included in that estimate, may I ask what about the money spent in eradicating tuberculosis? What about the money spent on this magnificent park down along the canal? Does my hon. friend want to charge all that against the farmers? I am admitting, of course, that that money ought to be paid.
That is because we want to get at the facts. I suppose there is an item included in the estimates for research. Assuming it was possible by scientific investigation to find a remedy for rust in wheat, would that benefit only the farmers, or would it benefit the people of the whole Dominion?
of my hon. friends is and always has been that what helps the farmer helps the whole country- but that which helps the manufacturer does not help anybody else. I do not wish to be unfair to my hon. friends, but at times they give one the impression of absolute selfishness in their attitude. I do not mean to say that to hurt their feelings at all, but when they argue that expenditure for experimental farms is of any benefit whatever to me they argue something that is beyond my comprehension.
an appropriation for experimental farms to a grant of so much per ton of production to a particular industry? Does he not rather think that a bounty must be a payment on the basis of so much say per bushel produced- that is, if he wants to make the comparison?
now arguing as to how it is done; I am not going into these little details. The point is this: Experimental farms are directly of advantage to the farmer, and agricultural colleges are directly of advantage to the farmer.
Yes I do, and I consider it of great advantage to the farmer that he is able to sell his goods to the implement manufacturers and their employees. But that is what the farmer does not see; that is what
he does not admit. This afternoon some speaker derided the home market. Certainly I do say that, in a general way, as this helps the farmer it helps the whole country.