Well, Mr. Speaker, the section to which I referred a moment ago,
which was not read but which is answered by the part of the telegram now referred to, is as follows:
Another man I know well shipped 100 head to Gladstone, Manitoba, where they are being wintered. This man is well known to the Minister of Agriculture because he was a contractor who from the government which held office prior to 1929-
That is the government of which I then was the head.
-had received many contracts. He built bridges north of Wolseley across the Qu'Appelle river, and built an overhead bridge at Roche Percee.
That, by the way, happens to be in the constituency I now represent in this house.
He went out to British Columbia this year, in company with his two sons and a nephew, and made money. One son told me that his father had drawn $12 a day all summer and that the boys had drawn $7. That man had one hundred and ninety head of cattle, and did not sacrifice any of them. They shipped three carloads, with free freight, to Gladstone, Manitoba, and are wintering at that point.
Then I put in a remark which was intended to be in the form of a question. It is not so reported, and I would suggest that it might be put in that form.
Mr. Gardiner: We paid the freight?
Mr. Perley: Yes, you paid the freight; I
am glad the minister mentioned that. That man was no more entitled to free freight than the man in the moon. He had been a contractor all his years; he had built the bridge at Roche Percee.
Again referring to my own seat.
He had one hundred and ninety head of cattle, three cars of which he had shipped to market, and certainly was not entitled to free freight on the others.
I wish to point out that the facts are these: This man does not now and to my knowledge never did live within the one hundred per cent drought area. He lived outside the one hundred per cent drought area but within the area from which cattle are shipped free of freight for anyone who wants to ship cattle out and bring them back again to their present location next spring. The references to myself, and to a section of my constituency that has no relation to the matter under discussion, apparently are made with certain intentions, and I think I am within my rights in this house in drawing the attention of the house to the fact and to indicate that they do not apply to the discussion in any way whatever. I would suggest that the latter part of the telegram in question is a complete reply, in that it indicates that the gentleman who is being discussed, although known to myself, previous to July
Diversion of Water
last was a tenant on lands owned by the hon. member who was discussing this matter in the house.