere. We
should like to know at what other points experiments are being carried on, and we want an explanation of the different plants and the work being done in them.


Robert Weir: As I said at the outset there is the plant at the central experimental farm in Ottawa and the plants at Kentville and Summerland. In Ottawa, $3,000 is spent, $4,000 at Summerland and the remainder at Kentville.


William Duff: At Middleton, not Kentville.


Robert Weir: Yes, at Kentville.


James J. Donnelly: What work is done at these other places?


Robert Weir: Work of a similar nature, but with different fruits. At [DOT] the Summerland station they are carrying on experimental work in connection with dehydrating apricots, prunes and so on.


James J. Donnelly: What are they doing at Kentville?


Robert Weir: At Kentville the work is chiefly that of the dehydration of fruits, together with some canning experiments.


James J. Donnelly: What is the work done at the Ottawa experimental station?


Robert Weir: Work in connection with fruit juices and canning.


Mr. REID:: In the event of a discovery made by a man stationed by the government in any of these plants, could a patent be taken out, or is his discovery general knowledge?


Robert Weir: The knowledge is general.


James J. Donnelly: Is it at Kentville, Nova Scotia, you have the dehydrating plant, or at Kemptville, just outside of Ottawa?


Robert Weir: Kentville, Nova Scotia.


James J. Donnelly: What is the use of having two stations side by side?


Robert Weir: They do different work.


James J. Donnelly: What is the difference?


Robert Weir: One works on the concentration of juices and the other upon the dehydration of apples, and fruit canning.
Supply-Agriculture-Fruit


John Livingstone Brown: Ever since I have been, in the house we have been voting moneys for experiments in the dehydration of fruits. It has occurred to me that the time for experimentation has long since passed.


Robert Weir: I think the hon. member knows as well as anybody in the house that there is practically no limit to the carrying on of experiments.


John Livingstone Brown: I thought perhaps it had reached a stage where the experiments would have been concluded.


William Duff: The minister states that there is one scientist at Middleton and another about thirty miles away, at Kentville. The roads between Kentville and Middleton are good. Any man with good, long legs could walk there in a day. Yet we are told there are two scientists doing work for the government, one at Middleton doing certain work and the other at Kentville doing other work. It seems to me one man would be sufficient and I strongly recommend to the minister that he look into the matter. There should not be a man at each point. I would ask the minister to investigate and see that the man at the Middleton station be withdrawn, because I understand the Kentville station is in the nature of an experimental farm. Am I right in that?


Robert Weir: It is, yes.


William Duff: I would not object to having a scientist at Kentville experimental farm. The official at the farm could do any work required by the privately owned bottling works at Middleton. Surely in this time of stress and strain, when we are trying to save all the money we can, there is no need after two years to have a scientist working for a private corporation at Middleton. I strongly recommend that the minister have this man withdrawn from that plant and save that money.


John Vallance: May I ask the minister, would it be possible carry on these two experiments at the one place?


Robert Weir: No, the experiments are different. If we did all the work at Kentville it would mean the purchase of laboratory equipment that costs a good deal; it would also mean the use of fruit, bottles and so on that the private plant supplies at Middleton. The scientist at Kentville devotes only part of his time to that, and the rest to fruit breeding.


William Duff: But the minister must admit
that any investigation which is carried on at the Middleton plant of the private corporation is principally for the benefit of the private corporation.


Robert Weir: Not at all.


William Duff: And if there is a laboratory
there it would be interesting to know who paid for it. If he looked it up I think the minister would find that the government paid. But whether the government or the private corporation paid for it there is no reason why there should be two scientists. The man at Kentville could go to Middleton once or twice a week or oftener if necessary and make any experiments or investigation required. There is no need to have a man situated at the Middleton plant all the time.


John Vallance: How many such investigations as that at Middleton are conducted throughout Canada? I mean, is the information gained at Middleton given to all other plants of a like nature, and how many are there in Canada?


Robert Weir: My information is
that there is only this one, and as soon as the information is Obtained it is distributed to all plants for their use.


William Richard Motherwell: I was wondering if the old committee that used to have charge of this work is still in existence; I think it was called the dehydrating committee. Is that still in existence?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: Who are the members?


Robert Weir: Dr. Archibald, chairman and Messrs. McIntosh, Macoun, Shutt, Lochhead and MoGillivray in charge of canning.


William Richard Motherwell: Are all these experiments made on the recommendation of the committee?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: None of these
experiments is going on now without their O.K.?


Robert Weir: That is my information.


William Richard Motherwell: I think it would
be helpful to the committee if the minister would have samples of the cider and these dehydrated fruits. I used to have them in my office out there on the ground floor, and it

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
was quite a popular resort as long as I had the cider and dehydrated fruit. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and I think they would talk much more eloquently than any of us. Joking aside, they are really helpful.


Robert Weir: We have stock
samples at the experimental farm here. They are limited, but we shall be glad to show them to anyone who goes out there.


James J. Donnelly: I would like to know
what salary this man a>t Middleton gets, what his qualifications are, and where he worked before he went there. He is said to be a scientist, but he gets less than $2,000 a year; he cannot be much of a scientist.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do you want to pay him more?


Robert Weir: His salary is a
little over 81,700. He received his training in England. He is English born, I believe; he came to Canada, operated a small plant, then went back to England and made further studies and investigations, and came back to undertake this work for us.


James J. Donnelly: What were his qualifications? Is he a B. Sc.?


William Richard Motherwell: Did the Civil Service Commission appoint him?


Robert Weir: He did take a
science course in England, but I cannot say what degree he obtained. It is a civil service appointment, and they no doubt looked into his qualifications.


William Duff: When was he appointed by
the Civil Service Commission, and who recommended him to the department and the commission?


Robert Weir: An open advertisement, I 'believe, in the regular form, two years ago. I cannot give any information about who recommended him.


William Duff: He was not connected with the department before two years ago?


Robert Weir: No.


William Duff: Who recommended him to
the department, and why did they get the Civil Service Commission to call for applications?


Robert Weir: Because the dehydration committee recommended that the work be undertaken. This was the cheapest way to undertake it, and on their application the Civil Service Commission filled the position.


John Vallance: Who are the dehydration committee?


Robert Weir: I named them a
moment ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms, $1,642,000.
William Richard Motherwell: Has my hon. friend anything new to relate to the committee in regard to the work on the experimental farms? Are there any more than last year, or any less? Has any special work been undertaken, and have there been any changes?


Robert Weir: The number of
farms is the same as it was a year ago. There are very many different projects, some that have been continued for some time, and there are always new problems and projects arising.


William Richard Motherwell: What about the
Rosthem farm?


Robert Weir: It is still in operation. The work and the staff were curtailed a good deal, because we felt that we were there duplicating work done at the university of Saskatchewan. The work carried on at Rosthem was chiefly in connection with live stock, the dairy herd, pigs and poultry, and some horticulture.


William Richard Motherwell: The farm is not
really closed yet?


Robert Weir: No.


William Richard Motherwell: You are sort of
half on and half off; is that the way?


Robert Weir: The same as last year.


William Richard Motherwell: I think it is a little different. I believe the superintendent is gone now.


Robert Weir: He went last year.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a feeling in that community that Mr. Munro, the former superintendent, was let out rather summarily. Has my hon. friend any explanation to make? Mr. Munro was there, I understand, for about twenty-five years, and then suddenly he was dropped like a hot potato. It is rather serious under these conditions to drop a good servant without using every endeavour to place him elsewhere.


Robert Weir: It was for no criticism of Mr. Munro's work. It was felt that work was being duplicated at Rosthern experimental farm that was being done at Scott on the one side and at the university on the other, and we felt that with the reduced staff we could

Supply-A gricul ture-Farms
carry on all the work there that was not being done at Scott or at the university. But there is no suggestion of criticism of any kind of Mr. Munro's work, and as soon as opportunity arises, if another farm is opened or a vacancy occurs for which it is felt he would be particularly suited, he will get every preference.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is he?


Robert Weir: I believe in Prince Albert.


William Richard Motherwell: I am very glad to hear what the minister has just said, because Mr. Munro was a very faithful servant, and it is rather like getting the cold shoulder to be dropped as quickly as he was. I might point out that my hon. friend cannot reduce his estimates by $3,000,000 or more and still contend that there is no material reduction in the work carried on. There must be a very material reduction in the work; that is unavoidable. I am not criticizing that at the moment, but you cannot reduce the estimates and continue to give the same service; I know that, and I think the minister knows it also. Of course it is his business to see that the neglect of the work is as little as possible, but I say it cannot be done. I should be very glad to hear of Mr. Munro being appointed, because good superintendents, while they are not as scarce as hen's teeth, are a joy to find, and it is a sad thing to lose one under any circumstances.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I see an increase of $100,000 in this item. For the last few years the matter has been before the department, and on several occasions I have discussed it verbally with the minister of the establishment of an experimental farm for central and northern British Columbia. As the minister knows this was recommended by his predecessor, the hon. member for Melville, and also by Hon. Mr. Tolmie when he was Minister of Agriculture. Last year I understood the minister to say that the department was contemplating closing one experimental farm in British Columbia, I think he said the Windermere farm, and that part of the money saved would be applied to that settled part of British Columbia to which I refer. I know that last summer, when the associated boards of trade held their meeting at which I was present, a resolution was sent to the minister asking for the establishment of such a farm. Since then I -have been asked on several occasions what has been done. I wrote the minister, but he replied that he had no intention of doing anything this year. It seems to me that with an increase of $100,000 
in this item and the closing of the Windermere farm something should be done. I should- like to have the minister explain why no consideration has been given these requests.


Robert Weir: There is really no
increase in the item. There has been a change in administration; the revenue known as returnable revenue, which comes from the eggs gathered at egg laying contests and from the sale of some animals and so on, in place of being used by the experimental farms for their own purposes must be turned in to the Receiver General. In addition there has been a ruling that the travelling expenses of the headquarters staff, amounting to $40,000 or $50,000 annually, must be absorbed by each branch. These two items really make up the apparent increase of $100,000, which really is no increase at all.
I might say that we have in contemplation the establishment of a sub-range station in the ranching district of British Columbia, which we think will serve the purpose almost as well as an expensive experimental farm. It will be under the supervision of Mr. Thomson of the Manyberries experimental station, which now has to do with ranching, and I think everyone will agree that he is one of the best authorities we could obtain.


Olof Hanson: Is that to be
somewhere along the line of the Canadian National?


Robert Weir: It will be in the
ranching area. The exact spot has not been decided upon.


Mr. COTNAM:: I have spoken to the minister on more than- one occasion about a matter which I should like to bring up at this time. In this country there are one or two sections greatly interested in sheep raising, and in my part of the country we have quite a number of farmers intensely interested in that industry. A few years ago they found that nice lambs weighing about 125, 130 or 140 pounds commanded the best price in the market, but last fall when our lambs were ready and the drovers went out to buy, the packers restricted the-m by saying that the minimum weight per lamb should be seventy pounds and the maximum weight one hundred pounds. The drovers in that locality refused to buy lambs unless the maximum was raised to at least 110 pounds. There was a .fixed price for these lambs; those weighing less than 70 pounds were cut to half price, while lambs weighing over 110 pounds were paid for on the basis of half price for everything over that weight. In some instances the packers

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
would not allow anything at all for anything over 110 pounds.
Our people would like to find out where these minimum and maximum weight lambs went. When the ordinary housewife goes to the butcher shops she buys lamb, and it is all the same price. There is no distinction made; she is not told that this cut was taken from a lamb weighing less than 70 pounds while that cut was taken from a lamb weighing more than 110 pounds. She pays the same price for all the lamb she buys. There is a feeling abroad in this country that the Canada Packers and Swift's have a strangle hold on the primary producers; people believe the packers and the stock yards are operating under an overhead that is altogether unfair to the primary producers, and the farmers in Canada would like to know exactly why there should be this discrimination in the price of lamb though there is no distinction made when that lamb is sold in the butcher shops.


John Livingstone Brown: I am glad to say that for once I can agree with the hon. member for North Renfrew. There is no question but that this is a serious grievance on the part of the producer. Indeed I was told the other day that a man who had shipped lambs under '-he regulation weight to the Winnipeg market had left only 14 cents per lamb after paying the freight; that is, he received 70 cents for five lambs. There is no doubt that in regard to lambs and hogs under and over weight the producer is heavily discriminated against, and if anything can be done to correct that situation undoubtedly it will be to the benefit of the producer.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I should like to ask the minister if the Manyberries experimental range station comes under this item and, if so, whether he could tell me the cost of conducting that station. I should like to know also if there are other stations in Canada doing similar work.


Robert Weir: That is the only station of its kind in Canada, and the cost is approximately 818,000.
Mr. GERSHAW': Then I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that a very special work is being done there in connection with the re-grassing of abandoned range land both with regard to winter and summer pasturage; in connection with how cattle gain under certain conditions, and particularly with regard to general range practice. In view of the fact that no other station in Canada is doing
similar work I should like to ask the minister if these reports could be published separately rather than mixed up with the general reports of the department.


Robert Weir: They were published separately the last time.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Before leaving the question I brought up I should like to get some assurance from the minister that before the season for marketing lambs comes next fall some action will be taken by the government to see that the primary producer gets fair play. If the position, as I have stated it is not correct, if the farmer is getting all that is legitimately coming to him, I think that that should be known and the reasons for it be made plain to the farmers of this country, but if the packers are taking advantage of the farmers, that also should be made known. If the packers, on the other hand, are acting in good faith and everything is perfectly honest, legitimate and aboveboard, then in order to protect them from a feeling that is prevalent throughout the country, the whole situation should be cleared up. The primary producers would then feel that they were not being treated unfairly and that there was no occasion for any resentment against the packing industries of this country. But I repeat, that there is a feeling throughout Canada and has been for many years amongst the farming community that the packing industries of this country have a stranglehold upon the farmers and have them at their mercy, and many believe that it is about time that that stranglehold was loosened.


William Richard Motherwell: I should like, Mr. Chairman, to follow up what my hon. friend has said if it is in order to discuss it on the vote for experimental farms, but personally I think it would properly come under the live stock vote. However, if we are to have a general discussion of the five stock industry upon the vote for experimental farms, I wish to follow up what my hon. friends from North Renfrew and Lisgar have said.


John Vallance: How do you propose to deal with the matter, Mr. Chairman?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I think the discussion would be more relevant under the live stock vote.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The matter needs to be
fully discussed and I do not see any reason why it should not be discussed on this item as well as on any other.

SuppI y-A griculture-Farms


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: But if it is discussed under this item it may be discussed all over again under the live stock item.


John Vallance: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, this is a question of marketing, not the live stock industry itself; I think it would be in order for us to discuss the matter on this item if we are to discuss marketing at all, for there is no item on which marketing could be discussed by itself. Like the hon. member for Melville I have something to say on the subject when we get j'our ruling.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I was not asked for a ruling, but my ruling would be that the discussion would be more relevant under the item for live stock. However, if the committee wishes to discuss it under this item it should be done with the understanding that the discussion will not be revived when the live stock item is reached.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Has any additional ground been taken in this year for the experimental farm station at Summerside, Prince Edward Island? Has any additional expenditure been made, or is it in contemplation?


Robert Weir: There has been no additional enlargement this year and none is contemplated.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Has any request been
made by the superintendent of the Summer-side station to inorease the number of foxes kept?


Robert Weir: I am informed that no such request has been made.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Has no request been made to increase the number of foxes kept, with a view to making the station self-sustaining?


Robert Weir: It is quite evident that it would be very difficult, impossible, I think, to put the station on a paying or selfsustaining basis so long as we are endeavouring to carry on the experimental work we are doing.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: What was the cost of the operations last year as compared with other years?


Robert Weir: 
Alfred Edgar MacLean: In connection with the experimental work that was being carried on at the Summerside station, has some of it been transferred to the experimental plant at Hull, Quebec, or elsewhere?


Robert Weir: I think the hon. member has reference to the work that has been carried on at the Hull institute. That is a new kind of work with special reference to the disease of distemper.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That work is being carried on at Hull now?


Robert Weir: Yes, it was never done at Summerside.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Who are the men engaged in that work at Hull?


Robert Weir: It is under Doctor Watson.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Any assistants?


Robert Weir: He is assisted by Dr. Percy J. G. Plummer and Dr. J. R. West.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Is any contact being maintained with the Welcome laboratories in England in connection with this work?


Robert Weir: Yes. *


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: There has been a very insistent demand for an experimental farm somewhere in the Peace River country. Has any headway been made in connection with that proposed project?


Robert Weir: As the hon. member knows, there is a substation at Beaver Lodge which is doing very excellent work. I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend that when times are a little more propitious and money is a little more plentiful that work should be extended.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It came to my notice a few weeks ago that the experimental farm has issued circular letters to the farmers in my riding, and I think throughout northern Ontario, asking them what advantages they have found from the demonstration farm, and there is a fear on the part of the farmers that the demonstration farm may be closed. I should like to get the assurance from the minister that no such step will be taken, because such farms as the demonstration farm in the clay belt of northern Ontario at Kapus-kasing, which is one of the best, are of great advantage to the farmers. On account of the long distances it is almost impossible for a good many of the settlers to visit the experimental farm at Ottawa, but they do visit the demonstration farm during the summer months at least. I attended a meeting in northern Ontario at which lectures were given

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
by agronomists and which was attended by from two hundred to three hundred people at one time. It would be false economy to discontinue these demonstration stations which I believe are being maintained at very little cost to the department and the country as a whole.
There is another matter which I want to bring to the minister's attention. It was understood that two years ago a poultry promoter was to be appointed for northern Ontario and North Timiskaming, and I believe that applications were received for the position. I do not believe that the appointment has yet been made, or at all events no such poultry promoter has ever functioned in northern Ontario. In Quebec they have such a man and he is doing wonderful work. One can readily realize what it means to our settlers, many of whom have graduated to the farming class, and to the industry of agriculture generally when I say that a carload of eggs is brought into the town of Timmins practically every week from outside of our section of the country, whereas under proper direction our own section of the country could supply that demand. We should encourage the settlers and farmers in this section of the country. I am surprised that this official has not been doing anything for the last two years. I understand the appointment has been sanctioned but the position has not been filled. We hear of people being settled in this section of the country and they should be given as much assistance as possible. Could the minister answer the two questions I have answered?


Robert Weir: The hon. member's first question was in connection with the illustration stations. I agree with the hon. member that these stations are very important, and there is no intention to curtail their numbers in any way. I am sure he will agree with me when I say that with so many of these stations distributed throughout the country it is necessary that a close check be kept in order to see just what stations are giving value for the money expended. The hon. member's other question would come under the item dealing with live stock, and I shall be glad to look into the matter. I thought there was a possibility it might be a provincial rather than a federal promoter. However, I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The Ontario government closed the demonstration farm at Hearst. There was located at that farm one of the
ablest officials in the country. This gentleman is now working at the Kapuskasing experimental farm. I should like to know if he is in the employ of the federal government.


Robert Weir: When the provincial government decided to close the farm at Hearst we made an arrangement whereby the gentleman to whom my hon. friend refers would still continue to carry on extension work for the provincial government with his headquarters at the federal experimental farm at Kapuskasing. He is not an employee of the federal government; he is still with the provincial government but has his headquarters at the farm.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I should like to say a few words in connection with the illustration stations. For the past two or three sessions I have spoken favourably of the work done by these stations. We have two in my constituency one near the town of Kindersley and the other near the village of Lovema. There is a capable man in charge of the Kindersley station and I have always been able to speak very highly of the work accomplished, I do not think I need review at this session the splendid results obtained. I was not able to speak with any authority last year of the work done at Lovema but since last session I have made it my business to get first hand information in connection with that station. I am now able to report to the minister that it is doing splendid work, possibly better than the work done' at Kindersley. This station is in charge of a very competent operator Mr. Robert Brumwell. He has been experimenting with brome, western rye and alfalfa grasses, as well as with different crop rotations. Perhaps the most important work carried on by Mr. Brumwell is in connection with soil drifting. He lives in that section of the province which is subject to considerable soil drifting, and he is carrying on his experiments without any financial assistance from the government. I understand he has a fifty-eight acre plot of ground which he uses for experimental purposes, and, if I am not mistaken, the regular rate paid by the government is $5 per acre. The soil drifting work is something which he is throwing in free of charge. In spite of the very dry weather which has prevailed in the country with accompanying soil drifting, Mr. Brumwell has produced an average of twenty bushels of wheat per acre over a five year period. He has also accomplished considerable in the growing of grasses in soils usually not suitable for this growth. Another important function of this station is the distributing of seed to

Supply-Agricult urc-Farms

the people of the district. Last year Mr. Brumwell had a large quantity of 10-B marquis wheat which he distributed to the settlers. I have a couple of snapshots of this station which I shall send over to the minister. These show the shelter belt and the fruit trees which have been developed as an example to the people of the community. These snaps were taken during the field day held on July 27 of last year, and they give an idea of the interest the people take in that particular station. A few years ago the experimental farm at Scott supplied this supervisor with twenty turkey eggs. From that small beginning he has been able to raise the standard of the turkeys in that district with the result that in 1931 a carload shipped from Loverna weighed two pounds per turkey over the average for the province. The turkeys from the illustration station itself weighed two pounds per turkey higher than the rest of the shipment. The influence of this station upon the turkey business in that district is very remarkable. The field day last July was attended by upwards of 350 persons. According to the reports which appeared in the local paper as well as the report of the man in charge of the illustration station, these people spent a very profitable day inspecting the field plots, viewing the farm exhibit which had been sent down from Scott and listening to addresses dealing with gardening, soil drifting, weed control, the raising of turkeys and such like. Mr. Brumwell concludes his report of the work done by the station by saying:
In my opinion the illustration station is the best method brought forward to date to help solve farm problems and bring reliable first hand information to the farmer.
Those words summarize the lengthy report made by Mr. Brumwell. I hope the minister will continue the illustration stations wherever good work is being done. As far as the two in my own district are concerned, I can speak most highly of what has been accomplished there.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Do I understand that the total cost of all illustration stations in Canada is included in this item of $1,642,000?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What is the total cost of operating the illustration stations in the dominion?


Robert Weir: $80,000 for 209 stations.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister promised to establish a station at Hafford in my constituency; has this matter been settled as yet?


Robert Weir: My information is
that it has been.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What is the difference between the work done by an illustration station and that done by an experimental farm?


Robert Weir: They are entirely different. The value of the work accomplished by an illustration station depends largely if not entirely upon the work of the experimental farms. The purpose of an illustration station is to illustrate to the people the results which have been obtained at the experimental farms.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: For instance in northwestern Saskatchewan or, for that matter, in northern Saskatchewan, we have an experimental farm at Rosthern.


Robert Weir: And at Scott.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is pretty well south; I do not know whether you would include Scott in northern Saskatchewan. But there is a tremendous area northward that is developing very quickly, running from the North Saskatchewan river northward and westward, I understand that two years ago there was quite a demand for another experimental station north of the North Saskatchewan river and the opinion departmentally was voiced that in all likelihood that area would never get an experimental farm. What is the opinion of the minister as to that? That information came from some of the heads of the department.


Robert Weir: I am sorry I did
not catch what the hon. member said.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In the part of Saskatchewan known as the northwestern part of the province we have illustration stations, I understand, at Spruce lake-that has not been closed-at Meota, a splendid illustration station under the guidance of Mr. Walter Tait, one of the best farmers in that part of the province; one at Glenbush under Mr. Grant, and another at Meadow Lake. Will there be any opportunity in the future development of that great part of the province, the most productive and coming part of it, for an experimental farm? Must that part of the province always put up with a small number of illustration stations, and is the statement made by departmental officials that the day will never come when there will be an experimental farm in that part of Canada, true?


Robert Weir: I do not think any departmental official would be warranted in making such a statement.

Sup-ply-Agriculture-Farms


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I believe the statement
waa made, but if the minister thinks it should not have been, I shall leave the matter at that. If it ever was made, I am here to refute it, I do not care who made it, because the day will come when that part of western Canada should have an experimental farm. It is the park area of northern Saskatchewan and it is quite possible to have there an experimental farm devoted to problems entirely different from those dealt with by a farm established in a differently constituted and differently cultivated area. The question ought to be an open one. I do not think all the evidence is in yet to justify anyone making a ridiculous statement of that kind; but if it actually was made, I shall take the answer of the minister to the effect that it did not mean anything. As I say, the question is an open one and we shall be looking forward at some time in the future to having -as we should-an experimental farm in that part of western Canada.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Some time last year the herd of cattle which the department had at Swift Current was removed to a farm in Alberta. I should like to know from the minister the reason for that removal and whether it is the intention to establish another herd at the Swift Current experimental farm.


Robert Weir: Only part of the herd was removed from the Swift Current station. The work thus lost, if one considers it such, has been made up by feeding experiments that are being carried on there this year. Any results of experimental work that are obtained with reference to live stock in any of the experimental farms are, of course, made available to the Swift Current farm and from there, through the illustration stations surrounding it, to the farmers in that area. But we are carrying out there feeding experiments in connection with young lightweight cattle.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I understand the minister has received many protests from people in that area in connection with the removal of that herd. He says that only part of it was removed. My information was that practically the whole herd was removed. I appreciate the fact that the feeding experiments which have been carried on are valuable, but this government and, I believe, the Saskatchewan government as well, for some time have been trying to encourage diversified farming. When that herd was established at the Swift Current station, other experimental stations could get the benefit of the experiments carried on there. I should like to know the reason for removing that herd of cattle. On whose
recommendation was it transferred? After the department has finished the feeding experiments, is it the intention to build up that herd again?


Robert Weir: As regards the question of diversified farming, there are more cattle there now under experimentation than there were this time last year. We considered it advisable-and that was the recommendation made to me by my officials-that live stock breeding experiments should be more concentrated.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Did the recommendation for the removal of that herd come from the experimental station in Swift Current or from officials of the department at Ottawa or from officials of the station in Alberta to which the herd was transferred?


Robert Weir: No request came from Lacombe. The recommendation came from the department at Ottawa.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Was there any recommendation from the experimental station at Swift Current?


Robert Weir: I could not say.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Was the initial recommendation made from the experimental station at Swift Current?


Robert Weir: The whole live stock policy on experimental farms is directed by the Dominion Animal Husbandman. He visits the farms in the different provinces, discusses with the men there questions of animal husbandry, returns to Ottaw'a and sits in with the director and other heads of branches. At that meeting the policy for the next year is evolved. In that way it was decided that the change should be made with reference to the herd at Swift Current.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I want to clear this matter up if I can. There has been a reoprt that the officials at the experimental farm at Swift Current were desirous of having those cattle removed. I do not believe that is the fact and I should like to get the minister's assurance to that effect, so that we may have it as a matter of record.


Robert Weir: I would say without hesitation that is not the fact.


William Gilbert Weir: May I ask the minister what work the Dominion government is doing in the way of experimentation in the control of grasshoppers with respect to both their active control and poisoning?
Supply-Agriculture-Farms


Robert Weir: That comes not under the vote under discussion but under the entomology vote passed the last night we were in committee. Continuous studies are being made of the habits of various insects and it is only by such study that means of combating their spread and preventing constant damage can be evolved. There were men in the field practically all last summer, or at least during the period it was necessary for them to be there studying the life habits of those insects. From their observation and the knowledge gained, invaluable information will be given to the provincial authorities who, under the direction to a certain extent of our entomological specialists, will take all steps to avoid the damage which is anticipated this year.


William Gilbert Weir: I realize that
the item for the Destructive Insect and Pest Act was passed the other night, but this is really experimental work. Since that vote was passed, I have noticed a dispatch sent out from Ottawa with respect to the grasshopper situation in Manitoba. I have had two or three questions asked me by people in my constituency regarding this matter. The article before me is dated at Ottawa, and I suppose it came from the Department of Agriculture. It is as follows:
Ottawa, Feb. 28.-The prairie provinces are facing invasion. In Manitoba, particularly, will the brunt of battle be felt this summer. The enemy forces in that province alone will number at least 4,356,000,000,000, To combat that force "munition factories" in Manitoba are working day and night and a conference between provincial and federal strategists will be held in Winnipeg, on March 2, when the most intensive plan of campaign ever drawn up in Canada will be decided, it was announced by the Department of Agriculture Monday.
The enemy ? Just the humble but destructive grasshopper. The munitions? Technically they are known as "bait," a combination of "half and half" sawdust, bran and sodium arsenite. The conference? Leading entomologists headed by Norman Criddle.
The war will be waged against a new army but it really is but a continuance of battles which have been carried on for some years against the pest. Last year the invaders claimed 20,000 acres of grain crops but the defenders protected and saved 1,000,000 acres through their preventive measures.
This year Manitoba is preparing for one of its worst invasions in certain areas. It will cost the province in the neighbourhood of $150,000 to wage a battle in an infested area estimated at 1,000,000 acres.
Incidentally the introduction of sawdust in the bait is a Canadian discovery which saved $40,000 last year and which is now accepted in all parts of the continent.
A word about the enemy. One grasshopper lays about 200 eggs at a time, repeating the process four or five times during the season. The eggs are sheltered in "pockets" which confMr. W O. Weir.]
tain from 20 to 65 eggs each and it is estimated that from 100 to 100,000 eggs per square foot will be found over the infested area. It takes a grasshopper about 40 days to mature during which time it changes its coat five times before sprouting wings. Another month or two completes its life span unless it falls prey to the bait. Last year 140 bushels of grasshoppers were killed by this bait to one acre.
To provide the bait, 70 machines are in operation in Manitoba which turn out 100 pounds of bait every five minutes. Some are in operation day and night.
This report comes from Ottawa. I know that the province of Manitoba is expecting to spend $150,000, and local people are working day and night on their machines to save their crops. The question I should like to ask is: How much does the Dominion government pay towards such a campaign?


Robert Weir: Nothing, so far as
the material is concerned.


William Gilbert Weir: What does the Dominion government really contribute? I think the minister must realize that the grasshopper invasion is really a calamity to the area affected, and my submission is that the dominion should come in and play a greater part than they do at the present time. This year I am afraid it will be far beyond the ability of the province or the municipalities to deal with the area which will be affected.


Robert Weir: I think the hon. member will agree, that when he suggests the dominion is not making a contribution he has lost sight of the fact that it is perhaps making the greatest contribution, because were it not for the specialists from the entomological branch who have made such a thorough study in the laboratories and fields and are able beforehand to advise provincial government authorities of the danger, the location of it, when to expect it and its extent, those provincial authorities would be powerless. The policy which has been adopted for some time, and which in my view is a fair one, is that that is our contribution, but that the responsibility of supplying material and the necessary workers to do the actual labour is that of the province and the municipalities.


William Gilbert Weir: I appreciate what the minister has said. I know of the very good work that Norman Criddle of Treesbank, Manitoba, is doing, because that gentleman happens to be in my constituency. I know he is cooperating with the provincial Department of Agriculture. Probably the minister can defend his position by saying that the dominion department is attempting to do scientific work. I submit, however, that when

Supply

Agriculture-Farms
the people see a statement such as I have read coming from Ottawa they have no appreciation of the Dominion government's share in the matter. I think the minister would be acting for the good of his department were he ito emphasize to a greater extent the very valuable work Mr. Criddle has been doing in the province of Manitoba.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Shall the item carry?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No. There are two more points I should like to clear up before leaving this item. I refer, first, to the intended illustration station at Hafford. The minister said it was practically in the same position as it was a year or so ago. May I ask him what his intentions are in regard to that station? I should like to say the minister very kindly investigated the possibility of an investigation station at Hafford, or had his department do so, and after investigation gave his word that there would be an illustration station at that point. When the minister has given his word to that effect I know it will be kept. I am asking him, however, if he has any further definite information on the point so that the Hafford district will know its position in that connection without delay.


Robert Weir: The illustration
station has already been established for this year on the farm of Mr. Hudek.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Before the election of 1930, if I remember correctly, and my memory is fairly good, the previous government investigated the area westward from Meadow Lake towards the Alberta boundary line, and the area of country northwest of North Battle-ford, with a view to establishing an illustration station that would help farmers farm more successfully. There is an illustration station at Spruce Lake and one at Meadow Lake. West of Meadow' Lake and north of Spruce Lake and North Battleford, there is an immense area of country, new productive agricultural land the importance of which, I believe, I called to the attention of the minister since his government took office. I am of the opinion he said he would investigate matters some time in the future. I am not sure whether any investigation has taken place or not, but I should like to know to-night whether the government has any intention of looking into that new area with a view to the establishment of an illustration station there in the near future.


Robert Weir: Is Piapot in that district?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No; I think the minister knows the area in question.


Robert Weir: I know the district. There is another illustration station somewhere in that northwest area, and I was wondering if that was the one. However, I shall look into the matter and let the hon. member know.


Olof Hanson: I was not satisfied with the answer I received about the experimental farm in north British Columbia. Are there any experimental plots along the Canadian National railway between Yellowhead pass and Prince Rupert? If so, where are they?


Robert Weir: Is the hon. member referring to an experimental farm or an illustration station?


Olof Hanson: Illustration stations. It would be in the Cariboo and Skeena electoral ridings.


Robert Weir: The following
illustration stations are on the main line; McBride, Prince George-there are two in the vicinity of Prince George-Telkwa and Vanderhoof.


Olof Hanson: I notice in Hansard for 1928 at page 575 Mr. Motherwell who was then Minister of Agriculture made a strong plea that something should be done in that part of the country. Also at page 577 Mr. Tolmie strongly advocated that something be done in that territory, which covers several thousand square miles. I may say that lately they have built at least one country elevator in there, and if given a little encouragement it will be a great country for home builders, which after all is what we are trying to induce people to become. I strongly urge the minister to give the matter his personal consideration. I know he has not been out there himself, but both his predecessors have been there and looked into it and I hope the present minister will do the same.


Mr. LUCAS:: Some time ago information
was given that a new grass was introduced that gives special promise for certain sections of western Canada, I think it was called crested wheat grass. Can the minister say what progress has been made with that, and if it is fulfilling its promise?


Robert Weir: The results obtained from the grass known as crested wheat grass are very satisfactory. Pure line strains have been developed, and every possible means is being employed to propagate them and in-
361S
Supply-Agriculture-Farms

crease them as quickly as possible. As soon as we have a quantity available it is distributed to three selected or recommended farmers in each of several municipalities on the understanding that they will either pay for it in two payments or else return to the department the same amount of seed, which in turn is distributed. That policy has been carried out on the recommendation of a committee consisting of members of the provincial and federal departments of agriculture. It is being propagated and increased very rapidly.


William Thomas Lucas: It is not open for distribution to individual farmers?


Robert Weir: Oh, yes.


William Thomas Lucas: From the experimental farms?


Robert Weir: One farmer in the
southern part of Alberta-I do not recall his name-had a considerable quantity to sell this year, up in the thousands of pounds, of very high class crested wheat grass.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister give
any information as to the value of this grass in comparison with others?


Robert Weir: In nutritive value
I understand that it ranks very high, if not at the top-that is in grasses as distinct from clovers. Not only that, but it is very palatable; horses and cattle prefer it, even when allowed to get quite ripe, to some of the other grasses like western rye grass. It also has the peculiar quality of being able to withstand drought even better than the rye grasses and brome. It becomes dormant during the long drought, and then responds very quickly to the least moisture.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Some of
the experimental farms have been doing considerable work in connection with the testing and demonstration of machinery, how best to handle it, how best to hitch it up, and I think something in connection with the use of tractors. However, the fall in prices has put an end to the tractor business, we are back in the horse-power age. I have often thought that one of the things that disgusts a great many people in working horses is that they do not know how to handle them. Horses require to have their feet trimmed, and some of them geit bad habits, and while there are well known and effective methods of dealing with horses that are what is usually called "mean," the knowledge is not generally distributed. I wonder if it would not be a good thing if some branch of the Department of Agriculture would undertake to collect in a bulletin and distribute to the farmers
[Mr. R. Weir.}
of Canada information as to how to trim horses' feet, how to make them lift their feet, and how to deal with horses that are hard to handle, kickers and so on. I believe it would be of very great help, because some people have literally been driven off the farm on account of their being utterly unable to handle horses.


Robert Weir: I believe much information of that nature has been sent out. The hon. member, himself a farmer, will realize that in perhaps the majority of cases, at any rate in a great many, the trouble starts with the man who is handling the horse. However, it is a very good suggestion and we will look into it.


Frederick William Gershaw: To come back to the
crested wheat grass, Mr. W. H. Moore of Bindloss sold some seed to the department, but his trouble was that he was left with a lot of seed that he could not sell. Can the minister tell me where he might find a market for it?


Robert Weir: We shall be glad
to look into that. I might say I helped him out myself to the extent of about one thousand pounds. That is the name I could not think of before. Professor Kirk I know has his name on his list, and I think the last time I spoke to him he thought he would be able to help him dispose of it all. But I shall be glad to refer it to him again.


Mr. TAYLOR:: I would like to ask what
is included in this vote for carrying out the work at the experimental farm at Harrow, Ontario, and what work is carried on at Harrow?


Robert Weir: In the neighbourhood of $40,000. The chief work carried on there is in connection with tobacco, and also a great deal of work in connection with soybeans.


William Horace Taylor: At the time the station at Harrow was first established I believe that section of Ontario was perhaps the only part growing tobacco. Since then the Norfolk-Elgin-Oxford district has developed tobacco growing to a much greater extent, and in that section they are now producing almost all the tobacco grown in Ontario. There is a request from the growers of that section and from the board of trade of Delhi that the department establish a station at Delhi for experimental work. The soil and climate being different from those at Harrow, they feel it is very important on account of the large production of tobacco there that the department carry on some experimental work

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
in that county. I know that the minister has had a request for the establishment of a station at Delhi, and has had considerable time to think it over. I was wondering if he could tell us now his decision in the matter.


Robert Weir: We have under consideration the establishment of a substation at Delhi. The district has been surveyed with the hope of obtaining a lease. It will be under the supervision of the man in charge at Harrow. It is very difficult to get men sufficiently well trained to undertake this work, and we feel that it is better when we have a man sufficiently well trained, to extend his usefulness as much as possible rather than to establish a new experimental farm.


William Horace Taylor: Who is the man in charge at Harrow now?


Robert Weir: Mr. Murwin.


John Vallance: Before this item passes, Mr. Chairman, following your decision that we should discuss marketing at this time I should like to ask the minister whether it is correct that the stockyards throughout Canada are under the control of the federal government and the Department of Agriculture. If that is so, as I think it is, I should like to direct the minister's attention to a condition which I pointed out to him some three or four months ago. Are the fees charged for the use of the stockyards the same in all cases regardless of who brings in the stock and in what manner it is delivered?


Robert Weir: I thought the chairman ruled that these questions should be discussed under the live stock vote, which is where I think they should be brought up. However, I may say that we have made a very careful study of the whole stockyard situation during the past year. We feel that there is much that is not to be desired in connection with the way the charges are set out, but according to our information only two stockyards in the dominion are paying dividends. We sent out a letter asking the various stockyards to report as to whether or not they would make a voluntary reduction of ten per cent in certain charges, and in that letter it was intimated that if this was not done a further investigation would have to be carried out. To make it short, however, the point is this: I feel that the charges are too high, but my information does not put me in a position to take the responsibility of saying that they must materially reduce their charges, lest by doing so wo might put some
of them out of business. Until we get further information with regard to their finances I do not feel like taking that responsibility, but with that exception I have no doubt a reduction could be made.


John Vallance: There is one point I should like to draw to the attention of the minister, and no doubt it has been mentioned previously. Let us take for example the stock yards of Saskatoon or Moose Jaw. To-day a farmer delivering a truckload of hogs to either of those stockyards is penalized, while a railway carload of hogs receives a certain consideration. As the minister knows, farmers living even some considerable distance from those two stockyards are trucking their hogs, and I should like to know whether the minister is aware of the fact that the farmer who delivers his hogs by truck is being penalized to the extent of one dollar per head. If the minister is aware of that fact could he say why that is being done?


Robert Weir: I must say that I did not know of this practice. Does my hon. friend say that if a farmer delivers a truckload of hogs to the stockyards he is liable to that charge?


John Vallance: Yes. Could the minister give the reason why that is so?


Robert Weir: Is that where no service is given?


John Vallance: Is this really a penalty imposed on the farmer; is it to prevent the farmer from delivering his hogs by truck or is it to encourage shipment over the railroads? In my humble opinion, Mr. Chairman, whether a farmer delivers his hogs by driving them ahead of him, as is done in Ireland, or by a truck or by the railway, there should be no discrimination. If this has not been drawn to the attention of the minister I think it should be looked into right away.


Robert Weir: I appreciate having this drawn to my question. I cannot possibly see how it could be true that there is this discrimination, but I shall be glad to look into the matter.


John Vallance: I can assure the minister that this practice was in vogue as recently as last summer, at all events. We are shipping hogs by truck from in and around the Luseland district, and the farmers are being penalized to the extent of one dollar per head because of that fact.



Supply-Agriculture-Farms


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Would the minister
advise the committee how the vote for the Kapuskasing experimental farm this year compares with the vote last year?


Robert Weir: 
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am quite free to
criticize the parsimony of this government in that regard because when I sat on the government side I found it necessary to criticize the former government for not devoting a larger amount of money to that farm. We in northern Ontario received no benefit from the wheat bonus scheme because we cannot produce wheat, and the stabilization fund created under this budget in order to aid the exporter of farm products will not help us either. The only compensation we have in our part of the country is the Kapuskasing experimental farm, which formerly sold the settlers pedigreed stock and poultry, as well as the produce of the farm, practically at cost prices. Ever since I have been in this house I have had to criticize the Department of Agriculture for not giving that farm the amount of money it should receive, having regard to the large territory it serves and the great benefit it is to the people there.
The manager of that farm is well known to every settler in northern Ontario; I believe he is a personal friend of the Minister of Labour, and there is no doubt that he is the proper man in the proper place. I know he has always found it difficult to make both ends meet. When the big power plant and the Spruce Falls paper plant were being constructed some settlers resented the fact that the horses from the experimental farm were used in competition with the horses of the settlers, but on making inquiry I found that the management of the farm had to find some employment for those horses in order to balance the yearly budget. I maintain that this is not the way to deal with an institution of that kind. Having in mind the work that is being done in placing a large number of families back on the land in our section of the country; having in mind also the fact that most of our settlers find it impossible to go a long distance in order to obtain pedigreed stock, I believe the government should continue the practice of raising cattle on the Kapuskasing experimental farm. I understand that two years ago those in charge of the work of that farm had to curtail that work through lack of funds, and I plead with the Minister of Agriculture to have it undertaken again. Surely the federal treasury should find it 
possible to look after the requirements of our fine agricultural population in northern Ontario.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, the legislation that has been brought forward in this parliament during the last three years may have proved beneficial to other parts of the country. We do not quarrel with that; we are satisfied that $8,000,000 or $9,000,000 should be given the wheat growers of the west, and we are satisfied that the primary producers of eastern Canada as well as of the prairie provinces should benefit to the extent of millions of dollars under this stabilization scheme. But I could easily prove that that will not be worth anything to us, because we are not on an export basis. Surely the Department of Agriculture could find it possible not only to maintain the present activities of the Kapuskasing experimental farm but to enlarge them considerably. It would be money well spent. Most of our settlers are not yet farmers and they need pedigreed stock to start new herds, but they cannot afford to come down here and bring them back and pay travelling expenses. In the past, and I give the government credit for this, the experimental farm at Kapuskasing has found it possible to sell at cost price poultry, chickens and hogs, and that has been very beneficial to our section of the country, but under this vote that farm will find it absolutely impossible to continue those activities. I hope the minister will take my plea into serious consideration and find it possible to increase the vote on account of the situation with which we are faced in that part of the country.


Robert Weir: With reference to the hiring of horses in the lumber camps, that has not been done in the last two years. So far as reducing the herd of cattle is concerned, as the pure bred stock increased in numbers the grade cattle were disposed of. We are in a position so far as live stock is concerned to give the same service as we have given in the past. I am sure that those in charge of the experimental farm will appreciate this commendation of the work they are doing, especially of the distribution of the best blood lines of live stock to the settlers at cost price.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: 
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: How much was spent
last year by the experimental farm at . Laooimbe, Alberta, and how much is it proposed to spend this year?


Robert Weir: Last year $42,500,
and this year approximately the same.


Alfred Speakman: I am glad that the
amount is not going to be reduced. Indeed, I hope the time will come when the expenditure .may be increased. That farm is no longer in my riding and therefore I cannot speak for it as its representative, but it is within twenty miles of my own home and I continue my practice of visiting it two or three times a year and going over the place in a businesslike way to find out how much money is being spent, whether it is being spent to the best advantage, and where money might be saved.
There are two or three lines of work being carried on there which are very beneficial. First I would mention the number of meetings which are addressed by the superintendent and his staff. They are almost as much embarrassed in that respect as members of parlia-53719-229J
ment, although I believe they are even more popular than many members of parliament. It is a great tribute to their work that they should be asked every year to address an increasing number of meetings. When you add to that the fact that their correspondence is equal almost to that of a department of government and is extending over wider and wider areas, I think that may be taken as a fairly good criterion of the value which the people of that district attach to the work that is being done. One particular piece of work is carried on there in cooperation with the elevator companies-I ' do not know whether it is done in other parts of Canada- which to my mind is a very splendid piece of work. Different elevators are cooperating with the farm and taking from each farmer's wheat as it is hauled in a fair-sized sample of the typical wheat that that farmer sells, and asking him whether he intends to sow that again next year. Then these different samples are sown in small plots on the farm- the farmers whose samples are planted are not known to the superintendent by name at all, each farmer being given a number. When the farmer goes to the station in the fall he can see there his own sample growing alongside samples that have been sent in by other farmers, and when the big field day comes, much interest is taken by hundreds of farmers who come to see the results in their plots, and compare them with that of their neighbours. They can see whether they are getting a mixed grade, or whether their grain is dirty or weedy. To my mind that is one of the most useful pieces of work that can be done, and it certainly is resulting in a great many of the farmers discarding their own seed; and getting better seed.
I have always been a very strong supporter of the experimental farms even in times of economic stress, because I realize, as most farmers do, that no matter what the economic conditions may be and no matter what the market price, the basis of a good price, the foundation of success, must commence with good seed grown under proper conditions and *in a proper way. I just wanted to add my tribute of praise to the work which the experimental farms are doing. We on this side usually criticize the government because that is the duty of members on the opposition side, but I have kept very close watch on the work that this particular farm has been doing for a good many years now, both under the present minister and the former minister. I cannot say that the work is improving particularly because it was always good under both ministers, but the work is certainly being

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
increasingly appreciated by the farmers, and in spite of the hard times I am sure that the expenditure there is as popular an expenditure, even with the farmers, as could possibly be made by the minister.


Robert Weir: I think my hon.
friend from South Battleford a few moments ago said that the penalty was one dollar per hog.


John Vallance: Yes.


Robert Weir: My information is
that at one time there was a charge of one dollar per truck, which would work out to five cents a hog, because the stockyards felt that there was more work in handling hogs unloaded from trucks. I could not say whether or not that is still in vogue, but I shall investigate to make'sure.


John Vallance: The itemized particulars were handed to me just before I left last fall and I really left the chamber to get them. However, I was not able to locate the information.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There is one more question I would like to ask in connection with live stock.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: We have
two items covering live stock and unless it is intended to exhaust this whole matter at this time, I would suggest to the committee that further discussion upon live stock be postponed until we reach those items.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Very well.


William Richard Motherwell: A very promising
rust resistant wheat was developed at the rust laboratory at Winnipeg and I was wondering if any further progress has been made. It would mean a lot to the farmers if a good rust resistant wheat with sufficient quality of grain and straw were discovered. Is this rust laboratory still under the Department of Agriculture, or has it been changed over to the National Research Council? I frequently see items in the press, especially the Winnipeg press, giving interviews with Doctor Tory after he has made a visit to this laboratory, which leads one to believe that this rust research work is under his charge. Has there been any change in the administration of this laboratory?


Robert Weir: Excellent progress
has been made in the development of a rust resistant wheat. Six strains have been developed which are not only rust resistant but which have been found to be quite high in yield, and baking quality. These strains are being increased this year under close super-

vision and it is hoped that some will be available for distribution next year. As the hon. member knows, the greatest precaution must be taken with these wheats. Publicity cannot be given to their development, lest people try to get a few odd heads and try to multiply them without knowing just exactly what they are. As far as the supervision and administration of the rust laboratory is concerned, the building was built by the Department of Agriculture and I understand that every official is paid from the vote of the department. I do not know of any contribution received from outside the department.


William Richard Motherwell: What is happening in connection with the poultry disease known as puMorum? We do not hear so much about this work these days. This is a very malignant and contagious disease and I should like to know if its spread has been limited to such a point that no further attention need be given to it; or has this work been taken over by the provincial departments of agriculture?


Robert Weir: At the conference
in Toronto and at later discussions a definite policy was discussed with the various provinces. They have practically all agreed in principle to cooperate with the federal government in order to carry on this work at the minimum cost.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) has pleaded long and earnestly, as did his predecessor, for an experimental farm along the old Grand Trunk, as it is called, east of Prince Rupert. My predecessor and the minister's predecessor both gave some assurance to the people out there that the next experimental farm would be located in that territory. That may not have been a wise promise to make but in any event the next farm has not materialized. It is something like to-morrow which never comes. In view of the shrinkage in finances, I would make the suggestion that log cottages and barns be erected in this territory which could be used as pioneer buildings for a future experimental farm layout. There is plenty of timber suitable for construction purposes and the minister and his staff could lay out a farm at very small expense. These would be only log buildings but the times through which we are passing make me think that perhaps we will have to go back somewhat to pioneer days. All that would be necessary would be two or three good axemen and some loggers to get out the timber. Not only a house but a barn could be erected to act as an example to the community. I do not insist that the minister make a reply just now, but I leave

Supply-Agriculture-Animals
this suggestion with him. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh) and others, speak so highly of the work of the illustration stations. What was the maximum number of these stations?


Robert Weir: There were 241 at one time.


William Richard Motherwell: How many are there now?


Robert Weir: There are 209.


William Richard Motherwell: That is not getting more fast. I have no doubt that it has been found that some of these stations were not very active. The value of the work performed is dependent largely upon the character and the ambition and resourcefulness of the man in charge, and no doubt certain stations have to be dropped from time to time. The total number of these stations should be kept up however and not to do so is just another illustration of the penny wise and pound foolish policy of the government in cutting the agriculture estimates. As I have said before, this cannot be done without great sacrifice to agriculture. I do not altogether blame the minister because I know what it is to be in a cabinet of sixteen or seventeen. Every minister wants to get his arm into the bag up to his shoulder, and the other sixteen see to it good and plenty that the seventeenth does not get in too far. I urge that the estimates of the Department of Agriculture be spared. A number of instances have been cited to-night where important services have suffered because of this foolish and unwise policy of saving a few pennies and losing many pounds. I draw this matter to the attention of the three or four colleagues of the minister who are present to-night. I know they all think that they have to rustle for their own but they should remember that agriculture supports and employs nearly half the people of Canada, and feeds them all. That department should not be niggered down the way it has been during the last two years.
Now, a word more cheerful than that. Our interest in Reward wheat has not slackened because of the other rust resistant one that is being developed at Winnipeg. Reward wheat has itself a substantial amount of rust resistance. I think I could ask, without fear of causing too much of a rush: Is this strain sufficiently multiplied to let it out to individual farmers?


Robert Weir: Next year we hope it will be.


Alfred Speakman: I wish to say one more thing I had in mind with respect to the Lacombe farm, and what I say as to it will apply to others, but I speak with greater knowledge of it. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance as to the ten per cent cut to foe made on these estimates when they come to be spent, may I ask the minister to take this farm into special consideration when the question of cutting the vote for experimental farms by ten per cent comes up. There are some-and no doubt the minister knows of them-where expenditures could be cut without impairing the service, but I can give it as my definite opinion, for what it is worth, that to make a cut on this farm, with which I am more familiar, would mean reducing efficiency and service, because I believe the men on it are now giving every dollar of value and every hour of service they can. To make in this case the ten per cent cut threatened would simply mean reducing the efficiency of the service by at least ten per cent, and in these das's when farms should be run better than usual and not worse, we cannot afford any reduction in efficiency.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals, administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and the Meat and Canned Foods Act, $1,817,991.
John Livingstone Brown: The minister of course is aware that many rumours have been circulated as to the way in which this health of animals branch is to be treated. Is he aware of the rumour ithat it was to be joined up with the live stock branch Would he allay the fears of the people of Canada by making a definite statement of his policy in regard to the matter? We only hope the reported statement is not true.


Robert Weir: I do not know to what particular rumour the hon. member refers, any more than that there was an indefinite statement that the health of animals branch was in some wiay to be allied with the live stock branch.


John Livingstone Brown: That is the statement.


Robert Weir: I do not know the details of the rumour. I saw in one of the western papers a report in which it would take a great deal of painstaking investigation to discover any item of truth, it was so absurd. Perhaps there are things that might be much more unnatural than the closer association of those two branches, even making into one branch, because work in connection with health of animals has to do almost entirely

Supply-Agriculture-Animals
with the question of live stock. It was stated, for instance, in one of the reports, that it would be a mistake to put the health of animals branch under a layman. As a matter of fact it has been under one layman or two laymen for quite a number of years. It is under the deputy minister, who is a layman, and it is also under the Minister of Agriculture. Surely no one would object if it were decided to put it under the live stock commissioner; it would not lose anything in that connection, especially if it retained the same specialists as it has at present in charge of it. A good deal of thought has been given by the heads of both branches as to how they could amalgamate some of the services, for instance, in the city of Moose Jaw, the hog graders and the stockyard agents who are under the live stock branch and the stock car inspectors and some other officials who are under the health of animals branch. But I can assure hon. gentlemen that no one in the house is more anxious than I am, for the sake of the live stock industry, to retain to the full the efficiency of the health of animals branch and in any way that we can to increase that efficiency. Practically my whole stake in agriculture is in live stock, and perabps it is because of the work I have been carrying on in that connection, the consideration and investigation of the whole problem, that some of these unwarranted rumours have arisen by people being overanxious to criticize, regardless of the false statements they may make through the press, upsetting the public. So far as I am concerned, in connection with the health of animals branch or the live stock branch, nothing will be done that will in any way lower the efficiency of those connected with the live stock industry.
There are, however, problems with which we are confronted. As the health of animals branch extends its scope and therefore is forced to take on additional staff and to undertake work that previously had been done by private practitioners, the tendency is to drive the private practitioners out of business. The most important thing, perhaps as important as the health of animals branch, is that we should retain and encourage in all parts of the dominion where live stock are found, the highly efficient services of private practitioners. That has been the chief line along which our investigation has taken us. We think now we have reached a conclusion as to a method by which some of the work of the health of animals branch can be done by private practitioners as cheaply as, if perhaps not more cheaply than, it is being done at the present time. In this way we shall safeguard the work by having private practitioners, who

wish to avail themselves of this work and the remuneration in connection with it, pass examinations set by the veterinary director general and his staff. Their work will be carried on, as it is at present, under the veterinary director general. Our veterinary colleges are now being attended by too few men and the brightest young men who attend those colleges are, because they are bright, absorbed by the health of animals branch as soon as they graduate. They might have a great future if they went into private practice, but we hope to make the remuneration better for them. As I say, because they are bright, we take them into the health of animals branch in various capacities, and their work there, although of importance, is to a great extent routine. Therefore they are not developing their abilities and their value to a large degree is lost to the live stock industry of the country. That perhaps is the most important statement I would have to make in regard to some reorganization that may take place.
Second, it is felt that we can combine under a common head some of the work that is being done. For instance, in British Columbia or Saskatchewan or Alberta there is a district inspector who is in charge only of men doing field work, that is veterinaries who are situated at boundary points or are doing work such as tuberculosis testing or other work. Besides that there is under the health of animals branch another group of men such as meat inspectors, stock car inspectors and so on. They are not in any way subject to the man who is in charge of the field men, but have another head. After full discussion we have felt it is only logical that the one man should be sufficiently qualified to look after both branches because in the province of Saskatchewan I believe there are at present eighteen field men, four of whom are boundary point men. So that there are really only fourteen field men left, and to supervise those fourteen there is another man whose work is not to go into the field and do actual field work but to administer the office, with the assistance of a clerk and a stenographer. We think he should do that work well and in addition supervise the other work, which would make the health of animals work in the province just as efficient, and probably more so in that it would be under one head.
It would also make it better for people making inquiries because they would know where to go. Sometimes serious mistakes are made, not particularly in this connection but in the various branches of agriculture, because information has been received from the wrong

Supply-Agriculture-Animals
person. For instance, we have located in Vancouver various offices for the different branches of agriculture. One man told me it would take him a full day to visit all those offices if it were necessary for him to do so, because they are in different parts of the city. A man who wanted information regarding the importation of wheat went to the health of animals office and asked with what conditions he had to comply before importing. The answer was that as long as it came in new sacks it would be allowed in. The result was that a very considerable shipment of wheat was made, complying with this provision for new sacks, but when it arrived at Vancouver it could not be unloaded, because in the first instance the man had not gone also to the entomological branch. He should have gone there also and inquired what regulations they had governing importations. These provided that it was necessary to have a certificate from the Australian authorities to the effect that the shipment was free from flax smut.
That is the general line along which we are working in connection with the reorganization of the health of animals branch and live stock branch. The one guiding principle is that there shall be full discussion of every related question, and only after that shall we do what we decide is in the best interests of the five stock industry without lowering its efficiency.


John Livingstone Brown: I am glad the minister has announced his policy of giving consideration to local practitioners. It is a matter of serious concern in farming communities today that under present conditions we are threatened with losing the services of our skilled veterinary surgeons. The increasing use of the automobile and the prevailing hard times have made it very difficult for local veterinary surgeons to live decently, and I believe it would be in the interests of the department as well as of the rural communities that the services of these men should be utilized as far as possible in doing departmental work. I believe the work could be done as efficiently by these men as by any others, and we would be assured that rural communities would not be deprived of a very necessary service. I know veterinary surgeons have felt the matter very keenly. I have had representations from a number of them asking that the testing of cattle for the establishment of restricted areas might be committed to 'their care. If a man kept himself abreast of the times, there 'is no reason why he should not be able to perform the work as efficiently as the men sent out by the department.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Like the
hon. member for Lisgar, I heard the report that there was to be a merger between the health of animate and the live stock branch. I am pleased to hear the minister's explanation. What I am about to say I do not think I need direct particularly to the minister, because I know he is very much interested in the live stock industry. I wish merely to draw attention to the importance of the health of animate branch. This is a branch which after a great many years has been built up. It was begun by Doctor Rutherford a number of years ago, and through his efforts an efficient staff and organization has been created. I believe if there is any change in or interference with the work of the health of animals branch it will be resented throughout the country.
A moment ago the minister said he had had representations stating that laymen should not be placed in charge. I realize that that is so, and that only the most qualified veterinary surgeons should do the work of the health of animals branch, or be at the head of it. I should like to turn to the report of the Minister of Agriculture for last year. At page 87, with reference to the foot and mouth disease, he states the following:
Foot and mouth disease continues to be prevalent on the continent of Europe and in many other parts of the world, and the insidious nature of this infection makes it necessary to take the strictest precautions to exclude it from Canada.
Foot and mouth disease has never prevailed in Canada. There have been many outbreaks in the United States at various times, but it has never been allowed to come into Canada. Hon. members who have the report of the minister may read at page 88 some of the precautions taken during the last outbreak to prevent the germ entering Canada. I do not believe the precautions were unnecessary, by any means, because this is a most virulent disease. I attended a veterinary college and graduated about thirty years ago, and I want to say to the minister that I do not agree with him when he states that young men should be encouraged to go into the rural districts and try to make a living from a veterinary practice, because the ones who are in practice are finding it very difficult to exist under present conditions. Twenty-five or thirty years ago in the part of the country in which I was practising it was quite common for me to run into a case of glanders. I have known twenty or thirty horses to be killed by that disease in a small district inside of one year. Around

Supply-Agriculture-Animals
about 1906, 1907 or 1908 the compensation paid for glanders alone was about $40,000 or $60,000 each year. The minister's latest report, which I have before me, shows that last year in all of Canada only one animal was killed. Just think what that means! It means that glanders has been practically exterminated from Canada.
Mange is another disease with which we have to contend. It was quite prevalent in western Canada, and although not as fatal as glanders among horses and cattle, still it caused a great deal of loss. From the report before me I find that to-day there is very little mange among horses and cattle in Canada. This is important not only from the standpoint of a reduced loss of stock; we must think of the serious results that would follow if the foot and mouth disease became prevalent among sheep and cattle in Canada. It would mean not only the loss of animals but the loss of markets, because probably for a long -while we would be excluded from the markets of the world. If there is any curtailment of the work of the health of animals branch I am afraid that when there is another outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United States-because they seem to come quite frequently-it will come in this country as well. The value of live stock in Canada in 1929 was something between $800,000,000 and $900,000,000; to-day it is probably not more than half of that. The compensation being paid to-day is low compared with that of a few years ago, largely due to the activities of the health of animals branch. It is a very efficient department, and I hope that members of this house will not be carried away with the idea that there is any advantage in curtailing its support. It would be a disaster to Canada not to continue to guard against diseases of animals as we have in the past.


Thomas Reid: I wonder if the minister has any information regarding research in the Fraser valley in connection with a disease peculiar to cows there, how far it has progressed and what has been done.


Robert Weir: It has been demonstrated that it is not contagious. We have not been able to decide yet whether or not it is due to a deficdemcy in the food in certain areas.


Thomas Reid: Then I want to refer to a disease of poultry that I believe should be investigated by the Department of Agriculture. As the minister well knows, British Columbia is peculiarly adapted for poultry 
raising. It is the only province, I believe, that has gone in for poultry in a specialized *way. In other provinces poultry is a side line, but on the Pacific coast it is a highly specialized industry, particularly in the Fraser valley and on Vancouver island. We have been baffled there by a disease known as poultry paralysis, and it seems to me that the research work in that connection should be handled by the Department of Agriculture. In the past a little help in the way of money was given by the National Research Council to British Columbia university, and some work was done there in an attempt to find out more about this disease. No one knows its origin; they do not know whether or not it is contagious, but when it strikes a flock hundreds of fowls will die in a night. We heard in the early part of the evening discussions of a grant of $10,000 and of inspectors and professors being sent to various parts of the country conducting investigations about apples. But here is something affecting an industry in which thousands are engaged, hundreds in the Fraser valley alone, and we believe this should be under the Department of Agriculture and that an appropriation should be given to carry on this research work until the cause and cure of this disease are discovered. At present we have to go to the Department of Trade and Commerce and ask them to be good enough to put through a \ote from the research council. I plead very seriously with the Minister of Agriculture to help this work, because it is very, very important to the poultry producers of British Columbia.


Robert Weir: Some five or six years ago the British Columbia government through the university asked that the National Research Council undertake the investigation of this disease. Wishing to avoid duplication, our health of animals branch has not undertaken it. But I will take into consideration what the hon. member has said, although I do not yet very well see how we could interfere in work that they have specifically asked another organization to undertake.


Thomas Reid: The reason I ask is that I believe for two years some financial help was given through the research council to the university, but it was stopped last fall. It was said that retrenchment was necessary and they felt they could not carry on any further. They also said that the research work had been carried out but no information had been obtained. I believe that is a very poor excuse, that just because no results had accrued they were stopping the work. I maintain

Supply-Agriculture-Animals
that this work should be carried on by the health of animals branch. Surely there can be no conflict of jurisdiction in the matter of diseases of animals.


Mr. RHEAUME:: Why has the minister reduced by $255,000 the estimate for health of animals?


Robert Weir: It was felt that there was sufficient to keep the staff occupied in such work as retests. It is the conduct of initial tests that really takes the money.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Tests were made in 1930 in St. Johns-Iberville and in the constituency of Laprairie-Napieirville and neighbouring districts. Why have no tests been made since 1930?


Robert Weir: The size of staff has been the chief reason why we have not got at it. We are going at it this year, and also in other areas, especially where the first test had been very heavy. In one district, for example, the first test showed around forty per cent reactors, indicating that the disease was very prevalent, and we feel that that territory should be checked very closely. There are other territories where the initial tests showed a very small prevalence of the disease. That is the general policy of the branch as to the order in which they do these tests. But I am informed that St. Johns-Iberville is to be one of the first areas to be retested this year.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I know there is a lot in Chambly-Vercheres, Laprairie-Napierville and Brome-Missisquoi. I do not know why the government spent so much money in 1928-30 and did not go round each year following. I think it is best to watch that test to get good results.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Speaking of the tuberculin tests in northern Ontario for the last three years, the municipalities getting the milk from the farmers have been asking for the test, and as we do not belong to any federal zone it means that the tests are sometimes not very satisfactory to the settlers on account of the fact that the veterinarians are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government. It is true that the stock which is rejected could be sold to some packing house in Toronto, but I remember the case of my own brother who sent twelve head of cattle and received a cheque for fifty cents each, showing that it is an absolute loss to the settlers in our section. Of course the municipalities have a perfect right to a supply of milk free from tuberculosis, but the federal
government, considering that they are not creating any new zones, should find it possible to have at least proper inspection. I refer to the fact that we have a certain doubt of the ability and capacity of some of the veterinarians coming out there. Some of them will say it is a simple test, but that does not satisfy the settlers unless they know he is a man officially appointed by the federal government. I believe this anomaly should be corrected now. If it is not possible for the government to establish these tuberculin zones, which I believe to be the solution of the problem, at least they should have one or two well qualified veterinaries who could be given certificates from the federal government conferring the right and power to make these tests. There is one man whose name I cannot remember at the moment who said he was fully qualified to do this work. I do not doubt his qualifications but his tests were not satisfactory to the people because he did not have a certificate from the federal government.
This is a very important matter to our section of the country. I know of one man who lost seventeen out of twenty-two animals in one examination, and that shows how far tuberculosis has spread in northern Ontario. When one remembers that the original settlers had to buy scrub stock from the older part of Ontario it will be seen wthy this is so, and this means so much to our settlers and to the milk supply of the centres of population such as Timmins, Kapuskasing, Cochrane, Kirkland Lake and so on, that I believe the federal government should take a hand. I repeat that I think the best solution would be the establishment of a zone embracing the whole of northern Ontario, but if that is not possible then it is the duty of the federal government to see that proper inspections are made.
Another anomaly, due to the fact that we are not in a tuberculin zone, is that the people who do not supply milk to the different centres of population need not have that inspection; it is optional. A herd which has been duly tested and weeded out may be contaminated by a neighbouring herd, so that it will be polluted again in a year or two; this has happened in several instances. It is the duty of the federal government tc see that our section of the oountry, which is still in the pioneer stage as far as agriculture is concerned, gets proper inspection and that good herds are maintained. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will find it possible to say that this situation will be remedied as soon as possible.

Supply-Agriculture-Animals
Mr. WEIR Melfcurt):	There is one step
that can be taken other than the municipal testing plan; that is, if the municipalities would insist on receiving milk only from tested herds. I refer to the supervised herd plan. If the municipality passes a by-law insisting that only milk from tested herds will be accepted, any farmer wishing to supply milk can make application to the health of animals branch to have his herd tested under the supervised herd plan. At the present time that service is given free, and at the same time the farmer -agrees to keep his herd from contact with other herds in order to prevent the spread of the disease.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The minister knows it is absolutely impossible to prevent that contact during the summer months when the herds are in pasture.


Robert Weir: In common pasture?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We have no common pasture, but I believe the zone should be established because of that very fact. I might have my herd tested; if my neighbour does not have his herd tested there is bound to be contact during the summer months and probably I will sustain a heavy loss in a short period. That is why I believe it should1 be a general rule. The minister can readily understand that the by-laws of a municipality apply only within that municipality. If some municipality obtains its milk from surrounding townships, as is the case in Cochrane, they may get polluted milk under present conditions. I believe it is within the power of the federal government to create a general zone, at least as far as inspection is concerned, so that the people who have gone to the sacrifice and expense of weeding out their herds may have their stock protected to that extent.


William Richard Motherwell: I should like to
revert to the question raised by the hon. member for Lisgar, the answer to which I did not interpret quite as he did. The minister was very explicit in denying certain alleged statements which appeared in the western press, but he was not so specific in assuring us that after all there was not something in this proposed merger of the live stock and health of animals branches. I felt that I could detect some reservation in his statement.
I was not quite satisfied with the answer given by the minister. We all know that the paper referred to was the Winnipeg Free Press and that the reporter and editor was Miss Com Hind. These are two quite responsible authorities, especially the latter, on. live

stock and field agriculture. I am not so sure that it is enough merely to denounce the rumours and reports which appeared in that newspaper, without some further assurance than the minister has yet given. The minister said that possibly a closer -cooperation between those two branches might be encouraged to advantage. At one time they were together, but in practice it was found that while both have to do with live stock -they view that question from entirely different angles. From the standpoint of the live stock commissioner live stock has to do with the breed and breeding, the marketing, the conformation and so on, while from the standpoint of the veterinary d-ire-ot-or general live stock has to do with the health of animals, the wiping out and exclusion of contagious diseases and kindred problems. The veriest scrub animal, so long as it has horns, hoofs an-d tail, can carry disease just as easily as a good animal, and so I think these two branches are sufficiently dissimilar to be kept quite distinctively apart.
Perhaps I am a little suspicious in this matter; I have no occasion to feel that way as yet, because the minister has left the department pretty much as he found it. I have great respect for those who preceded me in the department, particularly the late Doctor -Rutherford, who was regarded by all as an authority on live stock and who was a prominent veterinarian both nationally and internationally. But it does not follow that some of us may not be able to im-prove even on his administration. First, however,. I want to understand just what is to be done by, way of suggested improvement before I agree that there will be any improvement on Doctor -Rutherford's work, and I have not seen that yet. Doctor Rutherford took the ground that these two -branches should be kept apart. There is even a certain amount of friction between them, not of an unfriendly character, but for the very reason, as already intimated, that their points of view are entirely different. I have known them to take absolutely different views on a given case though they were not at all unfriendly to each other.
If the question of animal health or disease should be determined finally by the live stock commissioner, how would such a certificate be looked upon in other countries or even by live stock men of our own? The live stock commissioner is not a veterinary practitioner and does not pretend to be, although a good live stock man. He may be a first class man in other respects, but if he is to be the predominant figure in these two branches I say that we shall lose the standing which the

Supply-A gricullure-A n imals
health of animals branch now enjoys under the veterinary director general of Canada. The minister will possibly agree with that.
May I also say a word relative to what my hon. friend from Assiniboia mentioned about private practitioners. Why should the minister be so anxious about that? It would be nice to have a lot of private practitioners, but just now most farmers would take a chance doctoring their own animals rather than hunting up a veterinary and have him treat them and have to pay him. To employ a veterinary is undoubtedly the best practice as a general rule, but the thing is to pay for his services But that is not the point I wanted to discuss. How in the world is the federal department going to have control over private practitioners? It is sometimes hard enough now to discipline the men in the department, but how can you control private practitioners whom you are going to employ to do this, that and the other thing? That question has always been up. It is not a question of to-day or a question of yesterday; it has been a question ever since there was a branch, and the position always taken was that the only way we can control practitioners in the health of animals branch is to have them right in the employ of the department, giving their services to the state, and being amenable to discipline. After all, private practitioners are outside the purview and prerogative of the dominion. It is entirely a provincial matter. The practitioners get their certificates and degrees from the university of the province or from the organization to which they belong. In Saskatchewan it is the university that gives the degree, and the practitioner usually, but not always, practises in the province where he got his degree. It is purely a provincial matter, and while we are all interested in it as citizens of Canada, we have no particular need to worry about it when we are discussing these federal estimates. As a matter of fact, it has always been a great incentive to private practitioners so to perfect themselves in their own business that they may qualify themselves to graduate into the federal arena and into federal employment. It is a prospect to which nearly all of them look forward, just as the average lawyer looks forward some day, as I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman, to gracing the woolsack, and in the process he becomes a better lawyer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Richard Motherwell: I was pretty nearly through, but I want to hear more from the minister. It is almost eleven o'clock and
perhaps he prefers to defer his answer to another time. With regard to his policy, he is on safe ground if he leaves it just the way it is.


Robert Weir: I doubt if I can
make it any clearer than I did. One hon. gentleman opposite has made it very clear that the work of the health of animals branch is perfect now and' that it could not be improved by any change.


William Richard Motherwell: Which one was
that?


Robert Weir: The hon. member
for Assiniboia.


William Richard Motherwell: Because he misunderstood the minister.


Robert Weir: No, he made that definite statement regarding the health of animals branch, and the hon. member for Melville, if I remember correctly, 6tated that there should be some improvement along with the general advance upon scientific lines.


William Richard Motherwell: I agree with that.


Robert Weir: The statement I made I think was perfectly clear, that the heads of the two branches, together with the deputy and their assistants and myself, have gone into this thing very fully with a view to seeing in what respect we can amalgamate certain branches of the work without any loss of efficiency, and whatever steps are taken will be taken with this thought in mind, not in any way to decrease the value of the health of animals branch, but if possible to make it even more efficient by an amalgamation of the services and by frank discussions between the heads of branches.


William Richard Motherwell: If there is going to be any form of amalgamation it will decrease the efficiency, because the health of animals branch enjoys in a peculiar degree not only the confidence of our own people but of other countries as well. It is internationally known, and if you merge it with something else presided over by a layman it is going to lose its present standing in other countries.


Robert McKenzie: There seems to.be a slight misunderstanding between some of my colleagues and myself with regard to just what the minister did say in his first statement, and he has not clarified it in the statement he has just made, particularly when he said that the health of animals branch was now under the control of a layman. Has the government in its mind the idea of putting a
Privilege-Mr. Pouliot

layman at the head of the health of animals branch? That is what we would like to know. If such is the case, I do not believe the people of western Canada will stand for it.


Robert Weir: I made it as clear as I possibly could, so far as my command of simple English goes, that the report which I read in one of the western papers-I am not sure whether it was the Winnipeg Free Press or not-stated that the specialists at the head of the divisions of the branch and the head of the branch itself were to be replaced by laymen. Nothing could be more ridiculous than such a statement, so far as any of the work or plans of the Department of Agriculture are concerned. What I did say was this, that the health of animals branch has been under a layman in the person of the deputy minister and the minister for ten or twelve years, and that the veterinary director general never had a free hand without the direction of the minister as to what work he should undertake. But no person ever considered having a layman do the work of a scientific man.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 3, 1933