Mr. POPE.

Did they decide that it was fit for making rope ? Has that ever been developed ? The hon. minister should give us further evidence. Of course lie has given us this much evidence that the High Commissioner has recommended to our consideration the expenditure of this money. I am inclined to give fair consideration to the recommendation of the High Commissioner, but the High Commissioner uever seems to have opposed our having been associated with this Imperial Institute when it was in a wrecked condition. Consequently, perhaps, the High Commissioner has not studied that question as closely as he ought to have done. I think it is due to this committee from the fact that we have been associated with what is recognized by the hon. minister and members of this House a.-, a defunct institution practically, and when we are going to join a new organization which promises us better things to be furnished with evidence, first, that these people are friendly to us, and secondly, that they are not harnessed up with the red tape that goes along with government in that country. My experience is that in everything associated with government in that country you have officers and red tape and a lot of nonsense that disgusts everybody

Mr. POPE.

who comes in contact with it. If a practical man desires to seek information from any officers of the government he finds that he has to deal with officers who do not know enough to get out of his way let alone give him the information which he seeks. This new creation, this new institute which we are joining may not have any of these old red tape ideas connected with it. I hope it has not, but I say that we should know before we spend this $8,000 what our position is to be. We should know what our space is to be in the building, we should know what the conditions are which are to be fulfilled, we should know precisely what advantages Canada is supposed to derive from this exhibit and particularly as we have had this exhibit there for a number of years past there must be some evidence somewhere in the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Trade and Commerce, or some of those junk shops, some traces at ljeast of some good that has been done to this country as a result of the expenditures we have made in this direction which would warrant us in continuing these expenditures in the future.

Mr. FISHER.

I would like to move to amend the wording of this item. in the direction suggested by my hon. friend from East Grey.

Mr. SPROULE.

I might -suggest to the hon. minister that what ought to be done is to show in these estimates how much of this will be required, because, if I understand the hon. minister correctly, he does not propose to spend all of that ?8,000 this year. The balance that is not used will be spent by revote.

Mr. FISHER.

The balance lapses and consequently does not come into the account to tlie Minister of Agriculture ?

Mr. WILSON.

Where will we find the report which the High Commissioner made to the Minister of Agriculture ?

Mr. FISHER.

It was a letter from the High Commissioner addressed to me explaining the arrangement.

Mr. WILSON.

I understand the Department of the Interior has an exhibit in London, and I judge from what I have read and from what I have heard before the Agricultural Committee that it is quite a creditable exhibit. I do not see why we should have two exhibits. It seems to me that it would be better to have one good exhibit than two poor ones, and I think it might be arranged to have one exhibit under one department so that we would have one good exhibit, one set of officials and one rent account. I would like to ask the hon. minister if the Interior Department as well as his department has an exhibit in London.

Mr. FISHER.

This exhibit is a totally different one and under totally different

management. It is more for commercial purposes, for the purpose of giving information to the people of England as to our products which they may be able to utilize. Also, with regard to minerals, forestry and such things, it is a means of inducing the investment of capital in Canada. People who are trying to organize companies go there to see what Canada produces.

Mr. WILSON.

But both are for the purpose of giving information to the people ?

Mr. FISHER.

Yes.

Mr. WILSON.

I do not see why they should not be under one management.

Mr. FISHER.

They are (Designed to reach two different classes of people.

Mr. WILSON.

But these two classes run into one another. I suppose the agricultural exhibit would be largely of the products of the soil, and the same must be true of the other. Surely it would be better and cheaper for the country to have them under one management. But there seems to be a difficulty because what belongs ito one department must not be interfered with by another. I do not know whether that is because the ministers do not agree well or not. Families should be able to live together and members of the same government should be able to exercise judgment in the management of the affairs of the country so as to avoid duplicating work and expense.

Amendment (Mr. Fisher) agreed to.

Mr. LENNOX.

I think it is due to the minister and to this committee that we should have some satisfactory explanation on this temperance question. It is not just to the minister that we should keep talking about something else and not give him a chance to explain what this charge for liquor is. The minister's reputation in the riding I represent hangs largely on his temperance record. I have had some difficulty in the matter. People say to me : He is not a satisfactory Minister of Agriculture. I reply : But he is a good temperance man ? And so far, I have been able to maintain the position of the Minister of Agriculture-not without difficulty, vet with success. Of course, the people of South Simcoe are to be excused, for they have not the same opportunities that I have. They do not see the minister at close range as I am privileged to do, and so, I fear they do not appreciate him as I do. Now, I do feel that we ought to have some explanation of this item before we go much further. Two cases of liquor unexplained is more than the people of my riding can stand, owing to the strained relations that exist between them and the Minister of Agriculture. I trust that before the committee rises the Minister of Agriculture will give an explanation that will

enable me to justify his conduct to the people of South Simcoe.

Mr. COCHRANE.

If it be in order I would move that a sample bottle of this purchase be laid on the table.

Mr. FISHER.

I understand there are various ways in which this matter could be treated, but I must. confess my lack of experience, and admit that I have no knowledge of the question.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

In that case, it must still remain intact. And under the circumstances, we might let the item pass, on condition that the minister will produce the exhibit at a later date.

Some resolutions reported.

Mr. SPROULE.

In view of any further discussion that may take place I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should bring down the letter he received from the High Commissioner suggesting the arrangement that he has explained to us.