the point-the year before. The estimates of the year before and this year are exactly identical, $230,000. The minister informs the committee that the cow-testing appropriation is not included this year, that it is to be added to some other item; so that really this item has increased this year from $230,000 to $271,000, and if you take the Finch creamery which formed part of the $230,000 of last year, and add this year, you have your estimates increased from $230,000 to $287,000. That is what it comes down to. My point is this: if $28,000 is disclosed in the expenditure for the new factory in Quebec, what does the other expenditure consist of, or is there some other expenditure?
I cannot follow the hon. gentleman's figuring, but I know we will use all this money before the end of the fiscal year in the activities I have mentioned, in connection with the Finch factory and other services. We did not do any cow testing last year under the dairy vote, so that my hon. friend's computation in regard to the $41,000 is quite wrong. There was nothing spent under this same vote of last year.
to cold storages. There is a small bonus of $100 for the purpose of putting in creamery cold storages. I think the maximum is $100. The amount paid in 1924-25 was $2,700, for the purpose of supplying ice cold storage for temporary purposes.
the minister is asking us to blindly vote a lot of this money without very much information. Now taking the last report available, the Auditor General's statement for the year ending March 31, 1924, I find $8,000 paid out in bonuses, and with the exception of $100 paid in Alberta, it was all paid in one province. This was the province of Quebec; and yet the minister is going to transfer the station from the province of Ontario and place it in the province of Quebec. Why does he not present to the committee a detailed statement as to what he intends to use this money for? Would it not be more satisfactory to inform the committee why he requires the money, instead of putting it under the head of dairying? We would know how much of it was going for the payment of officials, what they were supposed to be doing, and how much would be paid for bonuses and anything of that nature. As it is there is just a blank note of so many hundred thousand dollars
under the head of dairying and that is a very misleading word when it covers such a wide range of expenditures. We have $5,000 for bringing the members of the National Dairy Council here to Ottawa, several hundred dollars for entertaining them and expenses of this kind, and the minister says, "Oh, but we must expand." The appointment of officials apparently is his idea of expansion. If the minister would undertake to present a detailed statement before the committee as to what amount was intended for each branch of the department under the head of dairying it would facilitate matters very much, and I would suggest that the committee rise and that the minister present us with a report of that nature when the matter comes before the House again.
The applicants for this bonus receive it when they comply with the conditions under which it is given. When the construction of a cold storage is made according to the specification the bonus of $100 is paid. A large number applied this year and some were held over because we were afraid our vote would be exhausted before the end of the year, but none of those who comply with the conditions are refused. Rather than run short of money eight or nine applications have been held over. They are the ones we naturally expect to give the bonus to next year. We expect there will be thirty-five in all, and that will clear up all the applications. No one is refused so long as he complies with the conditions.