Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi):: I move
that the second report of the committee on Agriculture and Colonization be concurred in.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, the
report, concurrence in which is now sought, comes from the Committee on Agriculture which met about five days ago. It reads:
That without delaying investigation by this committee as to the advisability of the reestablishment of the Canada Wheat Board, the matter of the constitutionality of such re-establishment be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada and that every effort be made to secure decision at an early date.
There had been, in this connection, referred to the Committtee on Agriculture the subject of handling the wheat of this country, and although the reference was not correctly or, at least, not adequately made, the intention was, no doubt, to ask the committee to consider the subject in three aspects: First, whether the Wheat Board, with all its old powers and duties,

should be re-established; or, second, whether there should be established a Government organization to handle and dispose of wheat committed to it by the voluntary act of the producers; or, third, whether the whole question should be left to what was described as co-operative action on the part of the producers themselves. The reason I say that the matter was intended to be referred in that form is because, in that form, the intended reference was described by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his speech on the Address. Consequently, though the words of commitment were narrow, I apprehend that a third report recommending a fuller reference will be adopted and the reference widened accordingly. It will be recalled that the former Wheat Board, that is the Wheat Board, established by Order in Council of July 31, 1919, which Order in Council was continued by this House very shortly afterwards in the same year and later on confirmed by legislation in the spring of last year, had very ample powers in a sense, indeed, monopolistic powers. It had certain control over the elevator system of our country and over the transportation of grain committed to it, and certain priorities and extraordinary rights which at the time it was deemed wise to repose in the board. That Wheat Board was discontinued-or rather the time that was originally given to it as its term of life expired, and consequently, no act of discontinuance was essential. It handled the wheat crop of 1919, and having so disposed of its duties, it ceased to exist. In the spring of 1920, there being some doubt at that time as to what would be the condition of the buying market in -Europe, and also as to what would be the policy of the United States, whether that country would remain in control, in some form or another, of its wheat marketing, or whether it would revert to the old marketing conditions, Parliament, on the advice of the government of the day, passed legislation empowering such government, if in its opinion conditions so demanded, to restore or to continue the Wheat Board as it had been established, for the purpose of taking in hand the crop of 1920. The government of the day did not exercise that power. European countries were no longer purchasing, as they had been doing, through the single agency of the British Government, which in turn acted through the British Wheat Commission, but were buying through agencies-although Government agencies-active in competition the one

Wheat Board
with the other. Besides, the United States Government had abandoned all attempts at wheat control, or marketing control of any description as regards grain, reverting instead to the old market conditions. In view of these facts the late Dominion government exercising its judgment did not reestablish the board.
Some time after, a grain inquiry commission was instituted under the Inquiries Act, upon complaint, which had become very general, that there were abuses in connection with the handling of the grain trade of western Canada. That commission was enjoined; the Order in Council establishing it was challenged, and that Order in Council was declared invalid by a judge of the King's Bench of Manitoba. Subsequently, upon appeal-and in all modesty I call this to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), whom, had he not shown the contrary in his speech on the Address, one would have expected to be already aware of the fact-the' validity of the Order in Council was established, the powers of the Government to pass it were confirmed. This matter was decided by the Court of Appeal of Manitoba.
In view of the evidence adduced before that commission, and in view of the very evident condition of dissatisfaction throughout the West over the whole question of purchase, storage, financing and disposal of its grain, I, in the late campaign, proposed an alternative, namely, the second alternative recited by the Prime Minister in his speech on the Address: that is to say, the establishment, not of a board with compulsory powers, not of a single agency excluding all other agencies of sale, but of a board with ample powers to receive, move, finance, and finally sell, and distribute the proceeds of, all grain committed to its charge by the will of the producer. I am not proposing to discuss now the merits of this plan or of any of the plans to which I have made allusion; I do not purpose even to discuss whether or not the late government took the right course in this regard. That question does not arise on the motion of my hon. friend the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture (Mr. Kay). But a review of the facts such as I have given is necessary in order that what I have to say anent this motion may be the better understood. The demand for the old Wheat Board that was made has been received by the committee who, proceeding to deal with the question, have made a report to the House that while they were considering the wisdom of its re-establishment- whether or not differing in personnel-the Government refer to the Supreme Court of Canada the question as to the power of this Parliament to establish such a board.
Now, I submit to the House that if we concur in this report it is going to be impossible to meet the situation for the coming summer. I do not pretend to judge the full measure of those who demand the establishment of the old Wheat Board with all its powers, but I do say that there is i a very strong body of support for that proposal. Of its numbers, its strength, and its right to be heard before a committee of this House and this House itself, there is no question. But there are those among its numbers-I do not know what proportion, but I should say a substantial proportion, I think I can say the majority-who, while they urge strongly, under what they describe as abnormal conditions existing now, their right to the advantage of the old Wheat Board, with all the means of disposal it afforded, during this year and perhaps next year, at any rate while these conditions prevail; nevertheless do not ask that the board be established as a permanent institution. They insist only that it be put into operation to take care of the situation during this period of abnormalcy. Their insistence is mainly that it be established for the purpose of taking care of the wheat crop of this year. There are, I do not know how many, but doubtless a considerable number, who would favour the establishment of the board permanently. But however great their numbers may be, the number of those who want it, not on a permanent but on a temporary basis, is far greater. Of that there can be no question. Consequently this House, before it takes any step that will put it practically out of its power to comply with this demand, must very carefully decide, yes or no, thereto. Whether the demand is right or not, of its very nature it calls for a decision by this Parliament at an early date.
What will happen if this resolution carries? This House will have instructed the Government of the day to submit, to the Supreme Court of Canada a definite question, namely: Is it within the competence of the Parliament of Canada to reestablish the Wheat Board with the powers vested in it under the Order in Council of July 31, 1919, as confirmed by Parliament? Be it noted, there is no question at issue
Wheat Board

at all as to the powers of the Governor in Council. The committee realized that fully in this report. There is no doubt at all that the Governor in Council has no such powers now ;[DOT] but the question is whether the Parliament of Canada has such powers. It was the Parliament of Canada that acted before. Parliament confirmed the action of the government, because the government had to act, if it took any action at all, before Parliament met, or there would have been no time to take in hand the 1919 crop. Parliament confirmed the government's action, and the question is: Has Parliament the right to do what Parliament actually did in the special session of 1919? If that question is submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, assuming, as I do, that every effort will be made by the Government to prosecute the suit to a decision-I will not be asked to assume any more, indeed I think I am liberal enough when I assume that much-is there any substantial hope that we shall get a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, upon which we can act, within such time as will enable us to dispose of the question at this session? Who are entitled to be heard before that tribunal? Well, the Government of Canada will be heard. They will undoubtedly be there by counsel, endeavouring, I presume, to establish the power of this Parliament. I would also expect that some, possibly all, of the provinces of Confederation, whether unitedly or separately, would appear before the Supreme Court on the issue. I would expect the Grain Exchange to appear before the court. Possibly the Grain Exchange would come individually, or perhaps forty companies strong, as it has been known to come before the courts of the country before. How many companies of the Grain Exchange are going to be heard? Can they be denied a hearing? I would expect, as well, the millers' association, and perhaps individual milling companies would want to be heard. I would expect that the railway companies would be there, and possibly our banks as well. It is a matter that interests in an important degree many great fields of enterprise in this country. There would be inevitably a warring clamour of interests before the court; and when any one of those interests could establish a prima facie case for postponement, how could the court deny a postponement? I know of interests that would have a lot to gain by a postponement;

I know of interests who would desire postponement. In the hands of able lawyers, I do not know of any kind of case that is more easily made out, than a case for postponement, and I for one would despair, were I acting for the Government in such a connection, of any early decision, no matter how assiduous and vigorous was my conduct of the case.
But, suppose we get a decision, is there anything to prevent an appeal to the Privy Council? There will be one, you may be sure, if the case goes in favour of our powers. And if there is such an appeal who is going to take care of the 1922 crop of wheat?
But, beyond that, suppose my conjecture as to what is going to occur on the argument of this case before the Supreme Court is wrong, and we find lawyers, opposed perhaps from forty different angles, all in agreement to press the case to a decision in order that Parliament may act in the light of that decision; suppose that happens-which would be a miracle-what then? We get a decision. Is the decision going to be of great practical value? Is it going to be of a character that would enable Parliament to act in a practical way? I do not think it can be. In the original statute twenty-seven different powers were given to the Wheat Board; starting with A, B, C, continuing through the whole length of the alphabet, and still one more. There were multiplied duties besides imposed upon the Wheat Board. The Supreme Court would have the power to go into one and all of those powers and duties. But I do not know that it would do so. It might say: Here is a power that we find the Parliament of Canada cannot repose in the board; it is ultra vires; therefore we need not decide the other points at all.
But suppose the court went on and decided one and all, supposing they did everything, assume, indeed, a set of facts the most adverse to my contention possible, suppose they deal with A, B, C, and so on all through the list. What then? Assume they decide that we are ultra vires as to the whole twenty-seven, it might still be that by a modification, perhaps an unimportant modification, of each one we could come well within the powers of this Parliament, and at the same time establish a board so armed and equipped that it could substantially meet the ambitions and desires of those who seek this method of the disposal of their grain. The judgment, when it comes, shall not in all prob-

Wheat Board.
ability be such to enable us to act on it in a practical way.
To sum up what I have argued so far. First: follow this course and you are plunged into the caldron of litigation, from which in all human probability you will not emerge until it is too late for you to act with much value this session. Second: though there may be harmony, and all go smoothly to an early verdict, the judgment alone will not be of such a final, definitive and detailed character as to be what we want in building the fabric of legislation.
Then I am asked: What are we to do? Well, I would advise Parliament to say to the committee: Go back and do what has always been done,-take the advice of the law officers of the Crown. When you decide just what you want, the principle you want to follow, the body you want to establish, the powers you would like to give it, go and sit beside the law officers and ask them: How far in that direction can we go and be as safe as any one can be from the threat of injunction? There is no difficulty about taking that course. I know it may be said that possibly after you take their advice you may be faced with an injunction afterwards. Why, so you may be, whatever you do. But in the light of the decisions that have so far been handed down, particularly in the light of the decision a few months ago by the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, I do not think there would be any great difficulty on the part of the law officers of the Crown in so framing legislation that we would be tolerably, if not wholly, safe from the danger of successful injunction at the instance of any litigant.


Mr. CRERAR:: Might I interrupt my
right hon. friend? Is he arguing on the basis that the enactment by this Parliament would confer all the powers that the original Wheat Board had?


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid I have not been fully understood. I say, suppose the committee decides: We would like the Wheat Board; but if we cannot have the Wheat Board with all its powers, we would like to get as close to those powers as we are sure we can safely go. Then let them express that desire through the Government to the Justice Department, and have the Justice Department frame legislation which will in the opinion of its law officers reach as far as this Parliament can go. That seems to me the practical and sensible course to take.
Let it be remembered that there has been expressed some doubt as to the power of
this Parliament in regard to the entire handling of the grain trade. We may be in some danger there even as we sit now. But the fact is this, the grain trade has become of such a character, it is so interprovincial, it is so broadly Canadian, that whatever may be the constitution of this country, that trade must be under the control of legislation enacted by this Parliament,-under the control of federal authority. And if there is successful attack that goes to the root of our power in this matter, I for one would be prepared to support legislation which would address the Imperial Parliament in terms requesting an enabling amendment of our constitution.
I express here no opinion one way or the other on the merits of these different proposals; I am not arguing for the Wheat Board, nor against it; I am not arguing for a voluntary government board, nor against it; nor am I advocating abandoning the whole difficulty in a spirit of laissez faire to what is called "cooperation." For the present it seems to me the sensible step to take is to let the committee decide after hearing evidence and arguments what they believe would be best in the interest of the whole country, and let them express their decision in a resolution. Let the committee as well go, through the Minister of Justice, to the law officers of the Crown and arrive as closely as may be done at the expression in statutory form of powers within the competence of Parliament which in the judgment of that committee should be vested in the board which they think this Parliament should create. That is the alternative course that I propose.
I only want to impress this thought upon the committee before I sit down. You never can get wholly out of danger of litigation, no matter what you do. But take the course proposed in this matter from the government side and you will wave good-bye to any wheat board established by any act of Parliament this session. I do not know of any way by which a decision could come in time to be of any value except by general concurrence adverse to our powers. In a word, take the course proposed in the motion and you ditch the whole question; you abandon it; you are done with it. That, in my judgment, would be the practical result. I urge on the contrary that the other course be followed; and I therefore move:
That the said report be not concurred in but be referred back to the Committee on Agriculture for further consideration.
Wheat Board


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter underlying the reference to the Committee on Agriculture, the second report of which has brought about this discussion, is one of the very greatest importance. There is no question what the opinion of western Canada is-[DOT] not only of the agricultural portions of that part of the Dominion, but of its business interests as well-as to the urgency of this matter of the re-establishment of the Canada Wheat Board. I could, if this were the proper occasion, give many reasons why it is in the national interest that the Wheat Board should be re-established along the lines advocated by the memorandum submitted by the Canadian Council of Agriculture to the Government, and later, referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
The conditions in the West have been of an extraordinary character. I am not overstating the fact when I say that an overwhelming majority of the farmers of western Canada conducted their business last year at a loss. One reason why they have had such a poor return for their year's labour was the manner in which their grain was marketed under the exceptional conditions prevailing throughout the world. We cannot throw into the markets of Winnipeg, forty or fifty or sixty million bushels of wheat a month and expect the markets of the world to absorb it as freely as it is offered for sale without a considerable depression in prices. That constitutes one of the strongest reasons why action along the line of re-establishment of the Canada Wheat Board should be taken.
I am, therefore, quite in accord with what my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has said as to the urgency of this matter. In fact, I wish to express my delight at the interest he is manifesting in it. I recall that back in 1920 the government of the day was empowered to re-establish the Wheat Board under act of this Parliament, and one of the first things my right hon.	friend	did	after he	became prime
Minister was to announce to the country that no wheat board would be re-established,-and the need for it then was fully as great as it is to-day.
There is, apparently, a doubt whether this Parliament has the power to pass legislation enabling the Wheat Board to function,	as it	did	function,	when it marketed the crop of 1919. My right hon.	friend	has refrained from givingan opinion	upon that	question; probably he has a doubt in his own mind whether Parliament has that power. Being

a layman and unfamiliar with the tenets of the law, I certainly would not venture an opinion on the point. But I know that the view is held by eminent legal gentlemen that a doubt exists whether Parliament has the power to pass legislation creating a Wheat Board with compulsory powers, that is, with powers to pass regulations and orders compelling farmers to sell their grain -and market it through the agencies created by the board. The position taken in the committee was inspired by the desire to clear up that doubt, if possible, before any such legislation was passed. The report of the committee suggests that, without delaying an investigation by the committee of the merits of this method of marketing the grain, steps should be taken to secure from the Supreme Court of Canada at as early a day as possible a decision as to the power of Parliament in the matter. I think that view was expressed by the committee in order that, if possible, the legal doubt hanging round the thing might be cleared up.
My right hon. friend argues that there would be a great deal of delay in getting such an opinion from the Supreme Court.
, That might be; I am not familiar with the regulations governing the Supreme Court and I am not in a position to say with what despatch they could consider this matter and come to a decision upon it. I have it in mind, however, that in the summer of 1917, when a question arose over the powers vested in the Government under the Military Service Act in the city of Calgary-


Mr. MURPHY:: In 1918.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I stand corrected-it was in 1918. As to the powers vested in the Government under the Military Service Act, a question arose in Calgary which necessitated a submission to the Supreme Court. If I recall the circumstances correctly, habeas corpus proceedings were taken to release a young conscript who had been imprisoned for violation of some of the provisions of the conscription law, and the Supreme Court of Alberta sustained the injunction. In that case it was necessary for the government to determine quickly just what the legal status of the conscription law was, and I recall that steps were taken at once to have a stated case placed before the Supreme Court, and the court gave its decision within a week of submitting the case. It does seem to me that it would be possible, if the Govern-

Wheat Board
ment used despatch, to get a decision from the Supreme Court as to the powers of Parliament in this matter in a very short time. I do not think there is any one, either in this House or outside, who approaches this question with the honest desire to get the best possible conditions established for the marketing of grain, who would wish to see the Wheat Board re-established, and then find it, after it had started operations, hung up in the air and unable to continue its work.
Legal gentlemen in private conversation with me have also cited the case of the Board of Commerce. This act creating the Board of Commerce was passed by the preceding parliament in 1919, conferring very wide powers on the board in the matter of the regulation of trade. I think it will be in the mind of every member of this House that that legislation was contested in the courts and that the Board of Commerce was restrained and put out of business as a result of the decision of the Privy Council.
Those are some of the considerations that moved me in my consideration of this matter. I recognized, and the committee recognized, the urgency of the case by urging that the Government should secure a decision from the Supreme Court as quickly as possible.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, Who, I am free to confess at once, has had eminent legal experience, seems to be of the opinion that a decision could not be secured from the Supreme Court in any reasonable length of time, and he suggests instead that this matter should be referred to the law officers of the Crown.


Arthur Meighen: The Supreme Court
might give an adverse opinion at an early date, if it was the general opinion of the court that Parliament had not this power, but in my judgment certainly we would not get a favourable opinion in time to deal with the matter this session.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is a matter, again, in which I am upon rather unfamiliar ground. I would be of the opinion that if a majority of the Supreme Court gave a decision in favour of the contention that Parliament had the power to create this board, that would be ample warrant for the Government going ahead and establishing it; but in any case I have no fault to find with the suggestion of my right hon. friend that the matter be referred to the law officers of the Crown. The only point in respect to that is that there would perhaps be a doubt as to the conclusiveness of an opinion handed down by the law officers of the Crown.
I want to repeat, this is a matter of urgent importance and one on which action should not be delayed a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. I do not know what action the committee might take, assuming that Parliament had the power to pass legislation creating the board, but I do say this: I think the committee whose reports we are considering were perfectly well intentioned in the matter when they desired to ascertain the exact legal position, and at the same time have their inquiry proceed, as indeed it is proceeding now, as to whether the re-establishment of the board would be a desirable course to take.


Mr. EULER:: For the benefit of those of us who do not belong to the Agricultural Committee, perhaps my hon. friend would explain whether the doubt with regard to the power of Parliament bears on the primary power of Parliament to establish a Wheat Board or is the doubt merely with regard to the compulsory feature that is mentioned?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The doubt exists, I think, in the minds of the committee, as to the power of Parliament to pass legislation creating a board with compulsory powers such as the powers the board had that was established in 1919.


William Daum Euler: It is the compulsory feature as to which there is a doubt?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The compulsory feature. It is not necessary to have action from Parliament, I take it, for the creation of a voluntary pool, but there is no doubt that if such action were necessary Parliament has the power to pass legislation creating a voluntary pool, such as my right hon. friend advocated during the election. But that is more a matter for action by the Government than by this Parliament.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: Is it the view of the committee that the creation of a Wheat Board with powers less than those of the original Wheat Board would be satisfactory to the interests in the West that are affected? In other words, would a Wheat Board without compulsory powers be satisfactory?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think I may say that such a board would not be satisfactory. The memorandum of the Council of Agriculture
Wheat Board

which gave rise to this question asks specifically for one thing and one thing only, and that is the re-establishment of the Canada Wheat Board with all the powers it had in 1919. That is what the memorandum asks for, and that is what we are considering in the matter.
I do not know that any harm could come from a further reference to the committee, as my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition suggests. It might be that the collective wisdom of the committee could proceed a little further in considering this question, although I must confess I am rather doubtful of what results could be obtained from such a reference back. However, it might be productive of good results, and is a step that I think could be adopted by the House.
The main thing I want to emphasize is the urgency of action in this matter. If the doubt could be cleared up quickly as to whether Parliament has the power to reestablish this board, I think it would be distinctly in the national interests that that be done. It may be that an opinion from the law officers of the Crown, as my right hon. friend suggests, would carry with it a greater degree of eonelusiveness in the public mind than seems to me now probable or likely, but in any case I see no reason why that action should not be taken by the Government. Let the Government, through the law officers of the Crown or through the Supreme Court, find out what the powers of Parliament are in this matter, and in the meantime let the committee proceed with its inquiry and bring in a report based on all the evidence that is placed before it. I think it would be of great service if the powers of Parliament in this matter were determined as quickly as possible.
In dlosing, I simply wish to say that this is a matter of very great urgency, and I trust that it will receive the consideration of this House from that angle, and that angle alone.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I venture to address the House on this question, because in my judgment it is one of the pressing problems of the hour in so far at least as the western part of Canada is concerned. Let me at the outset state quite frankly that I am in favour of the re-establishment of the Wheat Board. I am not prepared to say that I favour that as a permanent arrangement, but I certainly am in favour of it as a means of taking care of this year's crop and perhaps of next year's
l Mr. Crerar.]
crop as well. Now, I am not by any means alone in that contention. I understand that the United Farmers in the province of Alberta in convention assembled have practically unanimously favoured the creation of this board, and the farmers of Saskatchewan, and I believe also the farmers of Manitoba, with equal unanimity have concurred in the views of those of Alberta. If, therefore, the Wheat Board is to be of any value for this particular year it is necessary and urgent that every effort be made by this Parliament to ascertain whether or not the reappointment of that board is in the interest of this country.
I endorse the remarks of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) on the subject of referring this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is true, as the hon. member for Marquette has stated, that in the military case, the Lewis case, which arose 1 believe in the city of Calgary, a decision was given by the Supreme Court in one week; but hon. riiembers will realize that that case is entirely different from this, because there the accused himself was anxious to have it determined whether or not his liberty should be taken away from him in the particular manner complained of. In the present instance reference to the Court could only be made after a very careful study of the questions involved; and of course this would take considerable time, because the constitutional questions involved are serious and extremely difficult. Not only that, but the Supreme Court must necessarily give ample opportunity for the provincial governments, and the various interests concerned, to appear and to prepare their cases and to present arguments before it. Now what I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is this: It is absolutely physically impossible to have the Supreme Court of Canada give a decision in this pai'-ticular case in anything like the limited period suggested by the hon. member for Marquette; it seems to me the result would be that this matter would be long drawn out. A litigant-and perhaps there would be many of them, and also various conflicting interests, before the Supreme Court -who felt dissatisfied with the decision of the court would have the right of appeal to the Privy Council, and then the matter could not possibly be determined until long after the 1922 crop had been cut and harvested. Now my suggestion is simply this -and I will not detain the House longer- that the matter should go back to the committee with instructions that they

Wheat Board
should consult the legal staff of the House -and I think everybody will agree that the legal staff are indeed able, in connection with the particular constitutional problems involved-and ascertain whether or not valid legislation can be passed, or whether in the event of legislation being passed, enabling legislation might also be passed by the various provincial legislatures, the converse of what has been done in connection with liquor legislation. I simply make the suggestion because I seriously contend that the adoption of the report of the committee means that we simply embalm the Wheat Board in litigation long before it is born.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: The amendment of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition is to the effect that the committee be permitted to reconsider its own report. The report of the committee was, I understand, a unanimous report. One or two of the members of the committee have since expressed their views in a manner which would indicate that they desire to reconsider the report. I can see no reason why under the circumstances, they should not have this privilege.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River) :: Mr. Speaker, before the matter is finally dealt with I want to touch on one feature of the case which has not yet been alluded to.
With a great deal that the 4 p.m. leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for West Calgary, and the, hon. member for Marquette have had to say I most heartily agree, but there are some other matters that perhaps should be brought to the attention of the House. The illustration of the Board of Commerce has been mentioned and it has been pointed out that should this legislation be put into operation, and part of the crop be taken off, an injunction might then be served upon the board with very serious consequences. That might be the case but I submit that although for many years the Canada Grain Act has been in question, yet because it has been of inestimable value to the nation as a whole and because its operation was a matter of national good, no one has yet contested the validity of that act. If the Wheat Board should be established and the fact of its being for the general good of the country recognized by this Parliament, no one will seriously question the proceedings of the board while it is operating temporarily.


Mr. ROBB:: Is it not a fact that the Canada Grain Act is now being attacked in the Manitoba courts?


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not know whether it is or not. If such is the case then I am slightly at fault in that regard. The other matter to which I wish to refer has reference to the widening of the powers of the Committee on Agriculture. I for one am absolutely free to say that I would encourage the widest possible investigation into anything that would promise relief to the conditions in western Canada; but in this particular instance I would like to call attention to the fact that there is no demand for anything else but the Wheat Board; and as was stated in answer to a question by an hon. member opposite a moment ago, nothing but the reestablishment of the Wheat Board, with powers almost identical with, or similar to, the powers of the old board would satisfy the West at this time, in my opinion. So far as my own constituents are concerned, and to them I owe a duty in this matter, I must say that I cannot support anything but the re-establishment of a board with powers similar to those of the old board. I stand most decidedly in favour of that policy.
Now I do not think at this time it is proper to go into a discussion as to the value of the board. That can very properly be done in committee, but when this matter is being referred back to committee for consideration I would also submit that the committee be advised to follow this procedure: First, to consider the recommendation of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. When that is absolutely disposed of, one way or the other, let the committee take up question number two, and afterwards question number three. Because, I do not think we should close the doors to an investigation into any matter that may be productive of good. Nevertheless, the chief question before the committee, and the one that was referred thereto by this House for a decision, is the one question of the appointment of the Canada Wheat Board.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: The question raised in this discussion, as to the legality of the proposed Wheat Board, involves the most interesting constitutional point and one which I think, in the interests of the people of the West, as indeed of the whole country, ought to be settled along lines that would leave no doubt as to the power of this Parliament to deal
Wheat Board

with the subject. The suggestion that the determination of the constitutionality of such legislation should be deferred-a suggestion made by the leader of the Opposition-does not seem to me to be one which would be in the interest of the gentlemen from the West or of their constituents. A matter of so much importance as this ought to be determined by that court in Canada which has the power of saying what the constitutional rights of this Parliament and the various legislatures are. It might be proper to enable this committee to go to the limit of what seems to be the powers they have under the advice of the law officers of the Crown; but I think those who are very much interested in this matter would be well advised if they would join in urging that the Government should take steps for the early and final solution of the legal powers involved.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) referred to the fact that a decision had been given not long ago as to the power of this Parliament to constitute the Board of Commerce. That decision was one upon which the members of the Supreme Court of Canada divided equally. The judgment of Mr. Justice Duff upon that subject was strong and clear; and, looking at it, as I have since this discussion came up, I find that he laid down principles which, if they are followed by the courts in dealing with this subject, would make it clear that this Parliament has no power to constitute a board similar to the Wheat Board of 1919. His judgment was con-1 firmed by the Privy Council in a deliverance so clear that every hon. member, who is acquainted with legal matters and who follows this case, will realize that this Privy Council decision is one of the most important decisions given of late years. Let me submit this statement by Mr. Justice Duff as regards the question of the power of this Parliament in dealing with matters of this kind. He states:
The creation of an authority endowed with such powers of fixing the terms of contracts in relation to specific articles appears to involve an interpretation of the words, "regulation of trade and commerce," much more comprehensive than anything contemplated by the decisions and Judgments referred to above, I have indicated the principle which in my opinion is deducible from Parson's Case (1), namely, that section 91-(2) does not authorize an enactment by the Dominion Parliament regulating in each of the provinces the terms of the contracts of a particular business or trade, for the reason (put very broadly) that such legislation involves an interposition in the transactions of individuals in the provinces,

within the sphere of property and civil rights and local undertakings not contemplated by section 91-(2).
Further, he states:
I cannot discover any principle consistent with these conclusions, upon which an enactment delegating to a commission the authority to regulate the terms of particular contracts of individual traders in a specified commodity according to the views of the Board as to what may be fair between the individual trader and the public in each transaction, can be sustained as an exercise of that power;
That language of Mr. Justice Duff which was confirmed in terms by the Privy Council, seems to me to lay down principles which materially interfere with the theory that a Wheat Board can be legally constituted. As I say, the decision given by the Lords of the Privy Council on this matter went further than most lawyers anticipated that it would have gone. It was held previously that the fact that section 91 of the British North America Act gave to this Parliament the right to deal with the regulation of trade and commerce, carried with it certain ancillary powers, which enabled this Parliament to go further and deal with matters which might fall within the purview of property and civil rights, subjects within the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures. But this declares that the powers which this Parliament assumed in order to pass the Board of Commerce Act and to give that board power to deal with certain matters which might arise in certain provinces of the Dominion, were not ancillary to the regulation of trade and commerce and were beyond the power of this Parliament. It seems to me, in view of this decision, hon. gentlemen who, I know, are interested in this subject and are anxious to see the business and trade of this country, especially in the great West, put upon a solid' footing, would be well advised if they saw to it that steps were taken, at as early a date as possible, to have a decision by the Supreme Court as to just what this Parliament can do in regard to this Wheat Board.


Mr. T. H. McCONICA (Battleford) :: Mr. Speaker, I had not purposed discussing this matter, and I will speak of only one or two questions that have been presented. It has been urged that it is beyond the powers of this Parliament to pass legislation compelling individuals to sell their property to any particular board. I apprehend that is the law; I apprehend it will always be the law. But is such a power necessary to the enactment of legislation that will 'bring

Wheat Board
about that which we seek and that which is asked for by the people of western Canada ? What is the situation to-day? The people of western Canada are not asking this Parliament to regulate the trade of selling their wheat to neighbours; they are asking this Parliament to determine how their wheat shall be marketed in the markets of the world, how it shall be handled by the great transportation companies of our country, what agencies shall engage in the commerce of handling the wheat of western Canada. Those powers have been vested in governmental authority for years. Every bushel of wheat that has gone out of western Canada since the enactment of the Grain Act, has gone out under the regulation of laws passed by this Parliament, and it will continue to do so. We ask that that power be placed in the hands of a government board, and that power may be properly placed there. Under our constitution, trade and commerce are within the purview of this Parliament. That has been the case with our Grain Act. It is suggested that the constitutionality of the Grain Act has been challenged. Possibly, there may be features of the Grain Act that are unconstitutional; but are they necessary features? I think not. The only question that I have heard raised was whether the provision in regard to the forfeiture of certain overages to the Government was constitutional. Probably it is not. I do not apprehend that the Government has a right to take private property without paying for it. But is it necessary that such a power be put into the hands of such a board? Most certainly not. The question is raised whether the tight to issue a license is not a provincial right. It is a provincial right as to three particular kinds of licenses - keeping a hotel, acting as an auctioneer, or running a saloon; such licenses must be issued by the province. But the elevator business is not auctioneering, nor hotel-keeping, nor running a saloon; and when the provision covers those three powers, does it not withhold the balance of the power? This matter should go hack to the committee. I believe that when this legislation is proposed, it will be attacked, and if we present a case to the .Supreme Court any blackleg 'lawyer, who represents some curbstone broker, can hold it up for two or three years. In the meantime, where shall we be in the West? I ask that this matter go back to the committee and that we have legislation drawn that will effect the pur-50
pose which we seek. It may not be couched exactly in the language of the old bill, but it must be such as will give the people the relief they desire and that we need most sorely.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Medicine Hat) :: On the question of enlarging the powers of the Committee, I would emphasize the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). We in western Canada are not asking for any voluntary wheat pool or any other system of marketing grains, except under such conditions as prevailed under the old Wheat Board. If the Committee has extra powers conferred upon it, I would suggest that it confine its activities, as far as possible, to looking into the question of a compulsory Wheat Board.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West):: Supporting the action of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), I would point out that if the report goes back to the committee and the law officers of the Crown are able to produce an act that in their judgment will be constitutional, we shall be that much further ahead than if we* appealed to the Supreme Court. Even if a Wheat Board is appointed by Parliament and an attack is made upon it, we shall certainly be as far ahead as, if not further than, if we submitted a stated case ro the Supreme Court of Canada. If Parliament puts through legislation and it is subject to attack in the courts, it will reveal to those who are anxious to have the Wheat Board established, the persons, firms or interests that are trying to frustrate that desire. And that, I submit, would be something worth while discovering. I notice that my hon. friends, who know more about farming than I do, do not want a permanent Wheat Board. I have said in this House before that one thing which, in my judgment, Parliament ought to do is to prevent, as far as it can, any speculation in foodstuffs. I may be somewhat straight-laced, or possibly I do not understand some particular phases of the question; but to me it seems almost a crime to permit such speculation in food as raises the price to the consumer and reduces the return to the producer. I have always thought that a permanent Wheat Board that would get the most that was possible for the producer, and at the same time protect the consumer, was legislation that we might very well pass in this House. As I say, my hon. friends from the prairies do not seem to believe in a permanent Wheat Board, and I con-



Armaments
cede to them a greater knowledge of the case than I can possibly have. But they would gain more, in a matter of great urgency, by having some measure passed by Parliament, after being properly considered by the officers of the Crown, than if they submitted the question to the Supreme Court.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.
Mr. Kay moved that the third Report of the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Wentworth Barnes.-Mr. Maclean (York).
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Hazel Mc-Inally.-Mr. Maclean (York).
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Edward Lovell.-Mr. Gordon.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Elizabeth Lillian Sharpe.-Mr. Hunt.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Percival Andrew Jamieson.-Mr. Macdonald (Pic-tou).
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Frederick Henry Gill.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Blanche Elizabeth Macdonell .-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Frank Charles Butt.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Edward Sidney John Turpin.-Mr. Gordon.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Georgina Gibbings.-Mr. 

Bill No. 40, for the relief of Albert Bethune Carley.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Ernest Zufelt.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Harry Johns Leach.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Nellie Berry. -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 44, to incorporate the General Missionary Society of the German Baptist Churches of North America.-Mr. Hudson.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move, seconded by Mr. Fielding, that the following proposed resolution be taken into consideration at the next sitting of the House: [DOT]
[Mi, Hocken.]
Resolved, That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the following Treaties, of which copies have been laid before Parliament:-
The Treaty between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, for the limitation of naval armament, which was signed at Washington on the sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-two ;
The Treaty between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, to protect neutrals and non-combatants at sea in time of war and to prevent the use in w'ar of noxious gases and chemicals, which was signed at Washington on the sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-two;
The Treaty between the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, and Portugal, to stabilize conditions in the Far East, which was signed at Washington on the sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-two ;
The Treaty between the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, and Portugal, relating to the Chinese customs tariff, which was signed at Washington on the sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-two :
The Treaty between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, and Japan, for the preservation of the general peace and the maintenance of their rights in relation to their insular possessions and insular dominions in the region of the Pacific Ocean (and the accompanying Declaration), and the Agreement between the same Powers supplementary thereto, which Treaty and Agreement were signed at Washington on the thirteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and the sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, respectively; and that this House do approve of the same.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister give us an idea on what day he is likely to take up this resolution?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly
Wednesday of next week, but not before.
I shall inform my right hon. friend definitely later on.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (Westmount-St. Henri) :: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I should like to direct the attention of the Government to an article published in La Presse of last night on the St. Lawrence waterway scheme. Is it a fact that negotiations are proceeding directly between the British Embassy at Washington and the American Government with regard to this matter? If so, what does the Government intend to do to vindicate our national status, if we have any?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. G. P. Graham (Minister of Militia and Defence) Bill No. 27 respecting the Department of National Defence was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. G. P. Graham (Minister of Militia and Defence) Bill No. 14 to amend the Salaries Act and the Senate and the House of Commons Act, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 25 to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Arthur Meighen: The explanation of the Minister of Justice was almost negligibly brief on the introduction of this bill. Perhaps he will give us a better explanation now.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: As I said in introducing this bill, when a prisoner is sent to a penitentiary, the warden cannot receive him if he is suffering from an infectious disease, and there is no provision in the statute to authorize the return of such prisoner to the jail whence he came or to any other institution, to be treated. We propose by the amendment to remedy that omission in the statute so that in such a case the prisoner may be sent back to the provincial authorities for treatment and returned to the penitentiary when cured.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-prisoner may be kept in penitentiary, etc., until necessary documents, including a certificate of health, are delivered to warden:


Lomer Gouin: Section 45 of the Penitentiaries Act reads:
Whenever a prisoner is ordered by competent authority to be conveyed to any penitentiary from any other penitentiary, or from a reformatory prison, or from a jail, there shall be delivered to <the warden of the penitentiary receiving such prisoner, together with all other necessary documents, a certificate signed by the medical officer of the institution from which
50i
prisoner has been taken, and countersigned by the official in charge of the penitentiary, reformatory or jail from which such prisoner has been taken, declaring that such prisoner is free from any putrid, infectious or contagious disease, and that he is fit to be removed.
Then, section 46:
The warden shall receive into the penitentiary every convict legally certified to him as sentenced to imprisonment therein, unless certified by the surgeon of the penitentiary to be suffering from a dangerously infectious or contagious disease, and shall there detain him, subject to the rules, regulations and discipline thereof, until the term for which he has been sentenced is completed, or until he is otherwise legally discharged.
These are the sections proposed to be amended by the bill. The amendments are found to be necessary by the provincial authorities.


Mr. MANION:: I notice that the amendment makes no mention of a hospital or similar institution.


Lomer Gouin: No, the prisoner has to be sent back to the jail from which he came. No special hospital is provided.


Robert James Manion: But suppose the jail has no infirmary, for example, in connection with it?


Lomer Gouin: He can be treated in the jail. There is a department for such purposes in almost every jail in the country, I think.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: When I had the honour of acting as Solicitor General, a number of cases arose in the Department of Justice upon which this amendment would have a direct bearing. The difficulty was that in some of the jails in Ontario, and in many similar institutions in Nova Scotia, there was no proper arrangement for the custody of prisoners suffering from contagious diseases. The matter was brought to the attention of the law departments of the various provinces on more than one occasion, but they did not seem to recognize it as their duty to provide suitable quarters for such cases. There is no doubt that hardship and difficulty resulted to prisoners because of this condition. I can recall several cases in Ontario where prisoners had contagious diseases of a very virulent type, and the placing of these men in the ordinary penitentiaries would be just ground for objection on the part of the other convicts. On the other hand, there is no adequate facilities in the local jails to take care of these prisoners, and what is to be done in the circumstances is a rather difficult problem.
Penitentiary Act

Men who are the victims of a loathsome disease are sometimes sentenced by judges to penitentiary terms. They are first confined in the local jail, and orders for their removal to the penitentiary arrive in due course. But they should be accompanied by a certificate as to health before being admitted into the penitentiary, otherwise trouble might ensue among the other convicts. If they are returned to the local jail, the same difficulty may arise there, or the unfortunate man may receive no adequate treatment. In a number of cases while I was in that department, persons suffering from certain diseases we~e treated in the local hospital under guard. Frequently we had to release prisoners for the purpose of having serious operations performed on them; they were released on parole or under guard and after recovery were brought back to the penitentiary. But some new system should be evolved. The authorities in charge of the provincial jails should be compelled to see that some proper treatment is accorded to prisoners who are so afflicted. Personally, I think the amendment proposed by the minister is a proper one and ought to be adopted. But it does bring up that broader question: what are we going to do with the unfortunate criminal who is condemned by a court of law and does not receive proper treatment in our jails? If he is treated in the jail, what are you going to do about the other prisoners who are there and who are liable to the contagion?


Robert James Manion: Not only are the prisoners-the diseased men as well as the others-to be considered in this matter; it affects the public generally. If a number of prisoners take ill, say, with scarlet fever, diphtheria, or any other contagious disease, the expense to the country is increased. I do not know whether another clause could be added to the amendment to provide for this. I notice that the minister shakes his head; apparently it cannot be done. Now, I have been in some of these jails-though not as a prisoner- and I know that often there are no facili-ities for caring for men afflicted in this way. I suggest to the minister that if something could be done to provide for these cases it would be in the interests not only of the prisoners concerned, but of the public as well.


Lomer Gouin: We are now legislating in respect of penitentiaries, which are under the jurisdiction of the federal 
government. We have no power to legislate for the provincial jails. As to the cases my hon. friend mentions of contagious diseases in certain jails, I do not know much about the other provinces, but I had the honour of being Attorney General of Quebec for some fifteen years, and I know that when such cases arose there the prisoners were sent to a hospital and returned to the jail after treatment. If the matter is to be dealt with as regards the provincial jails, it must be done by the provinces themselves. As to the penitentiaries, we do the best we can. We are legislating to give full protection to the prisoners, and I have reason to believe that even under the law as we had it before, full protection was given them. We are providing here that the provincial authorities may take a prisoner suffering from a contagious disease and treat him in a jail or some hospital if that is found necessary.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree with the minister that we are legislating in regard to our own penitentiaries, but we must remember this-that the judges who administer our criminal law, which we pass, convict these men, and sentence them to the penitentiary. The penitentiary is under our jurisdiction and if we pass this act and a man suffering from a contagious disease is sentenced to a penitentiary and that sentence is not carried out by reason of his disease, he is readmitted to the county jail, which has no adequate means of taking care of him. I know county jails in the province of Ontario, and apart from those in the larger cities I do not know of one that has any facilities at all for caring for convicts suffering from a contagious disease. We pass the criminal law; we appoint the judges who administer it; our appointees sentence the convict to the penitentiary, and now we are passing a law which says that unless the convict is in good health he cannot be admitted to the penitentiary; he must go back to the county jail whence he came, where there are no proper facilities for looking after him. I agree that we have no authority over these county jails. That is the difficulty of the situation, and in correspondence I have had on that matter when we have suggested that the county jail should be put into a condition to attend to these prisoners we have been practically told to mind our own business. There is the difficulty, and it is that I wish to point out.

Penitentiary Act


Mr. CALDWELL:: There is another
point involved that has not been touched upon, and that is that if a prisoner is sentenced to serve a term in a federal prison, and is afterwards under this legislation sent back to a county jail, the cost of maintaining him is thrown back on- the county, when by right it should fall on the Dominion. Am I right in that?


Lomer Gouin: Yes.


Mr. BAXTER:: There seems to be a
lack of provision as to who is to pay for the medical attendance necessary. There is something also in the draftsmanship of this bill which requires a little attention. It proposes to amend section 46 of the present act by adding at the end the following:
Provided that a convict, if certified by the surgeon to be suffering in manner aforesaid, may remain and be kept in his former custody until his condition shall In the opinion of the surgeon justify withdrawal of the certificate.
Now you have the sentence of the court, which says that he shall go to the penitentiary. Then, under this provision, if the convict is suffering from a contagious disease, the sentence is suspended, and the will of the surgeon is substituted for everything else. Suppose the surgeon finds him incurable- and he may well be possessed of a disease which is readily communicable and is not curable-apparently then he would remain in the jail for life at the cost of the municipality, which has to maintain the jail. The municipality would have to pay for his board and medical attendance. Of course, no such result is contemplated, but it seems to me there is a deficiency in the structure of the Act in not providing for a resumption of the jurisdiction of the court which sentenced the convict.
I may also add to what has been said on the subject of the unfitness of the county jails. There is not in the province of New Brunswick one jail in which it would be humane to keep a prisoner who is suffering. In the city of St. John-I do not say the jail there is the best-the jail is utterly inadequate. There are no proper accommodations, and it would only be inflicting unnecessary cruelty on a man under sentence to compel him to be looked after in such a place. I trust that this matter will receive more consideration. I am satisfied that every one in the House wants to accomplish the most beneficial results, but from my knowledge of the local conditions
I think the county jails are not fit to look after convicts suffering from contagious disease. I think it would be far better, and much more humane to segregate such cases in the penitentiary and treat them there.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid I do not wholly agree, with those who have spoken on this matter. I would not like to see legislation passed which virtually threw upon the Dominion government the care of incurables by the mere act of the incurable committing a crime. The incurable, in so far as he requires care at all, is the ward of the provincial authorities, and the upon the Dominion government the care of him. Consequently, in endeavouring at least to rid the Dominion of the obligation of accepting a charge which constitutionally is a provincial charge, I am wholly in sympathy with the minister. I only make this comment; in legislating that the man may remain, are you also legislating that the province must keep him? If you are, I am afraid you are doing worse than establishing a wheat board. Can this Parliament legislate to compel the province to maintain a prisoner who has been sentenced to the penitentiary?


Lomer Gouin: I may say that this request has come from the provinces themselves. I do not anticipate any difficulty over it. This has been the practice for years, and there has never been any trouble. In the past, no person suffering from a contagious disease could be admitted to a penitentiary. The prisoner has to be sent somewhere to be treated, and as he comes from the province, if he is suffering from a contagious disease he is sent back to a jail in a district of the province. There is only one question before us, because the question of maintenance does not come in now, and that is the treatment of prisoners suffering from a contagious disease. We could give them their liberty, but they have to be kept somewhere, and the provincial authorities say: Let us take them back to our jails or hospitals, and we will treat them. If any complaint should come from the provincial authorities, we shall consider it and try to ^settle it to the satisfaction of the province. .


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What has been the practice in such cases in the past?


Lomer Gouin: The provincial authorities now take the prisoners back to their jails, but there is a doubt whether they have a legal right to do so, and it is
Penitentiary Act

to remove that doubt that we are proposing this amendment.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This amendment does not change the practice at all?


Lomer Gouin: Not at all.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: In the county of Lennox that has always been the practice. If a criminal in the jail is sick, we take care of him in the hospital, and return him to the jail when he is better.


Mr. ANDERSON:: I was surgeon to a county jail in Ontario for about twenty years, and I would point out that no prisoner is sent from a county jail to the penitentiary without the surgeon's certificate that he is free from disease. If he contracts the disease on the road to the penitentiary, the governor of the jail would refuse to take him back. The governor of the jail would not consider that he was entitled to take charge of a man because of his suffering from an infectious disease. Furthermore in the smaller jails in the counties of Ontario absolutely no provision is made for the treatment of diseased patients, and no accommodation ekists for them except in the corridor or in the cell- there is not even a hospital ward in the majority of these institutions. Consequently, if a prisoner suffering from an infectious disease is returned to one of these jails he is put in with the other inmates and thus becomes a menace to their health as well as to the health of those philanthropic people who pay visits to the inmates from time to time. There is 'likewise a lack of hospital accommodation, I think, in connection with the jails in the smaller towns. Under the circumstances I think it will be found that the jail governors will refuse to accept prisoners suffering from infectious disease and will send them back whence they came.


Mr. LOGAN:: According to the Minister of Justice we are by this legislation only making legal what has been done without authority in the past. Let me say a word or two in reference to the condition of our jails in the province of Nova Scotia. I can supplement what has been said of conditions in the other provinces by stating that I do not know of a jail in my own province even in the city of Halifax, that is equipped to look after a prisoner suffering from infectious disease. There is, on the other hand, a possibility that such legislation as this may make it easier to retain men in the local jails; it has oc-

curred to me that such a thing might be possible by connivance between the local medical officer and the friends of the prisoner. I think I can remember in the practice of my profession the attempt being made to retain a man in a local jail in order not to have the stigma put upon him of having been an inmate of a penitentiary. It does seem to me also, as has been suggested by my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) that there is some danger of perpetrating an injustice upon the local authorities. Because, in Nova Scotia, the cost of maintaining a prisoner in jail devolves upon the municipal authorities, in the county of Cumberland, for example, that cost is borne by the county council and not by the provincial authorities. There may be very good reasons for the municipalities objecting to paying for the maintenance of prisoners who have been sentenced to the penitentiary; but there is one thing that we should do as far as we possibly can, and that is to provide humane treatment for the poor devil who has been jailed whilst suffering from an infectious disease. Cases have come under my personal observation of men who have been forced to lie in a pretty close cell, destitute of even sanitary arrangements, suffering and almost dying from infectious disease, and nobody seemed to worry very much about them. I think it would be better practice, wherever possible, to get a man who has been sentenced to the penitentiary sent to that institution as quickly as possible because proper hospital accommodation is obtainable and the needed facilities to look after his particular case.


Mr. BOYS:: It is not the province upon whom the financial responsibility tests, and that is a fact I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. I can quite understand the provinces being satisfied with this as legalizing a practice heretofore obtaining, but it is the county that bears the entire cost in connection with these jails-even the surgeon is paid by the county. Now what does this legislation mean? It simply means that it is left to the local municipality to take care of any expense that may be occasioned by the present amendment. They have not the necessary facilities to care for those suffering from infectious disease, and it is not at all likely that those facilities will be provided. It seems to me that if this amendment is to be adopted the rights of the municipalities should be safeguarded by some scheme properly worked out. If

Supply-Insurance
the provinces would undertake this responsibility all well and good; but if they will not do so it simply means that these patients will not get the requisite treatment. It seems to me that when a man receives a sentence which takes him to the penitentiary he becomes a charge upon the federal authorities and it is for them to see that proper care is taken of him. Whether they should go to the extent of providing facilities for treating such patients locally is a doubtful point; but I can assure the minister that legalizing a practice which has prevailed in the past will not do away with the trouble. After all it is most important to see that proper treatment should be provided for these men. That cannot and will not be provided in the local jails, the expense of whose maintenance is now entirely borne by the counties.


Mr. RANKIN:: In the province of Ontario the Public Health Act prohibits the transfer from one municipality to another of any person suffering from infectious disease. Therefore a prisoner suffering in this way could not be transferred from the penitentiary to a local jail or otherwise without violating the Public Health Act.


Lomer Gouin: We are not proposing by this legislation to change what has been the practice in the past; all that is being done is to legalize the 5 p.m. existing procedure. As to the question of expenditure the obligations of the provinces are not being increased ; they will in the future be the same in this respect as they have been in the past. One hon. member stated that the expense in these cases is paid by the counties. In our province that cost is borne by the provincial authorities. If parliament decides that we should take charge of the prisoners from the day they are convicted, whether they are suffering from infectious disease or not, that is another matter. We are only asking here that the mode of procedure under which the provincial authorities have acted in the past shall be legalized. I cannot say what the experience has been in other provinces but I am not aware that a single complaint has ever been made on this account in the province of Quebec, i Another objection raised is that if the law is amended in the manner proposed, a prisoner may be detained in a provincial jail for the whole term of his sentence, which might be for four or five years. But it should be remembered that the time spent by a prisoner in a provincial jail or a provincial hospital will be counted on his sentence; and should there be any doubt on that score the Minister of. Justice would certainly liberate the prisoner upon the expiration of his term. Therefore, considering all the objections and all the observations which have been made in regard to these two amendments which I have the honour to propose,
I do not see that we can do more to-day than what is proposed in them. We say that we go according to the old rules; we refuse to receive, in penitentiaries, prisoners if they suffer from infectious or contagious diseases, and we authorize the provinces to keep such prisoners in their charge, to treat them and, if possible, to cure them.
I have reason to believe that the explanations I have given are sufficient to convince hon. members of the necessity of these amendments.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Civil Government-Insurance-salaries, including .Superintendent of Insurance, $1,000 additional to salary authorized by 7-8 Edward VII, Chap. 69, and contingenciss, $117,385.
William Stevens Fielding: There is a small increase in the salary item. That we must expect as there is a constant increase in the insurance business. The number of officials is one less; but, against that, there is an increase in the contingency appropriation, out of which temporary employees will be paid. The increase in the volume of insurance which has to be handled by the department, is very great. Let me give these figures for the purposes of illustration. In 1915, the total fire insurance in force was $3,531,620,802. In 1920, according to the latest figures with which I have been furnished, it amounted to $5,969,872,278. The percentage of increase between 1915 and 1920 in the total fire insurance in force is 69. Between those two years there is an increase of 91 per cent in the net fire insurance premiums received, an increase of 103 per cent in the total life insurance business in force and an increase of 185 per cent in the amount of new life insurance issued. Altogether, these figures indicate, as they must, that there will always be a growing business in that department and this growing business will call, from time to time, for some increases. The additional
Supply-Insurance

amount asked by the superintendent is not large, and I am quite sure it will be only in harmony with the growth of the business.


Arthur Meighen: I observe, of course, what the minister himself has remarked, namely, that efforts at economy in this case have again resulted in an increased expenditure of about eight or nine per cent. I was glad to hear the Minister of Finance particularly acknowledge that, with increase in the functions of government, in the business of government, there necessarily will be some increase in the cost of operation, and, in a word, that if that goes on, as it has been going on, the cause of economy must be confined pretty much to propaganda.


William Stevens Fielding: It is rather too early to expect any government to indulge in economy in regard to Civil Service departments before there is any opportunity of making any inquiry. As regards my department, I make no boast of economy. I have not dismissed anybody; I took the estimates as I found them last year and I made a few changes. As time rolls on, I hope we can manifest economy in these branches. For the present, I suppose most of the ministers will be obliged to accept, in large degree the estimates of the past year, and time must be allowed for any economy to be exercised. At any rate as regards any branches with which I am connected, I am making no boast of economy at the present time. What will be done in the future remains to be seen.


Arthur Meighen: That remark applies with some force to oases like those of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King), possibly the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) and, perhaps, some others; but if there is one case to which it does not apply, it is that of the Minister of Finance himself. He was Minister of Finance of this country for fifteen years, in the very department in which he is now. He knows the organization of the department. Even in the ten years during which he was out of office, he followed its work and development very closely. I do not doubt at all that he knows intimately most of the higher officials of the department. They are the same people who were there in his time. This is something that he has at his fingers' ends. The Minister of Finance is all too modest when he seeks to convince me that three months would not be ample time for him to see if there was any extravagance in his department

in the matter of civil government. Three months! Why, in three weeks, the Minister of Finance would have a pretty good idea; but with all his experience and knowledge of the department, with all his concentration on that department, for that has been the work of his life, he is now compelled to come to this Parliament and, in every instance so far, not to confess his total inability to ask for any reduction, but rather to ask for something more.


William Stevens Fielding: If, in the last three months, I had nothing to do but study the Civil Service, in all probability my right hon. friend's remarks would be to the point; but, if he does not know this fact, I have had a great deal to do during the past three months. There are a number of vacancies in my department; my predecessor left some, and they have not been filled yet for the reason that I have not had time to investigate the matter. I have as much desire for economy in my department as I commend to my brother ministers, but time must be allowed for the exercise of economy; it cannot be accomplished in a day.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I trust that is not an intimation that all the vacancies in this department are to be filled. The appropriation put through amounts to about $413,000, and my recollection is that what it costs to run the department is $350,000. I recognize that my hon. friend will have before him circumstances which may require the extra vote. For instance, supposing that he puts into effect, what I think would be a very proper reform, the centralizing of all the bookkeeping of the country in the Finance Department, he may want more money; but I hope, simply because there are vacancies, my hon. friend is not going to fill them at the present time.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend left some vacancies, and I may say that I intend to have some of them filled. They will have to be filled by the Civil Service Commission. I do not want to call in question the wisdom of the Civil Service Commission, but I am not sure, under the machinery we have in the Civil Service Commission, we shall get the best men. Some of these vacancies will certainly be filled, and I do not hesitate to say that the men of my department are overworked. We are, however dealing at present with the Insurance Department. I think in that respect there is no ground for criticism.


Arthur Meighen: I have never disputed the desire of the minister to reduce, and

Supply-Auditor General
he will search my remarks in vain lor any suggestion of the kind. But he said enough before I spoke, and if he did not he has certainly said enough since, to show that though he has had other things to do he has had ample time to look into his department. Having done so, he comes here and says: "I have gone into the department, and though I have not had as much time as I shall have, I have had opportunity enough to discover that there are quite a lot of vacancies which I must fill because the men are overworked."


William Stevens Fielding: That is a perfectly correct statement of the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Auditor General's Office-Salaries, including Auditor General at $1,000 addition to 7-8 Edward VII, Ghap. 6, $253,885; contingencies, $34,000.
William Stevens Fielding: The item shows an increase. The Auditor General states that provision is made in his estimates 'for six additional audit clerks and six more junior audit clerks. He says that the preparation of the annual report for the past fiscal year was completed about the end of February, 1922. It is hoped to have the report for the current year much earlier than this date next year. To do so it will be necessary to have additional help. He says:
A number of the clerks now temporarily employed have qualified for permanent employment. I wish to retain the services of those who are rendering efficient service rather than have them assigned to another department and inexperienced clerks sent me in their places.
It is important that the Auditor General's report should be got out at an early date in the session, as hon. members will no doubt readily agree, because that document has a considerable bearing on the business of the House; and if the additional clerks whom the Auditor General desires will help to get that important report out at the beginning of the session, I am sure the committee will commend the increase for this purpose.


Mr. GOULD:: Is the current report true, that the Auditor General is retiring?


William Stevens Fielding: He has intimated his desire to retire and it is expected that leave of absence will be granted him up to the first of October, at which time it is contemplated he will retire. He has been for no less a period than fifty years in the public service.


Oliver Robert Gould: In connection with the
estimates of several departments, members
have repeatedly inquired upon whose recommendation the civil servants are appointed, and it was stated in reply a few nights ago that they were employed on the recommendation of the deputies or other officers higher up in the service. I think that is a most arbitrary proceeding. Members of Parliament, who are responsible for moneys voted in this House, desire to do everything possible to promote the efficiency of the public service. But we are led to believe, in certain instances, that departments are overmanned and officers higher up overpaid, as evidenced^ in the frequent increases asked for in civil government estimates. In view of this fact I have wondered whether it would not be advisable to appoint a parliamentary committee at this session to look into the various departments, with the deputy ministers and other officers of the Government, to ascertain and report to Parliament in what directions possible retrenchment, without impairment to the efficiency of the service, might be effected. I think there is good work in that connection that a special committee of the House could undertake, and I am sure that deputy ministers would co-operate with such a committee. I offer this merely as a suggestion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Although
there is a blanketing of officials in this item, there seems to be a considerable amount carried in the contingency vote, as well, for clerical and other assistance. It is suggested that certain temporary employees will be put on the permanent staff. I hope the minister will not transfer them all to the permanent staff, because the permanent staff is ample as it is. I had hoped that the department might be brought up to something like a state of modern efficiency, so that the requirements of modern business might be met, providing a proper audit that would adequately safeguard the Treasury, especially in regard to petty cash items. If that is to be done the department will have to be largely reconstituted. Otherwise my hon. friend will find that the character of the work will not conduce to a proper up-to-date system such as I suggest. I hope, I repeat, that he does not intend to place all the temporaries on the permanent staff, because we have enough permanent employees as it is. But if he does so, surely he will not need the vote for clerical assistance.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know how the word "blanketing," as it is used fre-
S upply-I nsurance

quently in connection with the Estimates, originated. If it means the transfer of temporary employees to the permanent list, it will be found that during the past year a good deal of that sort of transfer was made. I cannot say that the present Government has done nothing of that kind, but I do know that efforts have been made in the various departments to transfer many of the officials from the temporary to the permanent list and the matter has been held for further consideration. I agree that when you transfer a man from the temporary to the permanent list he acquires a larger vested right and it is harder to displace him. For that reason we are resisting the movement to transfer temporaries to the permanent staff. I concur in what my hon. friend says regarding the desirability of a reorganization of the department; but that will take time, and for the moment we must accept the organization as we find it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses of work in the interest of fire prevention, to be carried on by the Department of Insurance, $17,000.
William Stevens Fielding: The work of this branch is carried on by the department in co-operation with the Dominion Fire Prevention Association. The increase in the vote is due to the expenses of an investigation, undertaken at the suggestion of the association, of roofing materials with a view to determining their safety from a fire prevention standpoint, as well as their durability and cost. There is also being conducted at the present time an investigation of matches. A resolution of the Dominion Fire Prevention Association some months ago recommended that, if possible, legislation standardizing matches manufactured or imported into Canada be sought, and it is probable that legislation for this purpose will be submitted during the present session.


Arthur Meighen: I understand that there is a Dominien body, known as the Dominion Fire Prevention Association, and that this is a grant to that body?


William Stevens Fielding: I understand they work in co-operation.


Arthur Meighen: That is, the Insurance Department and the Dominion Fire Prevention Association.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The money, then, is checked out for the individual purposes of
[Mr. Meighen.l
the association by the Insurance Department?


William Stevens Fielding: It is a government grant, and subject to all the principles governing such an appropriation.


Arthur Meighen: Then it is a grant?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is paid out by the Superintendent of Insurance upon evidence that the conditions set forth have been complied with. I am not familiar with the matter, but that is my understanding. Being a Dominion grant, it must of course be subject to Dominion orders.


Arthur Meighen: That is the point I am at. I have come to the conclusion myself that many of these Dominion grants would be better restricted than amplified. I pretend to no special knowledge of the work of the Dominion Fire Prevention Association, but I had to do with other bodies, and I think the practice of turning over our money ^ to organizations of this kind, to prosecute special work that they are interested in, must be confined within very rigid limits indeed, and an examination made of the actual work done with the money from the Treasury and also with the money contributed from other sources to the same end. I found instances where these organizations had merely constituted themselves an agency, always under salary, for handling Dominion moneys to further purposes that they, of course, exalted to the skies, but that really did not get very far.


Mr. McMASTER:: The Alpine Club, for instance.


Arthur Meighen: The Alpine Club $1,000 has bothered my hon. friend for years, but if he would not strain at the gnat so often he might reach the camel.


William Stevens Fielding: There are occasions when grants are made as lump sums to various organizations, and they of course have to assume the responsibility of administration. My impression is that this grant is not exactly of that type, but that it is a matter in which the Superintendent of Insurance exercises an active part. If there is any doubt as to that, the item can be held over. But at any rate I will call the attention of the Superintendent of Insurance to my right hon. friend's remarks, because I would agree with him that Parliament should have some assurance that these grants are being applied to the purposes for which they are designed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Experimental Farms
Agriculture-Experimental Farms, $1,315,000.
Mr. TOLMIE:: In view of the increased expenditure, would the hon. minister kindly explain?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Chairman, a going concern like these farms cannot be administered with any degree of success without a corresponding increase in expenditure. I am sure my hon. friend from Victoria City (Mr. Toimie) has frequently noticed in the past that opportunities of spending a little more money on these experimental farms have increased, but during the war the vote was held down, and properly so I think. Since then conditions have not improved very much, from a financial standpoint, and in fact the vote is still being held down.


Arthur Meighen: I think there was a continual increase during the war.


William Richard Motherwell: And there will be now; but notwithstanding that there may be an increase in some items, the expenditure generally is being held down. There are twenty-two experimental farms located throughout the Dominion, and certain extensions are made from time to time of the work they are engaged in. As we go over the vote I shall be able to explain in detail how the aggregate is made up. A new farm was established last year at Swift Current that my hon. friend is familiar with. It is in a very primitive condition yet, and a reasonable amount of expenditure.has to be incurred in order to get it properly launched. The vote does not contemplate the addition of any new experimental farms this year. An item will be found later of possible expenditure for the acquisition of necessary land in the event of one or two more farms being established, but that would be as far as we would go this year.


Mr. HANSON:: This is a very large amount of money and we are not supplied with any details. I am interested, as one of these experimental farms is situated in my constituency, and I know its work has been curtailed very much, in fact too much it is claimed. Will the minister give us details of this vote?


William Richard Motherwell: We have a mass of information here, Mr. Chairman, but it would not be convenient to burden the committee with the whole of it. If my hon. friend will particularize what he wishes to be informed about I shall be glad to help him. We have all the farms tabulated here.
Beginning in the east, we have farms at the following points: Charlottetown, P.E.I., Kentville, N.S., Nappan, N.S., Fredericton, N.B., St. Anne de la Pocatiere, Que., Cap Rouge, Que., Lennoxville, Que., La Ferme, Que., Kapuskasing, Ont., Morden, Man., Brandon, Man., Indian Head, Sask., Rosthern, Sask., Scott, Sask., Swift Current, Sask., Lacombe, Alta., Lethbridge, Alta., Agassiz, B.C., Invermere, B.C., Sydney, B.C., and Summerland, B.C. There are also a certain number of sub-stations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much was spent on the Fredericton farm last year, and how much is proposed to be spent this year? Is the vacant position of superintendent of that farm to be filled right away?


William Richard Motherwell: The total amount spent last year was $40,482. The position of superintendent has been vacant for some time and is in the process of being filled. The position will have to be advertised by the Civil Service Commission, and that usually takes a couple of weeks. When the applications are all in, there will be the usual procedure of appointing a board to examine the applicants.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much is to be spent this year?


William Richard Motherwell: $42,882, an increase of nearly $3,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The work of that farm has been very largely curtailed; it does not appear that there will be any extension of activities in the coming year. I wish also to point out that in order to encourage good men to remain in the service, the principle of promotion should be adopted. The superintendent of the, farm resigned last year, and the work has since been carried on by a man born on a good New Brunswick farm. He had the advantage of living on that farm for a considerable length of time, and subsequently had the advantage of experience in a banking institution. He has been acting as assistant superintendent for the past three years. I hope that his claims to promotion will be given serious consideration. The department can exercise considerable influence in the appointment of a new superintendent, and I trust that the principle of promotion will commend itself to the minister and his officials as applying to this case. It will not be a popular move if some one who is not now in the service is appointed to that position, and if what I have heard is true, it is the intention to bring in an outsider.
796	COMMONS
Supply-Experimental Farms
If such a course is followed it will not commend itself to the people of that community.


William Richard Motherwell: The principle
enunciated by my hon friend is quite sound. I do not know the gentleman to whom he refers; I understand his name is Taylor.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not happen to know him, either. I am not interested in him personally.


William Richard Motherwell: The principle is sound, and should be followed wherever possible. I would not like to say just how much influence we have in the matter of the appointment. If the deputy minister and myself, and, we will say, the Director of Experimental Farms, recommended that this man should be appointed, it would no doubt have some influence on the commission. Sometimes such representations have effect; at other times they do not, according to how strong our case is and what the other applicants are like. I take it that the advisory board would be governed by the ability of the various applicants, though they would no doubt take into consideration the fact that a certain employee was in the line of succession.


Mr. LEWIS:: The suggestion has been made that the amount of this vote seems rather large, but considering the importance of agriculture I do not think it is at all excessive. In tact, I think it could be largely increased with a great amount of profit to the agrarian interests of Canada. The minister, speaking of the farm at Swift Curent, said that it was in a very primitive state. Did I understand him to say that a sum would be included in the Supplementary Estimates to provide this farm with buildings, or is the amount for that purpose included in the general vote for experimental farms?


William Richard Motherwell: Certain minor
buildings will be taken care of by this vote. It is quite probable that when the Supplementary Estimates come down they will contain a further sum for buildings That, of course, will depend on the condition of the finances of the country.


Arthur John Lewis: Will the minister give me the same information in respect to the Swift Current farm that he gave the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), in respect to the amount spent last year and the appropriation for this year?


Mr. MICHAUD:: The minister says that money will be voted to provide new build-

ings that are urgently needed to meet the conditions of agriculture in the West. Agriculture is a line of work which should not suffer through lack of this equipment, and we should not hesitate to vote the money necessary for that purpose. There are other parts of the country where money could profitably be spent on buildings of this kind, and I reserve the privilege of speaking on this subject on the first opportunity when other estimates are presented.


William Richard Motherwell: With regard to the inquiry of my hon. friend (Mr. Lewis), I may say that there is an item of $75,000 in the Public Works estimates for repairs and extensions which would take care of certain necessary building at these various experimental farms. As I have said, the matter of going on with new buildings of any considerable size is still under consideration, and if any provision under that head is to be made, it will have to be included in an additional vote to be brought down later.


Arthur John Lewis: The minister said that
$40,000 odd would be expended on the farm to which reference was made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Would he give me similar information in respect to Swift Current?


William Richard Motherwell: The amount
spent last year was $19,450. This year is is $25,450.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is any appropriation included in this item to open up an experimental farm in northern British Columbia? We have a large area up there which is rich in an agricultural sense, lying in the neighbourhood of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. The conditions there are different from those existing in any other part of British Columbia, and different from those on the prairie. It is a country that will be very valuable in the future as a live stock country, and more particularly as a dairy country. It is very productive in the way of hay, roots, and such things as are necessary for the proper carrying on of dairying. The area up there is immense. It is a country that at the present time is perhaps a little subject to frost, but it is one where an experimental farm would render very valuable service, indeed, if established in the near future, to the settlers in that part of British Columbia. I would be glad to know if there is an

Supply-Experimental Farms
appropriation included in this item for that purpose.


William Richard Motherwell: That is one place I had in mind when I spoke of experimental farms. There is an appropriation of $30,000, but just where it will be expended I cannot say. It will take some time to select the locality. I am in hopes that next summer I shall be able to visit that country. The locality we had in mind for an experimental farm out there is on the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific between the main range of mountains and the coast mountains. That is a splendid territory capable of a great deal of development in a colonization way. Of course, we cannot expect new settlers with very little resources to do much demonstration work and make a living. So far as my information goes, that will be the next district to have an experimental farm, but before making any decision I would like to visit that country, not only for that purpose, but for many other reasons. I had the pleasure of discussing this matter with a number of members from British Columbia, and they seemed to think that an experimental farm somewhere between the main range and the coast mountains is the proper place; but just where I am not prepared to say at the present time.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: How many experimental farms are there in British Columbia at the present time, how many substations, and how many demonstration farms?


William Richard Motherwell: There are four experimental farms, one sub-station, and I believe twelve illustration stations. I will give my hon. friend a list of them later. These illustration farms are small allotments running from twenty-five to forty acres, frequently leased from a local farmer. At all events, that is the usual practice on the prairie.


Donald Sutherland: I should also like the number of substations and illustration farms in each of the provinces, with their area, also the amount expended in connection with each of them, particularly the expenditure, outside of the civil government vote, for the permanent farm labour on each farm, the wages of the foremen, superintendents, and so forth.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I ask if the
minister expects to get a successor for Professor Saunders, who carried on insect pest research work in the maritime provinces, also what is being done with regard
to devising ways and means of overcoming potato disease, finding out the cause and the best preventive measures.


William Richard Motherwell: I can now give my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) a list of the illustration stations in British Columbia: Armstrong, Bar-riere, Comox, Frances Lake, Kamloops, Ker-vilie, Prince George, Smithers, Salmon Arm, Telkwa and Vanderhoof.


Donald Sutherland: I would also like to know the revenue derived from the farms in each of the provinces.


William Richard Motherwell: I presume my
hon. friend means the gross revenue. There is not very much net revenue.


Mr. FORTIER:: Are the expenses of the illustration farms included in this item? Is it the policy of the Government to establish more illustration farms in Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: In reply to the first question, yes. With regard to the establishment of more illustration farms, in the natural development of an institution of this kind there will, of course, be more farms. There are not very many in the different provinces, partly due to the fact that some of the provincial governments, the Ontario government, for instance, have taken up this kind of work, in a measure, and partly because there has not been a great demand for it, and such demand as there was, was being gratified. I remember that in the western provinces this work was being taken up in a small way before the Dominion government went into it. It is not an easy matter to get a suitable location and a suitable farmer to take charge of one of these illustration farms. The work is not overpaid, and it requires a lot of time and care, and a man with an experimental turn of mind, but in the majority^ of cases we are fairly successful. Occasionally we get a man who does not come up to our expectations, and in that case we eliminate him and get another man. There is no capital outlay in connection with these farms, except in one or two instances in the Peace river country, where a certain amount of capital has been expended. As a rule the land is just leased, the farms ranging from twenty-five to forty acres. We do not undertake much risk in these matters but occasionally our anticipations may not altogether be realized. Even so, I think the work can be extended with advantage.
798	COMMONS
Supply-Experimental Farms


Donald Sutherland: There is an increase in this item of $44,360. The minister has already practically promised about $30,000 of this increase for a farm in the northern part of British Columbia which will not leave very much money for meeting the necessities of. other provinces. I would think that the province of Ontario is entitled to be treated more generously in the matter of farms of this character, but if the minister's plans are carried out there is not very much likelihood of it receiving more liberal treatment.	,


William Richard Motherwell: I may inform my hon. friend that there was no absolute promise given to my hon. friend from Victoria city. Accompanying any such promise was the reservation that I would like to see the locality, not in connection with this farm alone, but because many other reasons render a visit to British Columbia desirable. With the information at present at our disposal that is where the next experimental farm should be located. If my hon. friend can throw any additional light upon the matter that will help to change my , opinion, as well as that of. the Director of Experimental Farms, I shall be very glad to receive it from him. I hope I have an open mind on the subject. As a rule, however, these farms, when established in new territory prove far more useful than when located in the older parts of Canada. How can we teach Ontario people to farm when a hundred years of actual practice has done that most effectively?
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 3, respecting The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 9, respecting The Canada Trust Company.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 10, to incorporate Canadian General Insurance Company.-Mr. Lanctot. SECOND READING
Bill No. 28, respecting The T. Eaton General Insurance Company.-Mr. Sheard.
VANCOUVER, FRASER VALLEY AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY On the motion for the second reading:
Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, this bill was

introduced by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and some opposition has been raised to it. He, unfortunately, is not in the House to-night, but he requested me to ask for the permission of the House to move the bill into second reading, to have it referred to the proper committee, and to have that committee, a little later, appoint a special day on which all the opposition may be brought against the bill. If that is satisfactory to the House, I beg to move the second reading of the bill.


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminister) :: This is a bill to which I would
direct tne particular attention of the House, because if this bill passes, it will have the effect of taking all the street railways in British Columbia out of the jurisdiction of the local authorities and placing them under the jurisdiction of the Dominion and the Board of Railway Commissioners. As stated by the hon. member who preceded me, there is a great deal of opposition to this bill. It is opposed by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, the Union of Canadian Municipalities, and practically all the municipalities in which the company operates.


Robert James Manion: If I may interrupt the hon. member, I have received objections to the bill and was told by the promoter that if any objections should be made to its having a second reading I should let it stand. Rather than have objection carried further, I would move that the bill stand.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac) : I understand that there are representatives here now from Vancouver , and elsewhere in British Columbia who are opposed to the bill. It is possible that if the bill does not get the second reading to-night it may not be ready for reference to the Committee on Railways by the 25th, as arranged by its promoters from the West. I also am inclined to oppose such a bill but as the representatives are here from the West now, perhaps the hon. member, unless he desires to delay it, might allow it to go to the committee where it will be properly threshed out.


William Garland McQuarrie: In the circumstances I will not discuss the bill further at this stage.
Motion agree to and bill read the second time.	[DOT]

Supply-Experimental Farms

House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.


The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee rose at six o'clock, Item No. 41, page 22 of the Estimates, was under consideration. Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. SALES:: Before we rose at six o'clock the minister was making some rather pertinent remarks regarding the value of ex-peTimental farms in new districts, and he seemed to be questioning the value of those in the old districts. I would call his attention to the situation in his own province with which he is very well acquainted. At Indian Head there is a farm which has been in operation for some years, I do not know just how many. By the Auditor General's Report for 1920 I see that that farm cost $44,482 that year, while the inincome from it was only $2,955.66. We have at Saskatoon, as the minister well knows, a large farm operated in connection with the university, at which all kinds of experiments can be conducted; forty-two miles distant is the experimental farm at Ros-thern, and1 about one hundred miles west of it is another at Scott. Now, realizing the importance of economy at this particular time, I am wondering whether there is not a certain amount of duplication there- whether all that experimental work could not be better carried on at Saskatoon and the money thus Saved employed usefully in some other direction. I am also wondering whether these- farms as they become better established cannot toe made selfsustaining. When one looks at the immense amount of money spent on them, and the small returns received from the sale of produce, the contrast is striking.


William Richard Motherwell: This is a very interesting and important question. I think every member of the committee will recognize that no matter where the experimental farm may be located, there will surely be some local benefit accrue from it. When we rose at six o'clock I was discussing the relative values of experimental farms in old and new districts. I believe that in the new districts we will probably get three or four times as much value in proportion to our expenditure as we get in the older districts. That will hold good whether it is an old farm in a new district like Indian Head, or a new farm in
an old district in Ontario. But inasmuch as the old farms were established at Brandon and Indian Head when these were new districts, naturally we are rather disposed to continue them.	[DOT]
With regard to the farms at Scott and Rosthern I think the latter was located before the university was established at Saskatoon, if I remember rightly.


Thomas Sales: I think so.


William Richard Motherwell: That accounts
for its proximity of only forty miles. The farm at Scott is in a peculiar district in regard to soil, which is of an entirely different character to that around Saskatoon, and therefore I suppose the distance of only one hundred miles was not considered an objection to its location at that point. But quite apart from that, I cannot help thinking that since the University of Saskatchewan has been established at Saskatoon as a state university, that is, combining in its curriculum agriculture as well as the arts and sciences, the whole question of duplication might be considered. We have not yet had sufficient time to deal with it conclusively. But for the sake of standing by what is generally [DOT]looked upon as a good thing, I do not think we should countenance duplication such as my hon. friend refers to. I have discussed this matter with Dean Rutherford of the Agricultural College on more than one occasion, having in view the possibility of some time merging those farms into the activities of the university. That can only be accomplished by the joint action of the province and the Dominion, but it is worth considering. As a good many of us know, the university authorities look forward to establishing a number of stations throughout Saskatchewan tributary to the university, and it occurs to me that some of these farms that we look upon as instances of duplication might be made part of the university's activities. Possibly the work might be entered into jointly by the Dominion and the province, we still retaining supervision over the work for a time, at all events.
There is no doubt that with respect to the older established farms we feel sometimes that we do not get full value for what they cost us. But it must be remembered that the value of the Indian Head farm when the old territories of Alberta and Saskatchewan were one was simply incalculable.

Supply-Experimental Farms


Thomas Sales: Agreed.


William Richard Motherwell: But that was
thirty years ago. Despite present conditions, I feel almost like continuing that farm even though it may have passed the point of maximum usefulness for the sake of the work it has done in years gone by. But apart from sentimental reasons, there is no doubt the day will come when these older farms will be required for other purposes, such as stock breeding and' multiplying certain new varieties of grains developed at the experimental farm here. For those purposes they are still useful, but a large proportion of their usefulness for the purposes for which they were originally designed has automatically passed away. That is unavoidable, and cannot be regarded as in any sense derogatory to the general plan of experimental farms.
But the point I wish to bring out is that during the first twenty-five years an experimental farm in a country like that is at its period of maximum usefulness to the community: that maximum, however, gradually declines as we pass into a new era, until finally the time arrives when we have to consider the question of soil fertility and cognate matters.


Mr SALES:: I agree thoroughly with what the hon. minister has said with regard to the usefulness of these farms for the first twenty-five years, and as to their further usefulness afterwards as to stock breeding and seed multiplying areas. The only point I had in mind was not the cutting down of the estimates, but of seeing that we get as full value as we possibly can for the money spent. I know that he is so thoroughly familiar with his province that it is only necessary to draw his attention to the matter for him to do his very best to that end.


Mr. KNOX:: The minister mentioned the differences between the soil at Scott and at Saskatoon. There is a vast portion of the province of Saskatchewan lying north of those points that has no experimental farm, and the difference in soil is far greater. I refer to the country lying north of probably townships 43 and 44. This is generally known as park country, and is devoted principally to stock-raising and dairying, besides raising grain fairly extensively. I hope the minister will keep this in mind so that if there is any change in the arrangements that portion of the West will be selected in which to conduct experiments. There is ample opportunity for

establishing experimental stations in that northern country.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I gather from the information given by the minister that there are twenty-two or twenty-three experimental farms in the Dominion. How many of these are located in each province? And what is the basis for apportioning so many farms to each province?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think
there is any recognized basis. In the older districts they had to do without experimental farms in the earlier days. For instance, if one hundred years ago a philanthropist had offered to give assistance in this respect-for there was no government money for the purpose in those days -there would have been many opportunities for the establishment of experimental farms in the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec. But to-day the tendency-and I think it is a correct one-is to establish these farms where they will do the most good, to assist the new settler in demonstrating the capabilities of the particular area in which he has cast his lot rather than oblige him to do the demonstrating himself and at the same time try to make a living. In such cases the government comes to the rescue. Such is the farm at Indian Head, referred to a few moments ago by the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales). Such is the one we have in view along the line of the Transcontinental in British Columbia, about which the hon. gentleman for Victoria city (Mr. Tolmie) spoke. The requirements of. some of the provinces are not so great in this respect; they are settled and established; their people have for the last hundred years been demonstrating the possibilities and capabilities of those areas. I do not think it would be wise to establish an arbitrary basis, relating to population, geographical division, or otherwise, upon which the opening up of experimental farms should be carried on.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I judge from the
remarks of the minister that there is no particular basis upon which these farms are established; I presume the district that brings the greatest pressure to bear upon him gets the farm. I remind the minister, then, that our district is new, and assure him that we are going to bring a lot of pressure to bear upon him in the near future.


William Richard Motherwell: I have particular sympathy for my hon. friend, because I

Supply-Experimental Farms
have had very pleasant relations with that territory.


Donald Sutherland: I have always
felt that legislation originating in this Parliament is of a federal nature, and that dre should look at things from the point of view of the general welfare of the whole country, not from the narrow or provincial point of view. But I am inclined to think that instead of broadening out, instead of having an outlook more national in its character, we are really becoming more provincial than we were a few years ago. I am sorry to have to admit it, but that seems to be the case. I believe there has been a disposition on the part of the older provinces to meet the requirements of the newer districts so far as that can reasonably be done. It is a somewhat significant thing that of late years there has been a tendency to make it appear that the agricultural industry has been receiving great consideration at the hands of the government. I am not now referring to any particular government; this has been the case with all governments. There has been a tendency to vote large sums of money for agricultural purposes, sometimes with no proper conception of what real value shall be obtained for the expenditure made. In some instances where large grants have been given we have not received, I am inclined to think, the value that we should Furthermore, the provinces are not as careful in the expenditure of. grants made to them by the federal government as they would be of moneys raised by themselves. I am satisfied that in our own province- and I am referring now not only to experimental farms, but to other things for which we have been voting money-there is a tendency to say: Well, this money comes very easily; we will let it go very easily.
I hope no one will think that I underestimate the value of experimental farms. In fact, I attach much more importance to them and to their value than the Minister of Agriculture does, judging from his remark that after a farm has been established for twenty-five years, seventy-five per cent of its value disappears. On the contrary, my view is that the older the province or district becomes and the more the science of agriculture develops from year to year, the greater is the need for experimental work. I am not sure that some of the difficulties which are being experienced in some of the newer districts could not be overcome if we had better system of experimental farms, and the work was
brought home to the people a little more closely than it now is. While the land is new, rich and fertile, it is an easy matter to settle on it and carry on what is called farming, but a great deal of which is not farming at all but exploitation of the fertility which has been stored up in the soil for centuries.
So far as Ontario is concerned, we have never taken exception to any grants that have been made for experimental farms in the newer districts. But I hold in my hand a pamphlet issued and circulated all over Canada by the Dominion Experimental Farm, on the face of which is a map indicating the location of the various farms, throughout Canada. It is somewhat significant that from the Central Experimental Farm, located at Ottawa, in the extreme eastern part of the province, you can go west for five hundred miles into what is a fairly good agricultural district in Ontario and you will not find another experimental farm, with the exception of a small experimental station for tobacco growing in the county of Kent. Moreover, there are three, four, or five farms in each of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba. When you come to Ontario there is practically a blank; when you come to Quebec, you will find that it is dotted with farms, and so on down through the maritime provinces.
Now, this thing has surely reached the stage where we shall have to register some objection to what has been going on. It is true that in 1916 a farm was established in the bush in northern Ontario, and I believe it is doing good work,-I was a strong advocate of having something done there. But that does not remedy the difficulty. The old settled districts of Ontario have been forced to establish farms themselves, and between those farms and the Dominion system of experimental farms there is no connection. We were passing estimates last night to encourage immigration: you will find that the first thing a prospective immigrant wants to know is what are the possibilities of the various provinces, and he will naturally look at the report of the experimental farms as found in these circulars and in other literature sent out by the Experimental Farms branch. An injustice is done to Ontario, or to any other province, when it does not figure prominently in these publications.
The statement has frequently been made that the Central Experimental Farm near



Supply-Experimental Farms
the city of Ottawa serves the whole province of Ontario, and that the money expended in connection with that farm is money expended on the province of Ontario. I think any one who understands the situation will agree that the Central farm has been located near this city for the benefit of the whole Dominion, and that many of the officials connected with it are carrying on their work in the different provinces. The Central farm consists of 467 acres and was established in 1886. There is one feature about the Central farm to which I am going to call the attention of the committee, and I am not bringing this matter up to-night simply because we have a new government and a new minister, because I have done the same thing when conditions were different. I have pointed out before that there is an absolute waste of money in connection with our experimental farm system, and that we do not get that efficient supervision and management to which we are entitled. On looking over the public accounts for the present year I was somewhat surprised to find that notwithstanding the deflation which has taken place in practically every other branch of the service, there was expended on the Central farm near Ottawa during the past year for ordinary farm labour no less a sum than $179,387.18. That is an increase of about $40,000. I do not know whether the increase in the estimates before us is to meet the deficit the minister expects next year. It is true that he gave what practically amounted to a promise to establish a new farm in British Columbia if conditions warranted it, but an increase of $40,000 for farm labour on this little farm close to the city of Ottawa is surely something that requires an explanation under present conditions. An experimental farm in order to render service must show that it is able to practise the methods it is endeavouring to teach. Otherwise, if it merely exists for conducting experiments, it need not be conducted on so large a scale. This increase in the cost of farm labour at the Central farm will seem strange to many who have not inquired into this matter, but I have seen this increase going on year after year. I have paid close attention to what is going on, and I am satisfied that the Central farm near Ottawa is more of a show place for visitors from all over the Dominion than it is an experimental farm. It is all very well to grow tomatoes and oranges in January and February under glass, but is that rendering any good service to the people of this community?

Is that the sort of experiments we want? The province of Ontario is establishing a new farm in the county of Kent, with a view to developing the possibilities in that part of the province. We have also a fruit farm at Vinelands in the Niagara district. The returns show that the province of Ontario grows practically all the tender fruits, and yet the province itself has to establish and maintain these farms. The Dominion government has absolutely refused to give any assistance. There is another farm at Kemptville, which was established and is maintained by the provincial government. Then there is the experimental farm in connection with the agricultural college at Guelph, which is also maintained by the province. This province pays nearly one-half of the customs revenue of the country, about 48 per cent, and yet it is compelled to establish and maintain its own experimental farms. We get practically no consideration from the Government in this matter.
The minister states that an experimental farm cannot do the good in an old settled district that it can in a new country. That may be, but I believe there are about twenty-five illustration farms in the province of Quebec, and not one in the province of Ontario. An illustration station or something of that kind might be all that would be required in a new district, where you have not the facilities for carrying on scientific work. I pointed out a year ago when the estimates of this department were up for consideration that the factory output of dairy products in one small county of Ontario was greater than the output of the1 provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia combined. This goes to show what can be done by intensive farming, and it is something that an experimental farm should bring home to the people. The experimental farms should blaze the way and show the people of this country that they can practise what they preach; they should lead, and not simply follow. Otherwise, the money expended is very largely wasted.
The minister pointed out in his opening remarks that a farm was going to be established in the province of British Columbia. I believe there was some idea last year, and it may still be under consideration, of establishing a flax experimental station somewhere in western Ontario. I am not sure whether the purchase of a site has been made. It is true that during the war flax growing increased very consider-

Supply-Experimental Farms
ably in Ontario. In one part of western Ontario people went into it on quite a large scale, and many of them were practically ruined as a result. As long ago as I can rememlber there have been numerous flax mills in western Ontario, and looking over the territory where they were located forty years ago you can see the effects of flax growing in that district up to this day. In the months of June and1 July those lands are as yellow as can be with wild mustard which was introduced and went to seed on these land's, and it has been impossible to eradicate it. You could not induce any one in that district who had experience in the growing of flax in the early days to engage in that industry to-day. There may be a considerable amount of flax being grown in western Ontario to-day, but that is only a temporary condition, because we Cannot compete with the cheap labour of such countries as India, Belgium and Russia, where they have grown flax successfully for years. I know there are experiments being conducted at the Experimental Farm along that line, and during the time flax growing was a profitable industry no doubt such experiments served a useful purpose. That is the great value of an experimental farm.
But I want to emphasize the fact that the newer districts are not so much in need of experimental work as the old districts are. It is in the latter that scientific methods must be applied, and we must adopt different methods from those we have followed in the past even in the old districts, if we are going to successfully compete with other agricultural countries where labour and land are much cheaper. All you have to do to realize that fact is to look at the imports into Canada. Then you will find that even with conditions as they are at the present time, staple commodities such as we can grow without any difficulty in this country are being imported and sold in our own markets notwithstanding the fact that we have very substantial duties upon such importations. Imagine, if you can, the conditions such as we have had during the year, ending on 31st March last, when over two million pounds of butter were brought into Canada from Great Britain under the British preference and sold to our people. Let me remind my hon. friends to my left that exporters from Great Britain can send commodities into Canada at a cheaper rate than they can be imported from United States. Millions of pounds are being imported into the
51i
Dominion under the conditions as they now exist. Look at the imports of bacon and beef, and other food products that are entering the country. Look at the quantity of eggs which is now being imported into Canada under the conditions I have described. We must adopt different methods if we are going to compete with other countries; although I understand the policy of hon. members opposite, and of hon. members to my left, to be to put all foodstuffs on the free list. The Lord only knows what will happen to the Canadian farmer when that day comes, because under the present conditions it is utterly impossible for the farmer in the old districts to compete with the outside world in production of their foodstuffs.
I ask the minister to say to-night whether he can-with all the money that has been spent, amounting to a million and a quarter or a half of dollars-state the actual cost of production of one of the articles I have mentioned at the farm? He is unable to do so, he makes no attempt to comply with the request. Individual farmers are conducting experiments along this line and are able to do so; but if you wait for information from the experimental farm on that question you will wait a long time.
Now, these are some of the things that I think might well engage the attention of the Government and Parliament on this occasion. I say we are not getting value for the money we are expending in this direction; and it is not fair to those who are engaged in agriculture to point to the millions of dollars that are being spent for supposedly agricultural purposes and then say, " How well you are being taken care of." Before the House rose at six o'clock I asked some questions with regard to the number of experimental farms in each province with a view to ascertaining the cost of carrying on these farms and the revenue derived therefrom. I think the minister and those associated with him in the department should be able to place before the committee some of the actual benefits that have resulted from the experiments carried on at these farms. They should be able to show what the actual cost of production is, and whether such methods of farming could be carried on at a profit or not. To my mind that is one of the important things that an experimental farm should be able to demonstrate. I would ask the minister therefore whether he is able to give the com-

Supply-Experimental Farms
mittee the information asked for in regard to these matters.


William Richard Motherwell: My deputy has
the information here but it is not classified in exactly the way in which my hon. friend wants it. While he is compiling it in the desired form I might answer my hon. friend in respect to two or three other matters. My hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has almost convinced me that the province of Ontario is very much slighted in the matter of the distribution of experimental farms. If with all this new information he has placed at my disposal I can equalize these matters somewhat I am sure I shall be delighted to do so. I am informed that one experimental farm has been established of recent years at Kapuskasing. My predecessor in office, very wisely, I think, on the advice of his deputy and the Director of Experimental Farms located that farm in what is known as New Ontario along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. If any error was committed in this respect Mr. Burrell was at fault but I do not think he did err; it was a logical thing to do. There may come a time when we will have sufficient revenues to establish these institutions in the old as well as the new districts; but so long as our means are limited surely the new districts are the proper places in which to establish these farms in order to obtain the maximum results from the money expended. I am told there has been a tobacco station established at Harrow.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It is in my riding.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, in the county of Essex. I think it is one of the greatest possible compliments to old Ontario that her agriculture is in such a highly developed condition that she does not require any of these experimental farms or demonstration stations. Our forefathers did the demonstrating in old Ontario fifty and one hundred years ago at immense toil and labour. To-day Parliament comes to the assistance of the new districts and undertakes demonstrations which the old pioneers in Ontario had to do for themselves.
My hon. friend seems to be quite positive that we have not been able to demonstrate at the Central Experimental
9 p.m. Farm what it cost to produce various commodities. Even if that were true I do not think we would be subject to any great amount of censure, because you cannot farm on a commercial scale when you are carrying on experiments at experimental farms or demonstra-

tion stations. I do not know that any such institution in the world was ever expected to show as good results as a farm conducted on a commercial scale. Notwithstanding that fact, however, I am informed that many of the Government bulletins and pamphlets do contain figures of the very nature the hon. member desires, showing exactly the cost of producing butter, eggs, meat and many other commodities grown on the farm. Such a thing is not always done by experimental farms because as a rule the showing obtained by them is not as good, measured by dollars and cents, as in the case of commercial farming. That is not the way we measure the value of the experimental farms; but, however, that is too big a subject to enter upon to-night. I merely give the hon. member the information he asks for and I do not make these remarks in any spirit of criticism of my hon. friend. I would say this however: There is a general impression- formed from speeches made sometimes in this House or from careless remarks uttered by gentlemen outside-that these experimental farms are simply huge centres of slothfulness and uselessness, just simply a resort where people can congregate, a sort of haven of refuge, a sort of agricultural senate as it were. That is not the case. Then we have another class of gentlemen -I will not say in the House although I have heard it myself-who never miss an opportunity of slandering the Civil Service of this country, claiming they are enjoying huge salaries, and that they are tumbling over each other and working only one-half the time. Personally I do not believe the greater part of that kind of talk. I have not discovered it at all events. That kind of cheap popularity does not go very far.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman sure about what he says regarding the Senate?


William Richard Motherwell: I was just in
need of an illustration at the time, and I could not think of anything else.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
may have ambitions himself before long.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I should like to say a word in connection with the establishment of an experimental farm at some point along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I fully agreed with the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) when he said it would greatly contribute to the welfare of the district if an experimental farm

Supply-Experimental Farms
should he established in that part of the country. There is a growing community; in fact, no other community that I know has a brighter prospect than the one along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific if the people there are properly looked after in this matter of agricultural education. Many people are coming in from the prairie provinces and settling; and numbers of our returned men have settled there. It is a new district and the people do not know what they can grow to the best advantage and in greatest quantity, so that it is in the interest of everybody that an experimental farm should be established there. An hon. member stated that the growing of flax impoverishes the soil.
I worked in the old country on a farm where flax had been grown for a hundred years; it is being grown there still, and I believe it will be grown there for another hundred years. Flax is one of the best paying crops that they have in the old country, and I do not think the hon. member who made that statement was speaking from practical experience. I think the Minister of Agriculture is using very good judgment in proposing to establish an experimental farm at some point along the Grand Trunk Pacific. Such a farm would do a great deal of good, and I hope the hon. members on this side of the House will support the proposition.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is an experimental farm going to be established at Can ora, Saskatchewan? A few years ago the department purchased a quarter section there for that purpose; but for some reason nothing was done. The people in that district are anxious to know whether an experimental farm is going to be established there.


Mr. WARD:: When the minister is
spreading these farms around, I hope he will not forget Dauphin.


William Richard Motherwell: I should like to hold out some hopes to all hon. gentlemen with regard to this matter, and I believe I can. My deputy informs me that the item of $30,000, of which I spoke before six o'clock, as being for the establishment of one farm, is for two farms. One of them is to be established along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific near the coast. I do not know where the other one is to be established, and I want to keep all hon. members guessing with respect to that. If hon. members have any recommendations to make, I would ask them not to do so by correspondence, as I am overwhelmed
now. As they see me in the corridors and elsewhere, I shall be happy to receive representations. I may say that many places have been mentioned as second choice. It is thought that in these new districts, $30,000 would be sufficient to buy two new farms without very much building on it, and that is the first step towards the establishment of an experimental farm. Therefore, there is hope for all members yet, even though the tentative selection with regard to British Columbia becomes a permanent one.
I have now the information for which the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) asked. It is as follows:
Prince Edward Island-I experimental farm.
Nova Scotia-2 experimental farms with 12
illustration stations.
Quebec-4 experimental farms, with 33 illustration stations and 1 tobacco station.
Ontario-2 experimental farms, with one tobacco station at Kent.
Manitoba-2 experimental farms.
Saskatchewan-4 experimental farms, with eleven illustration stations.
Alberta-2 experimental farms with two substations and 13 illustration stations.
British Columbia-4 experimental farms, with 1 sub-station and 12 illustration stations.


Donald Sutherland: I think the figures which have just been submitted by the minister substantiate practically every word that I said. I was a little surprised that the minister should make any reference to anyone making remarks with a view to obtaining some cheap popularity. As regards the Civil Service, I made a statement regarding the amount paid for farm labour on the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa, the amount being $179,600, which I considered was altogether out of proportion to the necessities of the Central farm. Before six o'clock, the minister practically told us that there was $30,000 in the Estimates for an experimental farm in British Columbia. He says now that there is apparently a demand from practically every constituency for an experimental farm; that three of them are going to be established, and, consequently, he is going to keep us all guessing, so that we shall all be in good humour and hopeful as long as no more definite information than that is furnished. This is a serious matter, and it is one that it is not very pleasant to refer to. I have criticized sometimes when people thought that I should not criticize; but I believe I have been sincere in every word that I have ever uttered in regard to the injustice that has been done to Ontario. The minister very glibly refers to Ontario, and, according to him, it is a

Supply-Experimental Farms
great compliment to the people of Ontario that they do not require experimental farms. They do require experimental farms; they are establishing them, and they are paying for them. Because the Dominion government will not do that they have to do it themselves. The minister made reference to the farm at Kapuskasing. I referred to the fact that a farm had been established at Kapuskasing down in the bush where an illustration farm would do just as good work as a farm involving a large expenditure of money. But before that farm was established, the province of Ontario established, near the Grand Trunk Pacific, at Monteith, an experimental farm which had been conducted for a number of years before the Dominion government established the one at Kapuskasing. Even with the experimental farm at Kapuskasing, what do we find? We find another one in Quebec a short distance from it. Consequently, these two farms are very close together; but for over BOO miles west from the Central Experimental Farm, you will not find another experimental farm in the chief agricultural district of Ontario. We are not clamouring for the establishment of experimental farms; we have not been urging their establishment upon the Government, because, during the last few years, everyone knows the need for economy. The time has surely come when we must practise economy everywhere, in this House and outside of it, if we are going to overcome the difficulties with which we are confronted. There is no need of. imagining that, by making appeals for assistance in a certain locality or constituency, we are going to get something for that constituency and that we are going to overcome our difficulties in that way. We must assist the Government to the utmost of our power in endeavouring to meet conditions which are very difficult. That is the reason why I am pointing out these things and stating that this extravagance which is being practised on the Central Experimental Farm, must cease, or we cannot expect to see practised in other branches of the Government that economy which should be practised.
It is really worth while studying the Auditor General's Report. We have been paying a bonus to the civil servants, and that bonus has been going to men engaged as labourers on the Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa. That method applied throughout. Many of these people were hired for a few months, but a great many were employed by the year, and in addition

to the salary they drew they were given a bonus. I do not know whether that was the case last year, but certainly it was the year before. The experimental farm system in this country has become so lopsided that I think the remarks made by the member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) might very well be considered. If some provinces have to do all this work, I think the time has arrived when each province should conduct its own experiments. Certainly one province should not be discriminated against and another province shown favour. There should be a more equitable system than the one now in vogue.


William Richard Motherwell: While Ontario
really has only two experimental farms, nevertheless in this Central Farm there is more work being done and more money spent than in any other province in the Dominion.


Mr. LEGER:: The minister says that there are in New Brunswick one experimental farm and twelve illustration stations. What are the locations of these stations, and where is the experimental farm?


Mr. PRITCHARD:: Are there any demonstration farms in any of the provinces?


William Richard Motherwell: They are really all demonstration farms. They are usually classified into experimental farms, demonstration farms, and illustration stations. These are all really interchangeable terms, but by usage they have been applied to designate particular kinds of farms.


John Pritchard: I have listened with interest to the discussion for several minutes, and I think profitable contributions have been made by the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) and some other members. I sympathise with a good deal of what the minister has said. The experimental farms have done good work in the various provinfces throughout the Dominion, and I agree with the minister to this extent, that there is perhaps more need cf experimental stations in new sections, because settlers going into these places do not know what the land is adapted to grow, and the Government should bear the expense of experimenting on crops in those sections for a time. In Ontario we need a demonstration farm. My idea of such a farm is one conducted under the supervision of government officials on a purely self-paying basis, so that the actual expense to the Government would be very little if any. I have thought for some

Supply-Experimental Farms
time that the ideal experimental farm could be conducted in such a way that all that would be required to prove whether or not it was successfully managed would be the expense of a book-keeper. Such a farm should have the services of a graduate of one of the Ontario agricultural colleges. Let him turn his college education to practical account in the locality in which he is stationed, and demonstrate to the people that farming can be carried on successfully. He could eliminate a good deal of the cost which we have in connection with the experimental farms to-day. We should encourage, through our agricultural colleges and experimental farms, the proper use of a system of book-keeping. Every successful farmer should keep a system of books and from time to time, or annually, examine them to see whether there has been a profit or a loss for the twelve months. In other words, the farm should be managed, so far as its accounts are concerned, just as an ordinary business is conducted.
I do not see why this cannot be done in the older parts of the provinces, at any rate, in connection with the government experimental farms. The expense entailed by this system would be trifling to the Government, while the educational value to the people would be very considerable indeed. I submit that this is something we need very much, and this is what I mean by a demonstration farm.


Thomas Sales: I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Pritchard) and I have been thinking about the same thing for half an hour. As a matter of fact, I had, written on a sheet of paper, a suggestion which I will now offer to the minister, that in addition to the $30,000 for the new provinces that need experimental farms, he could save $30,730 on Rosthern and $26,256 on Scott, by placing these farms on a commercial basis. They are well located, their lands are good, and they have good buildings; and I would charge them a moderate interest, say 5 per cent, and let them pay their way and prove that farming can be made a commercial success. Since coming to Ottawa and attending the meetings of the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, I have found that a good many of our friends think that we are pulling a sort of poor mouth and stretching our tale of woe a little too much. They cannot believe that conditions are as we say. Well, here is a chance for the Government themselves actually to prove where the fault lies and whether the farmer is really a poor business man who does not work long enough hours. I find in the Public Accounts that the
farm at Rosthern pays $14,443 for labourers' wages, in addition to a superintendent and assistant superintendent at a total of nearly $6,000 more, while Scott pays $17,500 for labour and overseeing. I know men who work farms of the same size from which they do not receive a total income in any way approaching these amounts spent in wages. I am sure the minister and his department would perform a really useful service if they would put two or three of these farms on a real commercial basis for a few years.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) :: The other night I asked the minister a question with regard to the record of performance in the poultry industry and he informed me that the matter would be taken up to-night. Previous ministers in the late government put into effect a record of performance of a practical nature along the lines suggested by the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). In the year 1919-20 there were entered 4,437 birds, of which 823, or a percentage of 16.7, received certificates for 150 eggs and over per year, while there was a small percentage, 1.8, that got the advanced certificate for 225 eggs. All these birds had to lay eggs of at least two ounces in weight. The next year the number of birds entered was increased to 7,158, or an increase of 69 per cent. This year the number is 11,489, or 80 per cent of an ' increase, with 122 breeders. Does the minister intend to keep pace with the increase in these birds and follow up the work started by the late government, which is of a practical character and from which much benefit can be derived. If he does that, and it is increased to the extent that seems probable with the work started on the first of November next year, I should like to know if he has made any provision in his estimates for, say, doubling that line of work.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. The work is well begun, and I think I cannot do better than continue it.
These are the names of the stations in New Brunswick with the counties and operators:
Name
of station	County	OperatorApohaqui	Kent	J.	H. Manchester.Adamsville...Kings	J.	A. Arsenault.
WestmoreBoundary Creek, land . . . . M. Steeves.
Westmore-
Bittle Shemogue. land .. .. A. Oulton.
Northum-
Lower Derby. . . berland . . W. R. Taylor. Middle Coverdale.	Albert . .	. . H.	E. Mitton.Millville....York	P.	Graham.Perth	Victoria..	.. R.	J. McCrea.Rexton	Kent	J.	G. Dickinson.Woodstock ..	..	Carleton.	.. E.	W. Turner.
Supply-Experimental Farms
Replying to the hon. members for Dundas (Mr. Elliott) and Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) with respect to operating these farms on a commercial basis, that used to be discussed many years ago when these farms were first established. It was often contended, that even the experimental farm at Ottawa should show a profit, and the gentleman in charge of it at the time was occasioned a good deal of worry because he could not show a credit balance. Well, if it is a real experimental and demonstration farm, I do not think it ever will show a profit in dollars and cents; in fact, I do not see how it could be done. I need not point out to the committee that there are limitations which make it impossible to operate any of these farms on a commercial basis. No plan of farming will show a profit equal to the plan followed by the peasant proprietor. How is government operation of a farm to compare with private operation? How can you make a comparison from which it is possible to draw any intelligent conclusion? There will always be a certain amount of "frills" connected with government operation, no matter how carefully the farm may be managed. The average man looking on realizes that the manager of one of these experimental farms has the whole resources of the Dominion behind him, and if his crops are ruined by hail he is not "up against it". Therefore Mr. Average Man knows that the socalled commercial possibilities of such a farm would be of no avail to him. But we are entering upon a very practical age, and I shall be delighted if anyone will show me how our administration of any farm, whether at Rosthern, Scott or anywhere else, can be such as to combine benefit to the surrounding country and commercial profit.


Donald Sutherland: I do not think the minister is taking the right interpretation. As to making an experimental farm a paying concern, I think there is no one so foolish as to even dream of such a thing. But it has been contended that some of this land that is being used for illustration and experimental purposes, but particularly for the former-we have not any illustration farms in Ontario, although I see there are thirty-three in Quebec and fifteen in the western provinces-could be utilized to demonstrate whether farming can be carried on at a profit. I do not think it is too much to ask that that should be done, in view of the fact that every dollar that has ever been asked for experimental purposes has been ungrudgingly voted. After all these years, and in view 
of the present very trying conditions for those engaged in agriculture, it is only fair that some object lessons should be available that would help them very considerably.


Mr. BROWN:: Knowing the conditions of farming, does not the minister think it would be a valuable thing to this country if what we have often contended could be abundantly demonstrated, namely, that farming can only be carried on profitably where we have a large amount of unpaid labour in the shape of women and children? We have made that assertion very frequently in our conventions, and I do not think it can be contradicted. We have been contending for some time, and we are trying to contend here, that under present conditions, and applying purely commercial principles, farming cannot be made a success. We are sometimes told that we are not businesslike in managing our farm affairs, and then we have the admission- and I believe it is a true admission-that the only man who can get the most out of farming is he who, like the peasant, gives himself wholly to it and has the assistance of his wife and children.
In the Committee on Agriculture to-day it was suggested that we should adopt dairying to a larger extent. Now, the only man who can make money out of dairying to-day is the man with a growing family whom he can exploit for a little time during their growing years and get their unpaid labour, and then they are driven from the farm. It would be a very good thing if that could be so clearly demonstrated on one of these farms that every one in Canada would understand the condition that agriculture is in.


Auguste Théophile Léger: There are some sections of our part of the country in which experimental or demonstration farms should be established in order to encourage the farmers. We have an experimental farm in the extreme west of the province, but it is some hundred miles from the shore counties, where there is a large area of great agricultural value. Farming is certainly the backbone of the country and it should be encouraged in every possible way. I would invite the minister's attention, therefore, to the case of my province. We are certainly not doing as well as we should, due to the fact that in some sections we have no encouragement whatever in the way of experimental farms. The illustration stations may be very good, but they serve only the

Supply-Experimental Farms
district immediately surrounding them, which is a very small area indeed. I would invite the minister to visit our part of the country and see the conditions with respect to farming there; he might be encouraged to do something in this connection. As I have intimated, the western part of the province is well looked after, but the eastern part, along the north shore, has been neglected. I would ask the minister to give this matter his serious consideration.


Mr. WARNER:: We are talking about experimental farms and demonstration farms, and I am rather afraid we are confusing the two. As I understand it, an experimental farm is a farm that will do many things that we are not expecting a profit from-I mean, directly, on that farm. The minister is justified, I think, in saying that he does not think it possible to put an experimental farm on a commercial basis. However, there is room for experimental farms, and, as some hon. members have said, there is room for demonstration. An experimental farm can demonstrate, more or less, but a demonstration farm would have to work along the line upon which the ordinary farmer carries on his actual work, and not very much experimenting could be done if it was hoped to make a profit. That is why the ordinary farmer expects the Dominion experimental farms to experiment; he does not want to have to do it himself. I support the idea of demonstration. We have had farms that we called demonstration farms in Alberta. I am not prepared to say just how much they have demonstrated, but I do not think they have made much profit. I do think they have made a mistake in going into the experimenting line; in my opinion, the purpose of a demonstration farm should be to demonstrate whether the methods we know of can be made to pay. The difference, then, between a demonstration farm and an experimental farm should be kept in mind. Some of the money spent in experimenting may be quite unproductive of results; in other cases, the results attained may be worth much more than the cost-that is the way we have to look at the work of an experimental farm. A demonstration farm which can make a success of the employment of scientific methods would be just as valuable to Canada to-day as an experimental farm. I would not expect it to make money, but if it can be done, I would like to see it done. But I would like
to see these two things, demonstration farms and experimental farms, looked at from a different standpoint, rather than one taking the place of the two.


Mr. STANSELL:: The minister has
stated that the farm here at Ottawa, which is known as the Central Experimental Farm but which most of us call the Dominion Experimental Farm, is receiving more money than many of the others put together. I am quite willing to admit that I have a very high opinion of the work that is being done there. But it has occurred to most hon. members that owing to its geographical location this Central Experimental Farm is of equal value to Ontario and Quebec. I would not have mentioned this had it not been for the fact that in answer to a question put by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), the minister stated that outside of the Central Experimental Farm, which, as I have pointed out, serves equally the two old provinces, there are two smaller illustration or experimental farms in Ontario and thirty-eight in Quebec. I am sure that many of us have wondered what conditions gave rise to the necessity for a difference of thirty-six as between the two provinces.


Mr. SPENCER:: A statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) a few minutes ago brought to my mind a subject to which I have given a great deal of thought. He said that in order to make farming pay it was necessary to have a peasant proprietorship. Too many people have been thinking along these lines and making statements of this kind. At present, high as wages are, those paid on the farm do not equal those paid in other industries. That is one of the reasons why it is difficult to get the very best class of labour on the farm-and it is only the very best class of labour that you want on the farm. Just as much skill is required on the farm as is necessary in any other industry; in many respects a great deal more skill is required. This matter of a man working a farm on a family basis, that is, using his family to work that farm without wages, does not tend to the ultimate good of the country. When the people are ignorant you can do that sort of thing and keep the boys at home. But when they begin to know anything at all; when the boys and the girls go to school, they soon learn where the highest wages are paid. Just as soon as they are old enough to
810	COMMONS
Supply-Experimental Farms
work they will leave the farm for higher wages. You will never have a successful immigration until you put the farming industry on a business footing where it can be made to pay. I saw in the paper the other day that the farmer and labour elements would never agree, because while labour wanted an eight-hour day, the farmer wanted a fifteen-hour day. I want to assure the hon. members of this House that the farmers do not want a fifteen-hour day, and the sooner they get down to an eight or a ten-hour day the better they will be pleased, and the better it will be for the country. You can never build up a country by asking a certain part of it to work for fourteen or sixteen hours a day, while the rest of the country is working a much shorter day. We hear a great deal nowadays of the baek-to-the-land movement, but the people who are advocating that are the ones who do not intend to go back to the land themselves. Just as soon as the Government can demonstrate that farming conducted on rational lines can be made to pay like any other business, even if a few extra hours have to be put in, then you will have immigrants coming to this country and they will stay here. But as long as you are content with saying that farming can only pay when it is conducted on the family basis, where the family work themselves without wages, you will never populate the country.


John Pritchard: I do not think the
minister quite understood my suggestion. I quite appreciate that the experimental farms can do a good deal for every province in the breeding of live stock, poultry and that kind of thing, and experiments along that line carried on at the Central Farm here will be just as beneficial as experiments carried on in British Columbia. My suggestion was not to carry on a demonstration farm at all like an experimental farm, with expensive buildings and lands, but to take a graduate of the Agricultural College and put him on an ordinary farm, let him run it in a businesslike way, and simply go over his books at the end of the year, to see if it is possible for a capable man to make farming pay. All the expense the Government will be put to will be that of auditing his books. If you cannot show that a capable man can make farming pay, you will not get many immigrants coming to this country to farm. This Government, so far as I know, has never done anything to show that farming can be made to pay if carried on in a businesslike way.


Mr. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) :: I was encouraged to get on my feet when I heard the minister say that demonstration farms are of greatest benefit in the new territories. In my constituency, up in the Peace river district, we have a great new territory. I am not now asking for a demonstration farm, though some people up there have been asking for another one. The great difficulty there at the present time is freight rates. The Peace river country lies three to four hundred miles northwest of Edmonton. There is an experimental station at Beaver Lodge, and I believe that the gentleman who is in charge of that station is within measurable distance of proving that clover seed can be grown as a commercial proposition there. I believe he is badly handicapped for money this year, and I would ask the minister to take in consideration the needs of that part of the country. If the farmers can grow clover seed there on a commercial basis, the freight rates would not be nearly so oppressive as at the present time.


William Richard Motherwell: In reply to my
hon. friend who spoke of the large number of experimental farms in the province of Quebec, some thirty-eight in number, he made the mistake of bunching them all together. Thirty-three of these are just small illustration farms of twenty to twenty-five acres, and the farmer is paid about four dollars an acre for operating the farm. There is no overhead expenditure, no capital outlay, and few signs to indicate that it is a Dominion Government illustration farm. There are only four experimental farms in the province of Quebec, the other thirty-three being illustration stations that have been located where they were asked for. These farms in the province of Quebec have nearly all been organized during the last two or three years, and whatever credit may be coming to any one in connection therewith may be credited to the gentleman who preceded me in this office. I think some credit is coming to him, because these farms are doing a useful work. So let us get rid of the idea that there are thirty-eight experimental farms in the province of Quebec as against two in Ontario. The reason there are thirty-three illustration farms in the province of Quebec is that the people of that province have applied for them, while there have been very few applications, until quite recently, from the province of Ontario. Applications are beginning to come in now, however, and we anticipate locating a number of these farms in Ontario this summer.

Supply-Experimental Farms


Mr. WHITE :: There was nothing to indicate whether the farms in the list the minister read out were three acres or three hundred in extent, and that is how I got my impression that there were many more experimental farms in Quebec than in Ontario.


William Richard Motherwell: Quite right. Replying to my hon. friend who stated that a farm cannot be made to pay except as a self-contained unit operated by the members of the family, I think the past year has demonstrated that. As a matter of fact it was demonstrated in this province forty years ago when I was here. There were very few farms here then, more particularly in eastern Ontario, that were not operated as self-contained units, each supplying within itself a great deal of the raw material that went into the clothing of the family, as well as its food. Very few wages were paid out in this province forty years ago. In the western provinces as a result of the deflation of prices, on the one hand, and the high cost of farm implements and equipment, on the other, we have not been able to make it go under a system of hired labour. And if you had happened to go through the constituencies as I have-for example I passed through the constituency of the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) just as harvest was beginning this year; the rust struck that country pretty severely and everybody was rushed on the farm-you would find families there with the boss-as we call him- on the binder, or a boy, maybe only thirteen or fourteen years of age, on the binder, and the parents and a number of children doing the stooking-a self contained unit. That may not be the ideal way to farm but that was the way in which the province of Ontario was largely pioneered-by self contained units.
When I said that the best way to get men on the farm to-day was to operate the farm on the principle of peasant proprietorship, I did not mean to imply the introduction of the peasant system as it exists in the older countries of Europe. The term "peasant proprietorship" is one that is used by economists or at least it was formerly used by writers on political economy in contradistinction to the system of owning and operating large farms. The principle of peasant proprietorship is that under which you own and operate your own farm and receive all the profits. The term I used is one employed by economists in describing the difference between small
farms-a self contained unit operated by the owner-and a large farm owned by a landlord and operated by a tenant.
Then the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy) spoke of the eight hour a day system, meaning by that, I presume, working eight hours 'before dinner and eight hours after dinner. The eight hour day was introduced in the Old Country during the war and there was a great deal of money paid for overtime. I cannot hold out any hope, unless the Cost of operating in other respects is very substantially reduced that our hours will be very much lessened. After all, our rules are largely what we make them ourselves.


William John Ward: Would the minister advise that one of his little farms be conducted on an eight-hour basis just to demonstrate what beef, butter, eggs, and other foodstuffs would cost to produce on a farm run in that way, with time and one-half for over time?


William Foster Garland: I do not want to occupy too much of the time of the committee but several allusions have been made to the experimental farm in this city. I rise in order to pay my respects to that institution. Situated as it is with the acreage available and with the number of buildings it has occupying the land it can not very well be (conducted any differently from what it is at present. The branches conducted at the farm include health of animals, poultry, astronomical observatory, geodetic survey, and chemical laboratory. These all occupy space that really should be devoted to agricultural purposes. If I had my wish the minister should be placed in possession of sufficient funds to buy four hundred acres that immediately adjoin the farm. Then he would have an area of land that would not be cluttered up with buildings and would really be conducted as a farm should. At present the farm reseirtbles nothing so much as a small hamlet surrounded toy a nice lawn.
So much for the matter of the farm. There is a question I would like to ask the minister. Under Order in Council dealing with the Canadian standard for eggs, all Canadian eggs that are exported from this country must bear the Government inspection stamp on both ends of the case. I would like to know from the minister if it is the intention of the department to make the same regulation apply to eggs imported into this country. For instance, a large quantity of eggs enters Canada from the

Supply-Experimental Farms
United States and a very great quantity of highly flavoured1 eggs comes here from China. I would like to know from the minister if the same regulation should not apply to these importations that exists in the case of our Canadian exported eggs?


William Richard Motherwell: I will reply to my hon. friend's question when we1 come to take up the live stock vote.


Thomas Sales: I notice that further down the list there is a vote for cold storage warehouses.


William Richard Motherwell: We will come to that later; we are now dealing with the vote for experimental farms.


Donald Sutherland: The minister has practically ignored my request for some explanation as to why there is an increase cf over $44,000 for experimental farms; he does not deem the request to be worthy of consideration. It appears, however, that he is dangling the greater part of this increase before somebody as likely to be expended for a new experimental farm; but he does not know and cannot inform the committee where it is going to be. It is a new experience, I think, for Parliament to be asked to vote such a sum as $44,000 without any information being vouchsafed as to what the money is intended for, and where it is to be expended. It is true the minister announced that he had in the back of his mind an idea that $30,000 was to go to the establishment of a farm somewhere in the northern part of British Columbia, but in saying this he ridicules the idea that there should be in an old province like Ontario any necessity for experimental farms. Under the circumstances I move seconded by Mr. Senn:
That item No. 41, being the estimate for experimental farms be reduced by J44.360.50, or the same amount that was voted in 1921.


William Richard Motherwell: Before the amendment is put let me say that there was no intention on my part to overlook my hon. friend's question. I have been trying to keep track of various questions that have been put and to give the desired information with respect to all of them. If I can be charged with anything it is
10 p.m. with being too detailed in my explanations. But I did inadvertently overlook that particular question of my hon. friend. However, I have the information here and there was no intention on my part to ignore it. There is no desire to conceal anything, because there is nothing to conceal. If there is an in-

crease in the vote it is because the experimental farm system is growing and when that is the case we require more money. The increase is intended to cover new work in plant pathology. That has reference to plant diseases, (including such diseases as rust; and if we spent $400,000 in that direction and secured a cure for rust it would be money well expended. I wish I could find the best available man in this continent for that work. If I could obtain the necessary salary to get that man and keep him, then we would be able to show a little better results than we are now able to produce. But, on account of being hobbled, handcuffed and hamstrung in connection with securing men and paying salaries, we have to take what we can get. This often means that we do not get results at all. There is an increase in wages. Wages have not gone down yet; they may go down; but when you have a good man on an experimental farm, you cannot reduce his wages. During all the time that I have been farming, I have not been able to say to an old, experienced hand: "I am going to reduce your salary." To say that would be an intimation to him to go, and he would take it in that way. It is not good policy to reduce the wages of good men. As a matter of fact, if I carried out one-half of the representations made to me and, sometimes, by hon. members, I would have four times as many men on the Central Experimental Farm; but the number is being kept down. A farmer has to have sufficient help for spring requirements, and in order to have men, he has to get them a little in advance. If he is sufficiently advanced in his work as he should be, these men will be waiting anxiously to jump to the land. I would imagine, if we sent a committee out to the Central Experimental Farm, they would find, at this particular time of the year, when the advent of spring is awaited, apparently too many men there; but in ten days or two weeks from now these men will be all busy at their respective duties.
There are, on that farm, some thirteen different divisions, and everyone of them is growing. If they were not growing and developing their usefulness, they should not be there; and if they are going to grow and develop and serve the country properly, the country must be prepared to pay for them. Instead of reducing this estimate, I should be apologizing for its being so small, because that is the way I feel about the matter. Since I had my civil government estimates under discus-

Supply-Entomology
sion, one of the best men in those thirteen divisions has left us simply because we are not paying him a sufficient salary to retain his services. I cannot give the committee his name, because his resignation is not public yet; but he is one of my best men in one of the most important branches. He is leaving us because he has an offer of $2,100 more than he was getting from us, with a prospect of an increase running up to-well, I will not say, but so much larger an amount than we are giving that we cannot hold him. If you put second and third class men on experimental farms and then equip those farms with what you like, you can spend a great deal of money and get very little result. But if you increase the value and quality of your r"key" men by twenty-five per cent, you will have results worth while, and whatever, within reason, it takes to get those "key" men, should be paid. A $6,000 or $8,000 man will do infinitely more and better work and give better service along the line of plant pathology than three, four or five men of a cheaper class whose salaries may aggregate no more than that of the one man. This is one of the reasons why, in my estimation, we are not getting along faster in the matter of plant pathology. We have not got the best men and these salaries will not secure the best men.
My information is that owing to the high cost, chemical supplies and apparatus in the division of chemistry have been allowed tq run down. As a matter of fact, nearly all these appropriations are smaller than were required in past years, and the result is that many of the farms have been handicapped in their work. It is true that the amount is larger than in the preceding year, but it is not enough to take care of the requirements of the farm. I have about half a page of reasons why this estimate is required, and the fact is that every one of these thirteen divisions is increasing its usefulness.
The hon. member for Carleton Mr. Garland) put a question with regard to poultry. At no time in the history of our country has poultry raising been so important as it is at the present. While we are importing Chinese eggs, we are exporting more high class eggs than we are importing of poor ones. We have a slight overage, and'the same thing is true with regard to butter. We are importing butter from New Zealand and Denmark, but we are exporting more than we are importing. There is plenty of room for
improvement, but you are not going to get improvement by putting cheap skates on experimental farms.


Donald Sutherland: I was asking for an explanation with reference to the expenditure on farm labour, and the minister has not given it so far. He says: "There are a whole lot of boys there possibly standing around at this time of the year and you cannot get good farms by employing cheap skates." About $100,000 is being asked for under the head of civil government, for this experimental farm in addition to what I have been referring to. In 1920, the amount 'under the heading of Civil Government was $93,295, and it has been increased considerably since then. I do not know what the exact figure is at present; but there has been an increase of upwards of $40,000 for ordinary farm labourers on this farm, which is not a very extensive one. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland) says that it looks like a park. There is somewhere in the neighbourhood of four or five hundred acres in it. In the beginning of his remarks before six o'clock, the minister said that he thought that $30,000 of this amount would be expended1 for an experimental farm along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific in British Columbia. Now he says that it is for this and other experimental farms. Until we have some well-defined, clear statement, I think we would be voting money very recklessly in increasing this estimate to the amount asked for. I know some people will say: "Oh, you are voting to reduce the amount that the Government is ready to vote for agricultural purposes." If this was for the benefit of agriculture, or if it was the intention of the Government to see that there was to be an equitable distribution of the services of 'experimental farms in this country, the matter would be entirely different. But if some province has to do all this work itself and to pay for it, and, at the same time, to help to maintain farms in other provinces, that is absolutely unfair, and I am not going to vote in favour of such a proposition.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Entomology, $28,000.
Mr. SPENCE:: It seems to me that each departmental head is trying to see how much more he can spend than the other, and the harder it is to get money
Supply-Entomology

the more some of these gentlemen want to spend. This vote is for entomology and the next, administration and enforcement of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act, shows an increase of $45,000. I think there are altogether too many fads being introduced. First we have an increase of $2,000 on entomology and then $45,000 on this next item alone, for a fad.


Mr. MacKELVIE:: I am not thoroughly in sympathy with the remarks of the previous speaker inasmuch as there is ample room for the expenditure of a great part of this appropriation in a manner that would benefit a large section of the community. I do not know what explanation the minister may have for the increase in regard to the Destructive Insect and Pest Act vote, which the hon. member (Mr. Spence) has referred to, but I know where a large proportion of it might be applied with a possibility of great results. When we considered these estimates a few evenings ago some very interesting information was given to the House regarding this particular branch. We were told a good deal about what had been effected and what remained to be done in the way of combatting the enemies of field crops and standing timber. In my own constituency we are continually forced to conduct a warfare against fruit pests. We spray continuously during the spring and summer months to keep down the common pests of the orchard, such as green aphis, woolly aphis and oyster bark scale, which, if not brought under control, would put an end to all hope of profit from the orchard business in British Columbia. I must give the Department of Agriculture the credit which is due it for having co-operated efficiently and successfully, and along very well arranged lines, with the provincial government of British Columbia in the control of these pests. The minister has in his department a gentleman who has been almost of infinite service to us in British Columbia, although unfortunately he is no longer completely at the disposal of the province. I do not mind mentioning his name in the House; I refer to Mr. R. C. Treherne, than whom I doubt whether there is, in the whole range of the minister's officials, a more competent man. In fact, I think I should be safe in saying that there is not in the service of any other government a man better calculated to safeguard the interests of the public, in the particular line of activity he follows, than Mr. Treherne. There is an opportunity to greatly enlarge the activities 
of the department in connection with the most dangerous menace that threatens the fruit growers of Ontario, British Columbia, or any other section of the country where apples are produced. I refer to the codling moth. In one section of Washington, in spite of the fact that last year the district of Wenatchee expended $24 per acre in spraying to cope with that moth, the fruit growers lost a trifle over a million dollars in affected fruit. Hon. members can understand, in the light of such a fact, with what apprehension we view the danger of having that pest introduced into British Columbia. From 1905, when the pest was first noted in Victoria, up to last year, we have had fourteen outbreaks of this particular nuisance. Two-thirds of them were successfully coped with and the pest eradicated, but only for a while, because with refrigerator cars coming in from infested districts it is next to impossible to keep the pest out. I shall not enlarge on this subject but I could prove that a very considerable amount of money could be profitably spent in combatting this menace in Canada. I have in my hand a resolution forwarded to me from one of the Farmers' Institutes of the district from which I come, and a copy of which, I believe, has also been sent to the Department of Agriculture. After reciting in a general way the dangers and difficulties with which they have to contend the resolution goes on to say:
Be it resolved that we, the members of this Institute, go on record as being in favour of the enactment of any such legislation as will prohibit the 'importation of apples and pears from infected districts into Canadian territory.
This is a large question and one on which perhaps the minister is not prepared to give a definite statement this evening. But if possible I want to convey to the institute some answer which would give them an inkling of the intentions of the department. The minister is perfectly aware that other countries have passed legislation of this kind. Japan has a law keeping out fruit from countries infected with the codling moth. Australia has legislation which prohibits the importation of fruit from any country infected with fire blight, which is a far less serious menace than the codling moth. It cannot be successfully proven that fire blight can be propagated by mature fruit brought into the country, but there is no doubt in the world that our infestation in British Columbia came originally from pears brought from California. In other

Supply-Entomology
sections of which I have knowledge the infection came from apples brought from Ontario; and in spite of the constant vigilance of the provincial and Dominion officials it is one hard, long fight to keep the pest under control. I should be glad if the minister could give information as to whether he has answered the request from this Farmers' Institute, or has given it any consideration.


William Richard Motherwell: I have much
pleasure in giving the hon. member the information sought for. The first increase of $2,000 under the Entomological branch vote is intended to cover the purchase of additional apparatus and library supplies and also to provide for the employment of additional temporary employment during the summer, when the demand from the farmers for assistance in combatting insect pests is greatest. The member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould), and no doubt all other hon. gentlemen, will understand that. The insect pest, of course, is developed in the summer time, and during the last four or five years many parts of Canada have had a very much higher average temperature than in the previous five years, with the result that new varieties of insects have developed in the country that we never heard of formerly, or rarely if we did. The corn borer, for instance, has troubled us for some time; and although we have had the grasshopper in the West for some years, we never had it in Saskatchewan to any extent until within the last four or five years. The hot weather and dry season develop their own insects, and the further south you go towards the gulf the more insect pests you encounter, which shows that there is a relationship between heat and the number and variety of pests that are to be found in a place. In the Destructive Insect and Pest Act vote there is an increase of $45,000, an increase that is substantial and yet small when you appreciate the amount of work that is to be taken care of by the vote. The entomological vote is really divided into two sections, entomological and botanical. They are naturally more or less interwoven. They appear here in this form and have been so divided every year I suppose. They should be dovetailed into each other. The appropriation for this section last year was $108,000, the estimate for this year is $140,000, an increase of $32,000. Statutory increases in salaries account for $5,000, while the appointment of an increased number of seasonal officers, as well as additional permanent officers, takes $6,000 more. For providing for emergencies and for scouting for brown-tail moth, alfalfa weevil, corn-borer and grasshopper work an increase of $5,000 over last year will be required. It might be stated that an emergency arose during the current fiscal year in connection with the reappearance of the corn-borer in western Ontario. No emergency fund was provided last year, consequently a Governor General's Warrant had to be issued to cover the cost of this work. A further sum of $15,000 is estimated for the purchase of two vacuum sterilizers, one for the port of Montreal and one for Vancouver, these to be used for the sterilizing of plant material imported, to prevent the introduction of insect pests. That is the entomological section of this insect pest legislation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Was part of this vote
used for the searching out and destruction of the spruce bud worm?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, partly.
That comes more particularly under the Department of the Interior. They solicit the services of our men at times, and we do a certain amount of aeroplane scouting over the timber limits where this worm is at its worst. Then, acting on our reports, the lumberman can exploit his limits before the timber is destroyed. After the coniferous trees are partly killed by the bud worm the destruction is completed by the bark beetle. A good deal of this work could be taken care of. by the provincial authorities, and no doubt it is, and if greater precautions were taken to burn the debris after the lumberman completes his operations it would possibly prevent some of this trouble.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The money cannot be
better spent in assisting the provincial authorities, (because the preservation of our forests is of national importance. The destruction of our forests in New Brunswick by these insect pests is stated to represent thirty per cent of our forest wealth.


William Richard Motherwell: Recently a gentleman called on me and told me an alarming story about these insect pest invasions. He expressed the opinion that unless measurements are taken to protect our coniferous trees from the depredations of these pests we will not have any pulp-wood at the end of ten years.
Supply-Entomology


Auguste Théophile Léger: That is right.


William Richard Motherwell: That is a very
serious statement, and I merely give it for what it is worth, but judging from the aeroplane scouting reports the depredations are very extensive and can be plainly seen from the air. The spruce bud worm is followed by the bark beetle, which completes the devastation, and if the lumbermen do not cut down the affected timber it is soon completely destroyed.
Now the botanical section. The appropriation for this section last year was $82,000, the estimate for this year is $95,000, an increase of $13,000. Of this amount $8,000 is intended to cover the extension of potato inspection work, at present carried on most extensively in the maritime provinces, to western Canada also. The remaining $5,000 increase is required to provide for the establishment of an additional plant pathological laboratory in Quebec, and to pay salaries of officers at the new laboratory at Summerland, B.C., not provided in last year's estimates. Here are the appointees with the expenditure involved that will take care of some of the work referred to by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie) :
Fruit Insect Investigations-
1. Insect Pest Investigator, 5 Months at $90 per month, Victoria, B.C.,
laboratory	 $450
1 Insect Pest Investigator, 5 months at $90 per month, Vernon, B.C., laboratory	 450
1 Junior Clerk-Stenographer, Vernon,
B.C., laboratory	 600
I had the pleasure of visiting some of the orchards at Nelson three or four years ago and was very much interested in their difficulties not only in connection with the codling moth-I do not think it was a trouble at that time-but in connection with many other kinds of pests that seem to be ready to attack almost every form of plant life whe,n you get a summer sufficiently warm to develop them. Here is the item:
Codling Moth-In the province of British Columbia the entomologist in charge of our activities has acted in an advisory capacity in field control operations, basing such operations on the knowledge resulting from life-history studies made from year to year by our officers. In the dry belt of British Columbia there are 1,165,369 apple and pear trees. The value of the apple crop alone to the growers for 1921 is estimated to be over $4,500,000. So far the codling moth has been controlled, but if it were allowed to become generally distributed, the losses from its ravages would in five years, including extra orchard control practices, would undoubtedly reach a total of $1,000,000. For the conducting of the control measures recommended, the Provincial Department of Agri-
culture appropriated $15,000 in 1921. Our officer in charge for British Columbia has completed an investigation which indicates that fifty per cent of the empty railroad cars entering British Columbia from eastern Canada and the United States, to be used for the carrying of fruit, contain either larvae or pupae of the insect, and to this source the chief infestations have been traced. A method of treating empty cars with live steam to destroy all insect life present has been tested during the year, and it is hoped this measure of control will become a recognized practice.
Mr. MaeKELVIE: One question in regard to the resolution I read. Has the minister given any consideration to placing an embargo against fruit coming in from infected districts?


William Richard Motherwell: We all have a feeling in the West that there are enough restrictions already against the importation of fruit. Out there we like to get a certain amount of fruit early in the season, and the more restrictions placed on importation the greater difficulty we will have in getting that fruit. But I think there should be another way of correcting that. There is no doubt that the infestations of the codling moth are due very largely to the carrying of infection by the ifruit in the cars. But there should be some method of checking it besides that suggested by my hon. friend-an embargo [DOT]against importation. Am I correct in understanding that that is the suggestion?
Mr. MaeKELVIE: It is suggested in the resolution placed in my hands by this institute for presentation to the minister-that is all.


William Richard Motherwell: If it became a
serious menace and that were the only solution, it would be well worth considering. A serious disease sometimes requires a serious remedy.
Mr. MaeKELVIE: Of course, if we had the guarantee that every refrigerator car or freight car which contained fruit coming into any orchard district would be thoroughly treated by some superheating [DOT]process which would destroy the larvae or cocoon, that would largely solve the difficulty.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think the point taken toy the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie) and emphasized in the resolution he speaks of is well worthy of consideration. There is real danger from having our orchards badly infested with the codling moth, and I do not think it is good policy to wait until the pest gets really
Supply-Entomology

bad in this country before taking measures to combat it. I would respectfully suggest to the minister that this matter be investigated very carefully indeed, and that every possible step be taken now to prevent a further infection of our orchards through fruit imported from other countries. The hon. member for Yale has pointed out that Australia and Japan have adopted measures to keep out the infected fruit. We anight carefully study those measures, and if they are really valuable and can be applied to our conditions, we should adopt them.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion on this vote for entomology, and I want to back up what has been said in regard to the necessity of protecting our orchards and our farms to the greatest possible extent. Last fall I went through southern Ontario and visited some of the sections where the corn-borer was at work, and the condition of some of the corn fields was appalling. The operations of this pest fiave reached the point where we cannot afford to relax our efforts to combat them, and we should foe ready with the money, if we have to get it by Supplementary Estimate, or by Governor General's Warrant, to meet the situation; otherwise our agriculture will receive a very bad setback. I want to endorse any work that is done along these lines.


Oliver Robert Gould: If there is any fault to be found with the item under discussion it is not that suggested by the first hon. member who spoke to the item and who questioned what we were going to do with a paltry $28,000 in the face of the depredations of insects against the products of our farms, our orchards and our forests. The minister gave as one reason for the existence of these pests the excessively hot seasons which we have recently experienced. I would add to that another reason: since Confederation we have had in this House men of the same mind as the hon. member who first spoke on this item, and the result has been, as I have stated on the floor of this House on many occasions, that agriculture has been starved. We have had men who have had no appreciation of the value of agriculture, its necessities, or its enemies-and all the enemies of agriculture are not quadrupeds and centipedes; some of them are bipeds. That is what is the matter with this vote. As I have pointed out time and again in this House, agriculture has been acknowledged on political platforms as the
greatest thing in all Canada, as the backbone of the country, but when it comes to the floor of this House we find that "the greatest industry in Canada" is given the smallest vote of any department of government. A few years ago it was a paltry $3,000,000. On a previous occasion I pointed out in the House that, according to figures supplied by the Government themselves, the injury caused to agriculture alone was estimated at $125,000,000. According to information which came to my office, and to which, I think, the Minister of Agriculture also referred, it was estimated that over $1,000,000,000 was the extent of the loss to our forests through the depredations of flies and other insects upon our spruce trees. Then, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie), there have been the attacks of insect pests upon our fruit areas. Yet we have an hon. member standing up and condemning the Minister of Agriculture for asking for another $2,000 in the entomological branch. I hope that next year-though I do not hope the conditions will warrant it-in the interests of research work, and with a view to finding out means of preventing these depredations, this vote will be increased to $50,000. I hope the minister will have sufficient money to engage the services of real men, men of science, men who will work diligently along these lines. Now, I have indicated what is the matter in Canada at the present time; we have not had the proper perspective. It is false economy to cut down estimates of this kind, and I was pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Yale and the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) in support of this item and against the criticisms of the hon. member who first spoke to the item. The appropriation is a very small one; it should be larger, so that iwe could have the kind of men who would discover means of combatting these pests. Did we not hear one of the ministers say a few nights ago that an increase of $400 by way of salary was necessary in his department because his department required men of greater expert knowledge than did the Department oTAgriculture? But no department requires men of greater knowledge, information and scientific attainments than the Department of Agriculture. I would support the minister therefore, in every honourable means to secure enough money to enable him to pay his employees salaries equal to those paid in other departments of government.



Supply-Cold Storage


Mr. SENN:: I concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria city (Mr. Tolmie) with regard to the operations of the corn-borer in southern Ontario. I myself come from that district, and I know that the corn-borer is a great menace to corn growing in that part of the province. I would like to ask the minister if his department has estimated the loss which has occurred through the depredations of that insect during the past year and what are the prospects of success in the employment of methods of eradication.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-cold storage warehouses, $26,000.
Thomas Sales: Will the minister explain this item?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What does this vote cover precisely? Does it cover grants to cold storage warehouses?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where are they situated?


William Richard Motherwell: The committee
will remember that the Cold Storage Act was amended a few years ago to restrict the grants to municipal cold storage plants. That change means that not so much is paid out in subsidies, because the public are not taking advantage of the act as an assistance to a municipal proposition to the same extent that they would in the case of a co-operative enterprise. Before the act was amended, thirty per cent of the cost of erection was paid out by the government, but since the amendment only one or two plants have attempted to take advantage of it. It might be proper to consider at some time whether we should not revert to the old order.


Mr. MARTELL:: Has the minister received any correspondence from farmers' associations in Nova Scotia with a view to the establishment of a cold storage plant in Nova Scotia, in Halifax, say, for the use of the farmers, for the storage of perishable goods shipped there for export?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand
that some representations have been made from that city with a view to having a government cold storage plant erected there, but nothing has been done as yet. We did contribute to the construction of a pre-cooling plant in the Annapolis valley for the storage of fruit before shipment.
"Mr. Gould.]


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will the minister be prepared to receive a deputation on this question at any time?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes; but I do not know that there is any provision for straight government constructipn.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: How many of these government-aided cold storage plants are there in Canada, and what provision is made for the storage of small quantities of meat and fruit .by farmers in the localities where these plants are located?


William Richard Motherwell: Unfortunately,
just about the time we were beginning to speed up and make grants under the act, it was amended and made to apply only to municipal plants. The number of plants erected under this act from the beginning, in the Hon. Mr. Fisher's time, is thirty-four. I think the act was amended in 1917. The total refrigerating space is 5,244,258 feet, and the total cost $2,408,354. The farmers have the same rights in the matter of storage as any one else. I know that in Saskatchewan there is a special apartment allotted for the storing of meat, vegetables, fruit, butter and so forth, but particularly meat, by the farmers. There is a room set aside exclusively for that purpose at the plant at Melville so that the farmers can put in a quarter of beef or mutton and other farm produce. There is no regulation providing for that, but I think all the plants provide accommodation for that purpose. If at any time the operator desires to exclude farm produce, I think he could do so simply by pleading there was no room.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the charge for storing?


William Richard Motherwell: While the subsidy is in abeyance, the operators are usually pretty good and are not tempted to inflate the storage prices. At the opening of a new institution the rates are fixed between the government and the operator, and if any changes are required afterwards, that is done by negotiation. The rates have been changed from time to time. If the operating cost increases, inevitably the storage rates should increase. The weak point is that after the subsidy has been all paid there is difficulty in properly controlling the rates. I know that for some years after the subsidy has been paid the different plants submit new schedules of rates to the department, recognizing its right to oversee the rates, but in law there

Supply-Cold Storage
is some doubt whether we have the right to compel them not to exceed certain rates.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Under the law, have not the rates to receive the approval of the government?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Mr. CARROLL:: The cold storage plants have been a great blessing in many ways, but I would point out to the minister that there has been considerable anxiety in certain of our large industrial centres regarding the operation of some of our cold storage warehouses. The fault found with those plants that are run by large corporations, who store goods in these warehouses for sale later, is that the foodstuffs are kept for too long a period. That has the effect of enhancing the price. They wait until the particular products they are handling, such as eggs, meats and other foods, become scarce throughout the country and then unload them at a higher price. Has the department any regulations governing these particular aspects of cold storage?


William Richard Motherwell: 
William F. Carroll: I notice that an hon. gentleman in another House has introduced a bill regarding the matter.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes in the Senate.


William F. Carroll: A bill was introduced, I think, in the session of 1913, but it received scant courtesy from the House at that time. There is an undoubted grievance in connection with cold storage warehouses. For example, a cold storage warehouse in the city of Montreal a few years ago got a corner on the egg market. Eggs were held up until they became a scarce commodity and then unloaded on the public at a very high rate. That is the thing the people in industrial centres have a right to protest against. There is no doubt in the world that cold storage plants have been a great benefit, but when such plants are subsidized by public money the Government should exercise sufficient control over them as to render impossible the things of which I have complained.


William Richard Motherwell: Might I ask my hon. friend if the plant to which he refers was a subsidized plant?


William F. Carroll: I so understood, but I am not in a position to say definitely.


William Richard Motherwell: I shall be very pleased to look into the matter.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In respect to what my hon. friend from Cape Breton has stated, my recollection is that there is a cold storage warehouse under control of the Harbour Commissioners at Montreal.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, a very good one.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: A very good one. I took a good deal of pride in that. It was originated when I was at the head of the Department of Agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon. friend borrowed the idea from Saskatchewan.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, that is where a great many good things come from and some indifferent things also. But in respect of the cold storage warehouse which is under the control of the Harbour Commissioners in Montreal, is that not available for public storage?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.
Supply-Cold Storage


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If it is available for public storage, that should get over the difficulty raised by my hon. friend from Cape Breton, because any merchant or wholesale man would be at liberty to purchase his eggs and have them stored in this public cold storage warehouse and shipped out at his disposal. Is that correct?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. They are just beginning to use that cold storage warehouse now. I have had inquiries from Regina in regard to the rates they were charging in Montreal and from that fact I know the warehouse is being used. There is a certain amount of competition, and keen competition where there is a large number of these plants and I want to congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Crerar) in connection with that cold storage warehouse. It would have been a great service to the country if it had been built a few years sooner, especially during the war.


Lewis Herbert Martell: What action has been
taken in the past to protect the public against impure foodstuffs? Do inspectors visit these plants regularly to see that the food commodities are in good condition? Because in the city of Montreal as well as in the much vaunted western Canada hundreds of tons of chickens were taken from cold storage warehouses and destroyed on account of being unfit for human food. What measures are taken to guarantee the public that they will get pure food from these plants?


William Richard Motherwell: I may say that
when a cold storage plant is subsidized it has to be ok'd by the department and during the process of construction a constant inspection is maintained to see that the plans and specifications are lived up to. So long as the subsidy, or any portion of it, remains unpaid we can maintain inspection. But there is no regular inspection and we have not the control that we would have if such an inspection were carried out. There certainly is a weakness there which should be corrected somehow. I have not as yet, had the necessary time to look into this matter and determine the extent to which an inspection might be carried on.


Lewis Herbert Martell: There is a Food Inspection Act under which, for example, government inspectors visit different stores from which they take samples of maple sugar and have them analyzed in order to determine whether they conform to a certain standard of purity. If the minister has power to do that, why has he not the power to carry out a regular inspection of

cold storage plants in order to see that the food products stored therein are fit for human consumption?


William Richard Motherwell: I think that is
a matter that would devolve on the provincial and Dominion boards of health.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The inspection to
which I refer is, I think, practically carried out by the federal authorities.


William Richard Motherwell: It is a matter
under the control of the Dominion or provincial Department of Health.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is that an opinion
given by the Department of Justice in writing?


William Richard Motherwell: I think it is an
opinion given in writing.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I think the minister
should bring that information down to the House.


William Richard Motherwell: I will do so if
my hon. friend will call for a return.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I would like to suggest
that as it is now eleven o'clock and as a number of hon. members on this side who would like to take part in the discussion of these items are not present, the com-mitte should rise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We had better pass this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Thomas Alexander Crerar: Before the House adjourns, if I might be permitted with the consent of the House, I should like to suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that, when the House adjourns over the Easter recess, we adjourn from Tuesday evening instead of from Wednesday evening. As we sit for only three hours on Wednesday, that is all we shall gain by sitting on that date. I find that some hon. gentlemen from the prairie provinces desire to avail themselves of the Easter recess to go home. If they leave on Tuesday night, as I understand the matter, their days throughout the rest of the week are charged up against them. If my hon, friend would agree to change the motion to read that we adjourn from Tuesday evening instead of from Wednesday, many members on this side of the House would appreciate that very much.

Grand Trunk Arbitration
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister: The Government has, in this matter, only one wish, and that is to consult the convenience of the members. I had heard that a number of the members desired that the House should adjourn on Tuesday, and I take it that it is the general wish of the members that the suggestion just made by my hon. friend be acted upon. If so, I shall have pleasure, at the dose of to-night's sitting, in giving notice that, when we adjourn on Tuesday next, the House shall stand adjourned until the following Tuesday.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Monday, April 10, 1922.