The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

-»' a e in n -- V' ENt 4 .f-_g' V t -- ("_ -J. pr+ * THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17 1921. 2 66 99 | Extravagant Farmer-ways, Subject of Severe ; Attacks | !BROKERS ARE FATTENING{ 5 Ki t iProvmclal Bonds Bought as| | Low as 95 Soar | | to Par | ~ | Remrnennmemmemm enc ' An--actual deficit of $1,700,000, | ;more than double that reported to. \the Legislature by Provincial Trea-- |\surer Smith, was what Charles Mc-- 'Crea, Conservative member for Sud-- bury, professed yesterday to have found in the mass of statistics tabled Tuesday by Hon. Mr. Smith. Mr. | * McCrea said the Provincial Treasur-- | er had wrongly charged hundreds of | thousands of dollars to capital ex-- | PR penditure. | Both Mr. McCrea and W. E. N.l Sinclair, Liberal, South Ontario, who | preceded him, pointed out to the| Government the need for curtailing! expenditures somewhere. Mr. Mc-- Crea said he believed that the Gov-- ernment was heading toward an ex-- | penditure of from $75,000,000 to $100,000,000 in 1921. The member for South Ontario twitted the Gov-- ernment supporters across the House on the fact that only six out of 254 s bills introduced last session related to agriculture. | Mr. Sinclair's Criticism. Resuming his criticism of the Budget, Mr. W. E. N. Sinclair of South Ontario, Liberal, stated that in | his opinion the Attorney--General 'should not have expended public \ money in the defense of a certain | civil action that had arisen in his ad-- gminlstration of the O.T.:A. ! |\_ _ Regarding fiotations of loans, the | |Liberal critic drew the attention of the | House to the low rates at which the 'lbonds had been sold and reiterated |his opinion of Tuesday that the |bonds should have been disposed of by public tender. The Provincial !bonds, he continued, immediately |they were in the hands of the brok-- l ers, had appreciated in value very! jmaterially; bonds that brought as | |low as 95, or less, when disposed ofl | were now selling at par. "I want to touch the pet subject' of agriculture," went on Mr. Sinclair. \There had been, he said, only sixt | bills last session dealing with the agricultural industry. Apparently | the Farmer members had not made | use of their privilege of putting billsl through the House. Hon. Mr. Raney--Does the honor--| 'lable gentleman therefore exonerate f lthe Farmers from the charge of class € ' Government? l'Why They Leave Farms. :l The increase in the urban popula-- , | tion of Onturio was not due to de-- ;'crease in the population of rural |areas, was the contention of the ~!member for South Ontario. -- Rural . depopulation, he said, was due in ® \no small part to the wider use of \labor--saving machinery, and _ was ginot reflected in rural decay such as | had been painted by some spesauk-- [ l ers. Emigration to Western Canada, i a declining birth--rate, and desire on ';lthe part of farm children for higher education, all had played a part in --| drawing people from the farms of ' | the Province. | "I do not see how any industry | under the sun could stand _ the. 3 amount of knocking that is done,| Acad" * s