I understand that the hon. gentleman claims to be a farmer, but I do not think his farming operations have been of a very extensive character so far. The hon. gentleman, referring to the purchase of a property at Fredericton as an
experimental farm and referring to a farm which he described as a magnificent farm in the county of Carleton, said that it would not have suited my political exigencies to purchase a farm there. I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by that. By no political action or other action of mine was the Department of Agriculture influenced in purchasing the site which they have purchased, and which I think is a very good site at Fredericton. I felt that the purchase of a farm ought to be left to the choice of the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture, in purchasing that farm for the purpose of an experimental farm was not influenced to the slightest extent by any representations of mine, because I made no representations whatever in regard to the matter.
My hon. friend, in describing the farm that has been purchased, has not done justice to himself or to the farm. I know the locality very well. It is in the city of Fredericton, not exactly within the bounds of the city, but within about three miles of the post office or the legislative buildings. Fredericton is a very extensive city in point of area, and this farm is situated on the banks of the St. John river. The Canadian Pacific railway runs through it in the rear and the St. John Valley railway also traverses it. By motor or team it is only a very short drive from the parliament buildings. As my hon. friend states, an experimental farm should be situated in a place easy of access, and I think there is very considerable advantage in having this farm situated close to the city of Fredericton, which is the capital of the province, to which the members of the legislature come every year, and to which many other people come in connection with parliamentary and departmental business. There is a further advantage in having that farm situated in a place close to the University of New Brunswick, and where agricultural education is carried on. It is also situated close to the offices of the ' Department of Agriculture of the province. Those probably are all influences which actuated the officials and the Minister of Agriculture in selecting this property for an experimental farm. Without wishing to be offensive at all to my hon. friend, I think that he is speaking in the language of very great exaggeration when he describes this farm as a sand hill. I have not been there since the changes have taken place, but I understand it is part of the farm which formerly belonged to the late Edward Simonds, and was known originally
as the Simonds farm. Far from its being a sand heap, from my knowledge of the locality-and I have known it since I was a boy-I say that the land is good average land, and there is no reason whatever why an experimental farm should not be situated in that locality, and why it should not serve all the purposes which experimental farms serve in different parts of the country. As to the price paid for it, I have never heard that price criticised before. My own opinion would be, having regard to the area, the situation on the St. John river and the accessibility to the city of Fredericton, the sum paid is a reasonable one as compared with the prices paid for other farms in New Brunswick of late years. My hon. friend has referred to Mr. A. D. Thomas, who received a commission of $1,000 in connection with the purchase of the land, as a 'ward-heeler.' The < hon. gentleman has done himself less than justice by that word.
I have known Mr. Thomas since I was a boy, and I can tell the hon. gentleman that there is not in Canada a man possessing a higher sense of honour, a man who is more thoroughly respected, than Mr. Thomas. He is a man of spotless reputation, a good citizen. The fact that he has been elected* Grand Master of the Loyal Orange Order, I think is no reason why he should be singled out for attack. I am not a member of the Orange Order myself. If the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) or my colleague from the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley) were here-both members of the Orange Order-I assume they would come to the defence of Mr. Thomas and would not allow the hon. gentleman's remark about the man who was Grand Master of the Order to which they belong (being a political heeler) to go unchallenged This matter arises, of course, because, naturally, different localities would put forward claims for having this farm placed in their midst. It was natural that that should be the feeling in the splendid agricultural county of Carleton from which my hon. friend comes. It is natural that that should be the feeling in the county of Kings, which is also a splendid agricultural county. But I have no doubt that all the different elements of accessibility and the others to which I have referred were taken into consideration by the Minister of Agriculture before it was decided to locate this experimental farm near the cuy of Fredericton. I think the result will show the wisdom of the choice from every standpoint. My hon. friend, no doubt, is speaking largely to his constituents in the county of
Carleton. That is quite a proper course for him to take, but I am sorry that in taking that course he has made a speech that would leave the impression upon the minds of those who have heard him that there is so little good agricultural land to be found in New Brunswick. One would think from his remarks that the only good agricultural land to be found in New Brunswick was in the county of Carleton or the county of Kings. But there is a great deal of good agricultural land in the counties of Queens and Sunbury. The great county of Westmorland has magnificent marshes where splendid hay is produced and which should be able to raise great quantities of cattle not only to supply the local market but to send abroad as well. The northern counties of Restigouche, Gloucester and Northumberland have seen of late years great development in agricultural work, and a different condition of affairs prevailing among agriculturists from that which prevailed before. I had no intention of taking part in this debate when I came in, but when the hon. gentleman speaks of this selection of a farm as having arisen from my political exigencies, I think I should refer to the matter so that it may appear on the pages of ' Hansard ' as having been corrected.
At six o'clock, the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed .at eight o'clock, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Just before dinner, when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) saw fit to discuss the matter of the Fredericton Experimental Farm, he went out of his way to give a certificate of character on behalf of Mr. A. D. Thomas, who received $1,000 commission for buying this farm, and said that I had made an attack on Mr. Thomas. I had no intention whatever of making an attack upon Mr. Thomas; I give him as good a certificate of character as does the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The minister evidently considers that the narration of the fact that a man occupying Mr. Thomas' position got $1,000 for buying a farm for $14,000 is an attack upon Mr. Thomas; I say these are the simple facts. My hon. friend also tried to make some capital out of my saying that New Brunswick is not a great agricultural province. I am bound to tell the truth, Sir; I wish .the facts were different, but I do not see that anything is to be gained by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and myself coming here and tell-
ing the committee something that is not true. I said there were two portions of the province of New Brunswick which were agricultural, the eastern portion around Kings county-I do not say Kings county alone, but that is the central portion of it -and the western portion, consisting of the upper end of the county of York and the counties of Victoria, Carleton and Mada-waska. That is what I said, and I stick to it. I know' there are other places in the province where agriculture is carried on to a considerable extent; I wish there were ten times as many. Unfortunately, it has not been carried on to a very great extent, except in those places to which I have referred, for the simple reason that in many places the soil is not suitable for agricultural purposes. There are, however, 150 miles of land, up and down the St. John river, which are equal to the best portions of Ontario, and the same thing may be said of Kings county, .and portions of Queens, Albert and Westmorland counties. However, I am not going to spend any more time in discussing that matter, because it is neither here nor there. The important feature of the short speech made by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was, as I view it, the fact that he entirely forgot to deal with the question under discussion. The question is, whether the minister was justified in buying the kind of farm he did, situated as it is, and whether his department was justified in paying a political friend $1,000 for purchasing it. These are some of the things I tried to bring before the committee, and these are the very things my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries skated over without touching at all. He simply tried to draw a herring across the trail by saying that I was making an attack upon Mr. Thomas and running down the possibilities of our province. It is not so easy to get away from the real question at issue, as my hon. friend evidently thinks. He said he did not influence the Minister of Agriculture in this thing-not in one iota. I am afraid, therefore, that I was too complimentary to the Minister of Agriculture; I had rather taken the ground that he was the innocent machinery by which the deal was carried out. My friend, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, however, said that the Minister of Agriculture alone is responsible. The Minister of Agriculture was there; he saw the land, he knows what it is like; he would not buy it himself, and he bought it
for the Government. If you want any evidence, Mr. Chairman, that that land is not fit for an experimental farm, all you have to do is to go to the Auditor General's Report. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries took a lot of trouble to tell this committee that the land is right in the city of Fredericton. So it is. The city of Fredericton is something like the western cities, in that it extends many miles into the county. It is true that this land is in the city of Fredericton, but it is three miles from the lower part of the city; my hon. friend thinks it may be a little more, and perhaps it is. 100 acres of that land were bought from J. Q. Adams for $2,000 or $20 an acre; another 110 acres were boughtfrom H. C. Jewett, at $2,000 or lessthan $20 an acre. Does the Ministerof Agriculture believe he is justified in buying land of that character in the city of Fredericton, within three
miles of the post office or parliament buildings, for experimental farm purposes-land in the capital city of the province of New Brunswick that can be bought for $20 or less, and even then I have no hesitation in saying that he paid two or three times as much as any other man would have paid for the same kind of land.
I want to make a correction in the statement I made before dinner, because I want the record to be correct in every way. I said the minister had an offer from Mr. Charles L. Smith to sell 500 acres of land in Woodstock-the very best land that could be acquired for any experimental farm, including all grades of soil-for $20,000. I am wrong in that. I think the offer the minister has in his department is $30,000. The difficulty was that another gentleman, this time the postmaster at Woodstock, Mr. Norman W. Winslow, was the medium; he was the commission merchant in this case. Mr. Winslow, and as he stated, my opponent, Mr. B. F. Smith, had to have $10,000 as a rake-off, and therefore if the farmer wanted to sell his farm he was compelled to put the price at $30,000 so that the politicians could get $10,000 as a rake-off; he would get but $20,000 for his farm. These are the facts of the case. I did not propose stating them, and would not have done so had not my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries manifested a desire to delve into the matter. That, I am afraid, is the reason why the experimental farm was put 65 miles away from the college. So far as I know, that was the only farm in the county of Carleton that was looked at by the offi-73
cers of the department. If my hon. friend goes to his record he will find that what I have said as to the price which Mr. Smith wanted for his farm is correct. I am telling him the names of the persons concerned, I am telling him how much the rake-off was to be, and bow much the farmer was to get for the land. The sale did not go through; therefore the rake-off did not materialize, but I am afraid, as I have said, that we now have before us the real reason why the farm was 65 miles from the college. But that is only one illustration of the things that are going on in the province of New Brunswick under this present economic, honest Government. As the session progresses, we will try to give our hon. friends opposite a few more illustrations, but probably this will be sufficient for the present. Now, that my political friends have had their say, and now that they have got my hon. friend in the position in which they have, regarding agricultural education in the province of New Brunswick, I hope the minister will take some steps to provide himself with at least a small farm, if he cannot get a large one, in the vicinity of the college in the town of Woodstock. The cost of the building, as I said, was contributed by a public-spirited gentleman, who died some years ago and left his estate for educational and charitable purposes. So the college has cost the department nothing and it has not cost the province of New Brunswick anything. All that the Department of Agriculture in the province of New Brunswick has to do is to maintain the institution. I do hope the Government will spend some money-even a quarter of the amount they are spending in Fredericton-in buying a small piece of land, if they cannot buy a large one, to be used in conjunction with this college in order to have some real agricultural instruction imparted to the people who may attend that institution.
We had great hope of some benefit being derived from the establishment of this institution, but the way things have gone I am sorry to say our hopes are not nearly as sanguine as they were two or three years ago. We feel that the matter has been so bungled by the politicians and for political purposes and party exigencies that any real value has been entirely dissipated; no benefit will be derived, and unless the hon. gentleman will do something to get a farm -if he cannot run a stock farm let him have a seed farm, or something that will make the college of some value. I hope
the discussion this afternoon may enlighten the mind of the minister to some extent, and set him thinking whether he cannot do something to remedy the great wrong done to the province of New Brunswick.
During the discussion on Tuesday of the vote for experimental farms, the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) made statements which would lead us to believe that the district representative at Woodstock owed his appointment to the federal Minister of Agriculture. I find, on investigation, that these appointments take place as follows: the county council applies to the Ontario government for the representative to be appointed, and the Ontario government makes the appointment. As I said on Tuesday night, these men had been appointed for several years at least in various places before this grant was made. I am glad to see that the minister is donating $80,000 towards the grant in Ontario; but the agricultural representative of the county of Oxford is paid by the county itself $500 towards his expenses, so that we are not entirely indebted to the Minister of Agriculture of the Dominion, as my hon. friend from South Oxford would like us to believe, foT that appointment or for the payment of the appointee. That is the way most of the appointments are made in Ontario. I see there is a grant of $10,000 on account of agricultural education in the public schools. The public schools, I presume, also get that through the Ontario government, so that it would be difficult for them to know whether they derive any benefit from this grant or not. In any event when that was divided among all the public schools in Ontario it would be very hard for them to see it or recognize it. I have no doubt the minister divided it as well as he could. Speaking of experimental farms, i would ask how many acres there are in the Central Experimental Farm near Ottawa?
In the Auditor General's Report for 1912-13 the expenses of that farm are given as $110,995 and the income at $14,962.05. I would like to know if that report is correct. Looking at the number of men employed on the farm I am afraid the farmers of Ontario would not think that they derive a benefit equal to the expenditure. When it is observed that the
names of employees cover three or four pages, the farmers of Ontario would think that if they had that many men employed they cou'd farm the whole province. Probably they could not, but at least they could farm a whole township and very likely another one thrown in. So far as I can see, the experimental farm expenditures are growing very much more rap d y than the income. I notice that the expend ture here given does not include the cost of the seed department, or any of those departments which I think are doing very excellent work.
Speaking of this little magazine, it is, I find, largely an advertisement on the same plan as the grant of $10,100,000 which I have said before was largely an advertisement of the department, because we could have granted $1,000,000 increase per year to the Agricultural Department without any special notice being taken of it. After all the great glittering headings in the newspapers of the $10,000,000 grant was, I am sorry to say, very largely an advertisement for the Government or the minister, and he is using this magazine to a very large extent to increase that advertisement. I hope the minister will remember from this out to put in some articles giving practical illustrations of what can be done in farming. I would suggest that if he could get some accountant in his department to devise a simple plan of agricultural book-keeping and have that copied by the various agricultural papers in the country it would be of great practical value to the farmers. I presume that farming, taken as a whole, is the only business in the country in which those engaged do not know just exactly what the products of the business cost. If a manufacturer were to manufacture his goods for a year and put them on the market without know.ng the cost of manufacture before he set the price, I am afraid he would come to an end in a short time.
As a rule the farmers have no idea of what their goods are costing them; they sell for what the market demands. Once the farmer commences to keep track of what his various stuff is costing him, from pigs to grain, I know from my own experience of farming, that he will begin to delve into the science of agriculture and become in a very short time a scientific farmer to a great extent. I only offer that as a suggestion. When Mr. Ruddick got the farmers-to a very small extent I am afraid- to weigh their milk and to ascertain whether their cows were paying them or
not, it was a great step forward. Those who have adopted that system I am sure would never go back to the old haphazard method of just guessing whether the cows were paying them. There is no branch of farming to which that same idea could not be applied with just as good results. The minister might get some cheap land, even such farms as my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) was talking about a short while ago, where immigrants could be taught the rudiments of farming before they look for farm work. That would probably be expensive, but I know that the greater portion of the men who are brought here for farm work do not stay on the farms. It may be because of the greater attractions of the city, but the fact remains we are getting too many people in the cities and towns. We are purposely trying to avoid this flocking to the city in our immigration branch; at least, so far as I know, the Minister of the Interior is not encouraging that type of immigrant. Many of the immigrants who go on to the farm are so absolutely ignorant of farming that they are more of a nuisance than they are worth. If the minister would establish .some place where these men could be taught the rudiments of farming, I am sure he would have applications by the thousands from men wishing to learn, and it would be the means of keeping these men on the farms. Farm wages, in our section at least, are just as good, when you take board into account, as the wages paid in towns and cities. The city labourer may get higher wages, but after he has paid his board he is no better off than the man working on the farm. The question of what we are to do with the three or four hundred thousand immigrants coming to this country every year is a very live one. We want production on the farm very much more than we want other kinds of production. I am free to confess that a great many of these immigrants are not fit to go on the land when they first come here; the farmers will not be bothered with them, and as to taking up land themselves, they would only starve unless they had means to carry them over two or three years until they got some knowledge. I throw out these suggestions to the minister to see whether he could not work out something on these lines.
Mr. Chair man, before the hon. minister answers the question which has just been put to him. I may be allowed to make a few remarks in connection with the estimates of the Denart-73J
ment of Agriculture now under consideration. On the eve of the general elections of 1911, the hon. S. Fisher and the hon. Mr. Fielding proudly estimated the population of Canada at eight millions. The figures of the Census, showing a shortage of 800,000 souls in the actual results as compared with the Government forecasts clearly set forth the tendency of the Liberal party to lay fiaims to imaginary achievements. When we taunted the Liberal Government, and justly so, for not keeping in Canada immigrants brought over here at great cost, when we deplored the emigration of Canadians to the United States, hon. gentlemen questioned the correctness of statements and statistics emanating from reliable sources. However, these figures of the Census furnish evidence of a much more grievous character, showing a decrease in the population of the rural districts throughout eastern Canada.
According to the last Census, the population in the rural districts of the province of Quebec increased by 39,951 from 1900 to 1910. We find that the population which has thus increased is not that inhabiting the rural districts proper, but that settled in the small villages. The greatest evil we have to fight against is the abandonment of country life, which creates a scarcity of farm labour and draws our people towards the United States and large centres, leaving our fields deserted and unproductive. The abandonment of farm life, the scarcity of farm labour, the increasing high cost of living, are all social problems the settlement of which is eagerly sought by the Dominion Government. The Minister of Agriculture has courageously taken the lead in the movement for the uplift of Canada. He is endeavouring to restore to agriculture its charm, to the land its fertility, its crop-producing capacity, to the country districts their workers, of which immigration is despoiling them.
On January 26, 1914, I listened with surprise to the harsh words uttered against the agricultural policy of the Government by the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr Lafor-tune). He seems to thing that the Government has not as yet had a thought for the farming class and has not done its duty towards the tobacco-growers.
I cannot approve of such utterances on the part of my hon. friend. As a matter of fact, the first thought of the Conservative Government has been for the farmers, for the tillers of the soil, when, acting on its knowledge of the constitution and of the requirements of the people, it started a policy of co-operation with the provincial
governments with a view to promoting agriculture.
Specially for that purpose, this Government appropriates $10,000,000. In order to bind the country people to their lands, the hon. Minister of Agriculture has given his first thought to the farmers. Accordingly, we are unanimous in honouring and acclaiming those who further the uplifting of agriculture.
To-day the hon. minister calls on us to appropriate $3,950,000. Such expenditure is not made in vain. Indeed, during the month of December, 1912, our exports of home products amounted to $38,658,625. In December, 1913, the figure reached $55,803,642, which shows an increase of 44 per cent.
Exports of farm products: December 1912, $22,859,325; December 1913, $35,367,942;
April 1st to December 31, 1912, $119,209,170; April 1st to December 31st, 1913, $177,706,169.
Those figures show the progress of agriculture under Conservative rule. The hon. member for Montcalm alleges that the Conservative Government is not doing anything towards promoting the cultivation of tobacco. At page 334 of the Public Accounts of the province of Quebec, we find that the Quebec Government expended $10,000 of the Dominion grant towards promoting the growing of tobacco and the proper curing of that plant.
Farmers' institutes in the county of Montcalm have not been forgotten in the distribution of that Dominion grant. The farmers clubs of St. Alexis, St. Jacques, Ste. Julienne and Ste. Marie-Salomee have benefited by that grant. The hon. member for Montcalm should be satisfied with the amounts granted towards the furtherance of tobacco-growing in his county.
I attach the greatest importance to the Experimental Farm at Ottawa and to the experiment stations spread over the Dominion; but our farmers live too far away from the Central Experimental Farm to deprive the greatest benefit possible from its teachings.
In 1911, we had thirteen agricultural experiment stations. Thanks to the interest taken in the matter by the hon. Mr. Burrell, we have to-day twenty-six experiment stations. Those farms are schools, both in respect to theory and to practice.
In 1910-11, the Liberal Administration spent $153,483.16 on experimental farms.
The Hon. Mr. Burrell, in view of the wide field open to agricultural experiments, calls on parliament to appropriate $770,000 for our experimental farms. Both Conservatives and Liberals will join hands to carry on the national work.
I may be allowed to refer briefly to the work accomplished at the Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere agricultural station since the month of June, 1912. The improvements primarily required for carrying on experiments in agriculture, related to the enclosing and draining of the land. The fences on the property are good evidence of the work accomplished. Several hundred cubic yards of stone have been removed. A few acres of land have been cleared and levelled. Covered drains have been put in, covering 16,500 feet in length. We have there an orchard comprising 339 fruit trees, representing 117 varieties of apples, plums, cherries. I shall dispense with describing the farm buildings, soon to be completed and which will be on the most modern plan. A fact well worth mentioning is the increased area of the farm, a circumstance which con tributes not a little to the opportunities of that agricultural station, through the greater facilities afforded for carrying on experiments, particularly in the breeding of live stock, that most interesting and profitable branch of farming. The money has been applied to useful purposes, and I must congratulate in this connection both the Minister of Agriculture and the farm superintendent.
Since 1910, we have taken part in the world expositions held at Buffalo, Osaka, St. Louis, Liege, Milan, Seattle, Brussels and Ghent. During the fiscal year 1910-11, the Liberal Government called on the Dominion parliament to appropriate $149,979.68 for exposition purposes. To-day the Conservative Government asks for an appropriation of $400,000 towards the same object. At such expositions is unfolded the history of the agricultural, forest, mining and manufacturing industries of Canada. The hon. Mr. Burrell knows that expositions are an important factor in the development of agriculture, commerce and the industries. By means of expositions, we are in a position to attract capital, extend our markets and stimulate an influx of desirable immigrants. Why should not Canada have its world's fair? We might in that way draw the attention of all civilized peoples to our young country. The friends of the farming class emphasize the importance of developing co-operative associations as a means of forwarding the progress of agriculture.
According to Mr. J. Meline, co-operation will in time become the great means of liberating agriculture. Through co-operation agriculture will be in a position to obtain the highest returns from its products, the profits of the middlemen being done away with. In Europe, agricultural workers have gone in fully for co-operation. It is a recognized fact that members of co-operative associations secure as a rule higher prices than individual farmers. Bavaria has been the vantage ground of a special form of cooperation, agricultural banks, the special purpose of which is to procure for the farmers the capital required.
I am bound to pay a high tribute to the constant and well-directed efforts of Mr. Alphonse Desjardins toward promoting cooperative associations. The Dominion Government is materially helping on the cooperative movement in the province of Quebec. I think the Minister of Agriculture should be very cautious in extending such help to co-operative associations, which may turn out to be in the last resort a vulgar means of political patronage in the hands of the provincial governments.
I should bear testimony to the good and patriotic work carried on through our schools of agriculture. For fifty-five years, I believe, distinguished priests at the college of Ste. Anne's have devoted themselves to the admirable work of agricultural education. Under the Agricultural Instruction Act, the hon. Mr. Burrell is applying this very session for grant of $7,000 for purposes of domestic science, and $60,000 for our agricultural schools. We are instilling new life into our schools of agriculture. The Conservative Government feels the need of strengthening the teaching of agriculture through mouth and pen, in the shape of experiments and illustrations.
I was pleased at receiving a copy of the French edition of the Agricultural Gazette. As stated in writing by the hon. Minister of Agriculture, we hope that the Agricultural Gazette will promote the common weal by co-ordinating the efforts of workers disseminated over a vast area. The high cost of living is just now making itself felt the world over. It is manifest in protectionist, as well as in free trade countries. Economists have set themselves to the task of finding a remedy for the evil which is afflicting civilized countries. Their view is that the most practical means of solving the problem of the cost of living is. to increase production.
As stated by the hon. Minister of Finance increased production is the key to the unravelling of that problem. Through the agricultural legislation of 1913 and the wise use of the moneys voted for agricultural purposes, Canadian agriculture will develop and come to its own in this young country of ours.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are in a large measure responsible for the increase in the cost of living. Under Liberal rule, the cost of living increased 35 per cent. While our country districts were being depleted of population, hon. gentlemen opposite were busy drawing to our shores hosts of consumers, but comparatively few producers. This Government will secure more satisfactory results in the measure that it will direct its best efforts towards increasing the producing capacity of the Canadian soil. The Liberal grants which have been voted during the last sessions and those which are included in this year's Estimates to provide for our transportation system and our national ports, are a striking proof of the wisdom of an Administration which realizes what are the requirements of the farming community.
If only the Quebec local government, following in the foot-steps of the Dominion Government, gave its first thought to the farmers, the old-settled districts would produce as much as they formerly did. If the Quebec Government gave more encouragement to colonization, the field of agricultural production would be more rapidly extended. The Quebec Government does not call on its legislature to appropriate the moneys required for the promotion of agriculture. The receipts of the Quebec Government during the fiscal year 1912-1913 reached $13,000,000. Out of that the Government appropriated only $436,133.64 for agricultural purposes (Public Accounts, p. 393). Let us see what is being done in the province of Ontario in this respect. That province expended during the same year $1,210,074 towards assisting agriculture. The young province of Saskatchewan expended during that same year $621,414.98 and the province of Alberta, $909,020. So I am not at all surprised to see Quebec looking to Ottawa and praying that we come to the rescue of agriculture. Ottawa has not waited for that appeal to be made before appropriating liberal sums towards promoting the development of agriculture in our province.
During the session, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture indulged in disparaging references to this Government, introducing Dominion politics into the provincial arena. If we are to listen to the Quebec minister, the
best investment the Dominion Government could make of its revenue and surpluses is in the shape of grants to agriculture. My answer is that this Government is helping on agriculture by the most practical means and for the loftiest motives. They realize that ' the plough when cutting the first furrow laid the foundations of society.'
In the district of Quebec, the work done Dy the Conservative Government has been of great importance. The early completion of the Transcontinental, the improvement of the Quebec harbour, the Saint-Malo works, the equipping of our national port, the dry dock, the Union station, the railway ferry for the Transcontinental trains, all such works will contribute in a large measure to the development of trade and farm industries.
The Quebec Minister of Agriculture, who is unable to find in our so prosperous province the funds required to promote the development of agriculture, never uttered a word of reproof against the hon. 8. Fisher, whose appropriations for agricultural purposes reached $983,379.93. Mr. Fisher's successor is expending $3,950,090 for that purpose, and the Quebec Minister of Agriculture cannot find words harsh enough to express his contempt for the Conservative Government.
The Quebec Minister of Agriculture bitterly complains of the fact that the Dominion Government insists on specifying the use to be made of the moneys so liberally granted to Quebec. Do not lose sight of the fact that under the Liberal rule, the hon. Mr. Fisher did not provide a single cent for the use of the Quebec minister. Nevertheless the latter was satisfied apparently. He could not find words sweet enough to express his admiration for a Government which did not grant a single farthing towards the improvement of agriculture in his province. The Dominion Conservative Government, on the other hand, appropriates a liberal sum for the benefit of the province of Quebec; not only has he the right, but it is his duty to lay down terms in order to attain the object he has in view, so as not to leave completely subject to the dictum of the provincial governments the use to be made of these moneys, which otherwise might be turned to party ends.
The requirements of the Dominion statute seem to me wholly justified. The Act )f 1912 was provisional and authorized an expenditure for purposes of agriculture in general. The Act of 1913 restricts the objects to which the Dominion subsidy may be applied to agricultural instruction.
The Quebec Minister of Agriculture referred to the injury caused through the spread of tuberculosis among swine and cattle. In his opinion, the Dominion Government should apply part of the Dominion grant to the inspection of herds. I have carefully looked into the reports of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, and I cannot find in it a single reference to the spread of tuberculosis. That disease was prevalent under the Liberal rule, and the hon. minister had not the courage to require the protection of his friends in Ottawa.
An easy answer to the Quebec Minister cf Agriculture is that the matter of cattle inspection cannot properly be included in an enactment concerning agricultural instruction. With a revenue of $13,000,000, the Quebec Government might surely protect our cattle against injury from tuberculosis.
But if Quebec has not the courage to grapple with the difficulty, if Quebec has not the courage to take the requisite means towards preventing the spread of bovine tuberculosis, I shall entreat the Dominion Government to undertake that work in the interest of the farmers of my province.
I protest most strenuously against the treatment dealt out to the farming class m the distribution of the Dominion grant; I am referring just now to the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec. The following facts will surprise the farmers of our province and show to what use are put the moneys voted for agriculture.
In giving out the following information, I deem it preferable to leave out the family names of the men referred to. Mr. A. of the village of St. Roch des Aulnaies, county of l'lslet, was paid a thousand dollars by the Quebec Department of Agriculture, as superintendent of fruit-growing stations. That $1,000 did not come out of the Dominion grant, but was provided out of the treasury of the province of Quebec. He also received $100 for his travelling expenses. That appears on page 389 of the Public Accounts of the province of Quebec.
Personally I have no objection, as they are under my hand. The person I have just referred to is Mr. Auguste Dupuis, of St. Roch des Aulnaies. Mr. Luc J. A. Dupuis, his nephew, of the same village of des Aulnaies, was paid $260 for lectures on agriculture. He has besides an account of $291 for travelling expenses.
Now, let us take up the Dominion grant
which has been granted to the same prov-
inoe of Quebec and with the distributing of which the Quebec Minister of Agriculture has been entrusted. For the fiscal year of 1912-13, I find that the same Auguste Dupuis has benefited by the Dominion grant to the extent of $497.52, for fruit trees, grafting, &c. Mr. Luc Dupuis, residing in the same village of des Aulnaies was paid $479 for lectures and travelling expenses.
On January 14, 1914, Mr. Tellier, leader of the Quebec Opposition, enquired from his seat in the local House what use had been made of the grant of $44,607.22 paid to the province on account of the Dominion grant to agriculture. Among various amounts paid out of that subsidy, I notice $165.65 to Mr. Luc J. A. Dupuis, of the village of des Aulnaies, for salary and expenses as instructor in bee-keeping. Mr. Luc J. A. Dupuis drew $532.70 as inspector of apiaries; Mr. P. A. Dupuis, $312.90 as assistant inspector of apiaries. Mr. L. J. A. Dupuis, the same person mentioned above, received $254.40 for the inspection of sugar bushes. Mr. Auguste Dupuis of the same village of des Aulnaies received $2,400 for fruit trees. Mr. L. J. A. Dupuis was paid $124.30 for inspecting illustration orchards.
According to a report filed at Quebec during the last session, the instructor in beekeeping, the inspector of apiaries, the assistant inspector of apiaries, the inspector of sugar bushes, the inspector of illustration orchards were all selected in the same family, in the same village, and I might almost say in the same household.
Through this political favouritism, the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec runs counter to the most noble efforts of the farmers for the development of agriculture. Politicians have launched out their demands: agriculture is waning fast.
Thanks to the far-seeing efforts of our farmers, thanks to the zeal of the Dominion Government and of several provincial governments, agriculture will progress rapidly and the depletion of the country districts will cease. We will be in a position to let both producers and, consumers come to their own.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on the question of the tobacco industry, especially in the counties of Essex and Kent. There has been a good deal of complaint and dissatisfaction amongst the tobacco growers. It is only a few years ago that the Parliament of Canada so altered the excise regulations that a considerable impetus was given to the tobacco industry. An experimental farm was also established by the
former Government at Harrow in the county of Essex. At one time tobacco growing in these counties was exceedingly profitable, but at the present time, although the crop has been a good and abundant one, the difficulty apparently is in not being able to obtain markets. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) will know whether or not there are similar reports from the other tobacco growing parts of the Dominion, in the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia. The difficulty is that, although the industry has a very considerable protection, the consumers apparently are getting no benefit from this protection, and the growers are getting no benefit. The suggestion is that there is an understanding, or combination, among the manufacturers which is keeping the price down to a point which renders tobacco growing unprofitable. The matter was brought to the attention of the Committee on Agriculture last week by my hon. colleague from West Kent (Mr. McCoig), and I understand that the Government had Mr. Barnet, who has charge of the experimental farm at Harrow, attend the meeting. By this time I would have thought that the minister would have had his report. My object in bringing the matter to his attention now is to know whether anything has been or is being done by the Government with the view of affording relief to those engaged in this industry. Some years ago there was a similar situa
tion. It was suggested that there was a combination of tobacco manufacturers, and the former Government appointed a commission. His Honour Judge MacTavish was sent out, he thoroughly investigated the conditions, and the result was that there was a considerable improvement. I do not know whether the Government is able to do anything, but if it can I would strongly urge upon the minister that some step should be taken in order to endeavour to get at the truth of the matter and see where the trouble lies.
While I am not thoroughly versed in all the. facts, I,think the situation is pretty much as my hon. friend states it. We have been doing something in regard to the tobacco industry chiefly to help it at the productive end in connection with methods o.f growing, of curing and putting up the leaf. The difficulty that is facing the grower now is absolutely and strictly a commercial question such as might turn up in any line of business. For instance, it turns , up to some extent in the fruit
growing industry. It is the question of the relationship between the buyer and seller. The situation is aggravated by reason of the fact that there are so few buyers that they can practically exercise a monopoly, or at all events be in a position to dictate to the producer the price that he shall take. Whether we can step in there is a question that reqjires consideration. I discussed the matter a little with my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) the other day. I do not know whether it has got to the point that the Government can step in and deal with it as a regular combine. I instructed Mr. Barnet who has charge of this work in Essex, to go to the meeting on Saturday, take a note of everything that was said and report to the department. I have not received his report; if it is yet in. It may net be in, but when we have gone further into the matter, if we find that we can do anything to relieve the situation, we will be glad to do it and I will let my hon. friend know.
the purpose of criticising very much the remarks made by the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet). Agriculture is a subject that, in my humble opinion, should be approached without any partisan spirit. I am only sorry to realize that my hon. friend from L'Islet has found it advisable to discuss this most important subject from a political point of view. When we sum up his whole speech we find it to be an unreasonable attack upon the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec, Mr. Caron. I have no brief to defend in this House the action or the administration of the Department of Agriculture in the province of Quebec, but I believe that it is putting the question very fairly to say that in our province there is only one opinion regarding the administration of Mr. Caron. It is above reproach, and it deserves the favourable commendation of the whole people regardless of party politics. 'I think that my hon. friend from L'Islet remembers some of the bitterness of the political fight that took place in the county of L'Islet and in which, I am sorry to say, Mr. Caron was defeated. However that is, I believe the attack is unwarranted. My hon. friend found it advisable also to criticise the amount that is being voted annually by the Government of Quebec in aid of agriculture. He stated that the amount was half a million dollars or thereabouts. That .may be so but in fixing the
amount at $500,000, or thereabouts, my hon. friend overlooks the immense amount of money which is being devoted to highways in our province, which is an indirect but great help to the farming community. He overlooks the great steel bridge industry which is being carried on so successfully in the province of Quebec and so advantageously to the farmer.
I believe that the province of Quebec spent more money on highways this last year than any province in the Dominion regardless of population, and *that its expenditure exceeded that of the province of Ontario.
My hon. friend in criticising the item under discussion also referred to the high cost of living, and strange to say and to believe, the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) thought that the former Government was responsible for the present high cost of living in Canada, and tne reason he assigned for it was that we brought into this country too many immigrants who were consumers instead of producers. The very opposite is the case. The large majority of the immigrants brought into this country by the late Government as well as by this Government are producers and farmers, and not consumers in cities.
My hon. friend has also spoken of experimental farms. He extolled the beneficent action of the Conservative Government in regard to experimental farms. He referred especially to that farm which is known as Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere; but for some reason unknown to me, perhaps better known to himself, he refrained from telling this House who was the creator of that experimental farm. He could as well have said that it was entirely due to the efforts of my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) and to the late Government.
Another point upon which I would like to touch very slightly is the small amount of increase in population in rural Quebec.
I think that my hon. friend stated that the rural population of the province of Quebec had increased by only 39,000. My hon. friend added that this increase was entirely applicable to villages and not to farming communities proper. My hon. friend then would conclude that the population in the rural districts proper, that is outside of the villages, has decreased. Does he know of many farms that have been abandoned in rural Quebec? Does he not know rather
that new towns, or parishes as we call them, entirely composed of farmers, have been established by dozens in the districts of Quebec alone?
to the census are that the rural population has increased by 39,000. My hon. friend says that those are not farmers, that they are village residents. I say that they are farmers, because, in my whole district I do not know of ten farms that have been abandoned by farmers. On the contrary, I know of numbers of new parishes in the district of Quebec alone, entirely composed of farmers.
I really rose for the purpose of asking a few questions of the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I would like to know whether he has received a petition from the farmers of the county of Beauce, which I have the honour to represent, asking for the establishment of a branch station in that county or in the district. This matter was brought to the attention of the hon. minister last year. He promised then that he would give his earnest attention to it. I am informed this year that a largely signed petition has been sent to him asking for the establishment of an experimental farm or demonstration station in the district of Beauce. The reason the farmers in that district ask for such an establishment is the fact that they are remote from any experimental station. The nearest to them is, I think Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, which is a long way off and hard to reach, the railway communication not being direct and the public having to go to Levi3 to get on to the Intercolonial line, and thence to Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere. The other station is at Cap Rouge, in the county of my hon. friend the Postmaster General; and as my hon. friend knows, it is also not very easy of access. I see in the item which was under discussion this afternoon an increase of $110,000 for the' maintenance of central iarms and establishment and maintaining of additional branch stations. Does the hon. minister contemplate establishing in the near future a branch station somewhere in the district of Beauce? This district is composed of the counties of Dorchester and Beauce, and would also take in the county of Megantic, and perhaps a part of the counties of Lot-biniere and Compton. This is essentially an agricultural community, and I think that no money could be spent more wisely
than by establishing a branch farm in that district. I would suggest to the minister, and I am sure that I will have the support of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny) in this instance, that this branch farm be established in the county of Beauce, in that fertile valley called the Chaudiere Valley, where a model farm would be very easily provided and would be very accessible to all the farmers of the surrounding district. I would be pleased it the minister would make a positive declaration that he is going to grant this much-needed branch station in the county of Beauce.
situated next to Beauce. My hon. friend (Mr. Beland) and I very seldom agree; but on this point I must say to the hon. minister it is in the public interest to establish a branch station in that district composed of the counties of Beauce, Dorchester, Rellechasse, Levis, notbini&re and Megantic. My hon. friend from Beauce told us a few minutes ago that the station at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere was established because the member for that county succeeded, when his party was in power, in getting such a station. I am sorry to say that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) had not the same success in obtaining an experimental farm for our district when his party was in power, though I think a station of that kind was more wanted in the district of Beauce than in the county of Kamouraska. I hope to hear an expression on this subject from the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I should much like to have such a station in our district, and it goes without saying that I want it in the finest county of this Dominion, the county of Dorchester, which I represent. It will be in the same district, and so it will be very easy for the people of Beauce to come to my county. They can come with their member, and they may rest assured that we shall always be delighted to give them a good reception.
Mr. Chairman, I was aware that the hon. member for Beauce is an expert at speaking the tongue of Shakespeare, and I congratulate him in this connection, but representing as he does a French-speaking constituency of the province of Quebec, and having to deal with the remarks made by the hon. member for L'Islet, he should not, to my mind, have shown such disdain of his mother tongue as to demur answering him
in the language spoken by the great majority of his electors.
After tlhe example set by the hon. member for L'lslet, I take pleasure in congratulating the Dominion Government on its happy thought of encouraging agriculture by all possible means. Thus the very first year we appropriated a million dollars for that purpose. The second year we appropriated another million which was distributed among the various provinces and put at the disposal of the provincial ministers of agriculture in every case. It was not possible to do more, or to show a better disposition, and the most satisfactory results were expected. However, in spite of that material assistance provided by the Dominion Government, I am sorry to find that the amount allotted to the province of Quebec has not *been used quite in accordance with the purpose assigned to it. Far from it, in cases unfortunately too numerous, the grant was used not only towards inducing Liberal voters to vote against us, but even to create positions for opponents whom even we had dismissed. We made our own friends angry and laid ourselves open to reproof on their part, while at the same time we utterly failed to attain the object we were aiming at, which was to spread a knowledge of agriculture without distinction of party affiliations. From the experience acquired during the two last years, I come to the conclusion that, as regards the province of Quebec, it would be preferable to discontinue granting this subsidy and to establish instead experimental farms, rather than put these moneys in the hands of untrustworthy and shameless politicians as are to be found in the narrow circle of those holding power in Quebec.
I have just listened to the speech of the hon. member for L'Islet and his statements are not of a nature to surprise us in the least, knowing as we do the class of men with whom we have to deal in Quebec and who have given such strong evidence of grafting propensities of late. Partisanship is rife, and with their minds imbued with narrow prejudices, office holders are unable to rise above what they conceive to be in the interest of their party.
It is deeply to be regretted that the public funds appropriated to certain purposes by the Conservative party in Ottawa, should be put to such vile and Shameful use by the Quebec Liberal Administration. I may be allowed to give an instance. The county of Rimouski, which I have the honour to represent, has a population of 55,000 souls. Out of the Dominion grant voted for that
province, and which exceeded $109,000, how much do you think the Quebec Government *set aside for the county of Rimouski? The paltry sum of $326.39. That is what the Liberals have done to promote agriculture in the county of Rimouski. So I say that these moneys have been wrongly used, have been applied in the most unfair way, and if the distribution of the moneys is to be continued on those lines, it will be necessary to change our form of grant.
After listening to the particulars given by the hon. member for L'Islet, I agree with him that a revolting spirit of partisanship was exhibited by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture in fixing that amount of grant for his former constituency. Indeed the personal friends of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture have pocketed a total of $2,805.72, and the population of the county of L'lslet is only 16,000, while Rimouski, with a population of 55,000 souls, got only $326.39.
Thus we have, to the great satisfaction of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) a fine school of agriculture in the county of Kamouraska, a school which gives excellent results, while in the counties of Temiscouata, Rimouski, Matane, Bonaven-ture, Gaspe, we find that practically nothing has been done to encourage our farmers and educate them, although the n ed for such .is more strongly felt in that part of the country than in any other. The county of Rimouski is especially in need of encouragement, its geographical situation resulting in a more rigorous climate. Our farmers have to contend against protracted and severe winters, late spr ng and early autumn frosts-frosts even during the summer season. It happens that we are obliged to keep the stock indoors for seven months in the year and over, and so I say the Government should make in our behalf heavier sacrifices than in behalf of more favoured localities. We have an excellent class of farmers, of undaunted courage and who would rejoice at seeing the Government intent on assisting them more efficiently through the establishment of a school of agriculture, let us say in the valley of the Matapedia, where it would be of use to the whole Gaspe peninsula, as well as to Rimouski and Matane.
Therefore I sincerely trust that the hon. minister will earnestly consider this question to which I already referred last year, when the estimates were before the House. As I said a moment ago fihat part
of the country should be the object of especial care on the part of the Government. We can make fine farming districts of the counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe, whereas at the present time the only class of people to be found there are fishermen, well worthy of our esteem, no doubt, but whose condition might be improved. As for the Liberal partisans, whose dealings have been severely criticised by the hon. member for L'Islet,
I am not surprised at t'heir conduct. Indifferent as they have shown themselves to be while in power to the real progress of agriculture, they continue, while in opposition, to secretly and stealthily put obstacles in the way of this Government's efforts towards bettering the conditions under which agriculture is carried on in this country.
Accordingly, the Bills which we had passed providing for the improvement of highways and the purchase of branch railways have been rejected by the Senate. Being jealous of the popularity accruing to the Conservative party on account of its far-seeing management of public affairs, and fearing with reason the effect that such wise administration would have, the L b-eral party is seeking to defeat that purpose by petty trtokery. They are not the true friends of the people those who act only through motives of spite and revenge, and the people in time will know who are their true friends.
Will my 'hon. friend allow me to ask a question? He has just stated that the Senate has rejected a Bill providing -a grant of money for the improvement of highways. He is well aware that such is not the case.