[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: On the orders of the day
yesterday the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) referred to a press report from Great Britain to the effect that the Prime Minister of Great Britain intended meeting the President of the United States to discuss disarmament matters and asked if I had received any information with respect to the matter. I may say to my horn. friend that my information is restricted to the reports which he himself has seen in the papers.



IMPORTATION OF UNITED STATES FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay):: In view of the frequent appeals made to the government last year, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to restrict the importation at glut prices of surplus United States strawberries and other fruit and farm and poultry produce during the approaching marketing season of the Canadian producer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government will endeavour to deal with each situation as it arises.



PROPOSED CHIGNECTO CANAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: I would ask the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Robb) if he would answer the question I asked on Friday last with respect to surveys and investigations into the proposed canal across the isthmus of Chignecto.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Railways and Canals):: I had quite forgotten
that. I have a memorandum upon it in my office, and I will send for it and give it to my hon. friend.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: With the
leave of the house I move:
That pursuant to standing order 111, Bill Not 322 (Letter K8 from the senate) intituled: "An Act for the relief of Ruth Elizabeth Greene",.

Procedure Respecting Divorce
the preamble of which was reported as not proven by the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, be placed on the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole at eight o'clock p.m. this day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


James Allison Glen: This bill was remitted to the private bills committee. I had the opportunity of reading the evidence before the bill went to the committee, and I find that there were four witnesses in support of the petition including the petitioner herself, that, is the wife, two investigators and one other party- four in all. The petition was undefended. No appearance was made for or on behalf of the respondent. The evidence is perfectly clear that adultery had been committed, and the only objection that could possibly be taken was taken by some that there might have been connivance on the part of the petitioner. I felt then that the evidence was so clear, and so many cases of a like nature had already passed through the private bills committee, that there was no reason that could possibly be adduced by anyone to prevent the passage of that bill. A vote was taken in the committee and the preamble of the bill was not proved, and the bill was thrown out. I am now making this motion in order that the case may be brought to the attention of the house to-night for further consideration. If this action were not taken I feel that an extreme hardship would be placed on one individual, according to the evidence, which is much stronger than in many other cases that I have read, and I therefore ask for the consent of the house to move this motion in order that the bill may be discussed this evening.


Hon. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, this bill came before the private bills committee of the House of Commons and was discussed there for the best part of an hour. A vote was taken in committee and with the exception of one voice it was unanimously decided to throw this bill out. The principal objection taken to the bill was that the petitioner in this case bad been supported by evidence of people who are making a business of trading in divorces. That is the sum total of it. Further, it was established that the petitioner in the case was aware of what was going on-she admits that in her own evidence-and could have prevented what was going on but evidently did not want to. It was quite plain that she was not very particular, and she was conniving with people who
are making a business of securing divorces and who have appeared before the divorce committee in quite a few cases. It further developed that the principal witness was a friend of the man who was the respondent, and that he deliberately laid a plot to catch him. There was a plant to secure the evidence for this divorce, and that is the reason why the bill was thrown out. I do not see any reason for bringing it up again and wasting the time of the house upon it any longer.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: I hope the house will lose no time on this matter. Early last week this bill came before the private bills committee, and we discussed it for half an hour and then adjourned to allow both the respondent and the petitioner to be represented by counsel.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this matter can only be dealt with by unanimous consent and that as there is not unanimous consent further discussion is unnecessary and not in order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: This is a private bill. I think that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is misinformed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a motion to
bring the bill before the house to-night.


John Frederick Johnston: No notice is
necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Notice is necessary to
discuss it to-night.


John Frederick Johnston: I think the
motion is quite in order.


David Spence: This bill was discussed for an hour in the private bills committee and a vote was taken. The majority objected to the bill being reported to the house and it was thrown out. As the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) has said, the chief witness in this case is a man without a reputation, a man who worked a frame-up on the respondent in this case, hired rooms in the King Edward hotel, provided two women and booze, and they were all drinking together when he telephoned to his accomplice, to a man who has appeared in fifty-three cases of divorce before the House of Commons committee this year. This same witness has been co-respondent in two other cases I am told. This is a man who allows himself to be used as co-respondent and will take part in a frame-

Procedure Respecting Divorce
up against a man with whom he is friendly. He swore that he was a traveller and had to have these rooms in the King Edward hotel, but I know that he lives in Toronto and has a wife and family and he ought to be living with them. Then just before my friend the respondent-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Spence: There is nothing to laugh about. Just before the respondent knew that he had been framed he met this witness at the bank. The latter wanted to cash a cheque and asked the respondent: "Will you identify me?" The bank manager said to the respondent, "The only thing you can do is to endorse the cheque." The witness issued a cheque on a bank in Chicago and later it came back marked "No account." That is the character of the witness whose evidence is being relied upon in this particular case. He had described himself to the respondent as a travelling salesman for a system of advertising with headquarters in Chicago. When the cheque came back as I have described the man. was arrested, and in the police court he stated that he was a private detective. So in one case he was a traveller, in the other a private detective. In. my opinion we should not grant a divorce on the evidence of such a man.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that your ruling is not a correct one, and I stand by what my leader has said in regard to it. Personally, I do not like divorces, but as a rule when the private bills committee reports in favour of a divorce bill the house passes it. However, in this case that committee has reported that the preamble has not been proven and we should support the committee. Standing order 111, to be found at page 277 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, deals with such a case. In the comment on this rule contained in paragraph 890 I find the following:
Consequently the correct procedure in all analogous cases

That is, where the committee has reported that the preamble has not been proved:
[DOT]-is for the house to give the committee instructions which will enable it to consider the whole question again.
The hon. gentleman has moved that this bill be considered by the committee of the whole this evening. The proper motion to make would be that the bill be referred back to the committee on private bills for further
[Mr. fipcnctbl
consideration. Therefore as it is not on the order paper to-day, I submit with all respect, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is out of order and cannot be proceeded with except by unanimous consent.


James Allison Glen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any use my entering into discussion of the merits of this case. I am perfectly satisfied in my own opinion that an injustice has been done to the petitioner in view of the evidence submitted.


Mr. CAHAN:: But this is a point of order.


James Allison Glen: Just a moment. I leave it to anyone on the other side of the house who wishes to review the evidence dispassionately and without prejudice to say whether or not an injustice has been done to the petitioner. But in view of the fact that there has to be unanimous consent, and there is opposition to my motion, with the consent of the house I beg to withdraw the motion.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the hon. gentleman have leave to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Motion withdrawn.



SUPPLY-FISCAL POLICY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['The Minister of\nthe Interior has referred to the coking legislation passed by the present government. What have been the results of that legislation? How much more Canadian coal has been produced and used as a result of it?\nProgress reported.']
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. Minister of Finance made his original motion to go into committee of supply much has transpired on this continent that should give this parliament occasion to pause and consider the position of Canada, and I avail myself of the motion that has now been made to discuss the situation as I see it, hoping that we may be able to obtain some indication from the administration as to what it proposes to do to meet a crisis in our economic history.
That it is not seemly to discuss the domestic policies of another country goes without saying, but to that general rule there are two exceptions. The first exception is, that if we have treaty obligations that are affected we are bound to discuss them. The second is, that if the legislation which is in process of being passed, or has been passed, by a friendly nation does directly affect this country, and it has been pointed out during the discussions antecedent to the passing of the legislation that it was so intended, then obviously this parliament should discuss it.

Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett
I need hardly point out that with regard to the action of congress we have no treaty obligations to be respected or discussed; but with regard to the second proposition that I have submitted to those of us who have read the speeches of the public men of the United States delivered last fall, not only of those who were candidates for high office but of those who supported them in their political campaign, will recall that in many instances it was declared to be the intention of the Republican party if it came into power to enact such legislation as would have the effect of preventing the importation from Canada into the United States of certain of our products that would enter into competition with their own. Under the circumstances it is therefore quite clear that a discussion of the domestic policies of the great republic becomes important and essential because of the fact that they were intended to, and do in fact, adversely affect the interests of this Dominion.
Having regard to what I have referred to, may I point out that in 1921 when the emergency tariff was enacted by congress it had an immediate adverse effect upon the interests of Canada, and that when the Fordney-Me-Cumber tariff was put into force in 1922 its effects became apparent to every one. The emergency tariff very injuriously affected the interests of this country as a whole, particularly the farming interests, and if hon. members will look at the Commercial Intelligence Journal, published on the 25th of May of this year under the auspices of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, they will find set out exports from Canada to the United States of a number of commodities such as are produced on Canadian farms or manufactured directly from such farm products. The figures given are for the month of April, 1921, 1922, 1928 and 1929, and for seven months ended April for the same years, with the United States tariff rates in force on such dates. It will be bbserved that during the seven months ending April, 1921, this country sold to the United States cattle, horses, poultry and sheep, fruits, grains, grain products, meats, milk and milk products, seeds, vegetables, and miscellaneous products such as eggs, hay, maple sugar, tallow and wool, valued at $138,845,815. The next year, 1922, exports of the same class of live stock and farm products had fallen to a value of $32,000,000, in 1928 they rose to $39,000,000 and in 1929 they declined in value to $33,000,000, using round figures. It will therefore be observed that the direct result of the Fordney-McCumber tariff and the emergency tariff that preceded it was to decrease the value of our exports of farm 78594-224
products to the United States in a seven-months period by over $100,000,000. That is a tremendous sum iof money with respect to live stock and farm products, and the result is directly attributable to changes in tariffs by the United States. These changes will be found set out at page 785 of the journal to which I have referred, and iit will be observed there are a large number of free items; in the first column there are the emergency tariff rates on such exports and in another column the Fordney-McCumbe-r tariff as it now stands.
Now the loss of $100,000,000 worth of exports from the farms of this country was reflected in the increased prosperity of the farmers of the United States, who produced the products that had formerly been imported into that country. They were no longer subject to the competition of $100,000,000 of Canadian live stock and farm products, and to that extent they supplied the requirements of their own people which theretofore had been supplied by Canadian ranchers, farmers and artisans. That, I think, is abundantly clear. Need I point out that the Fordney-McCumber tariff also contained a provision whereby the President of the United States was enabled after inquiry to increase the existing tariff rates to any extent not exceeding 50 per cent; and if he found that this was not ample to protect the agricultural and other interests that were affected he had power to fix arbitrarily, after inquiry, the price of imported articles upon which duty should be computed, somewhat similar to the provision we made in our customs tariff, and to which I shall presently refer, in connection with fruit and vegetables and matters of that kind. Under these circumstances, we are confronted with the fact that this government, in power in 1922, as it still is, there having been an interim in which it was not, was called upon to meet a situation which imperilled Canadian trade with respect to agricultural products to the extent of over $100,000,000 per annum. I will not take up the time of the house this morning to review the imports and exports to the United States, but I will point out that during the last six or seven years we have been able by slow degrees to get back somewhat to the condition we were in before this tariff was enacted against us. But the adverse balance of trade between the United States and Canada still continues, and while for the year ended March 31 we bought nearly $900,000,000 worth of goods from the United States, we were able to sell them only $500,000,000; and that $500,000,000 worth of goods was made up largely of three items: First, paper and paper products;

Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to hear that the policy enunciated by the minister in 1924 is, in this year of grace 1929, still the policy of the administration, and that the administration invites the abandonment by the Canadian people of their own markets in favour of our great and powerful neighbour to the south! If there is any doubt in this connection it will be dispelled by the observations that have been addressed to a long-suffering people 'by the Consumers' League of this country, about which I will have something to say presently, in which they point out,
Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett

doubtless on behalf of the administration, since the officers of that league so loyally support the administration, that there has been a continual lowering of the tariff by the administration.
That is how this government met the Fordney-McCumber tariff; that is how the government met the situation, which deprived Canadians of $100,000,000 of trade in a single year; that is how this government met a situation which destroyed cattle men in western. Canada who theretofore had free access to the markets of the United States and who were deprived of those markets by a duty ranging from a few cents a pound for cattle weighing less than 1,050 pounds to 30 per cent in some instances on horses, cattle, sheep, swine and various other varieties of live stock. I will not take the time of the house to go into the matter in detail, but that is how this government met the situation.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: My hon.
friend might mention what they got for their cattle last fall.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They received a good price in the Chicago markets for their cattle, and they had to pay a high rate to get them there. There are no thanks due .this government for that fact.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say that they received the highest price paid for cattle in western Canada during the last twenty years or more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will look up the figures he will find that he overstated the case when he said the prices were better than they had been for over twenty years; he stated a fact that is not a fact.


Charles A. Stewart: I will be glad if my hon. friend will put me right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have before me the figures from the Department of Trade and Commerce with respect to the last few years only. I know that Mr. Cross's steers brought a higher price in Chicago last year than has been the case in recent years, because of the scarcity of steers in America; the Americans bought the cattle and paid the duty, but what did this government do to help the western cattle men? They received .that higher price because of the law of supply and demand and because the American buyers had to come to Canada for the cattle. If it had ended there it would not have been so very bad, but during the last ten or twelve months there have been exported from this

country a larger number of dairy cows than ever before in the history of the Dominion. From one county in Nova Scotia alone three thousand cows have disappeared, and since this tariff was introduced into congress several representatives of United States firms have been going about in Ontario buying up milch cows with which to replenish the herds of the New England states, and these men say that now they can succeed in their dairy industry because they will not have competition either from Canada, from New Zealand or from anywhere else.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Are they paying for the cows?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are paying for the cows with real money, not with promises such as were made in Weyburn last week by the hon. member. Before that they were paying for the milk and cream which now they are not allowed to do, because after the 14th day of this month there will be in existence a tariff which will prevent milk and cream from entering the United States; that will affect Ontario and Quebec, and other sections of this Dominion. Now, thanks to the action being taken by the congress of the United States, they will have the American market for themselves, and they are buying our cows in order to furnish the milk and cream for that market.


Mr. BROWN:: We will keep on raising cows and sell them at a good price.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have 101,000 fewer cows in Canada to-day than we had a few years ago, according to the figures supplied by the Department of Trade and Commerce. That is how you are raising cows, and while the United States is raising tariffs-


An hon. MEMBER:: We are raising cows.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are not raising cows; while they are raising tariffs we are not raising cows.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems to be a great
joke to the hon. gentlemen when they consider the fact that we have 101,000 fewer cows this year than we had last; it seems to be a great joke to the hon. gentlemen when they realize that the American tariff on milk and cream has been increased 50 per cent; it seems to be a great joke to them that the Canadian farmers who were dependent upon the markets of New England and New York have been deprived of those markets; it seems to be a great joke to them that cows are

Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett
being bought and sent to the New England states; it seems to ibe a great joke to them that cows are being bought in Ontario and shipped to the United States to supply milk and butter to the American peoplle; but it is not a joke to the people of Canada. It may be a joke to the (hon. gentlemen opposite but it is not a joke to our people.
Having thus indicated what the effects have been, we are now confronted with a new measure, a measure which has been introduced into the House of Representatives of the United States and forwarded to the Senate with some amendments for further consideration. Need I point out the effect of that measure? Need I point out what the effect will be upon the farmers of this country? Need I indicate that it means a prohibitive tariff against Canadian wheat, flour, cattle, sheep and potatoes? I hold in my hand the measure as it left the House of Representatives. The first two hundred pages deal with this new tariff legislation. The free list commences at page 211, but it will be seen that it is a list of produots which iare either raw materials or partly processed goods, or manufactured goods of which the United States has practically a producing monopoly and in which we cannot compete. Our copper, our asbestos, our gypsum -where is the hon. gentleman from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley)?-are to be taken into the United States free from duties or import tolls and fabricated in order to give employment to a quarter, a half or a million workmen who in turn will be supplied with butter, milk and dairy products by the men who purchased cows in Canada, while the Canadians denuded of their natural resources see their raw materials flowing into the United States to be fabricated by the labour of American citizens. I commend to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) the careful perusal of that tariff measure as indicating the policy of the United States in protecting its own people.
But there was another effect. As I have said, we bad a sudden decrease in the value of our goods exported to the United States. I have the detailed figures here but it would hardly be fair to take up the time of the house in repeating them. Not only did it lessen the exports from this country to the United States; not only did it improve the export of goods from the United States into Canada because of the reduction of duties, by this government until our importations from the republic have reached the large figure of (5868,000,000-an increase from $515,000,000 in 1922 to $868,000,000, in 1928, or an increase of over $350,000,000-not only have we increased our imports, but we have done more than that. Our men and women, unable to find employment in this country through the operations of the Fordney-McCumber tariff, 'have been forced to follow our raw and partly fabricated materials to the United States to find jobs in that country which could not be obtained at home. Let us have no misunderstanding about this matter. I have the figures which have been classified by the immigration authorities of the United States of America. In the year ending June 30, 1922, only 46,465 Canadians went to the United States; the next year, as a direct result of that tariff, 115,635 people went to the south from Canada; in 1924, when the full operation of the Fordney-McCumber tariff was apparent, we sent to the United States of America 200,834 Canadians; in 1925 the migration was 102,496; in 1926 it was 91,786; in 1927 it was 81,982; and for the year ending December 31 last the figure was 73,605. Why this steady diminution in numbers during the last few years? Because we had exhausted the available source in the years which had preceded. That is the reason. Do the hon. gentlemen realize the significance of those figures? Do they realize the relation between cause and effect? We have the Fordney-McCumber tariff, the diminution of exports, to the United States, the increase of imports, the lack of employment and the increase in the exportation of men and women from this country to find occupations in another country in fabricating Canadian raw materials, which occupation was denied them at home through the action of this government. Consider the type of men and women who have been forced to leave this country. In 1922 we sent out 1,757 of the professional class; in 1923, 3,100; in 1924, 5,385; and last year the number was 3,884. In skilled labour and skilled artisans we sent out 18,730 last year and 41,345 in 1924. When we consider farm labourers, farmers, labourers, servants and draymen, the same story is told. Most of those who left the country were under the age of forty-five years.
Taking into consideration these figures and their relation to cause and effect, most Canadians hoped that confronted with a new problem affecting our very economic existence, confronted with this new tariff measure, just when we were showing signs of recovery from the Fordney-McCumber tariff, Canada would have had a clear policy outlined by the government of the day. It was thought that the leaders in the political life of the country, the leaders of the government, the leaders of the Liberal party would have indicated some policy with which to meet such a crucial situation as now confronts us. What happened? Our friends to the south merrily pursued their way, the new tariff bill was in
Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett

troduced and has gone to the senate and the effect of that bill upon the cattle industry of the west will be that those who ship their cattle to Chicago will find themselves handicapped in some instances to the extent of $20 per head. What has the government done about it? What are they going to do about it?


An Ihon. MEMBER:: What is the senate
going to do?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will do what it has
always done, increase the tariff against us as a competing country.


Edward James Young: What would
you do about it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the electors of
Saskatchewan get an opportunity once more they will indicate what they will do with respect to dairy products.


James Dew Chaplin: That should hold you for a minute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They little know the
men from the west; it would take more than that to hold the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) for even a half minute.
What has been the effect upon this country? I have indicated the effect upon the imports and the exports of materials, other than human, and upon the man and woman power [DOT]of Canada. But there is another effect. It has been assumed that we are prosperous because we have such a large purchasing power by reason of our great crops. We have been fallaciously assuming, because we produced and sold $550,000,000 worth of grain and grain products during the last twelve months, between $200,000,000 and $300,000,000 worth of forest products, and about $200,000,000 worth of metal and mineral products, that with such great purchasing power we are prosperous, when we are with this money buying from the people of the United States what we should to a large extent be making at home.


Edward James Young: The situation is the other way around; we are buying because we are more prosperous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are buying because
we are prosperous and we are prosperous because God has given us a great heritage and great crops. The great crops of western Canada, the great forests that can not be replaced in a generation, the mineral products that can never be replaced, have been turned into money and give us a purchasing power which is reflected in our so-called prosperity. But all that we have done is to sell our birthright in the way of mines, forests and the wealth that nature has given us from 
our lands, and exported them to give employment to men and women in a foreign country. Is that the kind of prosperity the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) wants? Is that the kind of prosperity he is hankering for, that he thinks will make a nation or a people, a prosperity by which we become hewers of wood and drawers of water for the great people to the south of us, shipping to them our vast wealth in raw materials partly or wholly unfabricated and then buying back the manufactured goods, so that men and women went from Canada to the United States to the number of 200,000 in one year to find employment?


An hon. MEMBER:: How many came
back?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can say to the hon.
gentleman that the figures are perfectly clear. The number that came back did not constitute 10 per cent of those who went.


Mr. MORRISSY:: That was not the case
in New Brunswick, my hon. friend's birthplace.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend's government, not content with dealing with our great neighbours to the south in the manner indicated have also dealt with other nations of the world. They have made trade treaties with France, Italy, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Estho-niia and other countries and with Australia and New Zealand. The Minister of Finance (Mr. R/obb) used to talk about empire trade in terms that would almost make one weep at his expressions of desire to advance the interests of the empire. With a tremor in his voice he talked about the Australian treaty as a fine gesture of empire unity. But within a few weeks after it had been in force, his government imposed the dumping clause against Australian products and shut out most of the agricultural products of that country. By an order in council on the 25th day of September 1925, a few months after making the treaty, the Minister of Finance put the same treaty into force with New Zealand by order in council. That was only four days after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in Woodstock that if the treaty worked an injustice to Canada, he would see to it that it was cancelled. What has happened? In this Dominion during the twelve months ended April of this year, we bought 27,000,000 pounds of butter from New Zealand. While we did that, the United States of America, having increased their duty on butter from two and a half cents to twelve cents a pound, made their people so free from outside competition that all they

Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett
bought was 4,600,000 pounds of butter. Do you realize, Sir, there are hon. gentlemen in this house who say that tariffs play no part in agricultural life? There are some of my hon. friends to my left who say that. In the United States of America, in 1920, they bought 37,000,000 pounds of butter to supply the requirements of their own people and at that time the duty was two and a half cents a pound. They raised it to six to eight to twelve cents a pound and in 1928 they supplied all their requirements with the exception of
4,600,000	pounds.


Edward James Young: Their people are eating oleomargarine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The evidence is that
they are eating more butter than they ever did before in their lives. That is what their official reports show.


Edward James Young: They are not
eating within ten pounds per capita as much as we are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, because there
is very little butter consumed in the southern states as compared with what is consumed in the northern part of the United States. Butter fat, as the physiologists tell us, is largely used in northern climes as distinct from southern. The hon. gentleman knows that, and when he talks about oleomargarine, he is endeavouring to draw a red herring across the trail. He cannot becloud the issue in that way, any more than his intervention in Weyburn improved the political situation there.
I have pointed out what has happened in Canada with respect to butter, eggs, poultry. I put this query to my hon. friend: Is it desirable that Canada should become a dependent country with respect to butter, not producing enough for our own requirements? The other day I wrote to the Department of Agriculture of Ontario asking them what the situation was there since the beginning of the year, and they tell me that the total of butter manufactured in February, March and April, 1928. was 10,802,541 pounds, and the number of creameries reporting, 228. This year the quantity manufactured in the same months was nearly 700,000 pounds less or 10,155,818 pounds, and the number of creameries reporting had dropped down to 211, or 17 less than the year before. The great manufacturing creameries of Ontario and other parts of Canada are importing New Zealand butter and this is part of the 27,000,000 pounds the new Zealanders are selling to the people of this country to-day. This is due to the fact that the milk is not available and it was shown here the other evening why that is so. I will
not enter into a discussion with respect to this matter.
I have referred to butter, eggs, poultry and other products of that kind; but let us go a step further. Is it desirable that Canada should become a dependent country with respect to meats, importing more and selling less? Is it right that this should happen in regard to fruits; that we should import more and sell less? Is it desirable with respect to machinery about which we have heard so much talk?
Nothing could be worse for a country than that we should not be able to manufacture machinery and thereby become dependent on people who are competing with us in the same activities. I require machinery in western Canada and under existing conditions I have to go to the United States to get it. I have to take my chance against the United States competitor. If he wants machinery, he gets his first and then I get mine. Shall this country develop its resources on that basis or not? The real issue that faces Canada to-day is whether we shall be dependent on other countries, dependent for butter, for farm products, for meats, for fruit, for vegetables, for manufactured goods such as machinery and so forth, upon a foreign people whose supreme object in life is to support their own interests and prosperity regardless of what happens to us? This is not a matter that one can regard with any degree of satisfaction.
I should like to read to my hon. friend from Weyburn what Professor Dean of the Ontario Agricultural college said in a broadcast message the other day. He said:
Here we have the argument plainly stated. Why did Canada import over 24 million pounds of butter, worth over 8 1/2 million dollars, in 1928, and nearly two million pounds of cheese? The answer is that the Canadian farmer is not accorded the protection in his business which he needs in order to make it profitable. A little over two million cows' milk goes annually into the factories in Canada. We have the land to maintain twice this number of cows for factory purposes. If the full number of cows were kept on Canadian farms there would be no need to import butter and chese for home consumption requirements, and we should maintain our imports at or above the present level. It is an economic question. The Canadian farmer may not know his costs of production so well as he might, but he has a shrewd suspicion that 40 to 45 cents per pound butter in winter does not cover his costs, and he concludes that he cannot compete with cheap grass butter from Australia and New Zealand, which enters Canada practically free of duty. The American farmer demands that his business shall be "protected" similar to that of any other manufacturing business. His slogan is "protection for all or protection for none."
I commend that statement of Professor Dean, of the Ontario Agricultural college to my hon. friend from Weyburn and other mem-
Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett

bers of this house. It was broadcast the other day throughout Ontario and indicated at least the considerations that prevailed in inducing him to arrive at conclusions as to what the situation really is.
Now I proceed to deal with the question of trade treaties with other countries. We have a treaty with France and a treaty with Italy, where the farmers of this country sell their wheat and wheat products. What happened? This government made a treaty with those two nations. The treaty with France provides that we shall enjoy the minimum tariff on our exports to that country, but it does not provide that they will not increase their tariff, and so we still have the minimum tariff, while France has increased it three times since the minister made the bargain with them. Only last week I find that the republic of France increased the rate upon wheat to 50 francs for 220 pounds, or about 54 cents a bushel. What are you doing about it, Mr. Minister of Finance? You made the treaty. You cannot complain because we still enjoy the minimum rate. The best tariff rate that the rest of the world gets from France we get. But we have given them favours in our market which we cannot take away from them, while they can take away from us the favours which they have given to us under the treaty.
France increased the duty on wheat first of all from 25 to 35 francs, and increased the duty on flour in the same ratio and then on the 23rd of May of this year increased the duty on wheat from 35 to 50 francs per 220 pounds. Italy increased the duty on wheat from 7i to 11 gold lire per 100 kilograms or about 220 pounds, and only the other day, on the 25th of May, while we were sitting here, Italy further increased the rate from 11 to 14 gold lire per 220 pounds, or nearly 75 cents a bushel.
Where is the agriculturist of the west? What is he doing with this government? Where is the member for Weyburn? Where is the Minister of Agriculture? What are they doing about it when our market in France is taken from us by increasing the rate on wheat to over 50 cents a bushel and our market in Italy is taken away from us by increasing the rate to nearly 75 cents a bushel, while we say under the treaties: Behold the Canadian market; take it, it is yours; we have fixed the terms on which you can enjoy it and cannot change them without abrogating the treaties. What are you going to do about it, Mr. Minister of Finance?

It is the same with respect to Great Britain. I am indebted to my hon. friend from Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) for giving the exact facts in connection with the preference afforded to Great Britain. From 1868 to 1898, a period of thirty years, there was no preference with Great Britain. From 1898 to 1928, another period of thirty years, there was a preference. The average duties collected on imports from all countries were as follows:
Average duties p.c. collected on imports from all countries
Per cent
From 1868 to 1898-on dutiable goods.. 25-50 From 1868 to 1898-on dutiable and free 17-16
From 1898 to 1928-dutiable goods.. .. 25-52 From 1898 to 1928-dutiable and free.. 15-81 from United Kingdom
1868 to 1898-dutiable	 23-98
1868 to	1898-dutiable	and	free	
18-641898 to	1928-dutiable	
24-391898 to	1928-dutiable	and	free	
18-49
from United States
1868 to	1898-dutiable	
22-491868 to	1898-dutiable	and	free	
12-481898 to	1928-dutiable	
23-951898 to	1928-dutiable	and	free	
13-35
There are the figures. The so-called British preference negotiated in 1897 and whittled down by the operation of various treaties has now reached the stage where the average duties are more favourable to the United States than they are to the United Kingdom. You may take the figures and make the computation for yourself; any hon. gentleman may do it. I have given the facts of the situation as they confront the Canadian people at this time, not only with respect to the great republic to the south, but with respect to the countries with which we have made treaties, and indicated why the difficulties of trading with these countries are increasing from time to time.
How is the government of the day meeting the situation? You heard this morning the answer given by the Prime Minister: We will meet each situation as it arises. Is that statesmanship? Is that the duty of a statesman? As I read the history of great statesmen whose lives have been devoted to their country, they had prescience and vision and looked into the long future. They saw policies where others saw none and they led their people so that they might be able to meet the emergencies as they arose. What are we doing to meet those emergencies? What are you members from the province of Quebec doing to meet the situation by which your milk and cream will no longer be able to find access to the United States? What are you farmers from the west doing with respect to the increased tariffs on wheat in

Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett
France and Italy and the United States? What are you doing about your cattle? What are you doing, my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Sinclair) about your potatoes from Prince Edward Island that used to pay 50 cents per 100 pounds duty and will now pay 75 cents? What are we doing about the cattle industry?


Mr. FORKE:: The people will pay more
for their beef in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend says
that they will pay more for their beef. This seems to me a very proper time at which to make one observation with respect to that matter, because it is an observation made by Professor Sidgewick, who is one of the greatest authorities sometimes quoted by my hon. friends. Professor Sidgewick, dealing with this situation, used words which I commend to every man who studies the economic situation of this country:
I have now to call attention to an oversight in the ordinary exposition of the benefits of free trade, which is of some importance when the division of the world into separate nations is taken into account, and the interests of a single nation are considered. It is often assumed, expressly or tacitly, that when a class in a given nation can obtain any kind of commodities cheaper through foreign trade, the nation as a whole must be benefited by their so obtaining it. What is overlooked is the possibility that a portion of a nation from which employment is withdrawn by the change cannot be employed within their owm country without a loss of utility greater on the whole than the gain from the cheaper foreign supply of the commodities they were producing before the change. I do not think this result is at all a probable one in a country as large and as industrially developed as England. But I think it must be admitted in any theoretical treatment of the subject, that in order to realize the economic advantage obtainable by free trade between two countries, a displacement of labour and capital out of one of the countries may be necessary; so that the aggregate wealth of the persons living in one of the countries may be reduced by the change.
I commend those words of Professor Sidgewick to the Minister of Immigration because I think, coming from such an authority, they will probably have some effect on his mind.
Leaving that for the moment, I again ask what has been the attitude of the government? What are their suggested remedies? I will take them in order. The hon. gentlemen from western Canada who spoke were all very careful to say: You must not interfere with these tariffs of the United States. The Minister of Finance issued a warning, and hardly had the warning escaped him and reached Washington than they began to revise upwards the tariffs originally submitted for consideration. Then came my friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and he talked internationalism, pure and simple, with respect
to tariffs. He talked the old shibboleths of free trade, clothed in modern terms, and about the resolutions of Geneva. Against that I put not only the words of Professor Sidgewick, but the words of Herr Stresemann when he was speaking at the League of Nations in connection with tariffs and allied matters. These words I commend to the Minister of Justice because they express at once the view that I think should be held by every man who is not prepared to sacrifice his love of country for any such shibboleth as internationalism or free trade throughout the world.
I am of the opinion that no nation which belongs to the League of Nations in any way renounces thereby its own national personality. The Divine Architect of the earth has not created mankind as a universal whole. He gave the nations different strains of blood. He gave them as the sanctuary of their soul their mother tongue.
We might say in Canada "their mother tongues." That is the answer to the speech he made, that is the answer to his appeal to the Geneva resolutions. Then the Prime Minister comes in and closes the debate for this nation, you might say; for the moment he assumes to speak for Canada. It is suffi-cent for the purpose that he has a majority behind him made up of men of diverse views and thought with respect to economic problems; but there is the majority. When he rose and spoke for this young nation what did he say? "Hush! Hush! Don't provoke them over there; they might do something to you; and don't you dare talk about preference with the mother country for you might provoke them worse still and they would become more angry with you than they otherwise might be."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend kindly give his authority for those words? I do not think he will find the word "hush" in anything I said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These are his words, which will be found at page 1403 of Hansard for April 9, 1929:
An important measure, we are led to believe, is a measure relating to farm relief. Another measure relates to limited adjustments of the tariff; I think that is the expression which has been officially used. Having that knowledge before us, I ask hon. gentlemen irrespective of party: In the condition of prosperity which Canada is to-day enjoying would it be desirable on the part of the administration to take any action with respect to the tariff in Canada at the present time which could be regarded as provocative by those across the line who may be interested in seeking to raise the tariff in that country? I say that with the knowledge that we have before us at the present time, were we to do what hon. gentlemen opposite by their amendment apparently wish us to do, namely raise the tariff, we would be creating in the
Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett

minds of the American people the very sentiment which would cause them to raise their tariff higher perhaps than it was ever their intention to raise it. We do not intend to take any action of that provocative character.
May I say to my hon. friends opposite, in the other corner of the house, that were we to-day to take a step along the lines of increasing the British preference to a greater degree than exists at the present time that step also might be misconstrued, for we know that there are people on the other side of the line who are just as anxious to be trouble-makers as certain people on this side of the line, who are ready to misrepresent matters, and we have to take human nature as it is, and deal with it as it is. So facing the situation before us, we have followed the policy that we shall follow at all times and that we have followed in the past, of dealing with each situation as it arises in the light of the conditions as they exist at the time.
I 'am sure the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) must cheer lustily that statement, because it represents his view sufficiently-"Unto the day sufficient is the evil thereof." And the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who has intimated that his stay amongst us may be all too short, doubtless cheers a sentiment of that kind, because it represents so well the policy of the Liberal party at the moment. That policy is, Don't provoke them!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not yet found the word "hush," has he?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not use the word "hush" He said it was a Hush! hush! policy. And that is what it is. Can any such policy be anything more than a Hush! hush! policy?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend's policy is a Hash! hash! policy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That indicates the cleverness of the right hon. Prime Minister for which he is so famed throughout this country. A "Hash! hash!" policy he says. Well,
I submit that it is better to have an affirmative policy of any kind than a negative policy.
I say his policy is unfitting to the dignity of this country, and in that regard) I ask him to read the Vancouver Sun, and especially I ask him to read the Toronto Globe. The latter paper says that the time has come when the government must consider this question.


Robert Forke: Or the Winnipeg platform.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think platforms would be the last thing the Minister of Immigration would ever want to talk about. Anyone who has ever read his utterances from this corner of the house on the tariff policy of the government would be surprised that he does not hang his head in shame to find him-[Mr. Bennett.!
self to-day a minister of the crown in the present government. What does he think of the tariff policies of the government to-day? Has the leopard changed his spots?


Robert Forke: Will the leader of the opposition state what I have got to be ashamed of?


Richard Bedford Bennett: His observations made
in this house on the government tariff policy.


Robert Forke: What were they?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I can only say-


Robert Forke: You can make statements.
But come through. You said they were statements to be ashamed of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Undoubtedly.


Robert Forke: Tell me what I have to
be ashamed of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. When one out of power and office makes declarations against the government of the day, declarations that are to be found in Hansard from 1921 to 1928, and then [DOT] changes his policy and accepts office under the same Prime Minister whose policies he denounced-I say unless he has given some evidence and reasons other than his love of power, he should be ashamed.


Robert Forke: Will the leader of the
opposition tell me wherein I have changed my policy?


An hon. MEMBER:: How did you get
there?


Robert Forke: All right. Come through
with it. Let us have it. I am waiting to hear it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will say this to the hon. gentlemen. I doubt not that he had an inward desire to accomplish those reforms which he championed so loudly from this side of the house, but he has found his surroundings so impossible of improvement and reform that he has abandoned the task, and in a sunnier clime in another place he hopes to find that repose which is denied him here.
The next gentleman who spoke was the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). He did not speak in this house; he went down to the Women's Liberal club in this city and said:
The Canadian government will act in the interests of the people as a whole when the time is ripe for action, and though people are assuming that it is going to "turn the other cheek," it is just as logical to assume one course of action as another.
That is the nearest the hon. minister got to any policy or desire to serve this country

Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett
at the moment. But the government sent the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) to Windsor. He, speaking for the administration as all cabinet ministers do, was a little bolder down there. He said:
We face a serious problem with our neighbours. We are not looking for a fight, but we certainly will not run away from it. We will see to it that Canada is amply protected.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh!


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Solicitor General
continues:

the Liberal government has never shirked its responsibility.-At present they are not as good friends as they might be.-
Despite our embassy in Washington!
Canada must play between these great nations

That is Great Britain and the United States.
-the part of a liaison because at the Geneva conferences Canada, it may be truly said, represents the American opinion.
"Represents American opinion"; If that is so we shall soon get a low tariff, shall we not? Now let us look at this statement. The hon. gentleman uses the word "fight". After the Kellogg pact, after we have decided to abolish war by asphyxiating gases, the Solicitor General uses the word "fight" down in Windsor; and he uses the word "protection". He says that the government of Canada will "protect" this country. Now there is protection for my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Glen).


James Allison Glen: Not the kind you have
enunciated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then if, by means of
some method of television or otherwise, the bon. gentleman has been able to read into these words a meaning we do not suspect, the Solicitor General has deceived the people of Windsor.


James Allison Glen: You know the answer to
that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only reading the
language of the Solicitor General. He says: "We will see to it that Canada is amply protected; the Liberal government has never shirked its responsibility".


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: May I ask the
leader of the opposition whether he has quoted all that the Solicitor General said with regard to protection in that instance, or what paper he has been reading from?- because there are different reports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have it from three
papers and the despatch is the same in all: "C.P.", Canadian Press; and inasmuch as it was a Canadian Press despatch I thought I
would take it rather than any other as a statement of what had taken place.


Malcolm McLean: I know my hon. friend wants to be fair, and I may tell him that the despatch I read indicated that the Solicitor General had proceeded to say that Canada would protect the legitimate interests of all her people. He was not dealing with tariff protection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say to the hon.
member for Melfort, whose return we so heartily welcome-


Malcolm McLean: He is pleased to be back.


James Dew Chaplin: He says he is pleased to come back.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are five hundred
reasons why he should be. The hon. gentleman has asked a reasonable question and in reply I may inform him that I have been quoting from a Canadian Press despatch. There were several despatches from private correspondents but I selected the Canadian Press despatch which appeared in all the large papers in Canada. I will show it to the hon. member at any time if he cares to see it. A more ample statement of the Solicitor General's Observations appeared in one of the Liberal papers, but this is from the Canadian Press.


Malcolm McLean: I was referring to a longer despatch which appeared in many of the papers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now that is the position of the government. Here we have the Minister of Finance making a slight and veiled threat. He says: be careful now, down there; we don't believe in high but low tariffs, but we will trade with people who trade with us. Then the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) gives the assurance that there is no reason to believe that the government will turn the other cheek-they may engage in some other form of entertainment. Then there is the Prime Minister, and later still the Solicitor General-gathering volume as they go until at length we have the use of the words "fight" and "protection". Now that is distinct progress, very considerable progress indeed. What else have we? We have in addition to that the assurance given to the fruit and vegetable growers of Canada last year, when a delegation waited upon the government, that in some way their interests would be protected. In 1922 this provision was incorporated in the statutes of Canada at the instance of a Liberal government.
If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the governor in council, on a report from
Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett

the minister, that natural products of a class or kind produced in Canada are being imported into Canada, either on sale or on consignment, under such conditions as prejudicially or injuriously to affect the interests of Canadian producers, the governor in council may. in any case or class of cases, authorize the minister to value such goods for duty, notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, and the value so determined shall be held to be the fair market value thereof.
Last session an endeavour was made to deal with the situation. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) asked that this provision should be repealed, and a resolution was moved on May 8, 1928, on this side of the house, urging that necessary action should be taken by the government of Canada effectively to control the importation into Canada, either on sale or on consignment, of natural products not grown in this country. Notwithstanding this, the minister has intimated to the interests affected that they cannot be protected this year. But we have another indication of the attitude of the government. There is in this country an organization known as the Consumers' League, of which the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) is chairman, the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) is secretary, and the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) is one of the distinguished members. These hon. gentlemen have sent out, under frank of this house, ammunition or literature to various parts of 'Canada. Some of it is quite interesting inasmuch as it undertakes to teach the people of the United States how they should govern their country. I have no doubt the good people to the south of us will be greatly obliged and deeply obligated for the advice thus tendered them' from Canada. For example, listen to the following which appears in the pamphlets which these hon. gentlemen have sent out:
The Consumers' League has recently published an eight page article entitled, "The Principles of Free Trade". This article ought to be in the hands of every student of the problem.
Further:
A protective tariff is simply a device by which the rich are made richer at the expense of the poor.
I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to mark that. Then there is this statement:
The Consumers' League of Canada is in favour of lower tariffs. Its contention is that the burden of the present tariff is greater than the benefits received.
Here, then, we have the Consumers' League, officered by members of parliament and supported by other members, of whom my hon. friend from Weyburn is, as I have said, one

of the distinguished members, telling the people of the United States, in face of the present situation, that what we desire in Canada is a lower tariff.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member says
"hear, hear." Very well; let us reconcile the views of this group of supporters of the administration. One says: Steady; don't provoke them; don't mention preference, or that will provoke them still further. Are those hon. gentlemen expressing the views held on the other side o'f the house when they take this stand? Another says: You have no reason to believe that we shall turn the other cheek. Then another says, "We will fight; we will protect Canada." Then come the hon. member for Swift Current, the hon. member for Humboldt and the hon. member for Weyburn, all declaring that what we want is a lower tariff

that is what we need in this country to-day.
Now, Mr. Speaker, out of these it is proposed to fuse a party which will save Canada at the present time. But, Sir, not content with saving Canada, they are also bent upon saving our friends to the south of us. I quote again from an article by the Consumers' League entitled "Bunk to the American Farmer";
Not since those happy halcyon days, when the man with the pea under the shell played cats and dogs with the pocket-book of the yokel at the country fair, has there been anything quite so artful as the save-the-farmer-if-it-costs-ten-cents-apiece plan of the Hoover tariff mandarins at Washington.
"Mandarins", by .the way, is an excellent word to describe the gentlemen who work the game. A "mandarin" is a Chinese official entitled to wear a button on his bat. Buttons on the hats of the members at Washington would help the farmers as much as the tariff suggestions of the ways and means committee, now planning at the American capital, new methods of exploitation, new ways of cracking the public crib.
So we have the Consumers' League saving the farmers of the United States, calling their legislation " bunk," and at the same time declaring that we in Canada must have lower tariffs-in order that the Americans may sell more goods in this country. I wonder who subsidizes this league: the Canadian farmers or the American manufacturers? I asked myself that question when I read this statement I have just quoted'-I do not know whether the hon. member for Weyburn has seen it.


Edward James Young: We don't get
a cent from the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to hear that. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, you will recall the-

Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett
words of Richard Cobden, that capital shrinks instinctively from insecurity of tenure. It may surprise some hon. members opposite that from a bulletin issued by the Minister of Trade and Commerce it appears that this country is exporting capital; in other words, this new country, which, according to all the statements that have been made, requires large sums of money to develop its resources, finds it necessary to export capital because of the conditions that now prevail in Canada. The statement made by the statistician of the department is that during the last year for which we have a record, 1927, these exports amounted to $81,000,000; and in the meantime the adverse balance of Canadian trade is increasing. I ask the Minister of Finance this question: Did you, year after year, stand up and say to the Canadian people that the so-called favourable balance of trade was an indication of great prosperity? Did you teil them that when the exports exceeded the imports it was an indication of prosperity? 1 find your record here in Hansard, and that was one particular point upon which you laid great stress. Then what of to-day? If it was a sign of prosperity in the years that have gone by, when the opposite is the fact it must be a sign of depression, must it not? Otherwise you have deceived the Canadian people in the statements you have made in the past. It must be one or the other; there is no halfway position. Listen to these figures; in January of this year we Imported $2,034,444 worth of goods more than we sold; in February we bought $4,782,710 worth more than we sold; in March we bought $20,565,548 more than we sold and in April, $31,789,608; in other words, in these four months there was an adverse trade balance of $59,172,310, increasing monthly from $2,000,000 to nearly $32,000,000. When the opposite condition prevailed the minister told us that was prosperity; now what about it? Is the converse true, or is it not? If it is not true someone has been deceived, because these are the figures produced by this government, and they indicate all too well what is now happening in this country.
Once more I would like to ask the government, when they talk about prosperity, to tell us what they have done to increase the selling power of this country. It was the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia which had to do with forest products, over which this government has no control; it was the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba which produced our wealth of cereals and grain. So much is that the case that the Minister of Trade
and Commerce, in answer to my question the other day, said he could give no assistance in the selling of contract goods such as wheat and other grain, nor could he assist in the selling of newsprint and forest products, yet those items alone made up nearly half the entire exports of this Dominion last year. This government claims credit for prosperity and that claim was based on our exports, but the production of these exports rests with the provinces; if this government has any claim with respect to prosperity that claim must be based on our imports, over which they have control and over which they may exercise supervision. There are the figures of the visible adverse trade balance during the last four months, and I ask the Minister of Finance to say frankly to the people of this country that we have here clear and plain indication of what is transpiring in Canada to-day.
Those are the conditions confronting us; what shall we do? Will the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) go down and tell the farmers of Quebec, "My dear friends, it is true we are shut out of the markets of the United States by a hostile and adverse tariff, but we have taken the tax off Pullman car tickets." Is that the way in which these matters are to be dealt with? Perhaps my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Sinclair) will go back to the potato growers of Prince Edward Island and tell them that the United States proposes to raise the tariff on potatoes from 50 to 75 cents per hundred pounds, then say, "Oh, that is nothing; we have taken the tax off telegrams." Is that what wall be done? There is only one way in which this matter can be dealt with by the people of this country, and that is the way suggested by the Toronto Globe and approved by every thoughtful man in this country, namely by seeing to it that Canadians developing the vast resources of Canada shall have an equal opportunity and shall meet fair competition with the rest ot the world. If they are given that opportunity they can meet the competition which may b= offered anywhere.
How can this be done? It may be done by tariffs; it may be done by excise taxes, by drawbacks, by bounties or by preferences; all these are available to the government. There is some talk of an exitra session of parliament. We who sit here have declared that we are ready and willing, and have been ready and willing since the very inception of this menace to our economic life, to remain here so long as may be necessary in order that Canada may make it clear to all the world that we are hewers of wood and drawers of water for no nation, that we will develop our
Fiscal Policy-Mr. Bennett

own resources and that no one may with impunity strike a 'blow at the economic life of this country, aimed directly at prohibiting our having access to the markets of the great republic, without our taking notice of that fact. We seek no retaliation; that is not the policy of any party in this country. The policy of this party, which has been declared from time immemorial, is a policy of developing Canada for Canadians, a policy which seeks to make this Dominion a country of homes, to give employment to men and women in order that they may be able to live their lives and develop and work out their destinies in the country in which they were born, rather than seek under an alien flag and in a strange land those opportunities which are denied them at home. This party to the left of the Speaker never will be content so long as 75,000, 100,000 or 200,000 Canadians are annually compelled to leave this country because they are denied the opportunity for self-expression here. We will not be content while that condition prevails, and we say now that anything we can do that will contribute to a policy which will make it certain that this country has a mission and a destiny on this continent will be done. Our integrity cannot be invaded; we must work out our destiny as a free people and end an economic slavery that comes from being dependent upon people in another land for the very necessities of life. We care not where those necessities be found, whether they are within the British Empire or somewhere else; when ve find a great basic industry which is being lestroyed by the policies of the government, t is our duty to see to it that that condition lo longer prevails.
That is the attitude we take with respect to these problems, and to the support of that attitude we invite all lovers of Canada, all men and women who believe in their country, as I believe in it, as distinguished from those who believe in internationalism, all those who love Canada as a nation and a people and who believe that if we would only do what I suggested in the opening days of this session, that is, call here at Ottawa an economic conference of the British Empire, we could work out, not by blanket preferences which have brought such disaster to this country but by a consideration of the production of the various parts of the British Empire, a scheme of preferences which will do good to all and harm to none. Then there would be no New Zealand treaty by order in council, working a benefit to New Zealand for the moment and' a detriment to the dairy industry of this country. That is the policy and the duty 
of this party. While ait times we may meet with evidences of the appeals made to men of divers opinions and economic views to join together for the purpose of retaining place and power, there will come a time-it always comes-when the people of this country will waken from their dreams and, realizing their dangers, will turn again to the .party which has given them the only steady policy ever given with respect to the future of this country and this empire and its place amongst the peoples of the world, which has laid the foundations for the economic life of this country and, please God, will endeavour, so far as it lies within its power to see that that life is maintained against the peril which now threatens it.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to delay on going into supply and proceeding with the business of the house and I regret, as I aim sure the house regrets, that the budget speech of my hon. friend has been delayed until the last days of the session. As I listened to the eloquent arguments of my hon. friend the leader of the Conservative party I observed what a wonderful change has taken place in the attitude of mind of this great party from the days when their slogan was ''No truck nor trade with the Yankee." To-day the whole complaint is that the people of the United States, rightly or wrongly, down in Washington where the weather is hot, are debating to what greater extent they are going to tax the women and the children who are crying for bread and butter and milk and cream. I am sure that the argument which my hon. friend has presented to-day will be read with delight by those in Washington who are urging a policy which will compel the workers in the United States to pay more for their milk, their cream, their butter and their bread1. It seems to be impossible to please the Conservative party. I recall meeting a very good personal friend in Winnipeg last fall, a former member of parliament, and one who understood the cattle business fairly well and his one complaint to me was that the Americans were coming over here and paying too much for our cattle. He complained that they were taking our cattle away by paying too high a price. I cannot help comparing that attitude with the attitude taken by another good friend whom I met recently in the eastern townships. He told me, as my hon. friend has stated to-day, that the people of the United States were coming here and buying cattle and paying very high prices for milch cows. I asked him how it would affect his business and he replied that if

Fiscal Policy-Mr. Robb
they wanted to milk the cows, we would raise them. That is the attitude which was taken by a dairy farmer.
One part of my hon. friend's speech was preaching blue ruin, while the other part was an explanation of our existing prosperity. My hon. friend complained that this government had been asleep at the switch after the action which was taken by the government of the United States in 1922. Canada should not be complaining about the tariff policy adopted by the United States. Had they followed the same policy which has been followed in this country we would not have heard the kind of speeches which were uttered during the last presidential campaign. My hon. friend admits that we have prosperity, but he claims it is the wrong kind. Did any member of either party in the last presidential campaign admit that they had prosperity in that country? The cry of blue ruin was raised by all parties and they stressed the necessity of doing something to bring about prosperity.
My hon. friend has discussed at some length our trade with only one country, but Canada to-day is dealing with the world. The United States can adjust their fiscal policy to suit themselves, and if they want to pay more for the milk and cream produced by Canadian farmers; if they want to tax their people more for food commodities, that is their business. If they think that 40 cents per bushel duty on wheat is not high enough and want to put it up to 75 cents or $1 per bushel, that is their business; they can put it up as high as they like.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was Italy.


James Alexander Robb: The United States have had a duty of 42 cents per bushel on wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not 75 cents per bushel.


James Alexander Robb: Our busines is to adjust our
trade to suit Canadians and to help Canadians. What have we been doing in this regard?


An hon. MEMBER:: Allowing Americans
to milk our cows.


James Alexander Robb: I do not propose to delay the house at any great length, but I would like to give some trade figures commencing with the year 1922, which is the point at which my hon. friend started. In 1922 Canada had treaty agreements with fourteen countries, and in that particular year we had a favourable balance of trade of $6,000,000. At the present time we have treaty agreements with forty-three countries.
In 1922 we exported to those fourteen treaty countries goods to the value of $75,000,000, while our exports in 1929 to the forty-three treaty countries amounted to over $220,000,-
000.	Our imports in 1922 from the fourteen treaty countries amounted to $45,000,000, while our imports in 1929 from the forty-three treaty countries amounted to over $103,000,000. We had a favourable trade balance in 1922 with these treaty countries amounting to $30,000,000, while in 1929 that favourable trade balance had increased to over $117,000,000.
My hon. friend has complained of our trade with the United States, but where would he start to check that trade? It is quite easy to talk in generalities but let us get down to the hard facts. Where would my hon. friend start? I am no more satisfied with our present trade arrangements with the United States than anyone else; I would like to have them improved and better our trading conditions, but they have the same rights at Washington as we have here in Ottawa. I will repeat what was said at the time the budget was delivered; that in the light of events we will take care of Canadian trade in the future as we have taken care of it in the past, and we will fix our tariff to suit Canadians and not to take care of any other part of the world. Supposing my hon. friend were in office, what would be his policy? It is true that he has promised he would have an economic conference with the people of the British Empire, but what for? What did he say to those gentlemen when he was welcoming them here to Ottawa? Did he say to the people of Australia and New Zealand, " We are ready to sell you everything which vou need, but we cannot buy anything from you "?


Charles A. Stewart: No butter,
anyway.


James Alexander Robb: We have had a favourable
trade balance throughout the British Empire, and we believe that we can improve that. I do not know that I should delay the house any longer. My hon. friend has largely rehashed the debate which we had upon the budget. When he quoted the importations and trade figures with other countries he was very careful not to go into details as to where he would stop trading. Until my hon. friend can be more definite as to his policy, it seems to me that we might very well proceed with the business of the house and vote the necessary supply to carry on the business of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
3550	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Department of Agriculture-Experimental farms, including necessary new buildings, $2,050,000.
Mr. MANION:: I wish to say a few words on this item and if the chairman would not mind calling it one o'clock, I shall speak after recess. I will take only a few minutes.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Robert James Manion: Just as the committee rose at one o'clock and we went into the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, I was about to say a few words regarding the possibility of establishing an experimental farm station at the head of the lakes or somewhere in that neighbourhood. According to a return that was furnished to me sometime ago there are twenty-two experimental stations in the Dominion of Canada, and I intend to put them on record in Hansard for future reference:
Experimental station, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
Experimental station, Kentville, Nova Scotia.
Experimental farm, Nappan, Nova Scotia.
Experimental station, Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Experimental station, Ste. Anne de la Poca-tiere, Quebec.
Experimental station, Cap Rouge, Quebec.
Experimental station, Lennoxville, Quebec.
Experimental station, La Ferme, Quebec.
Experimental station, Kapuskasing, Ontario.
Experimental farm, Ottawa, Ontario.
Experimental station, Morden, Manitoba.
Experimental farm, Brandon. Manitoba.
Experimental farm, Indian Head, Saskatchewan.
Experimental station, Rosthern, Saskatchewan.
Experimental station, Scott, Saskatchewan.
Experimental station, Swift Current, Saskatchewan.
Experimental station, Lethbridge, Alberta.
Experimental station, Laeombe, Alberta.
Experimental station, Summerland, British Columbia.
Experimental farm, Agassiz, British Columbia.
Experimental station, Invermere, British Columbia.
Experimental station, Sidney, British Columbia.
Experimental substation, Beaverlodge, Alberta.
Tobacco station, Farnham, Quebec.
Tobacco station, L'Assomption, Quebec.
Tobacco station, Harrow, Ontario.
Experimental Fox Ranch, Summerside, Prince Edward Island.
Of the twenty-six experimental stations there are only two in the province of Ontario, one
this well-known and beautiful farm at Ottawa, and the other at Kapuskasing. From Kapuskasing we jump to Morden, Manitoba, a distance of about seven or eight hundred miles, without an experimental station. I would point out to the Minister of Agriculture, as I pointed out ito the Minister of Public Works when hie estimates were up, that there is a real reason for having an experimental farm station some place between Kapuskasing on the east and Morden, Manitoba, on the west. Northern Ontario comprises an immense area, as large as Germany and Great Britain put together, and with the exception of the experimental station at Kapuskasing, at the extreme eastern end of that section, there is no experimental station in all that area. I do not need to point out to the minister, who is familiar with that section, that those farmers who have taken up these bush lands in northern Ontario and are hewing out homes for themselves have a very difficult time. I think it would be a very good gesture on the part of this government and be very helpful to the farmers in that vast section of country, an empire in itself, if an experimental farm station were to be established somewhere between Kapuskasing in Ontario and Morden in Manitoba. A very natural place to l/ocate iit would be at the head of the lakes, either at Fort William or Port Arthur. An experimental station at either of these points would serve a large territory comprising very fine agricultural land, which is settled by a very fine group of farmers, who have gone in there in the last twenty or twenty-five years, and who deserve any assistance they can get. I do not wish to take up further time at this stage, but I do wish very sincerely and in a nonpolitical way to impress upon the minister and upon the government the need of establishing something in the way of an experimental farm in that section. About two months ago I received a resolution, as no doubt did the Minister of Agriculture and the government, from some of the farming communities at the head of the lakes asking for an experimental farm in that section, and I appeal to the minister in fairness to that part of the country to give this request favourable consideration. Particularly I appeal on the ground that looking over this list of experimental stations starting from Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and going clear through to British Columbia, there is no space I should judge of more than about two hundred miles without an experimental farm except lying between Kapuskasing and Morden, Manitoba, a distance of about seven or

Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
eight hundred miles. I therefore would urge very seriously upon the minister and the government the necessity for considering establishing an experimental farm at the head of the lakes.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The tributes that have been paid to the usefulness of these experimental stations by my hon. friend and others are very gratifying. It will be recalled that when this government first took power in 1922, times were pretty hard and it was difficult to get our estimates increased as we would have liked to increase them. That applied to all departments. We were trying to retrench. There was a feeling throughout the country against further expenditures. That has entirely disappeared so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned because the real value of these experimental stations is becoming more and more appreciated every year.
When I first took charge of the department I felt that it was incumbent upon me, and I so advised my colleagues, before we started in to establish new experimental stations, to endeavour to put the present ones in good shape, better equipped, and in some cases enlarge the farms. That is the position we have taken up to the present.
There are three places throughout Canada -I do not know that Fort William is one of them-that were examined before I had the honour of taking over this work, with a view to establishing an experimental station, and I 'believe that some hope was held out. I understand that in those three the Fort William district was included. Another one was in that vast area, the Bulkley valley extending from Fort George to Prince Rupert. I took a trip through that vast country myself and was impressed with its enormous possibilities. Later I find that there was some investigational work done in connection with the Swan River country in northern Manitoba where there are heavy fat black soil lands that require some work of this nature to get the best out of them. I am informed by my deputy that Fort William was another place in prospect. But we have kept them all waiting in the meantime, hoping to get in ship-shape the farms at present established, and I think that that policy has been justified in the main by the better results from the twenty-three farms now established. It is better to have a comparatively small number of farms in good shape for efficient work than a large number not in good shape. We have, however, in the meantime been pursuing a policy of establishing a considerable number of small illus-78594-225
trabion stations, where with the cooperation of some enterprising local farmer of an experimental turn of mind a plot of say forty acres is worked under the supervision of an officer of the department. That has proved very popular. It requires no capital investment and displays ini a miniature way the work that is being done on the experimental farms, and it brings the work home to the farmers of the district. We have now over two hundred of these small demonstration plots. Some people think that they are a little bit too small to be worth while, but they have done very valuable service. In some places that takes care of the local need for a fully fledged farm. I feel that that policy could yet be pursued a little while longer.
A part of the increase in the vote this year is due to the enlargement of the Morden farm, which we have doubled in size this spring. We are now in occupation of that farm, which is a very useful one, consisting of half a section in southern Manitoba. As I say, we have doubled the size of that farm, and in view of the development of the fruit industry, apples and other fruits, in that part of Manitoba I think it will be found to be none too large. We have also added to the farm at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Quebec, and further expenditures will be required to meet enlargements to the central farm at Ottawa and to provide for further buildings, horticultural buildings and such like, necessitated by the larger operations. At the same time I am friendly disposed towards the establishment of an experimental farm in the vicinity of Fort William, and also in northern Manitoba and in the area between Fort George and Prince Rupert in British Columbia. Those	would	seem	to	be the mosturgent when	we do	begin	to	establish new
experimental farms.


Robert James Manion: I am very glad to have the minister	declare	that	he	is giving consideration to	the matter.	If	he will permit
me to say so, I think the appointed time to act is now. I suggest that particularly in view of the fact that if the minister does not move fairly rapidly in establishing this farm, the next government will have to do it for him, and in future years I should very much like to be able to give credit to the minister in this connection. So I hope he will hurry along.


William Richard Motherwell: Thank you.


Mr. TUMMON:: Recently it has been announced that property has been purchased in the city of Belleville for the establishment

3552	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
of an entomological branch of the Department of Agriculture. Does the money necessary for that come under this item? If so, will the minister state what it is proposed to carry on there?


William Richard Motherwell: No, that comes
under the heading of the entomological vote.


Mr. FRASER:: I want to enter a plea with the minister for another experimental farm. He has mentioned the area from Telbwa, in the Bulkley valley to Prince George as being a very likely district in which to establish a farm some time in the future. I want to draw his attention to the area in British Columbia which lies south of the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I can start him in as a matter of fact at the southern boundary of British Columbia and take him up through the central valleys for a distance of some four hundred and fifty miles. I would particularly direct the minister's attention to the fact that this is one of the largest areas for livestock production in the Dominion. In this area we have, I should say, about 100,000 cattle. We turn off every year about 20,000 head at an average of $100 a head. The minister will see that this must mean a very considerable production. The federal government has never done anything in any shape or form to assist livestock production in that area. I am told by the provincial district agriculturist in the neighbourhood that there is a loss to the cattlemen of 1,000 head per annum from preventable diseases. These diseases are not understood by the stock men. It requires a man with special technical knowledge to investigate these diseases in order to discover proper remedies to prevent this heavy annual loss. I submit that that is the duty of the federal Department of Agriculture, and that it should provide the necessary service for the stock men.
I am asking for consideration by the minister of the establishment of this experimental farm for another reason. In that area the percentage of pure bred sires and dams is very small. This is simply because the stock men have to go thousands of miles in order to secure pure bred stock, and it is impossible for the small stock man to incur this heavy expense. I think a farm should be established there for the purpose of providing foundation stock for the whole area.
In addition to the livestock business we have very extensive areas in which a large amount of grain is produced, and an experimental farm as well as providing a service for the livestock men would also provide a

very much needed service for the producers of all kinds of grain. In this connection I want the minister to take into consideration this other fact. There is no question about the market for the stock which may be raised in that area. The beef production can easily be doubled if the increase is brought about in a systematic way. Not only that., but we have in that area only about 6,000 head of sheep. This can be increased at least a hundredfold if proper methods are taken for securing suitable kinds of stock, and if a certain amount of supervision is exercised over those who are desirous to take up this branch of stock raising. Very few swine are raised in this area. The conditions are ideal for the production of all kinds of livestock, and I submit that in making a request to the minister to have this area thoroughly investigated I am not asking anything that is at all unreasonable. True, the northern district is important, but it is a small area in comparison with the one which I am dealing with. In other words, it is four or five hundred miles from north to south and from two hundred to two hundred and fifty miles from east to west. Within those limits there is an immense area of pastoral land admirably suited for the production of all kinds of livestock.
Let me repeat. At the present time the federal Department of Agriculture has done absolutely nothing in any shape or form to assist the stock men in that area. With all deference to the minister and the government, I think it is pretty nearly time that the department gave some attention to an area which has such wonderful potentialities. To-day in British Columbia, we are producing only about one-half of the meat consumed in the city of Vancouver. Let me remind the minister that with the rapid development of that city it is no stretch of the imagination to forecast that in the next ten or fifteen years its present population of about 325,000 will have increased to a million. With that market available I think it is high time that the minister took into serious consideration the question of making a real and comprehensive survey of the whole situation throughout that area. I do not want to labour the question any longer because I am sure that when the minister understands the conditions thoroughly he will give the matter his very serious consideration. But I should be very glad indeed to hear him give some word of encouragement to the people in that district in regard to the establishment of this experimental farm.

Supply-Agriculture.-Experimental Farms


William Richard Motherwell: A great part of
my hon. friend's remarks, which were perfectly proper, would come more appropriately under the live stock vote, in connection with which I shall have a Statement to make; a part of what he has said, relates also to the health of animals branch regarding the diseases of animals.


John Anderson Fraser: I do not agree with the
minister. I am discussing experimental farms, which include live stock, grain and various other things.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
spoke of the large losses sustained in the live stock world as the result of certain diseases.


John Anderson Fraser: Preventable diseases.


William Richard Motherwell: I would point out
to my hon. friend that only certain diseases come within the scope of the federal department, such as glanders, bovine tuberculosis, rabies, hog cholera and mange; these are pretty nearly the only diseases that come under this department. If my hon. friend will let me know whether any of these diseases are responsible for the great loss to which he has referred I shall be glad to have the matter looked into. The major portion of his remarks have reference to the need of experimental farms in the vast empire extending from the international boundary up to Fort George. We have four experimental farms in British Columbia besides the illustration stations, and when the time comes we shall have five including the Bulkley valley country. That will be the maximum to be found even in the older provinces. Of course, that should not debar British Columbia from having still more, because her physical features are of such a character that one farm will not of necessity serve as large an area as it would elsewhere; and the conditions are so diversified and numerous that I suppose I mysell could put up an argument for more farms in that province. But we must have a reasonable regard for the number of experimental farms in each province. For example, there are only two in Manitoba, and no doubt there is reason why it might be argued that there should be another one in the northern part of that province. Alberta has only two full fledged experimental farms, although there are two very important substations up in the Peace River. My hon. friend's claim may be considered in due course but we shall have to have a good deal more money before we establish new farms throughout the country, particularly when there are so many not yet properly equipped.
78594-225J


John Anderson Fraser: In my opinion, Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba might be regarded as comprising one area; the conditions throughout those provinces are pretty muoh the same. And the minister has admitted that he has nine farms in that area. He has also admitted that the conditions in connection with experimental farms throughout British Columbia are so diversified as to entitle the province to a great number of farms. With all deference to the minister, I submit that the three prairie provinces together might be compared with the province of British Columbia in this regard; if we had as many experimental farms in British Columbia as there are in the three prairie provinces, British Columbia would not be better served than those provinces are at the present time.


William Richard Motherwell: What my hon. friend says is worth considering.


John Anderson Fraser: Can I not get some definite indication from the minister? He has not told me anything; he has not given any promises-he is extremely careful in that respect. Can I not get some indication that he will make a survey of the situation?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes; we will look
into it and if we find towards the end of the year, or well on in the year, that by strict economy we have a little money left over, we shall be more disposed to give heed not only to the representations of my hon. friend but to the other claims to which I referred a few moments ago.


John Anderson Fraser: Do I understand from the
minister, then, that if he has a little money left over later in the year he will send a man to investigate?


William Richard Motherwell: I think I can safely say that we can send a man into any of those territories to make further investigation.


John Anderson Fraser: That is a little better.


William Richard Motherwell: But I should like to know at first hand something more about the matter.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister need not take my word for it; let him send his technical officials to make a comprehensive survey of the situation to see whether what I have told him is not absolutely correct.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not that I
doubt my hon. friend, but there is a good deal of other information that might be gathered at the same time.
3554	COMMONS
Supj>!y-Agriculture-Experimental Farms


John Anderson Fraser: Surely; and let me make
this observation to the minister while I am on the subject. I think his officials could get a large amount of very useful information from the provincial Department of Agriculture, and the two departments working together ought to be able to show that what I have been trying 'to convince the minister of is absolutely correct.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I can understand the
earnestness with which the hon. member for Fort William made his plea for an experimental farm in the section of the province of Ontario for which he spoke, because I have reason to know the great benefit which the Kapuskasing experimental farm in my part of the country has been to the farmers. Our people are making application for an increase of at least $10,000 in the grant to that farm. We always think of northern Ontario in terms of mining or of lumbering; but it is also a well-known fact that in that part of the province we have one of the finest sections for colonization and for purposes of cultivation. It is well known that the forestry branch in Ontario is spending nearly one million dollars in preventive work to safeguard our forests from the fire danger. And so far as the mining industry is concerned, large sums are being spent in several sections in the way of experimentation. The Kapuskasing farm is doing wonderful work among the settlers, encouraging them in experimenting with new kinds of grain which mature earlier than in other sections of Ontario and Quebec by reason of the fact that the season is shorter. This farm has a total area of 1,270 acres. From this area, about 300 acres are under stump pasture and 650 acres under cultivation. From this last amount over 200 acres are under experimental work and those who know what work is associated with such a large field of experimentation will have an idea of the cost of operation.
The labour conditions in the northern section of northern Ontario are such that we have to pay very high wages. The climatic conditions and the short seasons make it necessary to do the work as rapidly as possible, which in many cases increases the expense.
The appropriation for this station last year was $45,759. It will take, roughly $41,500 for salaries and wages only, leaving less than $5,000 for purchases and improvements. When we take from this amount the cost of supplies and feeding stuffs, it does not leave any for improvements and extension work. However, there is a big need for expansion and
lMr. Motherwell.]
certain improvements. For instance, a better drainage system should be established on parts of the farm, which would increase the yield of crops and facilitate the working of the land. The roads should be fixed so as to facilitate the haulage of crops; better facilities should be arranged to clean the grain for the settlers at cost, and assist them in that way in sowing clean seed; and more purebred live stock and poultry should be kept to enable the settlers to procure foundation stock at reasonable prices. Last year Alaska oats was introduced to the settlers by that farm. This is a variety that is sure to mature in that district, and as it is very satisfactory the demand is so great that they will not be able to supply more than 10 per cent of what is required. This means that it may take several years before the settlers can be supplied with that seed. The demand has been so great that at least fifty thousand bushels could have been sold in this district last year.
Then there is a great deal of land which has been burned over and on which second growth poplar is growing. If we delay this work a few years more it will mean that the cost of clearing this land will be two or three times as great as it would be if the work were done now. If a comparison should be made between the different farms as to the acreage, the climatic conditions, the wages paid and the amount provided by the government it would be seen that this station is not getting its proper share, and I hope the minister will take the matter into consideration as soon as possible.
In 1925 some complaints were made in connection with that farm; a great deal of heavy construction was being done by the Spruce Falls Company at Kapuskasing, and I heard that the experimental farm horses were being used by the company. I made a personal inquiry into the matter and found that the company wanted a certain kind of heavy draft horse which could be supplied only by the experimental farm, so the complaints were not really serious. However, I found also that the superintendent, who is a man well known throughout northern Ontario, a great friend of the northland, appreciated by everyone, a very capable administrator, a man who puts his heart and soul in his work, had to carry an overdraft in his own name amounting to at least $5,000 or $6,000 every year, and I do not think it right that any employee of the government should on his own responsibility be compelled to provide such a large amount of money for governmental work.

Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
I desire to make this plea very earnestly; millions of dollars have been spent in experimental work in connection with mining and forestry, and I am firmly convinced that the house will support an increase of at least $10,000 in the estimates for the farm at Kapuskasing. Just to mention one point which requires consideration, hon. members may be aware that when trees are 'brought up from the southern part of. the province they do not get on very well; they are not adapted to the northern country. I believe there is a good deal of work to be done in that connection, and this could be carried on at the farm. So I hope the Minister of Agriculture will see his way clear to increase the estimate for the Kapuskasing experimental farm by at least $10,000, and I feel confident that if he does he will receive the wholehearted support of the entire representation in the house.


William Richard Motherwell: This farm at Kapuskasing was established during the war, largely to demonstrate the agricultural possibilities of that great clay belt along the line of the Canadian National railway. It happens that while this farm is easy of access it is the only farm in the Dominion which I have not visited; I have been so delighted with the look of it from the train that perhaps I have passed it over for that reason. You know, once you get on a railway train you want to get to your destination as quickly as possible, but I think I can promise my hon. friend that I will stop off at this farm sometime during the coming summer, and if circumstances seem to warrant it we will see if we cannot provide more than S46,000 for that work. However, my hon. friend's suggestion that 810,000 is necessary properly to equip that farm is an argument in favour of out general policy of putting the existing farms in better shape before establishing new ones.


Mr. EVANS:: Our expenditure on experimental farms seems to increase year by year, but I am not sure that our agricultural industry has been improved in any way. The fact is that we are using up our resources of soil and fertility, and the farmer is not able even to get credit at the bank in order to carry him through his working season. The fact is that the man on the land who is farming in a small way is not able to make it go, and our experimental work does not seem to touch that man or make life easier for him in any way. Unless a man is a capitalist and spends a good deal of money on his farm he cannot make it pay; he must have modem machinery and live stock and everything else in connection with a big farm. The man who is on the land to make his home through his awn efforts is gradually squeezed off, and somehow our experimental farm work does not help him.
This is a condition of affairs which I should like to see remedied. There is no doubt that this morning the leader of the opposition was quite right in his description of agriculture, but the remedy he suggests is quite wrong; he wants a still bigger dose of the poison which has ruined the whole system of agriculture already. We must get closer to the man on the land and allow him to settle there and make his home through his own efforts. It is not a case of providing city conditions for young people on the farms; it is a case of making the farm pay.
How is that to be done? I hope the minister has thought it out. If he possibly can, the farmer will improve his land, but he is up against the big factor of inadequate returns for his labour, and we are forever making more distinct the dividing line between the capitalist and the worker; we are bringing our people to the servitude of wage earners instead of the freedom of home builders. I will leave that point for the minister to consider.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is a practical farmer himself and I would be very glad to sit at his or anyone else's feet in order to learn how better to apply the work of these farms to the individual. We have the publicity branch, with which we will deal later, sending out bulletins- containing information as to what is done on these farms, and I am sure my hon. friend will agree that since our chief occupation in the west so far has been the growing of cereals, incalculable benefit has been done every individual in the west *through the new varieties of wheat which have been propagated here at the central farm and distributed throughout the west. I think a review of these matters will convince him of that fact.
It always has been the case, and I presume it always will be so, that there are certain farmers not doing very well, but there ia real cause for complaint when the majority of the farmers are not doing as well as they might. I do not want to go into the economics of this question on a vote of this nature, but if my hon. friend or anyone else will show me how these farms can be made to touch the lives of the individual farmers to a greater extent than is the case now I shall be glad to have that information, because I have often wondered if that could not be done. What
3556	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
further media, what further facilities can we use to get right home to the individual? Unfortunately, very frequently the man who needs these things most is the least desirous of securing them, while the man who needs them least is on the alert and secures all the information available as new ideas are brought forward. I would be delighted to have anyone who is engaged in agriculture suggest how these farms can be improved; there is no question as to their value, and I do not think any country in the world has a better system of experimental farms than we have in Canada. If the information does not get home to the individuals I am Oipen to any suggestions as to how it can be put across.


Mr. SPENCER:: I appreciate that the
experimental farms which are being carried on throughout the Dominion are providing very valuable information, and also that one cannot expect them to pay their way, but in view of the great interest shown by the farmers and the difficulty many of them have in visiting these experimental farms, I think something should be done in the way of running excursions to enable farmers to visit them.
A suggestion was made by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) and the minister asked for suggestions along this line, as to a possible way of demonstrating the fact that farming can be made to pay. I think it would be a veiy excellent thing to establish demonstration farms in every province of the Dominion. Accurate accounts could be kept but the farms should be conducted on a scale of living comparable with the ordinary farmer's. It could be clearly established whether or not farming would pay in a particular locality, and if it was found that farming would not pay then the government would have no right to put out propaganda through the Minister of Immigration in an effort to induce people to come into those particular areas to settle upon the land.
The minister stated that there were about two hundred demonstration plots in the Dominion. Is there any other cost connected with these plots except the $5 per acre rental? What would be the cost of starting a new experimental farm, and what is the average cost of running such a farm?


William Richard Motherwell: The majority of
these plots are on a rental basis of $5 per acre for a forty acre tract. In some districts it is impossible to get forty acres, and then we are forced to work on a different basis. The hon. member mentioned excursions to these farms. I can remember that twenty or twenty-five years ago the most popular events

of the summer were excursions to the older farms like Indian Head and Brandon. It was necessary to guarantee that a certain number of passengers would be carried on those excursion trains, and if the day turned out to be a bad one at times the trains would be only half filled and we were forced to pay the deficit. After fifteen or twenty years it was found that this interest died out, although it is reviving. In some of the older districts there is a new interest in diversification, the growing of more grasses and clover, more seeding down, and such matters, and we are beginning to find that these excursions are regaining popularity. The excursions to the Scott farm are particularly popular, and if we can get the provincial governments to cooperate with us and assume some of the responsibilities in the event of it being a bad day, we feel that the number of these excursions can be increased. When a farmer visits one of these farms and is able to see with his own eyes just What is being done, he tries to apply those things to his own individual case, and I think we are reaching the time when more and more farmers will come in contact with these farms.
The hon. member asked the cost of starting a new farm. We started,a tobacco station last year at L'Assoimption, and the initial cost was about $30,000. To establish a live stock farm would cost between $40,000 and $50,000, depending upon the area and the price pel acre for farm land.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What would be the annual cost?


William Richard Motherwell: From about $30.-
000 to $50,000 depending upon the size.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It costs nearly as much
to keep it going as it does to establish it?


William Richard Motherwell: If you install full
equipment and machinery and buildings, of course it costs more. As a rule, we are putting on new equipment all the time as the work is extended; there is a little capital outlay being made all the time which goes in with the annual cost of administration.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I am quite aware of the
fact that the work being carried on at these farms is of an experimental nature and that the cost is more or less enhanced, but the minister did not reply to my suggestion that it might be a very good thing to establish some demonstration farms upon the same standard as the surrounding farms.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know how that could be done if iit were necessary to put on all the frills which are demanded by the public in relation to a government farm.

Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms


Henry Elvins Spencer: I would suggest that
there be no frills at all.


William Richard Motherwell: If it is run as an
ordinary farm without any regard for public sentiment, perhaps it could be done. The public exact certain conditions in connection with government farms, and to carry those out takes away all possible profit. If it is a farm run by an individual who has some knowledge of farm management, and who ia reasonably young, vigorous and healthy, he should certainly be able to make it pay.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the minister will think that it is utter nonsense for an advocate like myself to talk about farming, but I happen to have a farm of my own. I have been reading the reports issued by the experimental farms, and although I can understand ordinary technical language I venture to say that these reports have no educational value whatever to the average country farmer. As for helping the farmer, I think the publication of these reports is a useless expense. 1 would suggest to the minister that it would be a great help to the farmer if the department would prepare and send out these reports worded so that he could understand just what is being done at these experimental farms. But the information is not brought home to the mind of the ordinary farmer, and a great reform is necessary in that respect. I do not wish to elaborate, but I think the hon. gentleman is wasting a good part of his time and a considerable amount of the public money in the way in which he is conducting his department which should be of educational value to the ordinary farmer.


William Richard Motherwell: I shall be delighted if my hon. friend will particularize, because I do not think I am wasting, and I have no desire to waste, the public money.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: To take one instance, the
reports of the experimental farms are not issued in language that is comprehensible to the ordinary farmer in the country districts of the province, for example, where I reside, so that those reports are of no educational value to those farmers and that expenditure is wasted. By a proper use of the officials of his department, those reports might all be sent out in a simplified form so that they would be comprehended by the ordinary farmer and prove of considerable educational value to him.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon.
friend has reference to the annual report which is used for distribution and for filing purposes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am referring to the reports of the experimental farms.


William Richard Motherwell: From time to time we send out bulletins and leaflets dealing with farm work, particularly under the headings of "Seasonable Hints." These we send out four times a year. They are seasonable hints prepared by the superintendents of the various farms. In this way the farmers get four times a year a brief review of what is going on. I have received a good many compliments and favourable comments in connection with these little bulletins, because the message is a short one that can be read quickly and does not terrify a man as if he had to sit down and read such a formidable report as that to which my hon. friend refers. I will read over the reports in the light of my hon. friend's criticism and see whether there is any warrant for it. There is a bulletin summarizing the work in a popular form.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For my own information I
obtained from the Department of Agriculture at Washington a series of simple pamphlets on dairy production, explaining in simple language to the farmer that a cow that was giving so many pounds of milk a year was a loss, telling him how he should select his cattle, how he can prove whether cows are profitable or not. By a simple process it educated the farmer in raising and maintaining milch cows which will prove profitable to him. It was very instructive to me.
I saw another series of pamphlets on the raising of potatoes, showing that raising so many bushels, for instance, 100 or 150 bushels to the acre, which seemed to be the average in many districts of the United States, was an unprofitable venture, pointing out how by the selection of seed and by spraying and certain other simple processes, the productivity of the same land could be and had been raised to as high as 300 and 350 bushels to the acre, making a profitable farmer out of one who had hitherto simply been earning a dollar or a dollar and a half a day by his own labour. In every other branch of such farming as we have east of the Ottawa river-and I am not dealing with grain culture, but with vegetables, fruit, eggs, milk and the rest-a series of simple pamphlets should be issued which would be educational in value. Although I asked the minister's department three years ago for a complete series of their publications and I thought I had been receiving them since, I have not seen pamphlets of this nature although they may exist. I have been studying the reports I have received, because I need education myself. I have the ordinary intelligence, but I find that for me they are not
355S	[DOT]	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
informative and educational. There should be some change so as to bring home to the ordinary farmer every bit of information available of an educational value to him, showing what things he can produce and how he should produce them so as to give him a profitable return on the labour and money he expends annually upon his farm.


William Richard Motherwell: There are so many of these little bulletins that I sometimes think the work, instead of being underdone, is being overdone already in that respect. I shall be glad to send my hon. friend a list of the publications for 1929. These are distributed from place to place wherever we find any interest is being taken in them. We ask the man to mark those he prefers and .we send him those in which he is interested. Some of the titles of these pamphlets are as follows:
Flowers for the Prairie Home.
Fruit Crop Reports.
Fruit Trees, Protection of, from Mice and Rabbits.
Fruit and Vegetables. Canning, Drying, Storing.
The Prairie Farmer's Vegetable Garden.
Grapes for Home Use, Growing.
Hardy Roses, Their Culture in Canada.
Homes Beautiful.
Home Lot, Planning the.
Mushroom Culture.
Orchard Practices, Modern.
There must be thirty of these listed on each page and there are ten or eleven pages of them, so that these bulletins must run into several hundred. These people have their choice of one, two, three or half a dozen that they may desire. If there is any criticism that I would make, it would be that there are too many of them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Could something not be
done in the way of sending students or teachers from the experimental farms or from the department into the rural districts at certain seasons of the year, who, after having made a study of the productive possibilities of the particular district, would gather the farmers together, cloime into direct personal contact with them, make suggestions to them, listen to their criticisms, study their needs, because they feel that they are in need of educational assistance in the way of making their farms profitable? The real fact is that the farming districts east of the Ottawa river are not as profitable to-day as they were some years ago. The small farmer is finding greater difficulty in making his farm productively profitable and he is anxious for expert assistance. It seems to me that in this way, if your agents would go into the country fMr. Cahan.]
districts and come into direct contact with the people themselves, thence reporting to the hon. minister, you would have a new vision of the necessities of agriculture in those provinces which lie to the east.


Mr. IRVINE:: I hardly think that some
members who have spoken on this question can be quite serious, particularly the hon. member for Rosetown when he suggests that probably the experimental farms do not justify the expenditure. I do not wish to misrepresent him, but I think that that was his idea. I do not think there is any doubt in anybody's mind to-day that these experimental stations are of great value. I do not think that we expect them to pay. Experimental work of that kind is not done to pay; it is done to find out things and then [DOT]to disseminate the knowledge gained by the experiments and I am quite sure that this is being done to a great extent in all the farm stations throughout the country. Particularly do I believe that this is being well done in the experimental farm at Lacombe. I notice that the farmers in that district get a good deal of assistance and acquire must useful knowledge from being in close touch with the sources of information at that institution. I would ask the minister if there is any increase this year in the vote for the experimental farm at Lacombe.


William Richard Motherwell: There is an increase of $3,000. We would like to get an addition to that farm, and intend to do so as soon as possible.


William Irvine: That is what I was asking
for.


William Richard Motherwell: There have been
urgent representations from there that the farm is too restricted in its area. We are adding to the size of our farms. We added to the Lethbridge farm a year ago, and we hope to get around to Lacombe before too long, but we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. These farms are requiring money all the time. There is a little complaint as to the expenditure, but not much because I think the people generally feel that the expenditure is well justified, but we cannot go very much faster than we are doing and do the work properly.
With regard to getting closer to the homes of the farmers, I would point out that the question of production is looked upon as essentially a provincial matter. Nevertheless we found it advisable to do a certain amount of work in cooperation with the provincial departments, because if we are going to have an article that will be acceptable to the

Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
market, the first thing to be done is to see that it is produced properly, that the article is what the public wants. Consequently, in the maritimes and in the province of Quebec, we have been working in cooperation with the provincial governments in the matter of production, doing what we call promoting. We will have, for instance, a livestock promoter. That is being done in the east and to a certain extent in the west, but we have to do it with a good deal of care or there will be over-lapping, which will cause a little friction. I am happy to say, however, that there is very little friction throughout the whole of Canada in connection with our work in conjunction with the provincial departments of agriculture. But we recognize that production is primarily a matter for the provinces.


William Irvine: I just want to impress upon the minister the importance of that increase that I have been asking for, for the farm at Lacombe. I presume that the minister is aware of all the circumstances there and realizes how important it is that there should be an increased vote for this purpose.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


William Irvine: I am glad that the minister is thinking about it, and I hope that at this session of parliament he will find a little more cloth so that he can cut the coat a little longeT. He might take a few yards of cloth from the Department of Immigration, for instance; in fact, he could take the entire salary of the Minister of Immigration and put the minister in the Senate or some place else, and apply that amount to the farm at Lacombe, or he could take the salary of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of the Interior-the salaries of all three of them- and cutting out this unnecessary expenditure apply the money to carry on successful experiments at the farm at Lacombe. But if the minister will not accept that suggestion I would offer another, and that is that he appropriate a certain percentage of the money that is supposed to be expended this year on immigration itself and apply that to the farm at Lacombe, because I am sure that it would be of far greater value to Canada if expended in that way, giving real practical knowledge to the agriculturists.


Mr STEEDSMAN:: Some mention has
been made of illustration farms. I was not in when these estimates came up, and I am not sure whether the minister has touched on that feature or not or whether illustration farms are included in this vote.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, they are included.


Mr. STEEDSMAN:: If the minister has not already done so, I would like him to outline the system under which these farms are established and how they are conducted, and to state whether it is the intention of the government to extend that policy and establish more farms of that kind.
Coming as I do from one of the older settled areas in the province of Manitoba, I feel that we are being somewhat neglected in that regard. In that province we have two experimental stations, one at Morden and one at Brandon, but they are a long way from the part of the province that I represent, and consequently we do not have the advantage of visiting those farms very often, as they are not very accessible to a great many of our people. While we all admit the splendid work that is being done on these farms, we believe that it woud be profitable and be to the greater advantage of the people if some of these experimental farms and illustration stations were brought closer to the people. I feel that there is a very great need at the present time in those older areas for something of that nature.
We have got to the point now where we must change our system of agriculture to some extent. We have been growing wheat.-The area that I come from put Canada on the map for the production of No. 1 hard wheat?. The minister knows that himself without being told by me. But conditions have changed. Our crops have been attacked by rust and we have suffered largely from the ravages of that wheat disease. Consequently we have had to change from the growing of bread wheat to other varieties. We have come to the stage where we must almost abandon altogether the idea of continuing to produce a bread wheat, but we are in hopes that some of the varieties that are being propagated by the various experimental stations and scientific agriculturists will come to our rescue to a certain extent, but we realize in any event that we must change our system. We are therefore to-day looking for other varieties of wheat and for varieties of grasses and clover that we can use in crop rotation and that will build up and return to the soil fibre and other properties that have become to some extent weakened. We feel that we should have some assistance in that, and I am urging upon the minister, if it is the intention of the government to establish illustration farms, that there is a field where he could very well expend some money to very great advantage.
3560	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture.-Experimental Farms
It is a tragedy to see the ravages of rust and other diseases affecting the crops in those areas. We have gone through all the period of wheat production., and now we must change our system. We need some assistance to help solve our problems and to demonstrate to us the varities of grasses, clovers and fodder crops, if you will, and barley that we can grow to advantage. We must look to barley largely as our commercial product. We have of necessity to summer-fallow a great deal of our land, and we have not at the present time a known variety of barley that we can successfully grow on summer-fallow.


Mr. SENN:: What part does your provincial government in Manitoba take in helping you out in that direction?


James Steedsman: None so far as I know.


Mark Cecil Senn: The provincial government does all that work for Ontario.


James Steedsman: I understand the federal government have illustration farms in operation in every province. I know they have some in my province. In the district west of Morden and south of the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway there are no illustration stations whatsoever. That is a very large and important part of Manitoba. If it is the intention of the government to extend this work, I think it might very properly be undertaken in that part of the country. What is the policy of the government in regard to it?


William Richard Motherwell: I did touch very briefly on illustration farms before my hon. friend came in. They are very important in my estimation and apparently in his. His major question is as to the procedure to obtain one of these stations. I am afraid if I go too elaborately into the procedure I shall be smothered with applications. We have been endeavouring to establish these small illustration stations in the newer districts where the farmers are more in need of them, but it is difficult to keep them there because in the older districts problems are constantly arising which necessitate the establishment of such stations. Out of two hundred illustration stations that we have established, at least one hundred and fifty have been set up during the last seven or eight years. When an application is received for an illustration station the first step is * to look into our records and find if a station has been established within a reasonable distance. This reasonable distance is twenty-five or thirty-five miles, but sometimes certain physical features compel us to disregard this limit. We

ask the applicant what particular line of experimentation he wishes to take up, what is bothering the farmers in the district, whether it is a question of soil, disappearing fertility, deterioration of soil due to the absence of humus, weeds, or a dozen other things. Out in Saskatchewan in the drier areas they have all kinds of difficulty getting a catch of grass or clover. After we have received that information we get the names of two or three farmers in the vicinity who are of an experimental turn of mind. It is absolutely useless to ask anybody to undertake the work of an illustration station if he has no inclination for experimentation. Not having any predisposition for this class of work, under such a man the forty-acre experimental plot will be a failure. We also take the ground that the station should be on a highway accessible to the public so the sign "Dominion Illustration Station" will be seen by passersby. Then we send one of our representatives to the locality to have a chat with the prospective men whose names have been given to us as being likely to engage successfully in this class of work. Finally one of those men is decided on. The whole of the work is explained to him, and that he has to put himself under the auspices of the department through the medium of one of the staff of the experimental farms in the province. For instance in Saskatchewan it is Mr. Taggert at Swift Current; in Manitoba it is Mr. Tinline at Brandon. Nearly all our illustration stations in Manitoba have been established within the last seven or eight years; they are Arborg, Dauphin, Dugald, Eriksdale, Gilbert Plains, Gunton, Inwood, Katrine, Pipestone, Plumas, Petersfield, Rob-lin, Ste. Rose du Lac. There is no capital outlay involved except two or three dollars in putting up a sign "Dominion Illustration Station" and keeping it painted. The produce grown on the forty acres belongs to the farmer, with the exception of any special varieties of seed that the government may require.
In reply to the other question, do we intend to continue these illustration stations?'- I do not see how we can do otherwise. They are more popular than the large farms, although some people turn up their noses when I suggest one of these illustration farms instead of one of the large farms with buildings, equipment and live stock. These illustration stations are so popular that we can scarcely keep up with the demand for them.


Mark Cecil Senn: I should like to get a list of
the illustration stations.


William Richard Motherwell: Someone asked for all the illustration stations in every province.

Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms


Mark Cecil Senn: Only the number in each
province.


William Richard Motherwell: These'are: British Columbia, 16; Alberta, 19; Saskatchewan, 28; Manitoba, 13; Ontario, 15; Quebec, 64; New Brunswick, 18; Nova Scotia, 16; Prince Edward Island, 12. My hon. friend will notice that they are not evenly distributed, because it depends upon the applications. We treat the provinces all alike; we have the same policy for all. But there is no use in seeking opportunities for locating these stations unless we get applications.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What is the average
cost per year of one of these illustration stations?


William Richard Motherwell: They run all the
way from $10 up at Hudson bay, where we have a very small station, up to 8300 or $400, the average being about $200.


Mr. KENNEDY:: What is the program
for the Peace River district this year? Do I understand that there is a farm there?


William Richard Motherwell: I remember the
time when, a few years ago, my hon. friend did not think much of these substations.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understood that a
farm would be established there.


William Richard Motherwell: I think n,ot; there
is a pretty good substation there now under Mr. Albright, and some day it may be a full fledged farm. Just at the present time we are not prepared to establish a farm. There is a substation at Fort Vermilion, a remote locality, three hundred miles north of the Peace River country, and it is doing very useful work. It seems out of the way, but it is well to retain it. The substation at Beaver Lodge has done excellent work under Mr. Albright; it is giving good results with a comparatively small expenditure.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: Will the minister give the number of farms in the Dominion by provinces?


William Richard Motherwell: There are twentythree full fledged farms.


William Russell Fansher: Then there
are some experimental stations which are not designated farms.


William Richard Motherwell: There are three
tobacco stations and a fox farm in Prince Edward1 Island; there is a substation at Beaver Lodge and another at Fort Vermilion. Of all-round experimental farms, such as branch farms, there are twenty-three; five were organized under the government that established experimental farms first in the eighties; eight were established under the government that followed them; nine were established under the government that preceded this one, and not one to our credit. We are trying to put them all into shape before establishing new ones.	Our frontiers are being flung
baok further all the time, and as my hon. friend from Peace River indicates, the Peace River area is becoming a tremendously important one and it is only a matter of time when we shall have to establish one there. That makes four in the offing so far as that district is concerned. But we shall have to have more money.


William Russell Fansher: Will the minister give the number of experimental farms in each province?


William Richard Motherwell: I suppose my hon. friend means the full fledged farms. I think I can give them from memory. In British Columbia there are four; Alberta, two, besides the substations at Beaver Lodge and Fort Vermilion, which are nearly as good as farms; Saskatchewan, 4; Manitoba, 2; Ontario, 2, the central farm and one at Kapuskasing, besides a tobacco station at Harrow, which is a very important one; Quebec, five, with two tobacco stations; Prince Edward Island, one; Nova Scotia, two, and New Brunswick, one. There is also a fox station in Prince Edward Island.


Mark Cecil Senn: Does the minister consider the Central experimental farm at Ottawa a purely Ontario institution, or is it Dominion-wide?


William Richard Motherwell: It is very much an Ontario institution; it is something like the Guelph college, which at one time represented all Canada, although it happened to be located at Guelph. I do not think there is any farm in Canada that receives the number of visitors who go through the Central farm here; there are good roads leading to it from all over the country, and various organizations meet there. It is undoubtedly an Ontario farm, although it serves the Dominion as a whole. My deputy reminds me that in the beginning it rvas primarily intended to serve Ontario and Quebec.	.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The hon. member for
Wetaskiwin suggested to the minister that he discuss with his colleagues the advisability of securing a certain portion of the vote intended for immigration purposes and have it devoted to agriculture. The hon. member spoke, of course, in his usual jocular way, and lest the minister did not take him seriously I wish to repeat the suggestion. I have here
3562	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
a letter from a municipal council officer in the west making this very suggestion. I will quote it in part:
Owing to the enormous damage done by the spreading of weeds in this province and the losses incurred thereby, I am instructed, as weed inspector for division 1, Spalding municipality-No. 368, to ask if you could sponsor a motion to transfer $2,000,000 from either the military or immigration apportionments to the Department of Agriculture to be used solely in destroying the noxious weeks on crown lands.
The letter is signed H. R. Brown. This matter has been a source of contention and dissatisfaction in the district for many years. As the miinster knows, there is a large area surrounding the Quill lakes, which has been set aside as a bird sanctuary. That land is polluted with sow thistle and other noxious weeds, and it is practically impossible for the municipal authorities in any part of that surrounding country to cope with the weeds. The minister and his colleagues will no doubt say that the eradication of weeds is a provincial problem; in the case of privately owned lands the municipal or provincial authorities have power under provincial laws to go on these lands and take the necessary means to eradicate the weeds, charging the cost against the land. But here you have land belonging to the federal government against which no taxation can be levied, and the area is so large that it would be altogether too expensive for the municipalities to undertake the work of eradicating the weeds. Indeed, they have not even the right to go on the land, as the minister knows. If that land were leased or allowed to be cultivated, if something were done with it, then of course it would come under the provisions of the provincial statutes. But year after year this problem remains. The farmers are doing everything they can to cope with the sow thistle, experimenting on their own land; but here is a large area of land belonging to the federal government, land which is not leased, over which the provincial authorities have no control, and which is just a breeding ground for these weeds, creating a tremendous problem for the farmers of the district. It seems to me to be useless to discuss the matter with the provincial government. It really is not and should not be the business of the provincial government to handle the situation there; and even if the municipal authorities were permitted to go on the land-which they are not-they cannot be expected to expend their funds for this purpose. If that land is to be continued as a bird sanctuary then I suggest that there should be a vote for the purpose of eradicating these weeds. The minister may say that this comes under 
the Department of the Interior; that is correct, but that department is not particularly interested in the eradication of weeds, and I suggest that the minister discuss this question with his colleagues and try to arrange some method of handling this problem. The hon. member for Melfort is not in his seat just now, but he attended a conference at Star city about a year ago which was attended by representatives of the municipal authorities covering a wide area, at which this problem was thoroughly gone into. Petitions were forwarded to the provincial and federal governments; there was a good deal of correspondence about it but so far nothing has been done. After all, this matter comes under this department; it is a federal problem and it seems to me the Department of Agriculture should at least press for something to be done.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not want to take advantage of the fact that this vote covers experimental farms; I suppose almost anything can be brought up now. This weed problem on crown lands has 'been up many times; the Minister of the Interior and I have had many discussions about it, and for some years he has adopted the policy of getting rid of many of these lands and letting those who take them over meet the situation. For the government to undertake to eradicate sow thistle, let us say, around Quill lakes would be a tremendous task; the only method I could imagine would be to pasture it with animals so heavily that the sow thistle would be killed, but by the time you did that the animals probably would be dead from starvation. I visited that district recently, and having viewed the terrific destruction the birds are doing my suggestion is that the sanctuary be thrown open. There is a time in the agricultural life of the community when you cannot both farm and protect the beaver, for instance; they will cut down your trees and fence posts as quickly as you can put them up. Then you have to sacrifice them in the interests of the farmer and let them go back to the frontier where there are not so many farms and where there are more trees for them to cut down..
With regard to this bird sanctuary, I had charge of that work when I was a provincial minister; I have a great deal of interest in bird life, but my interest in human life is much greater. I have every sympathy for the farmers who are trying to make a living, but who find that the ducks reap the harvest. There are enough people taking a slice off the farmer's harvest without letting millions of ducks interfere as well. That would be my solution of the problem.

Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms


Milton Neil Campbell: I agree that the only real solution is to have this land thrown open; once it is privately owned it. is subject to taxation and the necessary action can be taken to eradicate the weeds. I hope something may be done along that line, but if the Department of the Interior retains that land I think they should eradicate these weeds. I know it is a* big problem, but it could be handled if the land was completely mowed before the sow thistle goes to seed. The weed might continue to spread by the roots but certainly there would be no seeds blowing on to the farmer's land. That would not require such a very large expenditure, and certainly if the land is retained as a bird sanctuary something should be done.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have been waiting to ask the minister a question, and perhaps he will allow me to ask it now. What is the Department of Agriculture doing to improve the culture of tobacco in the province of Quebec? I am reliably informed that the tobacco production of the province of Quebec could be increased to two or three times what it is at present if it were possible to establish warehouses in which the farmers could place their tobacco during the time it is maturing for the market and obtain a warehouse receipt. I am informed also that the ordinary small farmer who raises tobacco finds it very difficult indeed at present to obtain the amount of money necessary to carry him over the time of culture, and then he has to carry the tobacco for a long time while it is maturing. If some means could be found, either under this or some other department, whereby warehouses could be established at convenient points where the raw product could be stored while maturing, the banks would be quite willing to advance to the farmers a very considerable portion of the price on warehouse receipts, which would enable the * farmers to pay their current expenses and carry their product until it is ready for the market. In fact I am told that if some such reform were made it would double and treble the production of tobacco in that province, as, owing to the extensive use of tobacco in various forms, a very good market could be found even for a much increased production. Has the hon. gentleman studied that question at all?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
has brought up a very important question, because there are a few tobacco growers who possess sufficient means to establish a proper warehouse, and as yet I do not think anything has been done by the government in
the way of assisting in the establishment of these warehouses. I understand that in Qudbec there is quite a large number of cooperative warehouses, and I remember from my experience with this question in the county of Essex that some of the tobacco companies advanced sufficient money to the farmers to enable them to put up proper buildings for the purposes indicated by my hon. friend. Then, in the fall of the year, the tobacco would be sold and a certain amount of money would be applied to the cost of the building, and in five or six years it would be paid for. Unfortunately sometimes the grower found himself tied up to a tobacco company when he could have done better elsewhere, and that caused some dissatisfaction. However, I think if that sort of thing is carried on squarely it is a very good thing.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. gentleman
promise me that during the recess and before parliament meets again he will study that question? I have a long brief here which would require perhaps three-quarters of an hour to present; I intended to deal with the matter at length, but, since these estimates have come down at the close of the session that has become impossible. However, I do suggest to the minister that he study the question because I intend to bring it up in earnest, if I attend another session of this parliament.


William Richard Motherwell: I shall be very glad to do so.


Milton Neil Campbell: I would like to ask the minister if this department has done anything to encourage the industry of muskrat farming. Only a few years ago this was looked upon as something of a joke, but to-day it is getting to be a very important industry.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that agriculture?


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes, most decidedly so. This would be a most profitable venture to be carried on as a side line to the ordinary cultivation of the land. Wild animals are being almost completely trapped out; muskrat furs as well as other furs are becoming scarcer year 'by year and we will have to rely upon the farms to supply the markets. In the newer portions of western Canada there is a lot of rough, sloughy land, and with a little encouragement and the proper technical advice many of the settlers in those parts could make a considerable amount of money out of land which is almost valueless for agricultural puiposes. There are several of these muskrat ranches in my constituency
3564	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
and I believe the men running them are doing very well. The Saskatchewan government has done something towards scattering some technical advice, but I think this is a proper matter for the Dominion Department of Agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: We have an officer who is working on that question at the present time. These farms are spread all over Canada, and some of them are being operated on dry land. The general impression has been that muskrats must be raised near the water, but one of the hon. members of this house has been very successful in raising rats on ordinary dry land within a short distance of Ottawa.


Milton Neil Campbell: Have any bulletins
been published by the Department of Agriculture?


William Richard Motherwell: We had a bulletin
but the demand was so large that it is now out of print.


Milton Neil Campbell: I suggest that the minister do everything possible during the coming season to distribute this information to the farmers. In many parts of the country the farmers could be very easily encouraged to engage in this profitable business, and many of them are looking for some kind of technical advice.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Has the minister received a request for the establishment of an experimental substation on the north side of the Peace? I think a request was made by the board of trade of Fairview.


William Richard Motherwell: We are investigating that matter to see what the prospects are in that particular district. In connection with these substations the objection is taken to paying a salary to a man for operating his own farm. There is not the same control over him as if the land belonged to the government, and I do not know how far we will go in the establishment of these substations. The substation at Beaver Lodge has been quite successful, but I imagine that any capital outlays will remain on that farm, and I look with a considerable amount of disfavour upon establishing too many of these substations.


Mr. KELLNER:: When the minister is
discussing the matter of noxious weeds, I think he should confer with the Minister of Justice as well as the Minister of the Interior. There is a considerable tract of land in the city of Edmonton owned by the penitentiaries branch. The city of Edmonton has approached the government several times with a view to disposing of this land, but I understand that

the answer has always been given that they were unable to do so. I think the Minister of Agriculture should see that the weeds are controlled on that property, as it is very unfair to have such a large tract of land in the city of Edmonton covered with all sorts of weeds.


William Richard Motherwell: I will remember
the recommendation of the hon. member. If they have no use for the penitentiary at Edmonton there is no need to grow weeds upon the property. If they cannot keep the penitentiary filled it should be disposed of.


Mark Cecil Senn: Some additional property has been purchased by the government for the use of the experimental farm at Ottawa, and I would like to ask the minister if it is proposed to use that additional property as an experimental farm or as a general farm.


William Richard Motherwell: The department has not received the judgment rendered by the exchequer court, but, according to the newspaper reports, the price has been set at $700 per acre, with an additional 10 per cent levied for forcible expropriation, and $30,000 for the buildings thereon. The total acreage of the additional property is three hundred and sixty.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is this property to be used
for experimental purposes or for general farming?


William Richard Motherwell: The whole farm is
experimental in nature but a certain amount of commercial farming will have to be carried on in order to provide for the live stock.


Mr. GARDINER:: What kind of buildings were on the land?


William Richard Motherwell: There was one house, and pretty extensive stabling adjoining the house with four or five of the usual old frame barns.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does not the minister find
it difficult to conduct profitable operations upon land which costs $700 per acre?


William Richard Motherwell: We were not prepared to pay that much for the land, but where there is a difference of opinion in a matter of that kind, it is necessary to refer the matter to the exchequer court for a decision. Whatever they decide, of course. I feel I must accept.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is there any possibility of
its being profitably used for farming purposes?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. It was expensive land, but it would be much more unprofitable not to have it even ait that price. Canadla is expanding so rapidly, agriculturally

Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
and otherwise, that the central experimental farm requires more farm space for the purpose of developing neiw varieties of grains, grasses and so forth and propagating them on the twenty-two branch farms. Therefore the success of the twenty-two branch farms is dependent upon the central farm which is the nerve centre of the whole system. I do not know that the price paid is reasonable, but it would be more expensive not to have it than to have it even at that price, for the simple reason that if we did not have proper room to develop our activities at our headquarters at Ottawa, the whole system throughout the Dominion would be in danger of being paralysed.


William Russell Fansher: How many
acres are there now in the central experimental farm?


William Richard Motherwell: About 825. The
original farm was 465 acres and this addition consists of 360 acres.


Mark Cecil Senn: A few moments age the minister informed me thiat the central experimental farm was an institution for the use of Ontario; that it could be considered a provincial institution, or one for the use of the province alone. Now he tells us that it is used for developing seeds and so forth to furnish the branch farms which, I understand, are situated throughout the Dominion. He tells us also that there are some 700 or 800 acres in the whole farm. May I ask him whether the acreage of the original farm was all used for experimental purposes and for developing the necessary seeds for the branch farms? If not, why was it necessary to purchase the additional land?


William Richard Motherwell: As time went on,
the original farm was used for many purposes besides what might be termed agriculture, strictly speaking. There is an arboretum consisting of sixty acres in which the late Doctor Saunders took a great pride. Then we have to have some grounds around the farm. We have established branches dealing with horticulture, orchardry and poultry, and as each new branch was established it took up a little more ground. We started in a small way with one or two divisions and we have developed until now there are fifteen. This means that the farm had been reduced to three fields of forty acres each, or 120 acres in all. That is really all that is striotly speaking, the agricultural ground we had. The farm was really top heavy with beauty without having a farm associated with it until we secured this additional acreage. I am sure my hon. friends from the west would not like to call an experimental farm a farm when there were only 120 acres for actual operations.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister will now
admit it is top he'avy with cost.


William Richard Motherwell: We hope to get
results commensurate with the cost, and I think we shall.


Mark Cecil Senn: Will the minister admit that it is a Dominion-wide institution and not confined to Ontario?


William Richard Motherwell: I will admit that,
but at the same time one cannot help realizing that it is of tremendous benefit to Ontario. It is, strictly speaking, a Dominion-wide institution because it supplies the whole system, but it is a valuable adjunct to the agriculture of Ontario because it is accessible by good roads from half of the province.


Mark Cecil Senn: How many of these branch farms are located in Ontario?


William Richard Motherwell: There is Kapuskas-ing and there is a tobacco farm at Harrow.


Mr. WARD:: Does the Minister of Agriculture think that the Booth- farm which has been recently purchased is worth anything like the price that has been paid for it, or does he think it was good business to call upon the exchequer court to arbitrate in connection with the price? Is that court in a position to know land values? I looked all over the Booth farm the other day and I think the government has paid about five times more than the property was worth. The buildings could be put up for much less than $30,000, the price we paid for them. They did not cost $30,000 new, and no practical man would value them to-day at over $8,000. If the government had paid $75,000 for the farm itself, they would have paid a long price. It is a wet, low-lying piece of land, and it will cost a great deal of money to drain it before it is fit for experimental purposes. As an hon. member beside me suggests, it might make a good muskrat farm.


William Richard Motherwell: We could not agree on a price and I do not know of any other way of obtaining a decision than -through the court. That is the regular way. Whether it was -a correct decision or not, my hon. friend is more at liberty to criticise it than I am. I was one of the interested parties in submitting the matter to the court, and I feel I have to accept the decision, whatever I may think about it. The price is unquestionably high for farm land, but I take the ground that it would have been a greater mistake not to have had it than to take it even at that price,
3566	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
because we needed it so badly for the purpose of keeping the branch farms across the Dominion going. That is different from saying that the price is high or low. The decision is that of a court and I am prepared to accept it.


Mark Cecil Senn: Were there not in the locality other farms that could have been purchased at a more reasonable price and that would have answered the purpose of the department just as well?


William Richard Motherwell: No. If my hon.
friend has ever operated two farms with a road between them, he knows the tremendous inconvenience involved. You spend a great deal of time on the road. The Booth farm abutted on the experimental farm, there being an imaginary line-in fact, just a hedge -between. It is hard to describe just how valuable it is to have the farm so located as against a farm, perhaps just as good, but farther away, and with a public road between. My hon. friend, I believe, is a farmer.


James Dew Chaplin: The hori. member tells us that he has operated a farm all his life under similar conditions.


William Richard Motherwell: If he has, he knows the inconvenience involved. We have investigated the whole matter and there would have to be a subway. The drainage there would not permit of a subway to get from one farm to the other. Another way to get from one to the other would be by an overhead bridge.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understand fully the inconvenience involved in crossing a highway all the time to get from one farm to another. At the same time, this is a considerable amount of money to expend. Is the minister finished buying land for the experimental farm now? I heard that further developments were likely to follow and that other land might be acquired in the near future.


William Richard Motherwell: I am through for the present, at least until we get the new farm developed. I will not say that it is large enough. Someone may follow me who may have ambitions to enlarge it, but for the immediate present we have sufficient land to meet the requirements.


James Dew Chaplin: The cost of the Booth farm was over S300,000?


William Richard Motherwell: Something like
that.


James Dew Chaplin: It is over $800 an acre.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right.
IMr. Motherwell.]


James Dew Chaplin: At five per cent this farm is costing for carrying charges alone nearly $20,000 a year, or $40 an acre. I think it is pretty nearly time the minister came to the conclusion not to spend any more money on these farms.


Mr. PECK:: Was a valuation made before
the purchase of the land by any local valuator, and if so, by whom?'


William Richard Motherwell: Does the hon.
member mean a valuation for strictly farm purposes?


Edward Armour Peck: It would not matter what
you bought it for. What was the farm worth? What would it sell for to the ordinary purchaser?


William Richard Motherwell: I presume that the price set by the court would be what anybody else would have to pay for it.


Edward Armour Peck: Did you not .endeavour to
settle the price amicably before going to court?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Edward Armour Peck: Before doing that you would require to have a valuation made.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Edward Armour Peck: Who were the valuators who acted for the government?


William Richard Motherwell: We had two
farmers who looked into it very thoroughly as a strictly farming proposition compared with other lines in that vicinity, and having regard to the condition it was in, with quack-grass and lack of drainage, they valued it at $75 an acre.


Edward Armour Peck: Is there any reason why the
government should pay more than $75 an acre for it, plus the extra ten per cent which would be allowed by any arbitrator?


William Richard Motherwell: There seems to be a tremendous diversity of prices in that vicinity. The Caldwell farm could be got for a little less than $400 an acre. For the farm adjoining the Caldwell farm and butting up against the Booth farm, Mr. Scott wanted $700 an acre. There is a gentleman farming sixty acres there, and he valued his land at $700 an acre. It just shows the difference between the individuality of these men and what they think the land is worth, depending on what they can make out of it in the matter of production. The Scott farm

Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
is an exceedingly well handled farm and very, very clean. I do not know whether Mr. Scott feels that he can make interest on it at that price, but I am given to understand that he does.


James Dew Chaplin: The price the minister
paid for this acreage puts me in mind of the prices charged for a subdivision in some western town. Suppose you figured eight lots to an acre, that would figure out to $80 for a small lot.


William Richard Motherwell: The court puts an
appraisal on the property. We needed the land and needed it badly, and so we sent the matter to an impartial tribunal, where lawyers on both sides were heard and witnesses galore.
Mr. CH'AFLIN: The court did not put a price on it until you asked them to.


William Richard Motherwell: We felt that the
only way to arrive at a decision that would be equitable to all parties would be to submit the question to an impartial tribunal.


Robert Gardiner: What was the price
per acre originally asked for this land?


William Richard Motherwell: They put it at
$700 per acre, plus 10 per cent for forcible possession, plus $30,000 for the buildings bringing the total to $823,000. They were asking in the court proceedings $1,200 per acre, and our lawyers were offering $400.


Robert Gardiner: Did they set any prices privately on this land before the matter went to the court?


William Richard Motherwell: There was no offer on our part, but there was a tentative offer on their part of $700 an acre. That was some time ago. Prior to that, before the father of the present owners died, they asked $1,500 an acre for it.


Robert Gardiner: This tentative offer of
$700 prior to the case going to the exchequer court would include the buildings, I presume. I think the minister said something about that last session, that they had offered this land at $700.


William Richard Motherwell: It .included the
buildings.


Robert Gardiner: So by going to the
exchequer court we paid 10 per cent on the purchase price of $700 and $30,000 for the buildings.


William Richard Motherwell: We had to pay a
little more on account of the lawyer's fees,
I suppose.


Robert Gardiner: The lawyer's fees were on top of that. It strikes me as poor business.
Mr. 8ENN: It seems to me that the minister must have thought that offer of $700 per acre was too high a price to pay or he would not have gone to court.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understand that this is a
low-lying farm and hard to drain, that it needs under-draining. It seems there is no system of under-drainage in that section of the county. Does the minister think it is possible to under-drain this farm properly in [DOT] the next few years?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes. While it is in need of draining very badly, it is not expensive to drain. There are good outlets.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister told me a few
moments ago that he could not put a subway under the road because of the lack of drainage.


William Richard Motherwell: Because of the fall at that end of it. That is opposite the Caldwell farm. That was in the event of our getting the Caldwell farm, but we do not require it under the circumstances.


Edward Armour Peck: Did the judge give a written judgment? It would be interesting to see how he arrived at this enormous price for the property. I think his judgment should be produced.


William Richard Motherwell: I have not had
much experience in the exchequer court or in any other court proceedings, but there is a regular routine to follow, and following the course of that routine the judgment has not yet arrived in our office.


Edward Armour Peck: When was the judgment
given?


William Richard Motherwell: The case was heard about the 10th of May and judgment was given almost immediately.


Edward Armour Peck: It was a regular trial, with
evidence given on both sides as to the value of the property, and after hearing the evidence the judge handed down his judgment.
I think it could be very interesting to the committee to have the text of his judgment.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon.
friend has the substance of it.


Edward Armour Peck: In his judgment the judge
would sum up the situation and show how he arrived at the price he fixed.

3568	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms


William Richard Motherwell: I am awaiting that information myself. I am somewhat curious to know how it was figured out.


Robert Gardiner: Was any evidence
offered to the court on behalf of the department that the Booth family had offered this land to the department at $700 an acre, and if so, how on earth could the court have given the judgment it did?


William Richard Motherwell: I was not at the
court, but I understand not. The communication that was sent to us with regard to that was confidential and in confirmation of an interview between Mr. Booth, Doctor Grisdale and myself. Doctor Grisdale communicated with Mr. Booth and asked him if the understanding was so and so. Mr. Booth marked his reply " confidential," and our lawyers advised us not to use the letter. I think the contents were meant to be confidential at the time, but I did not so regard the letter after the case went into court.


William John Ward: The witnesses in the exchequer court must have been great real estate boomers.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understand the minister himself is not too well satisfied with the judgment.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I have gotten over it.


Mark Cecil Senn: From what he said a little while ago I understood he thought the judgment was perhaps a little too high. That being the case, does the minister intend to appeal the judgment?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, when I got the judgment first I thought.it was high. If my view had prevailed at the outset in the price we offered for the land we would not have had to go to the exchequer court, but the other gentleman entertained a different view; that is why we had to go to the exchequer court. We were advised by the Justice department not to appeal; the result would be doubtful and in any case it would involve further expense.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister did consider an appeal?


William Richard Motherwell: I thought over it and we submitted our view to the Justice department. We were advised that it would not be good tactics and would probably result in simply adding to the expense.


Edward Armour Peck: I cannot agree with the minister. You are spending on the purchase of this property over $300,000, and the costs of

an appeal would be scarcely worth considering in view of the amount involved. Personally I should like to see an appeal taken to the supreme court against the judgment. I think if might be reversed. Certainly it would be more satisfactory to the government and the people generally if an appeal were taken to the supreme court..


William Russell Fansher: It is just such transactions as this that bring the department into disrepute with the ordinary farmer. When he realizes that the interest on the purchase price of the Booth farm is about $40 an acre, or the purchase price per acre of the average farm in Ontario, a great deal of the investigation work carried on by the experimental farm and the advice given by the department from time to time are discounted. I have often heard the ordinary farmer say: "There is no use my 'trying to follow the advice offered by these experimental farms. They are backed by the government, they have all the money they require to carry on things as they like, and I cannot do that." As a consequence he passes up a lot of good advice. I censure vey severely the paying of this amount of money for farm land in Ontario. No land (or farming purposes is worth the price or anywhere near it. How any court could award such a fabulous price, and expect to have it accepted by the farming community of this country, I am at a loss to understand.


Robert Gardiner: I would call the attention of the minister and the committee to the fact that treating this so-called confidential letter as such-and in my judgment it, was only confidential for the time being- has cost the country $55,000 over and above the price that the Booth family required in the first instance.


William Richard Motherwell: Unfortunately there is no other tribunal to which we could resort in arriving at the value of this land. We needed the land so badly that we were prepared to pay the price rather than be without it. Personally, after the negotiations were made public I did not think the letter was any longer confidential, but our lawyer did not regard it in that way. The land at Morden we bought for about $46 or $47 an acre. We considered it was a good buy. We had to pay $100 an acre for the land we bought at Lethbridge because it was irrigated. So sometimes we get land adjoining (Mi-present farms at their rock bottom value for farm purposes. At other places we have to give a price quite out of line with agricul-

Sup-ply-Agriculture-Experimental F arms
tural valuation. In this instance when the whole system was depending on the nerve centre being pvopertly taken care of we had to get the land at that price.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understood the minister to say that this land was valued by two farmers, who were acting as valuators, at something like $75 an acre. Did they appear in the exchequer court as witnesses?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


William Ernest Tummon: Was there no other property close by available for the same purpose?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, but it was not so desirable. The Booth property was much more valuable for our purposes because it adjoined the experimental farm.


William Ernest Tummon: But was there no other property available in the vicinity?


William Richard Motherwell: There is other
property on the other side of the road, but it is intersected by two roads.


William Ernest Tummon: My information is that there is a piece of land two or three hundred acres in extent very close by and perhaps better suited for farming purposes than the property under discussion, and that it was available at about $250 an acre.
Mr. MOTHERW'ELL: No. If we took the whole farm that my hon. friend refers to it would have cost us $375 an acre, and it is cut off from the main farm by two public highways.


Robert Gardiner: Aifter looking over the farm very carefully there is no question in my mind that more land was required. But I would remind the minister that last session he stated the Booth family had offered this land to the government at $700 an acre, and at that time the minister thought it was too high a price to pay. In view of that statement, I really think a great mistake was made in not bringing the offer to the attention of She exchequer court. I do not know who was responsible; I am not blaming the minister, but I do say some official in his department should be called on the carpet for making such a blunder.


William Richard Motherwell: When you go to
the exchequer court you must get lawyers to take care of your case, and you must either accept the decision of the court or take the chance of getting a worse decision in another 78594-2261
court. My hon. friend is complaining about not making further use of the letter marked confidential. Counsel said it would be bad policy and bad ethics to go into court and use a letter marked confidential, no matter how it had been obtained.


Robert Gardiner: But that information
was given to the house last session when the minister's estimates were under consideration, because I remember the occasion distinctly. Well, if it could be given to the house it could be given to the exchequer court.


William Richard Motherwell: Having submitted
the matter to the court, and needing the property as we did, we had either to appeal or to acquiesce in the judgment, and we were advised not to appeal.


Robert Gardiner: I do not appear to have got the point clearly to the minister. Last year he said in this house that it was the intention of the department to buy the Booth farm because of lack of sufficient land for experimental farm purposes. The minister stated in the house last- year that the offer was $700 per acre; and he added, if I remember rightly, that in the judgment of the department this was too much. He instanced a certain gentleman out at Indian Head, known to both the minister and myself, who gave a piece of land to the government for that class of work for nothing, and he made the comparison. So did the member for Qu'Appelle. Now in view of the fact that the information had been given to the house, that the Booth family had offered the land at $700 an acre, I wish to know why that information was not submitted to the exchequer court. I maintain that if it could be given to this house it could be given to the exchequer court; and I should like to know what court would raise the price over and above what had been proposed by the people who wanted to sell the property.


James Dew Chaplin: The information was not
confidential then.


Robert Gardiner: No.


William Richard Motherwell: After the tentative negotiations were over I never looked upon that letter as confidential and that is why I gave it to the house; but the lawyers regarded it as confidential and held that it would be bad ethics to use it. And we were guided by their advice.


Robert Gardiner: The minister gave that information to the house twelve months ago; I think there is something wrong somewhere in this particular matter.
3570	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms


William Richard Motherwell: No; my hon. friend is quite wrong.


Robert Gardiner: I do not suggest anything like bribery or anything of that sort, but someone slipped on the job; whether it was the lawyers or the officials of the department. I do not know, but someone was at fault.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is
quite wrong. There is no justification for suggesting any jugglery or wrongdoing.


Robert Gardiner: I do not say that, but they fell down on the joib.


William Richard Motherwell: Even lawyers sometimes do that, I suppose-; but we got a good lawyer and in his opinion -it was not good tactics to use that letter, and we acted accordingly.


John Anderson Fraser: Who was the lawyer?


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Wilson of
Ottawa and Mr. Robertson of Toronto, while Mr. Tilley was Mr. Booth's lawyer in Toronto; who his local representative was I do not know.


Robert Gardiner: I am to understand,
then, that the lawyers for the department never presented this letter to the court at all. If I know anything about jurisprudence or pleading, I take it it would be up to the lawyers for the other party to object to the evidence going in.


William Richard Motherwell: My deputy, who
was present in court, informs me that the lawyer did not submit that letter. I discussed it with him myself a month before the case was heard and it was my opinion that he should have submitted it. That was my own view, because I considered it was meant to be 'confidential only during the tentative negotiations but not for an indefinite length of time.


Robert Gardiner: I still hold that the
lawyers for the department should have submitted the information to the court, and if opposing counsel objected then the court would rule on the point. I say therefore that in that regard they fell down and fell down badly. When was the case submitted to the exchequer court? What was the date?


William Richard Motherwell: We have not the
exact date, but it was well into the beginning of winter.


Robert Gardiner: This last winter?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. I am speaking from memory, but I think it was late in November or early in December.
I Hr. Gardiner.]


Robert Gardiner: I again direct the minister's attention to the debate that took place on his estimates last year. If I mistake not, he made the statement then that the offer from the Booth family was $700 an acre. I intend to look up the debate. In any case I submit that someone has fallen down badly.


Mr. ROWE:: It seems to me that the minister, judging from his statement of the situation, has clearly shown that the Booth property has cost this country about $170,000 or $175,000 more than the Scott-Caldwell property would have cost; and from experienced farmers who are familiar with the value of soil I learn that the Scott-Caldwell property is equally as valuable for farming purposes. As to the suitability of its location, I understand that it is only sixty feet further from the main grounds; and as for the road dividing it from the farm, it divides only one field. The minister could have saved the country, I should say, at least $150,000 and would have had a property adequate for his purposes. It seems to me that his purchase has been extravagant.


William Richard Motherwell: It is entirely a
matter of judgment whether it would have been better to have taken the other property rather than the one we secured. But I would point out to the hon. gentlemen that if we had selected the property he suggests the choice would have been wrong for all time, whereas the one selected is right permanently so far as location is concerned. And that is an important consideration.


William Earl Rowe: But the minister in one case would have been buying farm property, whereas in the other he is buying city property ready for subdivision.


William Richard Motherwell: The possibilities
in regard to subdivision must have 'been taken into consideration by the court. That was the whole argument of the owners, and it is an important factor in determining the value of the property. I do not know of any other lands around here which would be worth three or four hundred dollars an acre. I understand that the Caldwell farm had been floated as a subdivision proposition by a company in the early years of the war, but it has gone back to farming operations. That was at a time of special boom, but the proposition petered) out. In years to come, of course, it may be worth what they are asking for it, but at the present time it is not worth their figure either for subdivision or for farming purposes.

Supply-Agriculture


William Earl Rowe: It seems an uniwise policy
for the Department of Agriculture to purchase land capable of subdivision when there is adjacent a desirable property which is worth almost dollar for dollar what the other represents. It seems to me that the minister has wasted from $150,000 to $175,000.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
did not appreciate what I said with regard to what is known as the Caldwell farm. That was a subdivision project floated by a company oif which Mr. Caldwell was one, but it broke up and the property went back into his hands. Some day it may be worth as much as the other, but it is not worth it now either for subdivision purposes or for farming.


John Anderson Fraser: I find that according to the auditor General's report for 1927-28 there is an increase of $454,000 in this vote. Can the minister give me the reasons for that increase?


William Richard Motherwell: We will have to
look that up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals, administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, and necessary buildings, $2,450,000.
Mr. KAISER:: There is a great deal to be said in favour of spending this amount of money in looking after the health of animals, but it is not an unmixed blessing to the farmers of this country as the work is carried on at present. I am going to draw the attention of the minister to a case which, although I cite a particular instance, is by no means an isolated example. In my community there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among people who concern themselves with the production of high grade stock, and I will tell the minister the reason for this dissatisfaction. My particular complaint has to do with the method by which the government handles a disease known as mange.
For the benefit of those who may not understand what I have to say, I may state that mange is a parasitic disease which breaks out among animals. I have had experience with it; I have seen it in human beings, in horses, in dogs and in cattle, and therefore I believe I have some knowledge of the disease. Mange is caused by a parasite which attaches itself to the animal, and there is a period of what is called incubation, but I would like to point
out that this government does not recognize the scientific knowledge which is applied by other countries in handling this disease. In this connection I might quote what the German authorities have to say:
The tenacity of scab mite varies according to different varieties. According to Gerlach, the least resistant are the sarcoptis which die in dry air in a few days.	_	_
The dermatocoptis mites live outside the body from 4 to 6 weeks, but longer in damp and dirty stables, and can remain alive even in dry air for 10 to 14 days.
This is an authoritative statement, and now I want to show how this department handles this situation. In November, 1927, a very high class farmer named Richardson bought an animal at auction which may be described by the following couplet:
The farmer called him Mike, because
That's the kind of a cow he was.
We admit that mange existed on the farm from which the animal was bought, but the government inspectors investigated conditions there, ordered all the cattle dipped, cleaned them all up and certified that it was safe for this farmer to buy "mike".
Mr. Richardson bought the animal and took it to his farm. Three months later, on March 8, this animal was put up for sale at Bowrnan-ville and was purchased by a man living near Peterborough, and eleven months later the government inspectors found that the animal had mange. Then Mr. Richardson, who had sold the animal, prepared his stock for sale; he had worked on his heard for twenty years and it had been regularly inspected by the government inspectors; as a matter of fact they went to this farm thirteen times in one year, 1928, and examined these animals, and gave a certificate to the effect that Mr. Richardson had an accredited herd. However, after these thirteen visits, another inspector discovered that this animal Mike at Peterborough hod mange. Just when Mr. Richardson has his herd' ready to sell, and after he had paid $10 a head to have them included in the sale, the inspector came along and notified him that the cattle were not to be placed on the block, and he advertised that fact all over the country. Then he inspected the premises and the entire herd; unable to find any trace of mange on any animal, he then issued a certificate saying that this action had been taken on "suspicion"; he only suspected that something was wrong with this herd.
The situation was so critical and so unbelievable that I engaged a high class veterinary
Supply-Agriculture

and took him to this farm, where he and I examined every animal. This veterinary gave me the following certificate:
March 5th, 1929.
This is to certify that this day, at the request of Dr. Kaiser, member of parliament for Ontario riding, I made a special inspection of the premises and entire herd of cattle owned by L. Richardson and Son of Ashburn, township of Whitby, and herein state that in no case could be found a visible sign of mange, past or present, in any animal of the whole herd; and furthermore, as a veterinary, I have visited the stock for many years past, and I have never seen any skin affection which even suggested mange, upon any animal upon the farm.
W. A. MacNeely, V.S.,
Brooklin, Ontario.
This farmer had gone to considerable trouble and had built up a magnificent herd but on account of this interference on the part of the department he was deprived of the only chance he had to cash in. He could not put these cattle up as high grade stock and receive up to $300 per head for them, but was obliged to take them from the block and sell them on the market as ordinary animals. I saw one of these animals myself; it looked to be absolutely perfect, and a stockman assured me that it was easily worth $500. Instead of accomplishing something of value to stockmen these officials are actually doing damage not only to this man's herd, but to other herds in the same neighbourhood. The British and European authorities claim that mange cannot exist beyond three months, even under the most favourable circumstances. During the last fifteen or twenty years it has been proved that there are periods of incubation beyond which there is no danger. It might as well be said that a man should not risk catching smallpox by going to the home of another man who had it three years ago, as to say that an animal can catch the mange after eleven or twelve months. The government has enacted certain regulations which appear to me in some respects to be as old as, or perhaps older, than the Minister of Agriculture. Let any sensible man consider these regulations and see what conclusion he can arrive at from such a regulation as this:
No animal which is affected or has been exposed to the infection of mange shall be permitted to run at large or come in contact with any animal not so affected or exposed.
This does not recognize the period of incubation or make any time allowance for quarantine, but if such an animal comes in contact with another animal then the department may step in at any time and destroy the results of efforts extending over twenty-
five or thirty years. If the minister should conclude that what I am saying is the truth, then this government should compensate that farmer for the loss which he has sustained. He has suffered not only a loss in the value oif his cattle, but also a loss in prestige. I ask the government to investigate this case, and if I am correct in my statements then the minister should call off some of these half educated veterinary surgeons and place in charge of this work sensible men who understand something of the evolution of disease.


William Richard Motherwell: The officers of the department put a quarantine on these animals and said that they were unsafe to be sent out to a sale. There is no doubt that an animal can carry mange for as long as two years and show no visible signs of it.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Where does the minister get that authority?


William Richard Motherwell: Anyone who knows anything about what is called burrowing mange knows that it can be carried that length of time. Surface mange- is easily diagnosed, 'but the experience with this burrowing mange has shown that i-t may be carried at least two years without being diagnosed. Our records show that a veterinary practitioner reported mange on the premises of Mr. Melville Pinnett, of Indian River, Ontario, and scrapings taken by Inspector Gihson- from a 'bull in Pinnett's herd were examined in our laboratory and sarcoptes found. These are the burrowing mites and this mange is difficult to cure. The following is a memorandum regarding this outbreak at Indian River:
The disease was probably introduced into the herd of Mr. Melville Pinnett, of Indian River, Ont., by a bull purchased at a Bowman-ville sale in March, 1928, and originally coming from the herd of James Compton, of Ashburn, Ont.
Mr. Compton's premises were quarantined for sarcoptic mange in the fall of 1926 and released in March, 1927, after the cattle had been treated three times, but this bull probably carried infection in spite of treatments.
The outbreak on Mr. Compton's premises was apparently introduced through a cow purchased from Mr. John Miller of Ashburn, Ont., and which had been purchased by the latter in Alberta some five years previously. This animal had shown skin trouble at the time of purchase by Mr. Miller but had subsequently apparently recovered.
Further evidence that sarcoptic mange was present in Mr. Miller's herd before 1924, probably brought in by western cattle, is found in the fact that a number of cattle imported by Messrs. Dryden and Miller from Scotland in 1924 and subsequently sold in 1925 were found to be infected. It is unlikely that the infection

Supply-A griculture
was introduced by the imported cattle since these were inspected by a Canadian veterinary officer in Scotland and kept under continual observation during the quarantine period at Quebec, and no clinical symptoms noted.
The hon. member is complaining that we did not allow these susipected animals to go to this sale and thus be distributed to the four corners of Ontario. In order to safeguard our live stock it is necessary to take every precaution to see that such animals are not let loose at a sale. There is no question that it is a hardship, but in the public interests of the community it is necessary that these precautionary measures be taken. They are carried out on the advice of the very best veterinary surgeons we can obtain, and it is regrettable that these hardships must prevail with respect to the individual. You cannot take a chance with any of these diseases. It has been found necessary to impose regulations as to shipments of merchandise, et cetera, with regard to the foot and mouth disease, and although they may seem very harsh it is necessary to take every precaution to keep out any of these infectious diseases. Safety first must be our policy, especially when action is being taken under the advice of one of our competent authorities. I am very sorry for the gentleman who apparently suffered loss by reason of not being able to submit his cattle at the sale. I understand from my deputy-I did not catch it from my hon. friend-that this man, by reason of not being able to submit these animals at the sale, lost the sale of them and that he wants compensation. The law makes no such provision and therefore I am unable to give the matter favourable consideration. We give compensation for animals slaughtered 'or bovine tuberculosis, but not for cases of this kind.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The minister misunderstands me altogether. I do not complain because this man was shut off from the sale. What I complain of is this, that when he bought this animal the government certified that it was right; that it was clean; that it would not scatter the disease. The animal was observed for sixty days and then the man was assured that it was all right. Of what benefit is this government certificate? A man in good faith accepted it; he built up his herd and then when he expected to make a few dollars, he was told that he could not cash in.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no system of governmental or other inspection that is 100 per cent correct. This kind of mange does not show at times. It is a burrowing mange
that is beyond the ken of the ordinary eye. At certain periods of the year it will develop and manifest itself, but it may be carried for at least two years and in the interim a clean certificate may be given. Otherwise it might have to be quarantined still further. When there is a reasonable presumption that there is no danger of mange, the quarantine is removed and the certificate is given. If the inspector had taken absolutely no chance for that period of two years, there would have been all the greater howl because we kept the animal in quarantine for so long. We took a chance in liberating it and eventually it developed that it had the mange of this description. Then the gentleman, not being able to sell it, no doubt suffered loss. We have had placed before us a number of claims for compensation of that nature, but before we could deal with them, the law would have to be amended. The question whether we shall widen the scope of the law as regards compensation is a matter for consideration. The act has not been up for revision for some years and I should be glad to consider the question of widening its scope. But if the door is opened for compensation for that disease, it will have to be opened for some others and we shall have claims for all kinds of cases similar to the one which my hon. friend has mentioned.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I think the trouble with the department is that having the life history of this burrowing mange, they did not act as they should have done. As soon as mange is discovered amongst animals on a farm, they should prevent the sale of them. The trouble arose when the department permitted the animal to be sold in the first instance. Having the life history of the burrowing mange as the department has it, that it may remain concealed for two years, I cannot understand how any veterinary officer would release an animal for sale within that period and take chances of the disease being distributed to other farms. The criticism would lie there rather than in the permission to allow the second sale. If the department is satisfied as to its diagnosis that this burrowing mange may exist for two years-and I agree with them in that so far as mange goes-^they should issue regulations providing that no sale may take place from a farm where such mange has been found.
I want to bring a different case of quarantine to the attention of the minister and I do not think he can find any regulations whereby he can escape responsibility. I brought to his attention a farm where a quarantine
Private Bills

had been established some four months previously in a case of suspected rabies. A man had lost several cattle and also a dog had been acting suspiciously. A quarantine had been established. Following that a biological examination, I have no doubt, was made, and the possibility of rabies was disproved, negatived. But notwiththstanding that, this man was allowed to continue for four months with that quarantine on his farm. I have a letter under my hand and if the deputy will kindly wait, he can get all the details. I am not going to say that the greatest precaution should not be taken in the matter of quarantine. That is one action which you must take in preventing the spread of disease. But in this case what happened is that I verily believe the inspector forgot all about his quarantine and that farm was quarantined from May to September, although, as I say, a pathological examination had been made and the result was negative as regards rabies. The inspector should have gone back to that farm. He comes back and says: "Oh, I permitted him to sell farm produce." The farmer did not understand that and I could not get the quarantine placard because the inspector came out, grabbed it and took it away. I should like to see that quarantine placard. Why was he so keen to grab it and take it away when his attention was drawn to the length of the quarantine? That farmer was left there for four months under quarantine without any reason whatever and he had reached almost a destitute condition before the attention of the department was called to the matter. Then the inspector rushed up, removed the placard and said: "Everything is fine, but we think we were justified in our quarantine."
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS


THIRD READINGS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Kenneth Blackwood Gibb.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Edith Spencley. -Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 346, for the relief of Annie Farrow. -Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park), (for Mr. Boys).
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Evelyn Mae Warren.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park), (for Mr. Boys).

Bill No. 349, for the relief of Vera Maud Gendron.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Lillian Ainsworth.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Sarah Berkovitz. -Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 352, for the relief of George Frederick Wilson.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Roy Franklin Beattie.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of John George Laney.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill, No. 355, for the relief of Albert Nott.- Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 356, for the relief of John Thomas Legge.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Emil Henry Hornburg.-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved the third reading of Bill No. 336, for the relief of William John Blight.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, representations have been made to me that there is evidence that was not presented to the senate committee. Those representations come from those whose word I can trust, and for that reason, and for that reason only, I do not challenge this bill at the present stage. I would say, however, that the evidence as it comes to us from the senate committee does not prove the charges alleged. I hope the time will soon come when we shall not pay so much regard to lobbyists either in the senate or in the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


LOUIS COIT DARGAVBL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park), (for Mr. Casselman) moved the third reading of Bill No. 348, for the relief of Louis Coit Dargavel.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the third reading of this bill on the ground that evidence was improperly admitted, and once this evidence was admitted the co-respondent was not given sufficient time to face the charges that were made. In the insufficient time which was given, only about four days, part of the accusation made was proven to be entirely false and the evidence submitted did not prove the case. This is a case not proven, and because it is not proven I object to the third

Procedure Respecting Divorce
reading of the bill. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth):
That the said bill be not now read a third time, but that it be sent back to the select standing committee on private bills with instructions that they have power to make further investigation.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: I was not present last night when this bill was being considered in committee, but I have read what took place. It seems to me that in spite of the apparent desire of the house to vote all these bills through without any regard to the merits of each case or to the evidence brought or not brought in connection therewith, there should be at least some semblance of decency. I appeal to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I do not know this case, and I am simply taking the declarations as they were made last night in the house. It was stated last night by two hon. members that this divorce was being granted on a charge the witness to which was a perjurer-at least the evidence of his perjury was quite clear; that the proof made by the police agent was entirely unsound. He stated that the respondent and another party stopped at a certain hotel under a certain name. Now the person to Whom that name belongs states that he lived at that place with his wife. Therefore this is a dear case, if not of perjury, of gross mistake. Application was made for a new hearing, and it was refused because of lack of time. The position seems to have been taken generally in this house that the whole responsibility rests with the committee of the Senate, but surely what we are doing here must count for something. Quebec dlaims to be opposed to the establishment of divorce courts on principle and believes that it is better to keep the present system because it offers a guarantee of careful scrutiny and is in effect a law instead of a judgment. But in a case like this if the statements, corroborated yesterday by the member for Brant (Mr. Smoke) and the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), are accurate, our decision may be in the form of a law, but we shall make it in defiance of the most elementary principles of justice and equity. We shall be ratifying blindly not a judgment but a decision by another body forming part of this parliament. For my part I protest once more most emphatically and most unequivocally against this manner of dissolving marriages. It is against
all principles of morality, it is against all principles of law, it is against all principles of evidence, it is against all principles which are supposed to be upheld by parliaments and courts of justice. I refuse to be a party responsible for any such miscarriage of justice.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, we had considerable discussion of the details of this case yesterday and the hon. member for Brant- who unfortunately has had to leave the city-made certain definite charges with regard to the procedure followed. Those charges have not been answered, nor has there been any review whatever by the private bills committee of this house or by the committee of the whole; we have simply acquiesced in what the Senate committee has done. I am informed that the Senate committee was not by any means a unit in this matter, though of that I have not any information in the report itself. But we have in this case as in many others evidence given by certain detectives. Their work is 'being recognize as a greater outrage than anyone could have imagined before we started discussing divorce bills this session. I am informed that one detective with his accomplice-if I may use that term, and I think it is proper here-has been responsible for securing evidence in some fifty cases, and that in some instances he has resorted to the most abominable practices in order to secure that evidence. These professional detectives try to lure their victims into vice and then turn round and report the evidence thus framed up in order that they may secure sufficient grounds on which to obtain a divorce. I say it is an abominable practice, and I cannot think that the conscience of this country will tolerate very much longer the practice of relying on evidence coming from such a source.
With regard to this particular case, it is quite obvious that somebody is committing perjury. I am not sure who it is. Any one who merely reads this evidence taken before the Senate committee has no opportunity of observing the witnesses at first hand, and therefore cannot so well judge who is the guilty party. May I read a sentence or two from the report that comes to us from the Senate committee? This will be found at page 58:
Mr. Beament: I have no further evidence today, but I have been able to obtain certain affidavits which I wash to read.

Procedure Respecting Divorce
Mr. Beament, I believe, was acting as counsel for the respondent.


John Frederick Johnston: No.
Mr. Beament: For the purpose of asking for an adjournment.
Hon. Mr. Schaffner: No.
Mr. Beament: At least, I submit, the committee should hear the nature of the evidence.


John Frederick Johnston: What is the ground upon which you are asking for the adjournment?
Mr. Beament: On the ground that I can produce evidence to substantiate the fact that the co-respondent was ill in the apartment house he lives in, during the period he mentioned, but that it was impossible for him to get the witness to come with him to-day owing to his business engagements, but that he can come in a week from now.


John Frederick Johnston: The last sitting of this committee will take place on Friday next. We are going to close up then, absolutely.
And so to suit the conveniences of the Senate committee counsel for the respondent was refused the opportunity of bringing the wintesses which he said he could bring. As we were told by the member for Brant, the charges which were originally made in the petition were not followed up at the trial, but at that time other charges were sub-stitued, and when it was attempted to refute those other charges counsel could not obtain a sufficiently long adjournment. The Senate committee had to get on with its work, it was going to close up, and whether it involved injustice or not did not seem to make very much difference, so no adjournment was granted. If we are in any sense a court of review I say we cannot do other than ask that this bill be not now read a third time;
I am glad to support the amendment.


Mr. A. C. CASSELMAN (Grenvelle-Dun-das):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statements that have been made with respect to this bill I feel I should reply briefly. The whole argument against the bill is based on the fact that certain evidence, was improperly admitted, and that certain evidence which should have been admitted was not allowed to be put in. The first hearing of this case was on the seventeenth day of May, and at that time the evidence which was attempted to be contradicted by affidavit was given. The last sitting of the Senate committee on this bill was on the twenty-ninth of May, so there were twelve days intervening during which this evidence could have been secured. Failing to do that there was an opportunity to adduce this evidence before the private bills committee of this house. 1 believe that the applicant understood that the bill was going to be opposed before the private bills [Mr. Woodsworth.J
committee, and he presented himself to that committee. There was no objection taken whatever. The first objection was taken in this house yesterday and resulted in the bill being carried on a vote in committee of the whole. May I repeat that I am aware of the facts in connection with this case. The petitioner is personally known to me. I am satisfied that the evidence produced by him was of such a nature that in any court of law he would have been given the relief which the Senate committee saw fit to give him.


Mr. SPEAKER:: 
CHARLES EDWIN WALKER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth) moved the third reading of Bill No. 296, for the relief of Charles Edwin Walker.
William Irvine: I wish to direct the attention of the house once more to this case. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre presented the facts some little time ago when the bill came up for second reading, and I reviewed the case a few nights ago when the bill was in committee, so I do not need to take up very much time to explain the situation.
Briefly, in this case the main witness for the respondent was unable to appear because of illness. There was no doubt of that; a doctor's certificate was presented proving that the witness could not appear. Counsel asked that the ease be postponed, but that request was refused on the ground that it would be difficult to have the same members of the committee present at a subsequent sitting. The case was proceeded with. In addition, three co-respondents were named, but the respondent was not aware that these three people would be named and was not in a position to refute the evidence. Moreover, the woman in the case is very poor; she works for her living and could not engage proper counsel, nor could she be present when the bill was referred to the committee on private bills for further investigation.
The fact of the matter is that this case received no attention from the committee of this house, and surely any hon. member who has read the evidence will see at a glance that the grounds for divorce are very slim indeed, with the woman emphatically denying the charges but unable to bring the witnesses to prove her case. I am sure any hon. member who has read the evidence will be willing to give this woman the benefit of the doubt. I beg to move, therefore, seconded by Mr. Jelliff:
That Bill No. 296 (letter 07 of the senate), intituled "An act for the relief of Charles Edwin Walker" be not now read a third time but that it be sent back to the select standing committee on private bills with instructions that they have power to make further investigation.


David Spence: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking for the sponsor of the bill, who had to leave the city to-day.


William Irvine: The sponsor of the bill is
in his seat.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I thank my hon. friend for taking my place, but I happen to be here to-night. I have very little to say with regard to this bill, but I happen to be the sponsor of it and have read the evidence very carefully. When it was up for second reading in the house I moved that it be referred back to the private bills committee because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) raised some objections and attempted to read a letter from the respondent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I made no
attempt to read the letter. If I had I would have read it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not want to get into controversy with my hon. friend, but my recollection is that he attempted to read the letter but was not permitted to do so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I merely said that I had a letter.
Mr. iSANDERSON:	We will let it go at
that. I moved that the bill be referred back to the private bills committee because I felt that in view of the argument presented by the *hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre it should be given further consideration. The bill was referred back to the private bills committee and counsel was there representing the respondent but he stated that he had no brief or instructions from his principal and it was decided to have the bill come up on the following Friday. The bill came up on that day but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was not there, nor was the petitioner or the respondent. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) was there and pleaded the case of the respondent, and may I say that he pleaded it very well.


William Irvine: When?


Frederick George Sanderson: In the committee.


William Irvine: When?

Procedure Respecting Divorce


Frederick George Sanderson: The time the hon.
member acted as chief counsel. A vote was taken in the committee and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin voted alone. I submit that this bill should pass the house because careful consideration has been given to it, not once, not twice, but three times.


William Irvine: Was the evidence in this
case ever presented to the committee?


Frederick George Sanderson: The evidence was
taken before the senate committee and a copy was sent to every member of the house. The hon. member apparently reads all this evidence and I rather think he likes to read it, because he seems to be thoroughly well posted. The evidence was reviewed by the private bills committee when the matter came up the other day.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon.
member for Wetaskiwin has a somewhat short memory as to what happened in the committee. During the last discussion on this subject he said that every bill which had been referred to the committee had been thrown out, and I thought at the time he made that statement that he was a little astray; this is one bill which was not thrown out. He is also astray in his statement of the position of this bill before the committee. It was referred to the committee and was considered on two different occasions. When it came to the committee it was debated at some length and a legal gentleman of very high qualifications from the province of Manitoba made a vigorous apposition to the bill. The bill received a good deal of consideration but it was felt that more time should be given, consequently action on it was delayed. It was considered the second time and the result was as stated by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson); it was passed by the committee. While it is true that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin was alone in voting against the bill, I was personally opposed to its passage, and to that extent I am in agreement with the hon. gentleman. However, it happened that I was in the chair at the time and, therefore, diid not vote. This bill is one which might properly be described as a dirty mess all round. The evidence was that at one time the petitioner had been guilty of adultery but when an alimony action was brought by the wife it was agreed that the charges which were being made one against the other should be withdrawn, and legally they were withdrawn.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Withdrawn in the case
before the court?


John Livingstone Brown: Withdrawn in the case before the court, but that does not alter the realities of the case. It seemed to me to be proven conclusively that the man did not come before this court of parliament with clean hands.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If I read the case correctly, he came before parliament simply to get rid of having to pay the alimony which he agreed to pay.


John Livingstone Brown: Undoubtedly that was the
ease. I, for my part, would have preferred that the amendment moved by the hon. member should have been to the effect that the bill be read this day six months hence. In that event I would have been prepared to vote against the passage of the bill. In most of these cases one side is involved in what may be described as a dirty mess, but in this particular case it seemed to me that both sides were involved, and so far as I am concerned I do not feel like giving any particular relief to one side or the other. As the husband is asking for the divorce in this instance, I pro* pose to vote against his receiving it.


David Spence: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke) left last night, he asked me to present the facts of this case to the house. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) has said that no adjournment was given in the divorce committee of the Senate. An adjournment of from ten to twelve days was given, and at the adjourned hearing the lawyer for the respondent did not appear. He sent an Ottawa agent there merely for the purpose of having a few lines of evidence expunged, and the agent then left the court. It has been said that the lady is poor and had not any money to bring witnesses, but for two or three years she has been receiving $35 per week alimony, and $10 per week for her daughter, so she could not have been very hard up. She claimed that she had three witnesses who could come and prove an alibi, but in each case the witnesses did not show-up. It was thought in the private bills committee, after considering the matter for two. days, that if she had any witnesses who could give evidence in her favour, they would have appeared. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke) knows the petition well, and it is at his request I am speaking.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It may be that this case is what has been described as a dirty mess, but I submit that even a criminal is entitled to fair play, and I do not think that has been given in this case.

Procedure Respecting Divorce


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And the respondent, the woman, has not been proven to be a criminal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) says, this woman has not been proven to be a criminal. That is clear. This case is one that I called to the attention of the house at an earlier stage and asked that it be carefully studied by the private bills committee. That careful consideration has not been given. It is true that the matter was brought up; it was discussed and a strong ease was made out for delay. Indeed, so strong a case was made out that it was decided to adjourn and call the woman. When she was communicated with, it was found that she had exhausted what money she had and she could not afford to come here or to retain a lawyer. She had spent all that she could rake up in appearing before the senate divorce committee and in endeavouring to answer charges that were then unexpectedly brought up against her. Let me remind the house, as I stated the other day, that the original charge against her-


Frederick George Sanderson: I understand my hon. friend to say that this 'bill was not given careful consideration before the private bills committee of the commons. Is that correct?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: How does my hon. friend know that? He was not a member of that committee and he was not present at the committee when the bill was brought up.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not a member of that committee, but I received a very thorough report from those who were there. Would the hon. gentleman venture to say that the case received careful consideration when the respondent was not even there, when there was not a single witness, when no further evidence was taken than that which is now before us? It was on acoount of the lack of that evidence that I took the matter up.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And they did not take a 3ingle step to bring the woman here.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was quite possible that the woman might have been brought here as in the Bourdon case; that her expenses might have been paid. As it was, her expenses were not arranged for. A wire was sent to her saying that she might come.


William Irvine: The wire was not sent to her. The lawyer who had been her agent was communicated with, but she had no agent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman across the way says that she had an agent and that he did not act. He had no instructions to act. He had acted and was paid for acting in the other committee. I do not know whether he had obtained the full payment or not.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member is wrong again. Counsel for the respondent did appear. With all due respect to my hon. friend, I want to give the facts as I see them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know the facts.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend does not know' the facts of the case or he would not adduce the arguments he has before the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quite aware that counsel was present, but I am also informed that counsel said he had no instructions to act for the woman. Those are the facts in the case and I would just as soon in this take the word of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin as that of the hon. member across the way, the sponsor of the bili. The record will corroborate the word of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin that counsel stated he had no instructions to act. He had been counsel before the senate committee. I want once more for the benefit of the house to quote from the evidence taken before the senate committee. I quoted this the other night, but there may be some hon. members present now who were not present at that time:
W. D. M. Shorey, barrister-at-law, of the city of Toronto, appeared as counsel for the respondent.
Mr. Shorey: Mr. Chairman, before the evidence is taken I want to make a formal application for a postponement on behalf of the respondent. I assume ordinarily that it would be made after the plaintiff's case is in. I do not want to delay the taking of evidence this morning, but there is one witness in particular for the respondent, a Mrs. Irene Henderson, a cousin with whom the respondent has been living practically since the respondent and her husband separated, who is a most material witness for the respondent. In March she had a major operation performed-
And so on. Further on in the same page this appears:


John Frederick Johnston: One of the difficulties is this: the committee is made up of different members, and you cannot always get the same members together to hear the second part of the case.
And because the same members, the same jury, could not be brought together throughout the entire hearing, it was decided that nothing further be done. So the senate did not give a fair hearing to this woman. She

Procedure Respecting Divorce
was not able to bring her witnesses and when the ease actually came up before the private bills committee, we did not summon a witness; we did not make any real inquiry; the woman was not represented by counsel. Under those conditions I claim that it would be doing a serious injustice to her if at the present time we should let this bill pass.


David Spence: I understand an adjournment of from ten to twelve days was given in the senate. If this sort of thing is allowed to continue, it is just making a farce of the private bills committee, and many members of that committee will not want to stive on it again.	[DOT]


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. gentleman has already spoken.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
main motion.


William Irvine: I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that it is after nine o'clock.


Hewitt Bostock: We have to finish the
proceeding once it has started.
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St.
George): I move in amendment to the main motion that this bill be not now read a third time, but that it be read this day three months hence.


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private bills being exhausted, the house will revert to supply.


MINES AND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mines Branch
For investigation of mineral resources and deposits; of the mining and metallurgical industries, and of mineral technology; wages, expenses of testing and research laboratories, investigations by Dominion Fuel Board, including salaries and all other expenses, $257,000.
For operation of peat bog at Alfred, Ontario, $25,000.
For publications, English and French, purchase of books, laboratory supplies, instruments, miscellaneous assistance and contingencies, $45,000.
For transportation charges from out-lying provinces on ore shipments which may be sent to the ore dressing plant of the Mines branch at Ottawa for testing purposes, under regulations approved by the Minister of Mines, $1,000.
To compensate J. H. Fortune for quarters, fuel, light and water supplied him as resident caretaker of the Mines branch building, Sussex St., vacated because of the necessity of utilizing the caretaker's quarters for storage and laboratory space, $400.
Mr. NEILL:: Will the ministei be kind enough to make a statement in connection with what he has done to carry out the resolution of the house at last session:
That in the opinion of this house, in order to test and demonstrate the possibilities of pulverized coal, the government should adapt one of their steamers on the Pacific coast, and the furnace of one of the government public buildings in British Columbia, to the use of pulverized coal from Vancouver island mines.
I have been taking this matter up with the government from time to time. At first there was delay owing to the fact that the department was observing the result of the experiment on the Lingan which had been equipped by the British Steel Corporation to use pulverized coal. This delayed the government's plans quite a while, because they

Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
thought they might as well benefit by that experiment. After a prolonged trial it appeared to have been a total failure. This must have been due to some defect either in the system adapted or in its installation, because I have in my hand the record of an experiment on the New Zealand Shipping Company's steamship Hororata, of 11,200 tons gross, which arrived in New Zealand after a voyage of 11,000 miles from the old country. Half of her boilers were equipped for the use of pulverized coal. It was a very thorough and successful experiment. I see they used all sorts of coal-Welsh steam coal, North of England coal, Scottish coal, Virginian coal, and some New River coal which they obtained at Panama. On the homeward voyage they were going to burn New Zealand coal.
As regards adapting the furnace of one of the government public buildings in British Columbia to use pulverized coal, while the resolution called for that to be done one must not be unreasonable. I have been informed that the only buildings that could be suitably equipped in that way would require a boiler having a rating of 300 horse-power or over, and that there are only two public buildings in Canada that could make use of a heating apparatus of that size. Therefore we cannot expect the experiment to be carried out in British Columbia. But it has been ascertained almost beyond doubt that pulverized coal can be successfully used on land. Several factories have been equipped with apparatus for this purpose, and the system is beyond the experimental stage. But apparently there are vast differences between the conditions governing the installation of the system on land and on the sea; why I do not know. Some people put it down to the Scotch marine boiler, which they claim is not adapted for the use of pulverized coal, and that the tubular boiler should be used. To solve such and other problems is why this house endorsed the idea that the government should experiment on some of the boats of the Canadian government. The British government has done a great deal of research in that way, but it is not entirely useful to us on the Pacific coast, because it appears that the coal from each mine requires special adjustment of the equipment to handle it, and that is why it was thought advisable that we should experiment with our own coal on one of our government boats on the Pacific coast. We are disappointed to find that the Canadian government merchant marine has ordered two
boats to be equipped for oil burning. That is against the spirit and the letter of the resolution of this house.
I find in a report I have here that the Blue Star line-a British line of course-operating a fleet of twenty-six vessels, proposes at the earliest possible moment to equip its fleet with the Clarke Chapman pulverizec fuel system. A recently ordered 9,000 tonne; will be equipped to burn pulverized fuel bj the Brand system. The P. & 0. Steam Navigating Company-one of the biggest in the world-have decided to convert several of their steamers to the Bauer-Wach system of exhaust steam turbine propulsion in combination with pulverized fuel plants. There has been a company formed in England known as the Howden-Buell Combustion Company, Limited, to develop and exploit both marine and land pulverized fuel installations. It was that system which was used on the Hororata which I mentioned at the outset of my remarks. It is apparent that pulverized coal can be utilized. There is needed only a little more enterprise on the part of the government to make it a success.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Alan Webster Neill: I suggested they should adapt one of the fishery patrol boats on the Pacific, but it is objected that they are too small to justify the installation of the system. This would cost some $15,000 to $20,000 whether the boat be large or small, and we do not want the experiment to be made in such a way that it would be abortive and give a black, eye to the proposal.
I should like the minister to give the committee a statement of what he has done along these lines, and what we may hope he will do to carry out this resolution in the future.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member
for Comox-Albemi has dealt fairly thoroughly with the pulverized fuel situation, and undoubtedly he is keeping very closely in touch with the experiments that are being carried on. We have discovered two or three things in this connection. One is that there must be a laboratory test of the fuel before it is attempted to use it for pulverized fuel firing. Another is that the installation of the mechanical devices for the purpose of using pulverized fuel is very expensive. A third is that so far there have been no successful tests made of boilers under 150 horsepower, which is a fairly large boiler. In the Lingan test on the St. Lawrence from Sydney to Montreal, spoken of by my hon. friend,
3582	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
I think a mistake was made in equipping all the boilers with pulverized fuel apparatus. When the mechanical device went wrong of course the ship was laid up. We watched the experiment very closely. Had they equipped one half of the boilers, then the ship would have been able to keep going. That was the practice followed in most of the cases where attempts were made on British liners going to New Zealand and later by the shipping company mentioned by my hon. friend.
' My attention was first directed to the advisability of giving serious consideration to pulverized fuel owing to the statement made to me two years ago by the marine engineers located alt tihe British fuel research station that if a complete mechanical system could be devised for this purpose pulverized coal would be a cheaper steam producer than fuel oil which is so rapidly taking the place of coal on ocean going vessels. I made some inquiries at the British fuel research station and found they were experimenting along those lines. I asked them to keep us closely in touch with the results of their experiments. In moat oases where the experiment has been a success they have not equipped the entire ship with pulverized fuel burners. I think it is safe to say that the experiments have been successful and have reduced to a considerable degree the cost of raising steam on these vessels. With respect to our own situation, last year when my hon. friend's motion was being considered I felt it would be possible to install this equipment on some of our lighter craft on the west coast; but after some investigation we deemed it unwise to ask for an experiment on a vessel of tihe size of the one in the fisheries trade on the coast. With respect to what my hon. friend has said regarding stationary plants, we found them too small for our purposes there. I believe there are very great possibilities in connection with pulverized fuel firing for the raising of steam, but so far the mechanical plant costs a considerable amount of money and we have the full advantage of the experiments earned on by British shipping as well as the attempt made on the St. Lawrence in firing on the Lingan. I am now endeavouring to see whether it is not possible to have the merchant marine make an experiment on one of their ships. I do not think it would be wise on the part of the government to spend a large sum of money only to find that the equipment was faulty. In the experimental stage we are severely criticized for spending money; and as in the case of low .temperature carbonization of fuels, in connection with which so much has been done in Great Britain, I thought it 
would be wise for us to wait until we had available sufficient knowledge as to what had been discovered by the experiments carried on in this respect in Great Britain by private companies. I do think, however, that the equipment of one or two boilers in the merchant marine, burning our own fuel from our own Canadian coal, would be worth while; and with that end in view I shall see whether a further experiment cannot be undertaken on our own behalf with respect to pulverized fuel.


William Russell Fansher: The
minister mentioned something about the low carbonization of fuel. What progress has been made since the last session of parliament in connection with testing fuels in western Canada from the standpoint of the low carbonization problem?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
collected samples from a good many mines in the west. We are establishing now a fairly large plant for testing purposes in the fuel laboratories on Booth dtreet, and as soon as the equipment is in place we shall test fuels by the low carbonization process.


Mr. CANTLEY:: The minister has referred to the importance of small coal; he says he has not thought it desirable to do any experimental work in this regard. The trouble I find with his whole department is that they have never done any real experimental work; what they have done is, in the main, to copy the work of established plants which have demonstrated certain lines of action, and then play 'in a childish way with the same thing themselves. I find that in some of the reports made by the department there are put forward, in regard to the investigation of fuels, statements which I do not consider correct, while others are trivialities. Take for instance one of the publications of the department issued in 1926 in reference to fuels and fuel 'testing. It is said to be a general review of a.n investigation carried out by two gentlemen of the staff, Mr. Haanel and Mr. Gilmore. I will deal briefly with a few of the statements made by these gentlemen. At page 35 of the report they have something to say with respect to the nature of sulphur in cokes made from Canadian coal, and they discuss the experiment they made in connection with a mixture of Nova Scotia and United States ooall. Now I ask the minister this question: Why waste any time on an experiment of that- kind, namely, the coking of a mixture of Nova Sootia and United States coal? What good result will fol-

Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
low therefrom? Will the minister tell me that? I can understand his carrying on experiments with Nova Scotia coal so far as ooke is concerned, although experience in its use dates back fifty or sixty years:	Nova
Scotia coal was coked successfully and used to a considerable extent in Nova Scotia before the minister was born, and, as everybody knows, is still used there. Page after page of this report which I hold in my hand is taken up with experiments carried on by the officers of the minister's department- experiments which mean practically nothing. Here for example is a statement appearing on page 36 of the report:
The coke made from the Sptinghill coal is the only one with a sufficiently low sulphur content to be classed as metallurgical, though the sulphur in the Sydney-Pocohontas, Comox, and Sydney cokes is not much too high.
That statement is absolutely false: thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of tons of pig iron have been made in Nova Scotia with coke solely the product of
the coal mines of Pictou and of Cape Breton and Nova Sootiia. Of that there is no possible doubt. Why then say that coall made from SpringhiH coal is the only one produced in Nova Solatia with a sufficiently low sulphur content bo be classed as metallurgical fuel? The statement, I say, is absolutely untrue, is moat misleading, and is most unfair. In the next paragraph on the same page the writer deals with different farms of sulphur in ooai and coke and makes statements which would be Challenged by anyone with a practical knowledge of the matter. Further down the page he states:
The writer's earlier paper indicates that, in his opinion, while oxidation of the carbonaceous material in coal is the principal cause of spontaneous combustion, the oxidation of finely disseminated pyrites is also a contributing factor.
Of course it is a contributing factor; that is known to everyone who has handled coal and has been known from time immemorial.
Why therefore go into that matter now?


James Dew Chaplin: They must print something; that is all.


Thomas Cantley: Take page 43:
Typical western Canadian coals were analysed for sulphate, pyritic and organic sulphur, and the following conclusions drawn:
None of the coking coals from the Mountain park or the two Crowsnest pass areas contain any appreciable amount of pyritic sulphur, nor do the partly coking coals from the Nanaimo area contain much of this form of sulphur. The sample of coking coal from the Comox area contained considerable pyritic sulphur, hut this would be reduced by washing.
Of course it would be reduced by washing; all coals that contain pyrite-and most of 78594-227
them do-can eliminate the sulphur to workable proportions by that method. Coal is washed in Nova Scotia and in other places for two reasons, first to reduce the sulphur and then to reduce the ash; both can be largdly eliminated by successful washing. Here is another gem:
Cokes made from maritime provinces coal, either alone or blended with United States coals, and one coke made from Comox, B.C., coal, were analyzed for sulphide, sulphate, free and solid solution sulphur. It was found that:-
The coke made from SpringhiH coal was the only one with a low enough sulphur content to be classed as a good metallurgical coke.
That is the second time such a statement is made in this report, and it is not a true statement of fact. Then the report goes on:
The cokes made from the Sydney (unwashed) and Comox (washed) coals contained a little too much sulphur to be classed as satisfactory metallurgical cokes.	.
The cokes made from Minto coal contained such a large percentage of sulphur as to render them unsatisfactory for almost any purpose whatever. However, coal washing, _ which would be necessary on account of the high percentage of ash, would greatly reduce the sulphur content.
No one in the maritimes with any sense ever suggested coking Minto coal, because the percentage of sulphur is much too high. It could be washed out, but you would wash out at the same time eight or nine per cent of the total volume of coal, and the ash is also too high; in short it is not a suitable coal. These same arguments apply to other coalls, but to state that maritime province coal generally will not produce good metallurgical fuel is to make a statement which is absolutely untrue. Then on page 44 I find the following:
Considerable variations in the specific gravities of the separating solutions did not to any extent affect the division of pyritic sulphur.
There you are dealing with laboratory experiments instead of ordinary commercial washing; you are dealing with methods of treating coal with solutions of different densities at different strengths. That is only a matter for laboratory experiment. What is the use of continuing that sort of thing and spending tens of thousands of dollars to demonstrate something which was demonstrated thirty or forty years ago in a practical way? I do not say that the present steel and coal companies know all there is to be known with regard to their own coal, but they know more than anyone else knows and they have acquired that knowledge through a long period of years in the daily operations of their plants.
Then on page 47 I find a table dealing with cokes made from Sydney, Sydney-Pocohontas,

3584	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
Springhill, Minto-Elfchom-Pocohontas and Cotnox coal. There we find the total sulphur, sulphide, sulphate, free sulphur, solid solution sulphur and ash, but all that information was known long ago by the people interested in this coal, that is, the people who consume large quantities of coal in the manufacture of iron and steel in Nova Scotia and Ontario. On page 61 I find the following:
As a general rule "mine" samples contain less ash and have higher calorific values than the corresponding "commercial" samples. .	.
It should also be realized that, generally speaking "slack" coal will contain more moisture and ash and have a lower calorific value than the corresponding screened coal, and that "run-of-mine" coal will be intermediate between the two.
Of course that is so, and any coal miner or coal dealer knows it is so. Why burden a report with material of that kind? It is making this department a laughing stock with people who know anything about this business.
I might proceed to deal with similar matters contained in the report of the Dominion Fuel Board for 1923-28. At page 33 of their report they deal with the low temperature carbonization of bituminous coal, and I want to point out again that Pictou coal has been coked for over sixty years and washed for over forty years. This coal has been coked in beehive ovens for more than three-score years and for one equal period has been used in blast furnace operations. The first rectangular coke ovens on this continent were operated in Pictou county in 1891, and the first commercial coal washer constructed on this continent was operated at the same place in the same year. Half a dozen coal washing plants have been constructed in Pictou county and in Cape Breton since that time, yet here we are given a lot of information which may be of interest to school children but which is of no use to people in the trade. I suggest the minister would be well advised to withdraw a good deal of this information, and I believe his department would stand higher in public estimation if that action were taken.
I might go on and refer to many other matters in connection with these various reports, but I do not think I should take the necessary time. For example, these reports deal with the absorption of moisture, with the depreciation in peat through (handling and many other things of that character which are not of any great value to this or any other country. Most of the material contained in these various reports, of which there are half a dozen, is out of date and has been out of date for years.
My quarrel with the department is that to a very large extent the experiments which [Mr. Cantley.l
have been carried on are simply play boy work based on information which was acquired long ago by people in the business. Practically all the information contained in these reports could have been obtained by simply visiting one of several of the plants in Nova Scotia and taking notes on what has been done by the Old method of trial and error, the only method by which progress is made.
Now I take up the final report of the peat committee, in which reference is made to an attempt to carbonize peat from the Alfred bog. The approximate analysis is given, as follows:
Moisture, 25.6 per cent.
Ash, 4.6 per cent.
Volatile matter, 48 per cent.
Fixed carbon, 21.3 per cent.
Calorific valuer, B.T.U's, 7,040.
This calorific value is just about half that of really good Nova Scotia coal. An experiment was carried on in connection with the carbonization of this peat, and one very peculiar thing in connection with that experiment is that the fuel used to heat the ovens was 2,654 pounds of slack coal. Why did you not use peat; why use slack coal? You are attempting to carbonize peat; is there not sufficient heat units in the peat to warm up the ovens in order to carry out the carbonization? Could anything be more ridiculous than a performance of that kind? There are many like cases which I could mention, but I do not want to take up any more time of the committee. This department has carried on experimental work for more than twenty years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and the results have been one continuous failure, especially with regard to the experiments carried on with peat. There has been duplication in the securing of information concerning subjects which have long ago been investigated by private enterprises unassisted by government aids and depending wholly upon the commercial results obtained. In other words, knowledge has been gained by the old method by which all useful' information has been acquired. I submit that the time has oomie when this waste of the public money should be stopped, and I hope the minister will stop it.
I would like to compare the work done by the mines department with that which has been carried on in Great Britain and on the continent. And here may I say I have nothing but praise for the other department under the minister's management, the geological survey, but I can find very little to praise and much to condemn in the work carried on by the mines department. As the result of the war Germany lost a large proportion of the territory which has previously supplied her

Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
with a great deal of her bituminous coal; I refer to Silesia, which was awarded to Poland. How did she meet that situation? By utilizing what they call brown coal, which is practically the same as our lignite, and to-day we find her using that coal, formerly neglected, in her open hearth gas producers, using it to run her steel and iron works, and as the fuel for the carrying on of other industries. Prior to the wiar they had not dreamed of being able to do tihis work with their lignite. If the department desires to learn how to deal with the lignite in the western provinces they should send someone to Germany to see how she is solving that problem. It would not cost anything to get that information, outside of sending a really capable man there.
Enormous progress has been made in the use of powdered coal, as was referred to by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). Probably the greatest problem in the use of this fuel is the upkeep of the pulverizing machinery, because that machinery wears out faster than any other known type of machine. Statements have been made in some of these publications that pulverized coal can be stored, can be carried in tubes, can be blown into furnaces, and the same things are said with regard' to pulverized peat, such statements are not correct. If such is attempted you will have explosions, because coal in a pulverized condition is highly explosive and when a certain proportion of aiir is mixed with the coal a spark or even friction will set it off. Anyone who has seen the results of dust explosions in any of our collieries will have some knowledge of the tremendously destructive effect of coal dust explosions. We in Nova Scotia have had for years experience in firing heating furnaces and reheating furnaces with pulverized coal. We at first had the idea that it could be stored in bins, conveyed through pipes and blown into furnaces, but we found that that was impracticable. It collects moisture very rapidly and then cakes up, and there are other reasons which I need not refer to.
Is the minister aware that internal combustion engines are to-day being operated in Germany with pulverized coal in the same manner in which petrol or gasoline is used? The advances made in connection- with the use of pulverized fuel in Great Britain have been very great. The minister has said that the boilers which were here available for experimentation by him were too small as they were only 150 horse-power. How many horsepower, may I ask him, is there available in the hearting plant in connection with this building? When a new installation of boilers was being -asked for last year I suggested to the Minister of Public Works thia/t the boilers 78594-227i
be fitted up to use pulverized fuel., If that had been done a demonstration plant would have been provided and the men of the department could have watched the results of the operation, every day. Why was not advantage taken of that opportunity? I would like the minister to answer that question.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought the hon. member was making a speech and I did not want to interrupt him; I intended to answer him when he had finished.


Thomas Cantley: The minister has indulged in some talk at times, more particularly when he returned last year from the other side of the Atlantic, regarding the by-products which could be obtained from coal in the form of oil. The latest information which is available in connection with thart is to the effect that under existing conditions this process is unprofitable with the use of high temperature distillation and that the profits to be derived from low temperature carbonization are even more problematical. As yet nothing whatever can be said as to the commercial value of the Bergius process to which the minister referred at great length last year.
So far my remarks have been what the minister might term destructive, but I do not want to stop there. I would like to make one recommendation to the minister, and E would be very glad if he would adopt it. It. is this: instead of spending time and money in carrying out experiments with regard to things which have been well known, determined and settled long ago, take two or three of the brightest men from his department and send them to the old country, to Germany, to -the United States and to France to observe and study what other people are doing in a commercial and practical way. If that were done the minister would be able to give us some information -which would be of en-ormous value to -the industries of this country. These books issued from his department may have some value to the primary schools, but are of no value to the industries of this country, whether coal mining, coke producing, iron or steel making, or any of the kindred -industries.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Mr. Chairman, 1 do not intend to go in-to the in-tricacies of the analyses of -the different grades of coal which the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) has suggested that the government should further investigate, but one thing which is obvious to all the people of Canada is that no serious -attempt has been made- to develop a national fuel- policy. We have a national fuel board costing this country about-$20,000 a year. They submit reports to par-
3586	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
liament, and certain investigations are carried on by 'them with respect to analyses and other matters of a highly technical and intricate character, but we are left completely in the dark with regard to the general -basis of developing a national fuel policy, which is one of the most important matters that the country could deal with. If the expense involved to carry on the fuel board, namely, $20,000, is not sufficient to broaden their scope, I would suggest to the minister that enough money be placed at their disposal to enable them at least to carry on an investigation with respect to the development of a national fuel policy for the Dominion. It is their duty; it is not the duty of members of parliament, and I do not think it can be claimed to be the duty of the Minister of Mines in the federal government to evolve a national fuel policy whereby we shall use our Canadian fuels instead of importing foreign fuels as we have been dbing year after year in increasing quantities. Such a move would prove of benefit not only to the eastern portion but also to the midwest and the extreme western portions of the Dominion. I offer this suggestion to the minister in all seriousness and I hope before long some properly constituted agency of the government, it matters little whether it be the fuel board or some other commission, will develop and inaugurate a national fuel policy for the Dominion so that we may use the great resources we have instead of importing such huge quantities of fuel from foreign countries.


Charles A. Stewart: First, let
me say a word with respect to the criticism of the hon. member for Pictou. No one denies that Springhill coal and coals of similar character will make good metallurgical coke. That has never been denied; but when the question is one of using Nova . Scotia coal for that purpose in central Canada, it becomes purely and simply a question of transportation and costs. Let us for the moment forget altogether about any suggestion of difference in the fuel. That, I think, answers my hon. friend. This is not a problem particularly for a fuel board; it is a mere matter of how much the people of Canada are willing to pay for transporting their own fuel into what we call the acute fuel areas of this country where the larger portion of our manufacturing industries are located. Attempts have been made: indeed, they are under way at this time, to lend assistance in that regard, and a good deal of coal is being moved in. I think I am safe in saying that the water-borne coal to Montreal has reached pretty well into eastern Ontario

-I am now speaking of bituminous coals, coals that are ordinarily used in the United States-in competition with the United States product coming across the line. We have done that and I am asking for a vote of $250,000, as hon. gentlemen will note, in the supplementary estimates, for the purpose of moving coal next year, and, I hope, greater quantities than have been moved heretofore.
As to any question of differences in the fuels, I am not going to raise that at all; I assume they are similar. But the short rail haul from the coal mines in the United States to the south of us, with a low rail rate and a much lower production cost than prevails in Nova Scotia, makes it a little difficult to land here, over the longer haul, coal that is mined in Nova Scotia, to meet the competition in price of the United States product. That is the practical difficulty we have to face. Of course transportation by water relieves the situation very considerably. There is no trouble as regards the department with the statement of my hon. friend that good coke has been made from Springhill coal.


Thomas Cantley: That is not my statement. What I was controverting was the statement in one of the minister's publications that Springhill coal was the only coal that would make metallurgical fuel. I deny that absolutely.


Charles A. Stewart: For the
moment I am dealing with the Springhill product because it is a representative product of Nova Scotia mines.


Thomas Cantley: But the minister is misrepresenting what I said. I found fault with the statement that Springhill coal was the only coal in Nova Scotia that would make satisfactory fuel.


Charles A. Stewart: I admit it
is not the only one.


Thomas Cantley: I know, but one of the
minister's publi'ca/tiioms said it was.


Charles A. Stewart: Undoubtedly there are other mines quite comparable as regards product with the Springhill mines.


Thomas Cantley: I am quite sure about
that.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
saying that it is the only product.


Thomas Cantley: But the minister's publication said it was the only coal that would make satisfactory metallurgical fuel.

Supply-Mines and Geological Survey


Charles A. Stewart: That was the sample that was tested and the sample referred to in the report, but I do not for a single moment imagine that the officers of the Mines department will say that is the only coal in Nova Scotia thit will coke.


Thomas Cantley: They so report.


Robert Knowlton Smith: There is no better coal in Nova Scotia than the Spring-hill coal.


Charles A. Stewart: I have got
into trouble on many occasions with Nova Scotians in regard to their coal and I do not want to get into it to-night. I simply want to say that the administration of the department as regards the transportation of coal has been of considerable value to the mine owners of Nova Scotia and I hope it will be of still more value in the future.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister then, repudiates what is said in the report.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister does not; I am not dealing with the report. I do not have it before me. The minister will make his own statement so far as that is concerned. I notice that m3' lion, friends from Nova Scotia are very tender about any criticism that may be offered of the fuel coming from their particular locality. Possibly that is right, and I admire their standing up for the provinces from which they come.
My hon. friend has referred to the installation of a pulverized fuel plant in the heating plant for these buildings. We have been using for a number of years Minto coal of a low grade, burned on grates, and it is giving very good results, although I believe we are paying slightly more for that coal than we could import coal for. That, however, has been the policy of the government with respect to that particular matter.


Thomas Cantley: It is the correct policy.


Charles A. Stewart: I hope it is. At all events, it is the policy of the government. Dealing with the coking properties of Nova Scotia, we have been endeavouring to supplant the importation of anthracite with coke, as my hon. friend knows and we have been working for some years with that object in view. The Hamilton coking plant is proving itself a very great success. The plant in Montreal has been in operation now for about a year and a half, and is another case in which anthracite coal will be supplanted by domestic coal.


Thomas Cantley: The minister refers to the sucess of coking plants in Hamilton and Montreal and to their success in displacing American anthracite. What advantage is it to this country to displace American anthracite with American bituminous coal?


Charles A. Stewart: I am just
coming to what I think is of real value. We are informed not only by our own officials but by the officers of the companies that are operating, and with whom costs always count, that to utilize Nova Scotia coal in its entirety would be more costly than to use the imported product, having regard to transportation costs. That is no reflection on Nova Scotia coal at all; it is simply a statement of fatot. But we did see if the coal could not be blended. M(y hon. friend has quoted from the report with regard to the attempt that was made in that direction in the plant ait Hamilton. I saw that coke, and it was a very good coke.
With regard to encouraging the consumption of Canadian coal in domestic coking plants, where gas phys a very important part in the high temperature plants, and where gas may be washed so thoroughly that it can be used for domestic purposes, we have had seme difficulty in convincing these companies that it would be more in their own interests to burn all Canadian fuel or a large proportion of it. In order to secure the greater use of Canadian fuel we have offered under the statute fairly liberal inducements to these companies to use Canadian coal, with the result that in the city of Halifax they have now established a plant.


Thomas Cantley: The minister dees not
say that seriously.


Charles A. Stewart: I do say it seriously. The plant has been erected.


Thomas Cantley: When, and what capacity?


Charles A. Stewart: It certainly would be very strange to me if the plant was not erected because they are making application for the subsidy provided under the act.


Thomas Cantley: Does the minister really want infoirmaition in regard to it.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hotn. friend is assuming that it is an entirely new plant, it is not; it is a rebuilt plant, but it conforms with the provisions of the act so far as ovens are concerned and comes up to the standard in order to earn the subsidy.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: How much subsidy
has been paid?
3588	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Geological Survey


Charles A. Stewart: I do nioit
know tihat we have paid anything yet.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Absolutely nothing.


Charles A. Stewart: So far as
that plant is concerned we have simply been inspecting it as construction went on. I do not know that we have yett paid out anything in subsidies, but we will as construction is completed and the plant gets into operation and meets with the requirements of the act.
M:r. MlACDOUGALL: You have paid nothing whatsoever.


Charles A. Stewart: That may
be true.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It is true.


Charles A. Stewart: The moment the plant is completed and meets with the requirements of the act, we will be prepared to pay the subsidy earned by the plant.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: So -far you have
paid nothing.


Charles A. Stewart: Why should we if it has not yet reached the point where it is earning? We have made several inspections. What is the abject of my hon. friend in repeating that statement?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I want you to make the statement whether you have paid anything to this plant or not.


Charles A. Stewart: I do know
that two inspections have been made. I do not know whether cheques have been issued. I do not know what my hon. friend's object is in raising this question, but I will say this; the moment the plant is in shape to earn the subsidy provided under the act we will pay it.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: So far you have paid nothing.


Charles A. Stewart: I am assuming that my hon. friend knows.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Absolutely, and you do not. That is the difference between us.


Charles A. Stewart: I am very glad to get that information from my hon. friend, but I do know that construction has been going on and that they are endeavouring to meet the requirements and earn the subsidy provided under the act.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: But you have paid nothing so far.


Charles A. Stewart: I presume
that the plant has not yet reached the stage Of construction where the subsidy is earned.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You ought to know.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot be
intimately acquainted with all the details of a large department. My instructions to the officers of the department are to watch the construction and to pay the subsidy as warranted under the provisions of the act. Construction has been going on, the company have undertaken to build that plant and to use Canadian coal. As soon as they have completed the construction, they will get the money they have earned.
My hon. friend says that the officers of the department are confining their activities to trivial undertakings. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that in the experimental stages of such developments as these, experiments carried on by various institutions have been looked upon by some people as a trivial thing. But it is very strange, if these activities are trivial, that one of our bright young chemists has just been taken over by the Besco plant to work in their laboratories. If our work was not considered very satisfactory, if it was considered only trivial, I do not know why our men should be in such demand by commercial companies who value this kind of information very highly, and we have a good deal of difficulty in keeping our men.
With respect to the domestic coking plants I did1 hope that as large a proportion as possible of Nova Scotia coal would be used. One of the things that we have been working on, although we are not yet in a position to report, is how to treat coal with sulphur content that goes a little bit over the average. That will require considerable experimentation, but I think the results will be very valuable in the treatment of many grades of coal that to-day cannot be utilized for this purpose.
My hon. friend states that in Germany they have been experimenting with the brown coal. I saw those experiments. I saw the various carbonization experiments that were being made at the large plant at Leuna, where they are endeavouring to utilize the coal for various purposes to meet their domestic necessities, and Where they are spending very large sums of money.
My hon. friend will agree with me that so far as our ordinary fuel is concerned for raising steam, say, in large plants, very little is necessary to be done to our coals. They are being utilized now, and their further utilization is merely a question of transportation. We had hoped that we would be able to utilize a larger proportion of Nova Scotia coal as domestic fuel than heretofore. There are two ways in which that might 'be done. One would be by the application of assistance to domestic coking plants, and the other is as-

Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
sistanoe given in tihe matter of transportation for the raw product itself. I think that we have met with some success in both methods. I have not time to go into a detailed report of what has been accomplished, but I would point out that Alberta has profited very little from this assistance in the way of the transportation of coal, while Nova Scotia has moved both by water and by rail a considerable quantity of coal and has widened the market for Nova Scotia. coal in western Quebec and eastern Ontario.


Mr. MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: How did the experiment of moving that Alberta coal east work out?


Charles A. Stewart: Not a very great quantity of it has been moved. Up to date no money has been paid over by the government because while the initial rate was fixed at $6.75 the Board of Railway Commissioners has not adjudicated upon the rate-


Finlay MacDonald: Has any considerable quantity moved under that scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: Speaking
from memory, last year I think around 30,000 tons. May I finish my statement? The railway commission have to fix the ultimate rate based on an investigation of the movement.


Finlay MacDonald: Was the movement successful?


Charles A. Stewart: It was not successful in moving a very large quantity.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Why not?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot explain it to my hon. friend. I think the Ontario market was fairly well canvassed.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Was the rate too high?


Charles A. Stewart: The rate
was fixed lower than the western operators really requested. It was put at $6.75 a ton for all Ontario points.


Mr. MALONEY:: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, the minister is aware that the fuel question in central Canada is an outstanding one. We are vitally interested in procuring a supply of fuel from purely Canadian sources. In fact we are prepared to use the soft coal of the east and the soft and hard coal of the west for domestic purposes simply to maintain a market for Canadian coal. It is true the bulk of domestic coal used in Ontario and Quebec is imported from the United States. The people of these two central provinces
feel that we should be self-contained so far as our fuel supply is concerned. Viewed from the economic and every other standpoint, from which source would the Minister of Mines advise the people of Ontario and Quebec to procure their coal, from Alberta, from Nova Scotia, or from the United States?


Charles A. Stewart: I certainly would advise them to procure it from Alberta and eastern Canada; that would be my first choice. But on the other hand it must be borne in mind that in order to protect the manufacturing interests of central Canada we must get them their fuel somewhere within reasonable reach of the prices at which they can procure it across the line. That is what we have been endeavouring to do.


Martin James Maloney: I thank the minister for his answer. I feel I am speaking the mind of the great bulk of the people of the central provinces when I say we are prepared to make many sacrifices to secure a supply of coal from our own mines. In this connection I would say that, if necessary, the freight rates on coal should be cut down to a minimum so that we might be able to secure our supply within our own borders.


Robert Knowlton Smith: What efforts have the department made.-outside of those that the minister has mentioned with respect to lower freight rates-to develop in Canada a national fuel policy? If such a policy means anything it must mean an attempt to use as much of our own coal as possible. I cannot see that there has been any concerted effort on the part of the department, outside of reductions in freight rates, to develop a fuel policy for this country. I would ask the minister to enlarge on that point, because it is of very serious interest and concern to the people of the maritime provinces.


Charles A. Stewart: It is purely and simply a matter of transportation costs, and one of the objects of the present test movement, both from the east and from the west, is to establish what are the actual transportation costs. Once that is established, it is merely a matter for the government or for parliament to decide what contribution, if any, shall be made to assist the railways in this problem. Fortunately from Nova Scotia you have a fairly lengthy season for the water movement, which is very cheap. I think the cost of landing your coal in the port of Montreal is seventy-five cents a ton. From there it is a rail movement for distribution into western Quebec and eastern Ontario. But in the winter season it is a long rail haul at
3590	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
the very time of the year when most of the fuel is being consumed. The situation from the west is entirely different. It is an all rail movement, and it is a long haul as against a short haul from across the line. So it resolves itself purely and simply into a question of transportation costs.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The minister says
it resolves itself into a question of transportation costs, and that fortunately for Nova Scotia in certain months of the year we can ship our coal by water to Montreal. Is the hon. gentleman convinced that we cannot ship our coal from Nova Scotia to Montreal by rail in the winter months? If so, why?


Charles A. Stewart: For the very simple reason that you have a long rail haul against a short rail haul from across the line.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I quite realize that; but what data has the minister before him to justify the sweeping statement that we cannot ship our coal to Montreal by rail under reasonably fair freight rates? Does he know what it costs to ship a ton of coal from Sydney to Montreal? Why does he make that sweeping statement?


Charles A. Stewart: Undoubtedly we shall have the Board of Railway Commissioners report, and it will be authentic. The movement from Nova Scotia last winter was a test movement.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: :	What did it cost
per ton?


Mr. STEW  ART@Edmonton: They have not found out.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Then the minister
does not know what he is talking about.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Two or three times I have tried to impress on the minister that what is required in my humble judgment is a national fuel policy. The minister has surrounded the issue with a lot of facts in regard to the movement of the fuel itself. Although that is very important, I do not consider it is an all important feature of the matter. It is not a question only of a reduction in freight rates. It is a question of arrangement with respect to fiscal matters, it is a question of subventions, it may be a question of bonuses, and there may be a dozen other questions surrounding the whole issue of the development of a national fuel policy. The contention of those of us who come from the east .is that no effort has been made by this government to overcome obstacles which should be overcome in order to utilize the fuel fMr. C. A. Stewart.]
that- we have in the Dominion, and to keep our own miners employed, and so develop our own country rather than bring in from the United States such tremendous quantities of the very kind of fuel that we ourselves produce. I ask the minister if the Department of Mines will not consider seriously the development of a national policy for Canada, not only with respect to a reduction in freight rates, the $2 per ton asked for by the people of Nova Scotia, but also in relation to all the difficulties that surround the question, so that we in Canada may be placed in an independent position so far as fuel is concerned. I think that is only fair. I have asked the minister a question and I am entitled to an answer. The fuel board as at present constituted is not able to cope with the problem; it has not the resources to enable it to carry on investigations. It is therefore the duty of parliament to give the board wider scope and more money to enable it to evolve for Canada a fuel policy which will be beneficial to this country. To-day we are simply drifting so far as fuel consumption is concerned-drifting towards importations from foreign countries, mostly from the United States. This matter, in my opinion should receive serious consideration at the hands of the minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wlhy not work out
a policy?


Robert Knowlton Smith: We are relying on the government to work out a policy, but if it were left in our hands we could evolve one. We have sent delegations to the government with suggestions for its consideration, but I do not know that many of those suggestions have received favourable consideration.


Charles A. Stewart: I can only
repeat what I have said before. So far as bituminous coal is concerned there is in my opinion little or no difference between the Nova Scotia and United States products. I make that statement in a broad general way.


Robert Knowlton Smith: That has
nothing to do with the issue.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, it has.
It means that the manufacturing interests- and some of my hon. friends are engaged in manufacturing-buy their coal for their manufacturing plants in Ontario at a fairly low rate, which is a pretty large factor in production costs; they Buy it at a rate around $5 or 15.50 a ton. I do not know the exact amount, because it fluctuates from time to time, but that is about the rate. Now that is the identical coal mined in Nova Scotia

Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
and it is used for manufacturing purposes largely in the raw state. You then have to transport your coal, which costs you between $3 and 84 a ton to raise and place on the car; and then you have to ship it all that distance either by water or by rail or partly by both, to give the manufacturer his fuel at a price which will permit him to enter into competition with manufacturers elsewhere. That is his problem, and it is rather a vital one for central Canada. Therefore, when speaking of the national fuel policy, you must be prepared to give the manufacturing interests and the domestic users in this part of Canada fuel at a price at which they can procure it from across the line. That is my conception of the question. That is why I say that, so far as the bulk of the product is concerned, the question is purely one of transportation. As a government we have offered, I think, fairly generous bonuses to enable the railway companies to carry coal. We have placed it at a fairly low rate and asked the railway commission to investigate thoroughly and give us an idea of what it would cost to move coal from Nova Scotia into Central Canada, as well as from Alberta to this part of the Dominion. So far we have not got that information. We have asked for it on one or two occasions but the railway companies have stated that they are not ready to go on with the movement.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: How long is it since the minister submitted that question to the railway board?


Charles A. Stewart: Nearly
twelve months ago.


Thomas Cantley: More than twenty-four
months ago.


Charles A. Stewart: And in the
meantime the movement is going on east and west.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Is it not nearly
two years since the question was submitted?


Charles A. Stewart: Since the
inception of the movement.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No, but since the
minister submitted to the railway board the question as to how much it would cost to carry Nova Scotia coal to central Canada. Is it not nearer two years than one year?


Charles A. Stewart: It may be
in the neighbourhood of two years since the movement started but not since we asked for the figures.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I am interested in
that, because I believe it is over two years.


Charles A. Stewart: I will get
the facts. The order in council was passed on March 30, 1928, and one year later we asked for the report from the Board of Railway Commissioners with respect to the amount that we should be called upon to pay.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: What was the
answer?


Charles A. Stewart: The answer was that the railways were not ready to furnish us with these figures. But in the meantime the movement is going on from both east and west, and it has resulted, particularly in the water and rail carriage, in bringing a fairly large amount of Nova Scotia coal into eastern Ontario, in both years. I am unable to give the figures because the railway board has not yet reported; but when we have those figures we shall be able to formulate a policy as to how much the government of Canada or the railways will have to contribute to make it possible for the consumer in eastern Canada to get his coal as cheaply as he can procure it from across the line. That is the problem in a nutshell, and that is what we are trying to solve.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The minister says that the railway board has not yet reported and does not know anything about the matter. How then does he know that the movement has resulted in an increased consumption of Nova Scotia coal west of Montreal?


Charles A. Stewart: For the reason that each sale, particularly in the vicinity of Cochrane and points in eastern Ontario, is submitted to us before it takes place.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: By the railway
board?


Charles A. Stewart: No, by the
sales agents of the companies.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How much coal was moved from Alberta and from the maritimes under the reduced rate during 1928?


Charles A. Stewart: There were
32,000	tons from Alberta; we have not the figures for the maritimes.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I am interested in. the
question of the distillation of oil from coal, and I should like to know what progress has been made along this line. Both in this country and elsewhere this question is receiving attention and it is going to be of great importance to such provinces as my own. I have one or two other questions to ask the minister and perhaps I had better state two or three points in reference to which I wish
3592	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
information and the minister oan answer them at once. There is the question of the distillation of coal: How far has experimentation proceeded along this line? I am aware that it can be done, but the question is whether it can be done in a commercial way. There is also the question with regard to the utilization of the tar sands and oil shale of northern Alberta. I am aware, too, that some experimentation has been carried on along this line, and the utilization of these tremendous deposits is a matter of great importance and considerable interest. From what I could catch of the discussion at the other end of the chamber I believe part of the work of the fuel board and of the research laboratory has been covered, but I notice an increase of $57,000 in the item, and I assume that is partly due to increased activities in that very important line of investigation. I should be glad if the minister would tell me what progress has been made.


Charles A. Stewart: We have lately arranged a joint investigation into the utilization of the MqMurray tar sands, and of course in the parks we have carried out experiments in road building, using those sands without extracting the oil. At the university of Alberta, directly under the supervision of the Alberta Research Council, Mr. Clark and Mr. Stansfie 1 d have been working on the problem of extracting oil from the tar sands for some years, and now it is proposed that we should enter into a joint investigation. There is a problem of mining to be dealt with, and I believe an experimental plant will be built jointly; they will carry on the experiments with regard to extraction while we attempt to find a type of machinery to be used in connection with the miming. I believe that work will go on this year; part of the sum included in this vote is for that purpose. So far as the road experiment was concerned, it proved a splendid success but was somewhat expensive due to transportation costs.


Alfred Speakman: The minister realizes, of course, that the extraction, of oil from coal on a commercial scale is a matter of tremendous moment, especially to a province vuch as Alberta where the vast deposits of *oaf cannot be transported any great distance because of the transportation charges and the fact that it breaks up in handling. This is a subject of such importance that I am sure it will receive attention, and it is a subject on which the people of this country would like as much information as possible.


Charles A. Stewart: (Edmonton): We are now creating a position for a trained man who will carry on research work in this connection in our own laboratories. So far we have been watching very carefully what has been done in Germany and in England; perhaps Germany has gone further in research work and tests in this connection than any other country. At the moment I can only say that the plant at Leuna is still very much in the experimental stage, and of course very much depends on the quality of the coal submitted for treatment. However, we do intend to create a position for an engineer who will carry on this research work and of course we will keep closely in touch with what is being done in other countries.


Alfred Speakman: I would like to know also what has been done in connection with the control of the waste gases in the Turner valley. As the minister knows, this question was up last year; it has been discussed from time to time and it is a matter of some importance.


Charles A. Stewart: I was in Calgary recently, 'but was unable to visit the Turner valley field. However, we do know that a very large quantity of gas is escaping at that field, and the provincial government and our own officials have become somewhat concerned about the wastage. We have agreed to appoint a joint commission to investigate the matter and, if possible, suggest methods for its conservation or use. A great many suggestions have been made in this connection, but before taking any definite steps we thought it well to have a thorough investigation made. Doctor Camsell is chairman of the board which has been created for that purpose, the other members being Mr. Ross, our mining engineer, and Mr. Carpenter of the utilities board of the province of Alberta. At the moment I think they are beginning their work and I expect a report in a short time.


Alfred Speakman: I am glad some action has been taken, because while possibly a large number of people throughout the country and perhaps many members of this house do not know it, I am sure the minister is aware of the fact that the supply of gas is not unlimited and that a field can be drained as readily as a country can be deforested.
Then there is one other point on which I should like some information; I refer to the oil shale in Athabasca, as distinguished from the tar sand. I understand that these shale

Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
deposits are stated by geologists to hold the greatest known deposits of petroleum in the world, but it has not been found possible to utilize those deposits in a commercial way.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
not conducted any experiments in connection with shale in the north, but for some years we have been carrying on experimental work on New Brunswick shale. Every year we bring quantities of the shale to the laboratories here to see if some plan cannot be devised for the extraction of the oil as n commercial proposition.


Alfred Speakman: Might I ask if there
has been any success attained so far? I should tike to know if there is any possibility in sight at the moment of accomplishing that task and finding out how to utilize these deposits in a commercial way.


Charles A. Stewart: If it were
not for the fact that fuel oil is fairly cheap because it is being secured in such large quantities and can be transported at a fairly rea-' sonable cost, the extraction of oil from shale, from the tar sands and from coal could be carried on in a commercial way, but while fuel oil is so cheap it is very difficult to compete with, at least under any present methods of extraction.


Alfred Speakman: That is the point I had in mind, because we all know it can be extracted successfully; it is purely a matter of how much it costs, and I was directing my inquiry along that line.


Finlay MacDonald: Anyone who has paid any attention to this coal question must realize the difficulties confronting coal producers in Canada. I appreciate the difficulties which face the minister, but I do not think he is proceeding as he should. I quite appreciate the position we are in, with the coal fields of the United States so close to the industrial centres of Canada, which makes it possible for these industrial concerns to get American coal quite cheaply; there is no doubt that we will have a great deal of difficulty in meeting that competition. That is a question of transportation, and the minister appears to devote the most of his attention to that question. But transportation is only one element which has to be considered; there are many other and probably just as important factors in connection with this problem. There is the element of the cost of production; then there is the element of transportation; then comes the element of marketing, and, last but not
least, the element of competition. When I had the honour of addressing this house upon this question I pointed out what I thought was a feasible plan, one which might afford some solution of the problem and cause the government to give some consideration to the formulating of a national fuel policy. We admit that under ordinary circumstances it is impossible to put Nova Scotia or Alberta coal into central Canada to compete on an even footing with American coal; that may as well be admitted first as last. But as the hon. member for South Renfrew said a few moments ago, the people of Ontario and western Quebec are willing to make a sacrifice in order that we may become independent, as far as fuel resources are concerned. Of course everyone must realize that there is a limit to the extent to which the good people of Ontario would be prepared to go in that direction. The suggestion which I offered last year was the appointment of a commission to investigate the cost of production, the cost of transportation, the cost of marketing, and last but not least, the element of protection, but I am afraid that in that connection we will not have the sympathy of the present Minister of Finance. It was stated this afternoon that the present Minister of Mines rather prided himself on the quotation with reference to the "death knell of protection." Additional protection is needed on our coal in order that it may successfully invade the markets of central Canada. The government deserves credit for giving us a three dollar rate on coal to points in Quebec, but that is not enough. This national fuel policy will never be evolved by considering only one element. I suggest that a commission of outstanding public men be appointed to study this question. The facts are all obtainable from the bureau; the department is excellently staffed and the information is available which will enable a commission composed of such men, as I suggested last year, to solve this problem. I leave that suggestion with the minister.
Last year the government received a delegation from Nova Scotia which asked for a two dollar rate. The Minister of Mines was present and heard that request, but as yet no answer has been made. Is it the intention of the minister to consider that request for a two dollar rate on coal?


Charles A. Stewart: From what
points?


Finlay MacDonald: From all Nova Scotia points; to replace the three dollar rate.
3594	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Geological Survey


Charles A. Stewart: The government does not feel that the rate can be changed until the report is received from the railway commission as to the present movement. The matter still stands awaiting that report.


Finlay MacDonald: Will the minister give some attention to my suggestion as to the appointment of a commission?


Charles A. Stewart: Speaking
personally, and not for the government, I do not think a commission would be able to gather any more facts than are being collected now with respect to transportation. The hon. member suggests that a duty should be placed against the foreign article, but it would not be necessary to appoint a commission to decide that; that would be a matter of policy. Personally, I have always felt that the manufacturers, as well as the domestic users of Ontario, were entitled to receive their coal, which is such an important factor in manufacturing as well as in domestic heating, at as reasonable a price as it could be procured; I do not think it would be fair to ask them to pay any more than they are paying at present. My endeavour has been to supply those consumers with the Canadian product at a price as near as possible to the price they are now paying. Otherwise they would be handicapped to some extent, and I do not think that would be fair. If a contribution is to be made, it should come from the federal government, but so far as I am concerned I do not think there is any necessity to appoint a commission at the moment. We are conducting test movements from both the east and the west in order to establish what is the actual cost of transportation. These movements are not being conducted to determine whether there shall be a dollar, two dollar or three dollar rate, but to establish the actual cost of transportation.


Thomas Cantley: The minister talks about test movements and giving cheap fuel to the Ontario manufacturer, but the fact of the matter is that the coal producers have a protection of about 10 per cent, while some of the Ontario users of coal brought in from the United States have a protection of from 25 to 30 per cent. Is one class of producers not entitled to as adequate protection as another? The minister referred to some of his young men having been taken away by industrial firms and I am very glad that some of them have found useful employment which they certainly could not find when they were in
fMr. F. MacDonald.!
the minister's department. The minister made reference to the fuel policy of the government as it concerns coal and coking ovens, but he was unable to answer the question as to whether or not any bounty has been paid. The fact of the matter is that the only installation able to comply with the conditions of that policy is one consisting of ten or fifteen coking ovens which were built in Halifax to replace an old gas plant which had been in existence from time out of mind. I think this plant has been completed, but when it is in operation it will not amount to a row of pins as a commercial unit, and the minister knows that is so.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon. member is aware of the fact that they were using American coal in the old beehive ovens.


Thomas Cantley: It was not a beehive
oven plant. Why are they using American coal in Montreal? If the policy inaugurated by the government was a reasonable one, a _ workable one, why was this large coking plant which has been erected on the bank of the Welland canal not built in the east end of Montreal so that Canadian coal could have been used? It was built at the Welland canal where Nova Scotia coal can get to it only by two ways, either by rail or by being lightered up at a cost almost as great as that of bringing it from Sydney to Montreal. The fact of the matter is that the legislation was of no value; it was known to be no good and it has proved to be just as valuable as we said it would be. It was simply a gesture and nothing more than that.
The minister said that one difficulty and a great one was the matter of sulphur. I state that that difficulty is not at all insuperable. All the sulphur oould be removed out of the gases for a cost of a good deal less than twenty-five cents per tan. All this talk about high sulphur content is only using camouflage to hide behind, nothing more and nothing less.
Some reference was made to the $6.75 rate from Alberta. Coal coming from Alberta to Ontario travels about 2,000 miles. We in Nova Scotia were given a flat rate of $3. If we were given a rate proportionate to the mileage, as we were entitled to, we would have a rate from Sprinighiill, not oif $3 as now, but of $1.80; from M-imto. a rate of $1.60 and from StelLamton a rate of $2.20 instead of S3. I want to tell the minister that about twenty years ago a considerable quantity of Nova Scotia coal was carried to Montreal at a rate of $1.80 from S tell art on. During the years when if was so carried during the win-

Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
ter at that rate, we had surpluses on the Intercolonial. I will admit that it costs more to operate the railway to-day than iit did sixteen years ago, because that is about the time the movement to which I refer took place, but the cost has not increased so much as to change a profitable $1.80 rate to a losing $2 rate. Why should the government apply a blanket rate over the whole of the mari-times, where there is a difference between Minto, the nearest point, and Sydney the furthest, of nearly 400 miles, or practically four-tenths of the whole mileage?
The minister made some reference to the efforts of himself and his department to further the use of Nova Scotia coal in the Montreal district. Unless the minister is greatly belied, on his return from that very enjoyable trip to Germany I understand he was royally entertained in London and he there took the opportunity of suggesting to the people of Great Britain that they were neglecting the market in the St. Lawrence. He suggested that it was a market to which they ought bo pay more attention. I do not think that is quite within his province as Minister of Mines. Still to-night he talks about the great efforts of his department to further the use of Nova Scotia coal in the St. Lawrence valley.
Last winter a considerable quantity of soviet coal entered Canada, and the minister and the government said they were powerless to do anything whatever to prevent such coal from coming in. What was the attitude of the United States in that connection? The first cargo that came into Canada went in the first place to New York. How was it met there? Under the United States system of tariff and under the power given to their president, they were able to deal with it. That coal could not be landed in the United States. The cargo then left New York and travelled all the way around Nova Scotia up the gulf and came into Montreal. Other car-gees followed into Portland thence by rail to Montreal, and this government sat absolutely supine, unable or refusing to do anything to protect the coal industries of Nova Sootia and Alberta, and allowing soviet coal to travel about 6,000 miles, one-third of the circumference of the earth, and enter Canada in free competition with our own coal. The minister did nothing to protect either his friends in the old country or his friends in Nova Scotia or his friends in Alberta in that regard and he has to-day nothing that he can say in defence of his action or lack of action-I leave it to him.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say
in answer to my hon. friend that the only coal that came in from soviet Russia, and a very small quantity at that, was anthracite coal?


Thomas Cantley: I know it was anthracite coal and tihe quantity was considerable.


Charles A. Stewart: With regard to my hon. friend's strictures about my suggesting inter-empire trade in anthracite coal and that alone, this was merely a suggestion on my part that instead of the United States getting the business in anthracite, this trade might well go to Great Britain. I was not interfering for a moment with our own domestic fuel supply, because my hon. friend knows full well that we have no anthracite coal.


Thomas Cantley: I absolutely deny that.
What did it displace ? What have we been endeavouring to displace for the last ten years? We have been trying to displace British anthracite and United States anthracite with domestic coke and if the minister would give us a chance we would do it. That is the answer. The minister should get a better story than that or else remain silent.


Charles A. Stewart: There is a plant in Montreal now and my hon. friend can take advantage of the bonus offered by the government. Let him ship coal and have it used in the Montreal plant, and supplant anthracite. That was the purpose for which the bonus was offered.


Thomas Cantley: The government is allowing German and British coke and tens of thousands of tons of United States coke to enter Canada simply because they will not protect Canadian coke by a duty on coke coming into this country.


Mr. HEPBURN:: Will the hon. member's
leader make a declaration in favour of protection on coke or coal?


Thomas Cantley: What was it my hon.
friend said? I did not hear.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Will the hon. member
enunciate for his party a policy of a higher tariff on coal or coke?


Thomas Cantley: Certainly; on both.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Will his leader agree to
that?


Thomas Cantley: Certainly he will.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I should like to have
his declaration.
Questions


Thomas Cantley: Do not make any mistake about his policy. He will.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Let whoever is leading
the opposition make that declaration now. I challenge them to do it right now. That is a fair question.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Let the hon. member and the hon. member for South Essex debate that.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The hon. member for
South Essex got all he wanted when he was discussing that.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The Minister of
the Interior has referred to the coking legislation passed by the present government. What have been the results of that legislation? How much more Canadian coal has been produced and used as a result of it?
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, June 12, 1929.