Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

No.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Some of us would like to

speak on the item.

Mr. BENNETT:

The item then will stand and we shall go on with Agriculture this evening. As I say, I shall not be present

to-night. Therefore I have suggested, if the committee so desires, the item may stand and we shall proceed with the Agriculture items.

Item stands.

At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. VALLANCE:

I wonder if the minister would give us some idea as to how he proposes to effect this decrease of $63,700 as compared with the expenditure under this item last year.

Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :

The decrease of $63,700 is distributed as follows:

Actual disbursements from the appropriation for the development of the dairying industry have for the past two years been about $275,000 and each year, the amount which lapsed

was about $ 20,000

Vote for National Dairy Council is

eliminated 5,000

Ten per cent of total pay roll outside

service 16,636

It is suggested that the following deductions be made effective:

(1) Printing 1,000

(2) Temporary laboratory assistant

at Quebec 296

Temporary laboratory assistant

at Montreal 470

Temporary laboratory assistant

at Toronto 375

Temporary laboratory assistant

at Winnipeg 280

(3) Three positions (cargo inspectors)

to remain vacant 5,500

Rental of one office 120

Dec., Jan. and Feb. salary and expenses of four cargo inspectors (formerly sent to Saint John, N.B. and Portland, Maine) 2,500

(7) Reduction in cost of iced car

services 1,000

(8) Creamery cold storage bonuses

paid 4,300

Supply-Agriculture

(12) 1 position (inspector of dairy

products) to remain vacant.. 1,620

(13) Milk utilization service:

Cost of making and preparing exhibits, demonstrations and

exhibitions 2,000

Special investigator of adulteration of dairy products.. .. 2,603

Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):

May I ask who is the acting dairy commissioner in Doctor Ruddick's place?

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

Mr. Singleton.

Mr. BROWN:

It seems to me that before we discuss these estimates in detail we ought to have some explanation as to the general policy that is behind the reduction. It will be observed that there is a total reduction in the estimates for agriculture of $3,297,471.74. It may very well be that in some departments of the government economy can be very properly practised. But in view of the importance of agriculture in the economic life of Canada,-which is recognized by every member of this house; for over and over again we have heard it stated that the farmers are the backbone of the country and that unless agriculture prospers there can be no prosperity in Canada-and that in this country we can only hope for a restoration of favourable economic conditions by the rehabilitation of agriculture, it does seem to me that it is false economy to make such drastic cuts in the agriculture estimates.

The CHAIRMAN:

Unless it is with the unanimous consent of the committee, the members must confine themselves to the item under discussion.

Mr. BROWN:

I think it has usually been the custom in this house, Mr. Chairman, to have a discussion of the estimates in general.

The CHAIRMAN:

I know, but I am stating the rule.

Mr. BROWN:

We have had a great many proposals for the help of agriculture. This afternoon we had a discussion on the five cents a bushel bonus on wheat, and it was quite evident from the discussion that the farmers are not very greatly enamoured of a bonus on wheat or on anything else. It is generally recognized that such a procedure is wrong, and while temporary relief might be afforded by a bonus it could not ultimately redound to the advantage of agriculture or of the country in general. Of course we know that these estimates are not sanctioned simply by the

Minister of Agriculture himself, but represent the joint conclusion of the whole cabinet, and undoubtedly the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have set the seal of their approval on the reductions that have been made. But I repeat it does seem strange that at this time, when agriculture is at such a low ebb that everything that can possibly be done to assist it should be done,-these estimates should be cut so drastically. There may be some places where economies would be desirable. There may have been expenditures in the past in certain directions that were not fully justified. I think the hon. member for Weyburn and myself will heartily approve of the action of the minister and the government in cutting out the grant to the National Dairy Council. The council became simply a propagandist organization to promote the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite who are advocating protection. But in many of the estimates before us there should be no reduction at all. Indeed, the conditions that prevail in this country to-day would warrant an increase in many of these items. That is all I wish to say generally on these items, as we shall have the opportunity to discuss each one as it comes up and to point out the evil that is likely to result if these reductions are carried into effect.

Mr. HAY:

May I ask the hon. gentleman if he is opposed to the bonus on wheat?

Mr. BROWN:

There is no bonus on wheat.

Mr. HAY:

The proposed bonus.

Mr. BROWN:

I am not in favour of bonuses of any kind. I think that is a wrong way to help agriculture, and if hon. gentlemen oposite would give a little more consideration to the real difficulties in which the farmer is involved it would be better. It is a mystery to me why men should persist in advocating a bonus on wheat and yet stand for high tariffs on everything the farmer buys. Let us get straight in our thinking on these matters that affect agriculture.

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

The question raised by the hon. member for Lisgar was as to the policy behind these cuts in the estimates. I would suggest that the best way to answer his query would be to deal with each item as we come to it, when the explanation for the reduction can be given.

Mr. VALLANCE:

Before that is done, may I point out that the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are being decreased by about thirty-three and one third per cent, a decrease greater than in the estimates of any [DOT]other department of the government. I am

Supply-Agriculture

absolutely in accord with the argument made by the hon. member for Lisgar that this is no time to cut the estimates for agriculture. I wonder if the hon. member who asked the hon. member for Lisgar just where he or we stood regarding wheat bonuses was in the house yesterday when I asked the Prime Minister the intention of the government in connection with bonusing not only wheat but all farm products. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour quite frankly pointed out that at the present time the government had no policy, but that if conditions arose which would warrant their doing so they were prepared to take the necessary steps. Up to the *present time, however, the government have admitted that they have no policy in connection with the bonusing of agricultural products. Realizing that all the estimates which come before this house must be approved by the treasury board, I should like the Minister of Agriculture to tell me why all other ministers heading the various governmental departments were able to convince the treasury board that it was not necessary to make the cuts in their departments which were found necessary in the Department of Agriculture. As shown by the estimates, agriculture carries the greatest decrease of any governmental department. Why should that be so?