1922-05-15

SUPPLY BILL

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: At the previous sitting of the House I intimated that it was very desirable that we should to-day have concurrence in the reports of Committee of Supply which we have already had, in order that we might complete a Supply Bill with particular reference to closing the accounts of the past year. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to take those formal proceedings to-day, and if there is no objection I move that we take up Government Orders.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: I know of no special reason for objecting to this other than the absence of the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and I would not press that objection if it is going seriously to inconvenience the Government; but if not, I would suggest that the matter stand over until to-morrow.


William Stevens Fielding: I am quite willing to concur in the suggestion of the right hon. member. I have no desire to press the motion unduly.
Motion stands.



NATURAL RESOURCES OF PRAIRIE PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister), laid on the Table correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta since July, 1920, respecting the transfer of natural resources. He said:
I am bringing down all the correspondence which I am able to find.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. D. D. McKENZIE (Solicitor General) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 92, to amend the Dominion Elections Act. He said:
The House will remember that two resolutions with regard -to amending the Dominion Elections Act were introduced this year and accepted by the House. Both of them have reference to section 29 of the present Elections Act. One has special reference to the removal of the disqualification of certain women voters, a matter which has been very much discussed in this House and with which hon. members are familiar. The other has reference to continuing the qualification of a voter, male or female, who may have moved his or her domicile or residence within two months before an election. Those are the two principal matters dealt with in this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River) :: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I should be glad if the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mackenzie King) would inform the House whether any arrangement has been made in connection with the holidays next week. Usually the House has not sat on the 24th of May, and there is another holiday on the following day.


Mr. BUREAU:: We never sit on Ascension Day.


Robert James Manion: Will the Prime Minister say what the intention of the Government is in the matter?


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: I shall move that when the House adjourns on Tuesday next, the 23rd instant, it shall stand adjourned until the following Friday. Wednesday and Thursday will both be observed as holidays.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Why not include Friday too?

Canadian Transit Co.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As regards Friday, the Government, I think, would like to carry out the wishes of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not Friday, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apparently there is a difference of opinion on the question.



GRAIN TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Some time ago an hon. member called the attention of the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) to a decision of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba on the question of federal jurisdiction in the matter of the grain trade. That decision was of a very serious nature and the Minister of Justice stated at the time that he was securing information as to its effect before determining what course the Government should follow. Since then some two weeks or more have elapsed. If the decision goes to the extent that it appears to go, there will be cause for action on the part of Government and Parliament, unless the whole supervision of the grain trade is to remain in the most precarious position. I now call the attention of the Government to the matter again. Although the Minister of Justice is absent, I hope we may have a statement on the subject from the Solicitor-General or the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As soon as the Minister of Justice returns I will ask him to make a note of the remarks just made by my right hon. friend.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 86 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edwin Dixon Weir.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 87 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henry James Bristol.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 88 (from the Senate), for the relief of Florant Brys,-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill No. 89 (from the Senate), for the relief of Catherine Rudd.-Mr. Ryck-man.
Bill No. 90 (from the Senate), for the relief of Norman Edward Harris.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 91 (from the Senate), for the relief of Maria Amy Drury.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 81 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alexander Frederick Naylor.- Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 82 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Yallowley Jones Con-alty.

Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 83 (from the Senate), for the relief of Telesphore Joseph Morin.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 84 (from the Senate), for the relief of Daisy Mary Nicholson.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 52, respecting the Canadian Transit Company, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
On section 2-Head office:
Mr. McBRIDE:: I took exception to this bill the last time it was before the House and asked that it be referred back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines. When it was before that committee I did not consider that it received either the time or the attention to which it was entitled. As I said before, the word " Canadian " in the name of the company lends a certain prestige to the concern; and I notice in the press that another corporation is to be known as the German-Canadian Company. Now, I think that if this company desires to have whatever advantage may attach to this special designation it should have its head office in Canada and should be Canadian in fact. I do not see why it should have the title " Canadian " and hold its meetings in other countries. I would like an explanation of this before the bill is passed.


Mr. RANKIN:: The home of the company is in Windsor where its head office is situated, although it is true that a great many shareholders and some of the directors live in Detroit. For the accommodation of those shareholders it has been deemed advisable to hold some of the meetings in that city. The same practice, I may observe, prevails in connection with the Niagara Bridge Company, some of the meetings of which are held in Niagara, Ontario, and some in Buffalo. There is nothing derogatory of the national dignity of this country in the matter; it is purely a question of courtesy to the shareholders and directors who reside out of Canada. The amendments which are proposed have been found necessary to facilitate the business of the

Canadian Transit Co.
company in different ways. I repeat, the company has its head office in Windsor, and its place of business is in this country. I can see no objection to the passage of this bill.


Thomas George McBride: I do not think the explanation is entirely satisfactory. The name of the concern is the Canadian Transit Company, and all its meetings should be held in Canada.


Mr. CARROLL:: The company is already incorporated and this bill is simply to amend the original act to facilitate the shareholders in transacting business on the American border. We are not giving the company a new name, and, as my hon. friend (Mr. Rankin) has explained, the head office is in Windsor.


Mr. HANSON:: Notwithstanding that
statement, I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that a subsequent section in the amending bill provides that the company shall be taken out of the provisions of the Railway Act 1919, under which the meetings of the company should be regularly held in Canada. The section to which I refer says:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Railway Act 1919, any general meeting of the share holders of the company, whether annual or special, may be held elsewhere than at the head office of the company; and may he held at the city of Detroit, in the state of Michigan, one of the United States of America.
I do not know what the practice of this House has been in the past, but it does seem to me that companies organized under Canadian jurisdiction should be Canadian in fact as well as in name and should be amenable to all the laws of this country. In the absence of some very much better explanation than that which has been given by the sponsor of this bill, I submit that this section should not carry.


Mr. MARTELL:: So far as I understand
the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Rankin), this section is simply to provide for the shareholders holding meetings in Detroit as being the more convenient centre. The head office of the company still remains at Windsor notwithstanding anything in this amending act, and of course all the books of the company will be kept there; in a word, everything pertaining to the company will be in Windsor, and the company will continue to be amenable to our laws. As a matter of courtesy and convenience this amendment is neces-
112J
sary to legalize anything that the shareholders might do at any meetings called in the city of Detroit, where the majority of them reside, and simply gives what I term extra-territorial jurisdiction.


Mr. MacLAREN:: As Detroit is very
near the border it is consequently very near many Canadian towns. If, for instance. Windsor were the city designated for the shareholders' meetings, it could hardly be said that it would be any inconvenience to either the directors or the shareholders to attend there. This would save time and would ensure all meetings being held where I think they should be held, in Canada.


James Arthurs: The whole purport of
this bill, so far as I understand, is to designate where the head office shall be. There is no question in my mind that the company should not be allowed to have its head office nor to hold its meetings in Detroit.


William Stevens Fielding: Was this point considered by the committee which examined the bill? If it was, and they gave their deliberate judgment in favour of the amendment, I would be inclined to accept it. If it was not considered by the committee, there may be good reason to refer the bill back to them.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The question was considered by the committee, and I do not think there should be any objection to the amendment. It is only a matter of business after all. You have got to make it convenient for the shareholders to attend meetings, and undoubtedly for the majority of them Detroit would be the more convenient centre. We have the same thing at Niagara Falls. The Bridge Company can hold its meetings either in Niagara Falls, Ontario, or in Niagara Falls, New York, but as a matter of fact the shareholders generally meet in Buffalo, that being the most convenient point for the majority of them. The same thing will apply in this case, Detroit will suit the convenience of the majority of the shareholders of this company. I think the clause should carry.


Thomas George McBride: I do not think this
bill got proper consideration by the committee. It was a special committee, they had to send whips out to get a quorum, and the committee sat less than twenty minutes. In my view the bill did not get the consideration it was entitled to.
Questions


Mr. CRERAR:: What is the nature of
the business of this company; is it international in character?


James Palmer Rankin: It is ar company to
build an international bridge between Windsor and Detroit, which will be one of the most important international structures undertaken in many years, and it will probably result in great benefit to both countries. The clause was fully considered in committee and passed. There is nothing in this bill except a few simple amendments. I do not understand why hon. gentlemen should object to this clause if it will expedite the business of the corporation, as it undoubtedly will.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: How long has the company been in existence?


James Palmer Rankin: Since 1921. The head
office is in Windsor and will remain there; that is the whole thing. This clause is to facilitate the business of the company and to show good-will towards the Detroit shareholders and directors.


Mr. KENNEDY (Essex) :: I know the
gentlemen associated with this company, which is formed for the purpose of building an international bridge between Detroit and Windsor. There are a great number of American shareholders, and the principal directors, including Mr. Hiram Walker, live in Detroit. It is a matter of convenience to these gentlemen to have the meetings of the company held in Detroit. I think that is the sole purpose of the amendment.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am asking merely for
information. The majority of the stockholders and the directors, I take it, live on the American side, although the company was incorporated under a Canadian charter?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think that
is so.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In that case I can see
no objection to the bill.


Mr. McCONICA:: I happened to be a
member of that special committee, and while I am not fully advised as to this bill, I understand it was carefully considered, the solicitor of the company appearing before the committee and explaining the purpose of the bill. As I recall, two companies were usually formed for such a purpose as this,-the building of an international bridge. There will be an office on the Ontario side and one on the Michigan side. It was held that certain amendments should be made to enlarge to some extent the powers of the company, and to extend the courtesy to the American shareholders of allowing them to hold their meetings on either side as they might see fit. The majority of the stockholders in this international bridge are supposed to live on the other side of the river; but there is no danger of the bridge being moved away, no matter where the meetings are held, and it seems to me that if we want an international bridge it makes but little difference where the stockholders hold their meetings providing we have control of the Canadian company, which we will at all times have. I think the committee were fully advised as to this measure when it was under consideration by them.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)

Mr. CLARK:: 1.	Has the law firm of Fisher and Oughton acted on behalf of the Dominion Government as custodians of alien property in the city of Prince Rupert, British Columbia?
2.	Did the said firm act in the case of property of M. Thorsch, an Austrian, and was said firm ordered to hand conduct of this case over to the law firm of Williams and Manson?
3.	Is the Attorney General, the Honourable A. M. Manson, a member of the firm of Williams and Manson?
4.	Was the firm of Fisher and Oughton ordered to hand over all papers in connection with enemy property to Williams and Manson?
5.	Is there a record in the department concerned of the fact that one of the partners of Fisher and Oughton was a returned soldier who suffered a permanent disability as a result of wounds received in the late war?
6.	If the above change has occurred, when and why was it made?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Messrs. Fisher & Oughton, of Prince Rupert, acted as law agents on behalf of the Custodian of Enemy Property.
2.	The said firm of Fisher & Oughton acted on behalf of the Custodian of Enemy Property in effecting a sale of certain property, the property of M. Thorsch, an Austrian. By telegram dated 25th February last Messrs. Fisher & Oughton were instructed, take ncf further action on behalf of custodian, and by letter dated 16th March last they were requested to hand

Questions
over to Messrs. Williams & Manson all the papers in their possession.
3.	Yes.
4.	Answered by 2.
5.	Department has no information.
6.	The change referred to was made as set out in answer to question 2. It was made for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the administration of enemy property.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many inmates are there in the penitentiaries of Canada of the ages of sixteen, seventeen and eighteen?
2.	Were any complaints received hy the Department of Justice about the practice of sending such youthful offenders to these institutions?
3.	Does the Government propose to provide a better method of dealing with these youthful inmates and a more suitable institution for them?
4.	Are any negotiations pending with the Government of the provinces to provide better detention place for them on a modern jail farm plan?
5.	Does the Government intend to amend the act or regulations, to enable the Superior Court or assize grand jury, to inspect these institutions in the public interest, while the sittings of the high court are being held in the municipality where such institutions are located?
6.	Has the Government any objection to such an inspection as suggested?
7.	Is it the intention of the Government to appoint a special committee to consider prison reform, or what action in the matter does the Government purpose to take this session or in the coming recess of Parliament.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: 1.	Inmates 16 years, 18; inmates 17 years, 63; inmates 18 years, 82.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Government will give careful consideration to the matter.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	Yes. The superintendent, the inspectors and all the wardens have objections to inspection by grand juries, but have no objection to admitting them as casual visitors, or in special circumstances.
7.	The intention of the Government will be disclosed in due time.
Mr. R. B. VEIT-Mr. BLAND


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Is there an employee by the name of R. B. Veit in the Customs Department, at Ottawa?
2.	If so, at what date, month and year, was he appointed?
3.	In what capacity and at what salary?
4.	What was his salary on the first of April of the respective years 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922?
5.	At what date, month and year, was he classified?
6.	In what class and at what salary?
7.	What was the total amount of back pay he received up to the first of April, 1922?
8.	Is he related to Mr. Foran, Secretary of the Civil Service Commission?
9.	If so, what is the relationship?
10.	Is Mr. Bland, the Assistant Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, related to Mr. R. R. Farrow, Commissioner of Customs?
11.	If so, what is the relationship?
12.	At what date, month and year, was Mr. Bland appointed?
13.	In what capacity and at what salary?
14.	What was his salary on the first of April of the respective years 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922?
15.	At what date, month and year, was he classified?
16.	In what class and at what salary?
17.	What was the total amount of back pay he received up to the first of April, 1922?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	No, but the inquiry apparently refers to A. E. J. M. Veit, an employee of this department.
2.	August 1, 1908.
3.	Preventive officer, $900 per year.
4.	1st April, 1918, $1,550; 1st April, 1919, $1,680; 1st April, 1920, $1,800; 1st April, 1921, $2,400; 1st April, 1922, $2,520.
5.	Classified-effective April 1, 1919.
6.	Senior entry checking clerk-salary $1,680.
7.	$363.35.
8.	9, 10, 11. No official information.
12.	Permanent, 27th April, 1909.
13.	Clerk 2B, $800.
14.	1918, on military service; 1919, $3,060; 1920, $3,240; 1921, $3,660; 1922, $3,840.
15.	April 1, 1919-Assistant Secretary, $3,060; February 1, 1921, Assistant Secretary and Chief Examiner, $3,660.
16.	Answered by No. 15.
17.	1919-20, $960; 1920-21, $355;-$1,315.
Dr. B. A. LE BLANC


Mr. JONES:: 1.	When was Dr. B. A'. Le Blanc, M.P.P., appointed as Port Physician at the port of Arichat, Cape Breton?
2.	Is he still in the service?
3.	If not, when was he dismissed from the service, and what was the reason for his dismissal?
4.	Is there any record of a complaint made as to his services?
5.	If so, what is the nature of said complaint and by whom was it laid?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	May 13, 1912.
2.	No.
3.	Services terminated on May 1, 1922. An increased efficiency is sought by the appointment of another physician.
Questions

4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


&quot;ESSENCE DE L'EHABLE&quot;
Mr. McMASTER:: 1.	Is the Government aware that a complaint has been laid by the grocers of Montreal through their solicitor, Mr. Aub6, against the Radio Manufacturing Company lor the manufacture of an essence sold under the name of "Essence de l'Brable"?
2.	Is it a fact that the manufacture of this product is in contravention of the statute, Chap. 57, 11 George V?
3.	In view of this fact, has any complaint been brought before the Government that the inspectors concerned have been charged with a dereliction of duty?
4.	Does the Government propose to hold an investigation into this matter?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3	and 4. Answered by No. 2.
Question No. 33 is substantially the same as that which I have just answered.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question No. 33 dropped.


REFUND OF DUTIES ON STEEL RODS
Mr. ANDERSON:: 1.	Has the P. L. Robertson Company of Milton, Ontario, made any claim for the return of money paid as Customs duties on steel rods, in 1913?
2.	If so, what action has been taken by the Government in this connection?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Yes; claim made for refund of duties paid on steel rods entered in October, 1913.
2.	Payment of $80.40 made March 13th, 1914.


ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has the Government, or any member thereof, agreed with the Government of the Province of New Brunswick, or any member thereof, to take over from the Province of New Brunswick the Saint John and Quebec Railway, now being operated by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, what are the terms under which said railway is being taken over?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


NAVAL OFFICERS
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Has the Naval Service Department a Naval Council on the same footing as the Militia Council?
2.	If so, who are the members of said council?
3.	Do they receive any additional salary in this connection?

4.	What are their respective salaries?
5.	If there is no naval council, who nominates and promotes the naval officers?
6.	Is the deputy minister of the Canadian Naval Service an officer of the said service, or does he come under the Civil Service Commission?
7.	Are most of the officials naval officers having the same standing as those of the Militia Department, or do they come under the Civi Service Commission as in other departments?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered	by	No.	1.3.	Answered	by	No.	1.4.	Answered	by	No.	1.5.	The Minister	of the Naval Service.6.	The Deputy Minister is a civilian official as defined by the Civil Service Act Section 46.7.	There are seven commissioned naval officers at headquarters. All other employees at headquarters are civilians appointed under the Civil Service Act.


FUEL QUESTION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government either now or during the recess of Parliament, to hold a thorough inquiry into the fuel question in Canada?
2.	What action, if any, does the Government intend to take to aid in reducing the cost of coal to the Canadian consumer?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: *
1.	The question of future fuel supply in Canada was the subject of inquiry by a special committee of the House of Commons in the last session of Parliament. Under the circumstances, another inquiry at present is deemed unnecessary.
2.	Such action as may be deemed advisable in this matter will be made known in due course.


L'ASSOMPTI'ON AND MONTCALM EXCISE OFFICERS
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What are the names of the officers of the Excise Department for the counties of L'As-somiption and Montcalm, and where do they reside?
2.	What are the names of the persons who were dismissed from this service since the twenty-first of September, 1911, to January, 1921, and what are the names of those who replaced them?
3.	Who recommended said dismissals and appointments?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1. Oliva Gariepy,-L'Epiphanie.	Jos.
Adolphe Pariseau,-St. Jacques de L'Achi-gan. Joseph J. Gareau,-St. Roch de Achigan. Chas. E. Pauze,-St. Lin des Laurentides.

Questions
2.	J. A. Bouin, replaced by Paul Ethier, L'Assomption. Paul Ethier, no successor,- L'Assomption. M. Granger, replaced by J. A. Pariseau,-St. Jacque-s de L'Achigan.
J.	H. Lafortune, replaced by J. J. Gar-eau,-St. Roch de 'Achigan. H. Locas, replaced by 0. Brien,-St. Lin des Lauren-tides.
3.	The hon. Minister of Inland Revenue.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	How many civil servants in Canada are receiving salaries of eight hundred dollars and less per annum?
2.	How many are receiving nine hundred and sixty dollars or less?


Hewitt Bostock: When this question came up the other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) asked that it stand as an order for return. Rule 37, subsection 4, reads as follows:
If a question is of such a nature that in the opinion of the minister who is to furnish a reply, such reply should be in the form of a return, and the minister states that he has no objection to laying such return upon the table of the House, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the House, be deemed an order of the House to that effect and the same shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings as such.
My opinion was that this subsection applied and that the minister was at liberty to ask that the question stand as an order for return. I have since consulted the law officers and clerks of the House on the subject and have gone into it deeply, the more so because it seems that the wording of the subsection is very clear. Subsection 3 leaves it to the discretion of the Speaker to have declared as a notice of motion any question which may entail a lengthy answer, and subsection 4 leaves it to the minister himself to say whether the question covers such a wide range that it might properly, in order to avoid its remaining unanswered and appearing on the Order Paper from day to day, stand as an order for return. As I have stated, I have consulted the law officers of the House and they concur in my opinion. My ruling is, therefore, that the question in the present instance should stand as an order for return.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ouimet:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, tenders and other documents, exchanged
Oriental Immigration
[Stage Direction]
between the Government and Hector Chevrier, regarding the contract for carying the mails between Rigaud and St. Redempteur, Quebec?
Mr. Seguin:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents, regarding the establishment of a Tobacco Experimental Station at l'Assomiption, Quebec, and the purchasing of the college farm for this purpose.

Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Centre Vancouver) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and documents, since January 1st, 1922, that have passed between the Government of Canada or any Minister, or any of its officials and the Government of China, or the Consul General of China, or any other person representing the Government of China, relating to the further effective restriction of Chinese Immigration to Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend has in mind the reference I made, in the course of the debate the other evening on oriental immigration, to interviews that had taken place between the Government and a representative of the government of China on this matter, I would say that the negotiations to which I referred were in the nature of personal interviews which I have had with the Chinese Consul General, Dr. Tsur, during the last two or three months on two or three different occasions. They have all been in the nature of personal interviews, and there is no correspondence to be brought down.
The same remarks would also apply to the next motion:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents, since January 1st, 1922, that have -passed between the Government of Canada, or any minister, or any of its officials, and the Imperial Japanese Government, or the Consul General of Japan, or any other person representing the Imperial Japanese Government, relating to the further effective restriction of Japanese Immigration to Canada.
These matters in the opinion of the Government are more effectively dealt with by personal negotiation wherever possible. We happen to have in the Dominion at the present time as representatives of China and Japan respectively, two gentlemen who are very capable of conducting negotiations, and the Government is taking advantage of their presence to discuss these matters with them. I presume my hon. friend will not wish to press these two motions, seeing there is no correspondence.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I understand my
hon. friend correctly, there is no correspondence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No correspondence.
Motions withdrawn.



OLEOMARGARINE

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that in the best interests of the Dairy Industry and of the public generally, the manufacture and importation of Oleomargarine should be discontinued in Canada after September first next.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this question
divides itself into two branches: one, the relation of oleomargarine to the dairying interests of Canada, and the other, its relation to the general public. Agriculture as we all know, is the basic industry of Canada, and dairying is the second most important branch of that industry, so I need make no apology for dealing with this question.
To begin at the very genesis of the subject we are asking for protection for the dairying interests of Canada-and I use the word protection not, in its fiscal sense, because we are not asking for fiscal protection, but merely for that form of protection that the ordinary citizen is entitled to in his everyday relations, the kind of protection that a man says he is entitled to when he finds that his house has been broken into and he claims the protection of the law. This is the kind of protection we are asking for in this instance. You may call it preservation, if you like, or protection in the dictionary sense. *
If it is proved, or can be proved, that oleomargarine is a correct substitute for butter, and can be made more cheaply in Canada than butter, then by all means let us change this resolution and prohibit the sale or manufacture of butter in Canada. That is logical and in thorough accord with economic laws, but it cannot be so argued, and it cannot be so proved. Oleomargarine is not a substitute for butter. It is a deceptive counterfeit, and intended to be sold as an imitation of butter, and not as a substitute. Whilst we are on the subject of the tariff, I might mention that the vegetable oils which form a large portion of oleomargarine pay a duty of 17i per cent ordinary; that is, if they are brought into Canada and used in the manufacture

Oleomargarine
of a paint, say, they pay 171 per cent duty; but when entering into the manufacture of oleomargarine the duty is rebated, and the vegetable oils come in free. Not only that, but oleomargarine itself comes in free when imported from the United States. Although we have a duty on butter we have no duty on oleomargarine. There is a very small duty on butter, something equivalent to 5 per cent ad valorem, as compared with 33 per cent on textile products. In addition to allowing oleomargarine to come in and compete with butter, we allow the small quantity of butter that is embodied in oleomargarine to come in free. So the dairying interests are hit in both respects: the competition of oleomargarine coming in free and of vegetable oils coming in free, and of the butter in oleomargarine, which is a very small amount, also coming in free. The government returns since the importation and sale of oleomargarine were authorized some years ago, show that there is a marked tendency to encourage the importation of oleomargarine rather than its home manufacture. While the amount manufactured has decreased very greatly, and so has the amount imported, the amount imported has decreased to a lesser degree than the amount manufactured. In other words, the trend of trade is not to manufacture this article in Canada, but to import it entirely from the United States. So we are asked by those who are opposing this resolution to build up for the benefit of a United States industry the sale and manufacture of oleomargarine to compete with our own product of butter. Hon. members will bear in mind, I hope, the attitude of that same United States as regards our products. They have just put a prohibitory duty on butter going into the United States.
It may be a matter of interest to know that the customs have this difficulty confronting them to-day. The manufacturers of kitchen compounds, such as crisco, manufactured of lard and vegetable oils and brought in openly as such have to pay a duty. They have been applying to the customs to be allowed to bring this stuff in free because they say: "This is the same as oleomargarine, and oleomargarine is the same as this." But because they are honest and call the thing a kitchen cooking compound, they have to pay a considerable duty on it, while the so-called oleomargarine comes in absolutely free. Oleomargarine was prohibited from entering this country thirty-six years ago,
and I have no doubt it would still be under prohibition if it had not been for the circumstances arising out of the late war. In December, 1917, I think it was, the war was on, and there was urgent necessity to conserve butter as it was needed by the men at the front. Accordingly, it was found necessary to ration the people of Canada. Butter was very scarce, exceedingly scarce, and it was also, naturally, dear. An Order in Council was passed in that month, in that year, allowing the introduction and sale of oleomargarine. That it was entirely and exclusively for that reason I shall show by a quotation from Hansard. The then Minister of Agriculture, now the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), in speaking to the subject quoted the Order in Council under which oleomargarine was allowed to be first used in Canada and these are the words of the Order in Council:
Such regulations to be en|forced and to have effect for the period during which the present abnormal conditions continue, the conclusion of such period to be determined by His Excellency the Governor General in Council, as provided in the regulations, and as a war measure only.
I would emphasize that oleomargarine was introduced and allowed in Canada in 1917 as a war measure only. Those are not the remarks of the hon. member for Marquette, but the exact words of the Order in Council. At that time very strong opposition to the proposition developed from the agricultural interests of Canada. The former member for, I think it was, Vau-dreuil-Soulanges, now a senator, was one of those who headed the opposition; he presented a petition signed tby twenty-seven thousand of his and other constituents against it. Resolutions were also brought in from eight hundred agricultural societies in eastern Canada and

very naturally -they strongly opposed the introduction of oleomargarine. However, the government of the day, and the then Minister of Agriculture, represented what the necessities of the day and of the hour were. There was the war situation, the scarcity of butter and its extremely high price; and an appeal was made to the patriotism of the dairying interests of Canada to stand back and allow this article to be introduced. The opponents of the proposition-without bringing the matter to a vote-withdrew their opposition, and the thing passed on the distinct understanding that the admission of oleomargarine was a war measure only and would be withdrawn as soon as the conditions referred to ceased to exist. Now the
Oleomargarine

importation of oleomargarine was a matter of good faith on the part of the government. I submit, the war is over now, and those war conditions no longer exist-some war conditions exist, but not those in question-and as a matter of good faith to those men who sacrificed their interests on the occasion referred to, it is up to this House and this Government to implement the bargain entered into in good faith at that time, and restore the situation to where it was before.
Now as regards the other two aspects of the situation at that time-the scarcity and the high price of butter-what do we find to-day? Instead of the scarcity that then existed there is an enormous surplus. No section of the trading community responded to the plea, the demand, the request, of the government to produce more and more like the dairying interests did; they have produced to such an extent that to-day there is a large surplus that has to find a market in some foreign country. That surplus cannot find a market in the United States for a prohibition has been put upon its adtnission by the very country we are now being asked to benefit by allowing the admission of oleomargarine. Our surplus of butter must seek a market in Europe or elsewhere; but there is no question whatever that there is to-day-and there is a prospect of it being for a long time to come -a large surplus of butter in Canada that must be disposed of; and when there is a large surplus of any article in a country it is idle to say that that article is scarce; so that aspect of the subject can be considered disposed of.
Then we come to the question of prices. That I know is one that can be argued from every point of view. I simply make the statement and will leave it to other members, more personally fami-
4	p.m. liar with the subject, to deal with the question of dairy products and the prices at which they are now being produced. I am credibly informed that dairy produce to-day is generally selling throughout Canada at a lower price than the actual cost of producing it. Therefore, we find that the war conditions -the fact of the butter being needed at the front, the scarcity, and the high price -have all passed away; and it is now left to us to observe good faith with the farmers of this country, and in view of the present abundance of butter and the existing low prices to put the trade back to where it was in the year 1917. So much for that branch of the subject, and as re-

gards its relation to the dairying interest I think I have made out at least a plausible case.
Now, as regards the relation of this question to the general public. The outstanding feature of oleomargarine is that it lends itself to pretence and fraud. It does more than that; it demands pretence and fraud because these are the very bases of the conditions of the trade. The successful manufacture and sale of oleomargarine depends entirely on how nearly it can approximate and pretend that it is something else than what it really is. The object is to make it look like butter; the object is to make it taste like butter; the object is to give it the same colour as butter; to put lit up in a package similar to a package of butter and, as far as possible, by every available device, make it appear to be butter. It may be asked: If it really does look like butter, tastes like butter, smells like butter, and is coloured like butter, is it not as good as butter? But that is not the point. Chemists are so expert to-day that they can make anything taste like something else. We have only to go to a hospital here and find nurses administering the well-known medicine called castor oil, beloved of our youth. The nurses, to-day, before you take that dose will slip a little capsule into it and the taste of castor oil is gone. I remember the Canadian Pacific hotel in Vancouver being prosecuted some years ago for serving duck out of season. The game warden was alert, and had dinner at the hotel, and kept a portion of the bird served to him which he said was duck, las did also a number of friends. The hotel management was prosecuted and when the chef-of course being in British Columbia he was a Chinese -was asked what had been served he said: " I catchem veal I heap savey make him taste all the same, duck In this instance the chef made the veal served to taste exactly like duck. So it is with oleomargarine. When you are told that it tastes like butter, that it looks like butter and has the smell of butter, it by no means follows that it has the same food value as butter.
As regards the matter of the colouring I would like to quote again from Hansard -the question was very thoi'oughly debated last year and the year before. During the debate one hon. member whose constituency I forget

stated that a special committee investigated the question some

Oleomargarine
years ago. Apparently this hon. member had taken part in it, and he asked one of the witnesses, the manager of one of these large manufacturing companies, a question. They were talking about oleomargarine and the witness had said that he bought June butter as much as possible because June butter is of a higher colour. He explained that the reason they bought June butter to mix with this oleo mess was because it was of a higher colour and made the product look a little more like butter. Now the hon. member in question asked of that witness this question:
Is it not a fact that you realize that if it was sold without any coloring it would be .unsaleable?
The manufacturer in reply to this question said:
It would not be so palatable, it would be like using lard.
So that is the situation: If it were not for the little admixture of butter and the colouring that is put into it to make it look like the same thing, to use oleomargarine would be like using lard. That is not my opinion; that is the sworn evidence of a manufacturer of oleomargarine himself.


Mr. HARRIS:: Was that a manufacturer in Canada or a manufacturer in the United States ?


Alan Webster Neill: That particular man was a manufacturer in Canada. The trouble with oleomargarine is that it is a sickly white looking mess, it has not even approximately the appearance of butter, and the great effort therefore is to make it look like butter. In the United States, where the trade has got a regrettable hold on the public the manufacturers went to the government and said: If you will allow us to colour our oleomargarine-not to put in any other valuable ingredient whatever but just to colour it-we will voluntarily pay you ten cents a pound of an excise duty. This is an industry going to the government and offering, for this simple little concession, to agree to pay an excise tax of ten cents a pound, or nearly 50 per cent of the cost of production, provided that they are allowed to do-what? Only to put a little, simple, harmless colouring into this stuff. Why? Was it to make it more palatable, wholesome, or valuable? Not a bit of it-it was to make it more fraudulent, to make it look more like butter than it did before, if presented
to ignorant or uninformed people. But this colouring did not add anything to the value or to the food content; it simply made it look more like butter. And for that privilege they were able to pay a high excise tax.


Mr. EULER:: Colouring is often added to butter itself. Does that make butter any more palatable?


Alan Webster Neill: I do not quite see the bearing on the question; but as a matter of fact I will leave it to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to deal with that. I am of opinion that colouring is not allowed to be added to butter.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Yes, it is.


Alan Webster Neill: It is not added to butter in the dairying district that I represent. More than that, I find in Hansard a statement that colouring is not added to butter. That would appear to be borne out, because we find the manager of this factory saying: "We made it a special object to buy June butter because that was more highly coloured." If I am wrong in that respect, I am wrong; but that does not affect the question of the colouring of oleomargarine. I am not aware that any agricultural industry ever offered to pay the Government 10 cents a pound for the privilege of colouring.


Mr. LADNER:: Does the hon, member suggest that oleomargarine is coloured in Canada? Does he not know that the regulations prohibit that?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. I was not talking about oleomargarine in Canada; I was talking about oleomargarine in the United States, and I was endeavouring to show that they were so anxious to be allowed to make it look more like butter that they offered this inducement. In Canada, they are not allowed to introduce any colouring into oleomargarine, I quite admit, and I am well aware of that; but let this resolution be defeated to-day, and it will be only a few years before they will be making to the government of Canada the same proposition as they have made successfully to the government of the United States as regards paying an additional tax if they are allowed to colour oleomargarine. Oleomargarine in Canada is not at present coloured except by butter being added to it.


Mr. GOOD:: The hon. member has stated that this offer which has been made by
Oleomargarine

United States manufacturers has been made successfully. Has he ascertained it to be a fact that the United States Government has added an excise duty of ten cents a pound for the privilege of putting in colouring?


Alan Webster Neill: I take all my information on this point from Hansard of last year, and if it is not correct, it ought to be. As a matter of fact, it is correct; the United States Government accepted that offer and imposed that tax. But the manufacturers endeavour to evade it in this way: When a man buys, say a thousand pounds of oleomargarine, they send it out uncoloured, but they send a package of colouring along with it, so that the man can add the colouring. As regards Hansard, it was stated definitely last year that that was the law in force in the United States.
In regard to the matter of standards, in the United States-and again I am quoting Hansard, I hope correctly-they have a strict standard which must be lived up to in the manufacture of this product. In Canada, I think it is an absolute fact that there is no standard whatever. I have in my hand literature which I will deal with later on, which talks vaguely and beautifully about the contents, but which does not tell us what the percentages of the ingredients are. Again I quote from Hansard. Somebody gave evidence before this commission as to how the analysis of different samples of oleomargarine varied, and this is the answer:
It was found that the content of tallow in oleomargarine varied as widely as from 22 per cent to 47 per cent and lard varied from 6 per cent to 28 per cent, vegetable oil varied from 15 to 49 per cent.
Does that not open a very wide field for every kind of fraud? How does the poor man, about whom we hear so much, know, when he is buying oleomargarine, whether he is getting a brand with 49 per cent of vegetable oil, or only 15 per cent? When we compare that with the strict governmental rules under which butter is made, handled, stored and sold, we wonder why so much favour is accorded the manufacturer of oleomargarine.
Oleomargarine contains butter and milk to a certain extent. That fact is very widely advertised in their propaganda, but we are not told how much butter or how much milk it contains. Great stress is laid on the fact that it contains butter and milk -and the only decent thing about it is that it contains butter and milk. Some months ago I went into a store in the lower part

of the town-not this town-where poor people would naturally stay, and I asked for a pound of oleomargarine. As it was being put up, I apparently hesitated, and I asked whether it would not be more profitable for me to pay the extra spread on butter; but the man assured me with emphasis that there was no need for that; that this was practically 75 per cent butter. He may not have known that he was lying; he may have been told that; but if I was an uninformed man and was told that I could get this stuff at twenty cents cheaper and that it was 75 per cent butter, I would be likely to say: "That is good enough for me." That shows how easy it is to deceive the public in an article like this. In other articles the deception would be apparent. No doubt that man had a reason for trying to sell me oleomargarine, because he was making a bigger profit out of it. That may account for the circular distributed amongst us from the Retail Merchants' Association advocating that they might be allowed to continue to sell oleomargarine. Oleomargarine is manufactured in Canada by a very small and close monopoly; and naturally, under those conditions, while butter is made by hundreds of thousands of people and sold by thousands of stores, and the price is well known, the competition keen and the profit small, when you get an article on which there is a monopoly and it is sold by itself,, the profit is great, and it is more profitable to sell oleomargarine than butter. The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Boyer) last year in the debate, stated that the spread between the cost price and the selling price of oleomargarine at that time was twenty-five cents. I understand the spread in this town to-day between oleomargarine and butter is as high as twenty cents. That may be only a piece of rather astute propaganda, because they know that this matter is coming up. I have it on the authority of no less than the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) that last year the spread in Ottawa between oleomargarine and butter was only seven cents a pound. I find that also in Hansard.
The difficulty to distinguish between the two leads to the greatest difficulty in the detection of fraud in connection with oleomargarine. In the United States, thousands of cases are brought up every year, and they are not able to convict more than a very small percentage of those who are guilty, on account of the difficulty of being able to detect the fraud. It was only last

Oleomargarine
year or possibly two years ago, small as the trade in oleomargarine is, that 2,000 pounds of it were seized as near to the city as Montreal. It was being sold as butter. That also, I get from the politician's Bible-Hansard. It would take, not an army of inspectors, who come in contact only with the operations in the factories, but an army of detectives to ferret out every instance of this fraud, because they would need to go into all the stores, the cheap restaurants and the boarding houses; for the Government statistics show that these are the people who most frequently buy oleomargarine. That is the sort of trade the manufacturers of oleomargarine cater to. Those who suffer are the poorer people who are less well informed, less able to investigate the respective merits of this spurious article and genuine butter, and whose physical condition makes them less able to afford to buy an inferior food. They are the ones who are most likely to be imposed upon. Amongst the many regulations which have been vainly framed in an attempt to cope with this situation is the one that requires a card to be posted in every eating house where oleomargarine is sold. That has been the law since December, 1917. We in this House are a body representative of nil the people throughout Canada. Now, I wonder how many hon. members can rise in their places and declare that they have seen such a card, printed in inch-and-a-half letters, in any public eating place. I have never seen any such placard myself, although I have been given oleomargarine to eat in some of these places. Earlier in the session a friend said to me: "If you are down on Chinese cooking I would advise you to go to such-and-such a restaurant; they advertise all 'white' cooking". I thought it would be a change, for once at any rate, to eat something that no Chinaman had cooked, and so I went to this place to which I had been directed. But when the girl who took the order passed through the swinging door on her way to the kitchen I saw my old friend Wong Fung Choo,-the same fellow I have seen at every restaurant between here and the Pacific. He was back on the job again. The only attempt which this restaurant made at serving white cooking was to put a white suit and a white cap on Wong's head. But I was sufficiently familiar with my old friend to recognize him under this disguise. The restaurant has since been burned, my friend Wong, I trust, along
with it. It is about as easy to stop the fraudulent sale of oleomargarine as butter, as it is to prevent the importation of Asiatics under a "gentleman's agreement". The parallel is exact, and we in British Columbia know how easy the latter problem is.
There is another aspect of the butter situation,-this is a dry subject, even if it is greasy. There is a substance in butter which is known technically as the vitamines. There are three classes of vitamines, but the principal one is that which is soluble in fait; I think it is called " soluble A ". That vitamine is composed of a substance which is derived from leaves. If one could eat about four pounds of leaves he would be able in that way to obtain the proportion of vitamines essential to health. But one could not conveniently do that, and so nature has provided the dairy cow as a means of furnishing this indispensable element. The dairy cow eats the leaves and through the milk and butter which we get from her we obtain the vitamines that are absolutely needed for the proper growth of children, especially young children, as well as for young people of fifteen and sixteen years of age, and invalids. I desire to be perfectly accurate, because I know that there are able men coming after me who will try to tear my argument to pieces. I will admit frankly, therefore, that vitamines are found to a very limited extent in beef suet. The proportion, however, is so small as to be negligible; and when the contention is made that oleomargarine contains vitamines it is nothing but a mere pretence. It would be equally true for one to say that the ocean contains gold, because nearly all salt water contains some gold; but the gold content is so infinitesimal that no sane man would contemplate the ocean as a gold mining possibility. And so with regard to the presence of vitamines in oleomargarine. In dairy products, on the other hand, vitamines are found in abundance, particularly in butter and cheese. Now, I have a great deal of evidence which I shall not undertake to read. It was given before that special committee and was also submitted by members of the House last year, and it all goes to show that dairy products are absolutely necessary if you want to develop strong vigorous children. The lack of genuine butter and other dairy products is responsible for the nervous and neurotic condition of so many children. It is this lack of proper nourishment that causes the dis-
Oleomargarine

ease known as rickets. Good butter is also much more easily digested by invalids and children. You can imagine what oleomargarine is like when a manufacturer of this substance said that if it were not for the little butter in it it would be like eating lard. And that, certainly, would not be acceptable to a weak stomach, as I happen to know,-I have a weak stomach myself; and when I am eating oleomargarine I need no card with letters of any size to tell me of the fact. By the way, when I say that I have a weak stomach I am speaking physically; I am not referring to my mental or political stomach which has long since got enured to any diet; so that politically I can swallow anything.
I have been trying to make my remarks as brief as possible commensurate with the importance of the subject under consideration; but I shall read an extract or two before I conclude. In the Hansard to which I have referred allusion is made to a number of experiments-as a matter of fact they were demonstrations-carried out in hospitals, orphan homes and gaols, to show the respective merits of oleomargarine and butter; and in every case it was proved that the most economical, from the poor man's point of view as well as from that of the authorities, was the dairy product. There is only one other matter to which I shall refer now, as I shall have an opportunity later to answer any counter arguments that may be advanced. There has been an intense and expensive propaganda-lobby work-in connection with this matter during the last few weks. I know I should hate to pay the printing bill. It has even gone beyond the circulation of printed matter; the subject has been treated in editorials in the newspapers. I have in my possession an appeal, apparently sent me by mistake, asking me to deal with the question editorially if I thought fit to do so; and I see that some people have thought fit to take it up editorially. Reading some of these editorials, I have recognized in them so striking a resemblance to the printed propaganda of the manufacturers that it is almost too much to believe that they were written by the editors themselves. They follow almost word for word the printed matter circulated by the manufacturers. I would ask hon. members where they think the money is coming from to pay for this propaganda. The rules and regulations surrounding the manufacture of oleomargarine are of such a restrictive character that they practically

preclude all but two firms from manufacturing this commodity. It is impossible, to all intents and purposes, for any one else to manufacture it. There are just these two corporations manufacturing oleomargarine here and importing it, into Canada, although possibly more than the two import it. One of these firms is a big American concern, while the other is supposed to be Canadian. They had four factories operating when they first started, and last year they turned out together, by the government returns, 1,900,000 pounds odd, or about 230 tons each per factory. Any one who knows anything about running a factory will realize what a substantial loss must have been incurred in connection with such a small output as 230 tons a year, unless one of two conditions obtained: either a very big profit, or the expectation of an enormous profit in the future. The consumption of oleomargarine in Canada dropped, from the year 1918-only four years ago-from
13,000,000 pounds annually to 3,000,000 pounds odd. So that you can see that, with the equipment originally installed, a heavy loss must have been incurred unless they made an enormous profit or expect to make that profit in the future. The object of this propaganda therefore must surely be to recoup the manufacturers for these losses by seeking to create a larger demand for this product once they can get it thoroughly established in Canada.
Now, it is a well-known doctrine, both political and legal, that when you have a bad case you should abuse your opponent, and when you have a weak case you should misrepresent facts, seeing that you cannot be worse off anyway. I want to read some of this propaganda and explain briefly how very misrepresenting it is. Any propaganda that has to misrepresent plain facts must surely be fundamentally weak. We- find, in an article that has been in the hands of all hon. members, and of which I have received copies, a statement as to what oleomargarine is composed of.
It is made of-
A,	pure, highly refined beef and pork fats;
B,	creamery butter and fresh milk;
C,	other vegetable fats.
I will show you what they say about the creamery butter and fresh milk later on.
Oleomargarine is 75 per cent the product of Canadian farms.

Oleomargarine
I have read that statement in a great many newspapers lately, and no doubt this is the source of its origin. Oleomargarine is not made of 75 per cent of the product of Canadian farms. The product imported last year from the United States was 1,300,000 pounds of oleomargarine; the amount manufactured in Canada was 1,900,000 pounds. Of the total product only 68 per cent was manufactured in Canada. And yet we are told that 75 per cent of the oleomargarine manufactured in Canada ;s 75 per cent the product of Canadian farms. But it is not true to say that 75 per cent of what is manufactured in Canada-which is only 68 per cent of the total-is made out of the product of Canadian farms. Still less is it true that 75 per cent of all used in Canada was the product of Canadian farms. That is utterly ignoring the large and ever-decreasing amount imported; hut while decreasing, it is not decreasing so rapidly as the manufactured stuff. We find another statement:
Growth accessories are found in oleo oil from which oleomargarine is prepared.
That is one of those subtle half-truths which are partly true and utterly false. There is so small, so fractional a quantity of growth accessories in oleo oil as to be negligible. A small amount is found, yes, but it is not comparable with the amount found in butter.
There is an undoubted demand for oleomargarine by a large body of Canadian consumers.
Very well, we will take their own figures, not the government returns, which differ, I may say, from this statement. Their own figures will tell you what the demand was. In the year 1918 the total consumption, supposing that all that was brought into Canada and all that was manufactured here was eaten, was 13,997,000 pounds, practically 14,000,000 pounds. That was the year of war when butter was scarce and high. In the year 1921 it was
3,200,000	pounds odd. It has dropped down from 14,000,000 to 3,000,000 pounds, and yet we are told that there is "an undoubted demand for oleomargarine by a large body of Canadian consumers." Divide 3,200,000 pounds by the population of Canada, and I do not think it can be shown that there is a very heavy demand for oleomargarine at the present time.


An hon. MEMBER:: During that period of reduction has there been any further restriction against the use of oleomargarine?


Alan Webster Neill: No; that is the first suggestion I have heard of any further restriction. Reason No. 13:
Over 1,000,000 pounds a month are now consumed in Canada-proof of its acceptability.
That is 12,000,000 pounds a year, is it not? And yet last year the government returns shows that the total amount imported and manufactured-not	consumed-was
only 3,200,000 pounds odd. Yet the manufacturers make the bare, bald statement in order to pervert the minds of the readers of this pamphlet that over 1,000,000 pounds a month is being consumed. An argument based on grounds so far removed from the facts is calculated to discredit many more of the arguments contained in this pamphlet, for it is always safe to judge the unknown by the known. Further on there is this statement:
Provision should be made to protect the public from fraud in connection with oleomargarine and all other products.
It is too costly, and they know it cannot be done.
No legislation should limit the legitimate manufacture and sale of oleomargarine.
I may say that no legislation should limit the manufacture of jemmies and other house-'breaking tools; but their manufacture is forbidden by law. But what are you going to do with them if their manufacture is legitimate? What are you going to do with oleomargarine when it is manufactured? You are going to use it for an illegal purpose-to palm it off as butter.
It is in common use in Australia, New Zealand and the United States.
This is in deep, bold, black letters. That is only one-third true and two-thirds false. It is not in common use in Australia, it is in use to only a limited extent; and it is not in use in New Zealand at all. It is not forbidden, but it is not in use. I suppose it can be said that it is in common use in some parts of the United States. They tell you what oleomargarine is made of:
1.	Oleo Oil-
They tell you how nice oleo oil is, but they do not tell you whether 22 per cent or 44 per cent comprises the ingredient.
2.	Neutral-lard,-
They do not say whether it is 6 per cent or 48 per cent which contains lard. The third ingredient is milk. They say:
Milk-the fats are churned with milk un^er the most rigid sanitary inspection.
Oleomargarine

But they do not tell you how much milk is used. You can guess at it.
4. Butter-finest creamery butter containing no artificial colour is used.
Dairy butter is not good enough for them, only the "finest creamery butter containing no artificial colour is used." "It contains no artificial colouring." That is where I got my information about Canadian butter containing no artificial colour-" ing. If my statement is incorrect, it is only one more misstatement contained in this pamphlet. Let me tell you what they say in another part of this propaganda. They are talking about oleomargarine, and they say:
The whole is churned in milk and a small percentage of butter is used by some makers.
This is not my propaganda, it is not even Hansard, it is by the same people, the Canadian manufacturers of oleomargarine. They say, "a small percentage of butter is used by some makers." But here they get busy and say, "the finest creamery butter containing no artificial colour is used." "Some" butter is used by "some" people.
We find that these products are mixed together and churned. No Sir, they are not churned, because I take again the word of the manufacturers here. The products are mulsified, they are made into an emulsion, the same as in the manufacture of soap- the process is identical, and the result is very little different. Churning is a process by which you draw out of something, such as milk, butter fat. You could churn this stuff until doomsday and you would not produce any more satisfactory stuff than you put into it. They say that the whole mixture is made
-into a palatable form from those fats, which, although quite wholesome, could not otherwise be used as a spread-for-bread.
It must be palatable if, as stated, it is "like eating lard." Then we find this statement in regard to food value:
The British government a few years ago made tests of the calorie value of oleomargarine, and, as a result, they adopted it for use in government institutions.
But, Mr. Speaker, we know that British margarine is very superior to the Canadian or American product. It is made under strict regulations and has to conform to a high standard. If they found it of so high a standard why did not they quote the tests imposed by the British Government? The manufacturers of oleomargarine are

not modest. They would have quoted the blue, book, but they do not. They say:
The British government found it highly satisfactory.
Further on we find the following:
Tests of the energy-value of oleomargarine made recently by a competent authority resulted interestingly. Calorific value in separate fats showed many brands averaged 3,710 calories per pound.
But they do not tell you who the "competent authority" is. Would it not have been a good thing to tell you who made those tests? We also find the following:
Oleomargarine should sell under its own name and on its own merits. It should not be allowed to trade on the name of any other product.
Absolutely correct. I say, "amen" with all my heart. Neither let it trade upon the appearance, taste or colour of butter. Let it sell on its own basis as a cooking article. We are told further on:
Oleomargarine came into existence because of a shortage of palatable, edible fats and oleomargarine has thrived because the production of these has never kept pace with the growth of population.
The production of butter fats in Canada has more than kept pace with the growth of population, and oleomargarine cannot be said to be "thriving" when its consumption dropped from 14,000,000 pounds to
3,000,000 pounds in four years. I think that is an exaggeration, to say the best of it. Later on we find quotations from various gentlemen, from worthy and admirable members of parliament who made certain remarks in the House last year on this subject, and extracts are given from Hansard. But, curiously enough, all these gentlemen quoted are speaking in favour of oleomargarine-Mr. Michael Clark of Red Deer and four other hon. gentlemen. But why did the manufacturers not say that thirty-five pages of Hansard are full of the remarks of people who are not in favour of oleomargarine? Why did he not tell you, if he wanted to put it fairly and honestly, that the government of the day, strongly entrenched as they were with a good majority behind them, could have put through any bill they liked? It was brought down in the form of a bill in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, and when that hon. gentleman introduced it he said: We are going to pass this bill. But the pressure was so great, exerted as it was by members on both sides who were united in objection to the measure, that the minister rose in his place and

Oleomargarine
said: Boys, we will pull it out, if you will only be good, and we will put it in for one year only. So he withdrew his hill in deference to the measure of opposition that developed in the House, though he could have put it through if he had liked. That is a fair statement of the facts in that connection.
Now, I wish to quote one more passage from this pamphlet, and it is the gem of the whole collection. They wind up with the production of opinions by experts. You all know that you can get an expert's opinion on almost anything; you can get one medical man to swear that a man is insane and you can get another to swear that he is not in'sane. This pamphlet, this propaganda, quotes four experts-all, no doulbt, very estimable men. Here is one of them:
Dr. H. W. Wiley, the noted pure food authority of the United States government, in 1900-
That was eleven years ago, wasn't it?
-testified before the Agricultural Committee.
I do not know what committee is referred to. He testifies as follows:
In all my extensive analysis of butterine or oleomargarine, nothing objectionable or deleterious to health has ever been found, and oleomargarine, as made to-day, is pure, palatable and more nutritious than butter.
The most extravagant assertion otf the maker of this dope is out-Heroded by this one-that oleomargarine is "more nutritious than butter." Now, I will give you Mr. Wiley's comments on this same subject as quoted in the House and found on Hansard at page 934. The name is given in this case as "Dr. Harvey Wiley"; in the pamphlet from which T have just quoted it is given as "H. W. Wiley"; I assume that the same man is referred to. I quote from page 934 of Hansard as follows:
Dr. Harvey Wiley stated in a recent issue of Good House-kee.ping: "As far as I am concerned, I should never give my children nut margarine, oleomargarine, or any other margarine, as a substitute for butter. Butter contains a vital principle necessary to the growth of children which none of its substitutes possess. I should never give children nor grown persons in my family food products containing a, preservative such as benzoate of soda.
I wonder which remark was made first; has the mountain come to Mahomet, or Mahomet to the mountain? That, I think, Will cast some doubt upon the evidence of experts, when you find them saying a certain thing at one time and quite another thing-as is alleged-at another. Now, when witnesses in a court of law are proved to be incredible on several important
points, their evidence is thrown out on all points. You often hear a judge say: I do not believe that witness; I have found him so incorrect on so many points; he may be trying to tell the truth but he is evidently unable to do it. We will give our friends the benefit of the doubt; we will say this propaganda was formulated in ignorance- perhaps it was; at any rate, I submit that it is not worthy of credence. I submit that I have produced evidence that will commend itself to the judgment of hon. members, and, with the facts which will be brought out by other hon. gentlemen more conversant with the technical branches of the 'subject than I am, will convince the House that we ought to keep faith with the farmers and go back to the conditions as they existed in the year 1917.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria city) :: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and to the compliments which he has paid to the manufacturers of oleomargarine. I think, however, that in one or two respects his statements are subject to correction.
The hon. gentleman said that the spread between the price of butter and the price of oleo at the present time-in this city to-day the price of creamery butter is 48 cents; of animal oleo, 28 cents, and of vegetable oleo, 24 cents-was due to propaganda. Now, I know the gentlemen interested in the manufacture of oleomargarine; they are reputable citizens, and I think the hon. member ought to have proof before he makes statements of that kind. This spread, as in the case of nearly all manufactured articles, is due largely to the cost of ingredients used in the manufacture, and to other business conditions which vary, as all know, from time to time.
With regard to the cooking compounds, I may say that practically all these compounds are now made in Canada; the oils used therein are imported in their crude state, duty free. I might point out, too, that oleomargarine is not the only thing that is used to " humbug the public "-if that is done. There are many other things that can be twisted about in the ordinary channels of trade to deceive the public. I do not think anything has been done in connection with oleo in that respect which is not done in other lines, as I hope to prove a little later.
The hon. gentleman has suggested that the English margarine is very much super-

Oleomargarine

ior to that which is produced in Canada, due, as he says, to close inspection. I do not think that the English inspection can he any closer than that which is applied in Canada. The work is carried on only in certain licensed establishments under the close supervision of our Meat Inspection Branch, a branch of the Department of Agriculture which has established for itself a very high reputation. Every movement connected with the handling of all the materials used in the manufacture of oleomargarine is subject to the most careful inspection.
If we were to follow out the desire of the mover of this resolution we would simply take away from the people of Canada the privilege of purchasing a wholesome food which is manufactured and sold in practically all other countries. It is a food that was used by our soldiers throughout the war, and whether it contains a high percentage of vitamines or a low percentage, certainly the Canadian troops did not lack " pep " when they met the Germans. Moreover, the hon. gentleman would place entirely in the hands of the dairymen the manufacture of a material which is used as a spread for our bread and for many other purposes. Now, the dairymen are a very reputable lot of people; the dairy industry is one of the most important in the country; I am a dairyman myself. But I do not feel that the dairymen have the right to demand as much protection as is asked for by this resolution; I do not think the Canadian dairymen really need it. If the butter makers of the United States can make butter at a profit notwithstanding the sale of oleo in that country, surely the Canadian dairymen can do likewise.
There is no question at all about the wholesomeness of this article, which has long since been accepted all over the world as a useful food product. The dairyman prepares his butter from milk products, and he has the right to colour that product and make it look like June grass butter all the year round. The beef men should have the same privilege in the matter of marketing to the best possible advantage the oil obtained from the beef. I may isay that the by-products of the ox play a most important part in the price paid to the farmer for the living animal. All farmers who are producing beef cattle will agree that the price of beef cattle has gone down very largely in late years, due to the fact that

the by-products have fallen in value. If this resolution should pass and no legislation be brought down to extend the period during which the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in this country shall be permitted, then the oils obtained from some
600,000	head of cattle passing through our inspected abattoirs every year would have to find a market somewhere else. That is one reason why the manufacture of oleomargarine should be permitted in this country, under careful inspection.
Again, I submit that it is preposterous that we should take away from the poor men of this country the privilege of buying oleomargarine if they wish to do so. By " poor men " I mean those who are working for the smaller wage-for salaries which, perhaps, permit them to make a living only by the careful exercise of economy-men with large families; men who have heavy expenditures to meet throughout the year. I say it is preposterous that we should take from these men the privilege of buying a wholesome food article like oleomargarine if they wish to buy it. The force of this statement is accentuated by the present scarcity of work throughout the country; there is hardly a city in Canada which has not had a long bread line of unemployed during the last few months.
Oleomargarine does not interfere with the production of first-class butter, but it does check to a certain extent production of the lower grades of butter, those grades that our Department of Agriculture is making a strong effort to have the farmers leave alone altogether in favour of a better quality. It has been well proven, too, that no one will buy oleomargarine if it is possible to buy butter at a reasonable price. This is clearly shown, I think, by comparing the figures for the last few years. In 1918, oleomargarine was manufactured in Canada, to the amount of 10,483,179 pounds, with 3,494,622 pounds imported, making a total of 13,977,801 pounds. In 1921 we manufactured 3,780,392 pounds, and imported 2,057,035 pounds, making a total of 5,837,427 pounds, showing a falling off between 1918 and 1921 of no less than 8,140,374 pounds, or something over 60 per cent. That shows that as the price of butter went down from the highest peak, the consumption of oleomargarine decreased to a very great extent indeed.
In 1918 we manufactured 93,298,348 pounds of creamery butter, and in 1921 that had increased, in round figures, tc
111,000,000 pounds, an increase of 17,701,652 pounds, in spite of this awful com-

Oleomargarine
petition from oleomargarine. The total consumption of butter in 1921 is estimated by our dairy branch of the Department of Agriculture at roughly 240,000,000 pounds, as against a consumption of oleomargarine of 5,837,427 pounds, or slightly over 2 per cent, and certainly not any competition to be alarmed at. This shows that during this period the manufacture of creamery butter has made very substantial gains over the manufacture of oleomargarine, and it is another indication that the people will not willingly buy oleomargarine if good butter is to be had at a reasonable orice.
Some of the most important dairy countries are the largest consumers of oleomargarine. In many of these countries in Europe, the high priced butter is shipped to other countries, and oleomargarine is consumed at home There is no country with a greater reputation for butter perhaps than Denmark, where in one year the population consumed 44 pounds of oleomargarine per head.
One of the best gauges of the prosperity of the dairy industry is the price of dairy cows. That gives you a good line on the prosperity of the business and the sale of dairy products. During the years when the largest quantity of oleomargarine was imported and manufactured in this country, we found the prices of dairy cows perhaps the highest on record for very many years.
What is oleomargarine? It consists of oleo oils and of edible beef fats. Let me say that these fats are secured from the carcasses of animals slaughtered in inspected establishments. No other fats are permissible except those imported accompanied by a certificate to that effect. There is a division between the edible beef fats and the non-edible beef fats. Oleomargarine also contains neutral lard, which is also secured under inspection; fresh milk from cows that have been tested with tuberculin, or milk that has been pasteurized ; butter that is free from rancidity and is of first-class quality; vegetable oils, imported into this country from the United States principally, accompanied by a certificate from the Bureau of Chemistry at Washington-in fact, our Minister of Agriculture can ask for any certificate he wishes that will appear to cover the situation. In addition to these other ingredients, oleomargarine contains a small quantity of salt. Nut margarine is made entirely from vegetable products, and is churned with fresh milk. As I have
113i
already pointed out, all these articles are manufactured under the very strictest inspection and must be accompanied with proper certificates when imported into this country.
I must admit that when I first heard about the manufacture of oleomargarine, I pictured this material being gathered in the ordinary country slaughter-house and I was rather in favour of not permitting its competition with the dairy products of this country. However, after having an opportunity to investigate the matter thoroughly by visiting the establishments where oleomargarine is made, and after making a very careful inspection, in which I was aided by the experience I have gained in my profession, I entirely changed my opinion. I find that generally, in fact, altogether, the conditions under which oleomargarine is prepared and these fats are secured, under careful and constant inspection, are decidedly better than the conditions that prevail in the average dairy barn in this country.
In connection with our regulations governing the manufacture of oleomargarine, the dairyman has been very carefully protected, as well as the consumer. In the first place, this article is not permitted to be manufactured except in licensed establishments where inspection is carried on. No colouring matter is allowed to be added in the manufacture of oleomargarine. No colouring matter is permitted to be sold or given away with packages of oleomargarine. No mixing of butter with oleomargarine is permitted by anybody without a license, which means that the business is confined to these establishments. They are not permitted to use the words " butter," " creamery," " dairy," or the name of any breed of cattle on the package or in any advertising. The labels and brands must be approved by the Minister of Agriculture. Here is one of the packages with the word " oleomargarine" plainly showing. Here is another one in which the material is put up, and on the material itself the word "oleo" is stamped in very large letters. Careful record is kept of all oleomargarine sales by ill our wholesale dealers in this material. They are compelled to sell only in the original packages. The importation and manufacture of oleomargarine is entirely under the supervision of our Veterinary Director General and his efficient aggregation of inspectors. The Dairy Commissioner takes care of sales within the country and the use of oleomargarine.
Oleomargarine

Let us see what have been the results from the enforcement of the law. We find that in 1919, there were eight convictions for infractions of the oleomargarine law, as against 111 for the sale of bad butter. In 1920 there were twelve convictions under the oleo law and 126 convictions for the sale of bad butter. In 1921 there were fourteen convictions for selling oleo against the law, and 126 for selling bad butter; showing that the producers of good butter have no reason to fear the manufacturer and dealer in oleo so much as the man who produces bad butter in competition with it. This indicates-


Mr. WARNER:: Could the hon. member give the number of firms that were selling oleomargarine alone compared with the number that were selling butter alone?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I could not give my hon. friend figures in that form. I presume that in a great many of the grocery stores it is the usual thing-it is pretty usual in our country-to sell both oleomargarine and butter. The figures I have given indicate that it is much easier to control the sale of oleomargarine under the present law than it is to control the sale of butter produced in many establishments where constant inspection is not carried out.
I quite agree with the previous speaker in one or two points. I think we should certainly impose a duty on oleomargarine coming into this country; and I think we might even go further and fix a standard for oleomargarine. I understand that some of the European manufacturers now deodorize the oil obtained from the British Columbia whale and use it in the manufacture of oleomargarine. I am told the work is done so completely that no fishy flavour of any kind attaches to the resultant product. In this country the manufacturers confine themselves exclusively to the use of the vegetable and animal oils obtained from our killing establishments throughout the country.


Mr. STAN SELL:: Are all these oils obtained from the killing establishments in our own country?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Some of them are imported from the United States. When so imported, they are accompanied by a certificate from the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington. As perhaps my hon. friend knows, these certificates are exchanged between our Health of Animals branch in Canada and the Bureau of Ani-

mal Industry in the United States; each country accepts the certificates of the other.
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to take up the time of the House any longer than to say that I feel that this material being healthy in its nature, should be permitted to be sold in Canada. Those who desire to buy it should have that privilege if they wish. But we should carefully protect by inspection the manufacture and sale of such commodities so that there will be no interference with dairy produce, and I think my figures prove that the trade in oleomargarine has not at present any such effect. The by-products, as I have pointed out, play a very important part in the sale of beef animals within the country, and on this account I think we should permit the sale of oleomargarine in Canada, as its sale is permitted in other countries. I may say that I am a dairyman, engaged in the dairy business at the present time on the Pacific coast. I am also a breeder of pure bred cattle, and perhaps if I were to oppose the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in this country I might make a good many friends among the dairymen. At the same time, however, I think that in this House we should take a broader view of the subject. Personally I feel that oleomargarine is a good thing to have in Canada, that it is for the benefit of the great mass of the people. Under the circumstances I propose to forget my attachment to the dairy industry for the present and oppose the resolution.


Mr. LEWIS:: Can my hon. friend give us any explanation as to why the Danish farmer sells his butter to Great Britain and is in such poor circumstances that he has to eat a substitute for that butter? Also does my hon. friend suggest that the Canadian dairy farmer should do the same thing in the case of his family?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have no suggestion to offer as to how the Canadian dairy farmer should best act in the interest of his family; I have one family and I feel that is about all that I can take care of. I think it is generally understood that the Danish farmer sells his butter to Great Britain and eats oleomargarine because he wishes to pocket the difference in the price of these commodities, which is very substantial.


William Daum Euler: Th*>
question of prohibiting the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada has been debated

Oleomargarine
in this House for several sessions. I am of opinion that a good deal of time thas been wasted because of the fact that each succeeding session witnesses a repe-5 p.m. tition of the arguments of the session before; and for that reason 1 rise to-da , more than perhaps from any other motive, to suggest that on this occasion we settle once and for alii the question of whether oleomargarine shall be made and sold in this country. To my mind there are only two real factors governing the case, and they are these: Is oleomargarine a wholesome product, is it a fit food for the people of Canada? That is one consideration. The other: Is oleomargarine sold for what it is, and not represented as being something else? If we can establish that oleomargarine is a wholesome product, and that it is not sold under misrepresentation, then I contend that It is a legitimate article of commerce, and that this Parliament should not interfere with its manufacture and sale under proper safeguards. So far as I have heard, the mover of the resolution has not made out a case showing that oleomargarine is detrimental to the health of the consumer; in fact, I think it is pretty generally admitted that such a claim cannot successfully be made. We have had the testimony of the Dominion Analyst that oleomargarine is a wholesome commodity. Last year, and again to-day, the ex-Minister of Agriculture testified as to that, and I have a very high regard for his opinion. Oleomargarine is made under license, it is manufactured in government inspected institutions, its sale is surrounded by all sorts of safeguards. At the same time I would say this: If the sale of oleomargarine, in so far as misrepresentation is concerned, is not yet sufficiently safeguarded, as my hon. friend from Ccwnox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) would indicate, I would Ibe quite in favour of passing such further restrictions as will ensure that the interests of the people shall be adequately protected. It is not even suggested seriously that oleomargarine is ever sold in Canada for anything other than what it actually is. The1 ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) has just exhibited cartons or packages in which the product is sold, and I do not think any one could possibly mistake oleomargarine for anything else. It may be true that in restaurants, and other eating places, oleomargarine is sometimes passed off as butter; but as was stated by a previous speaker, it is doubtful whether misrepresentation and deception obtains to a greater extent in the
sale of this commodity than it does in the sale of many another article which might be named. The only argument against the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine is that its prohibition would be for the protection of the dairy interest. In other words those who favour this resolution want the sale of oleomargarine stopped in order that more butter may be sold, and sold at a higher price. Now, I say, with all deference to the opinion of those who differ from me, that if that is not a Special plea for a particular interest, a plea that should not be countenanced by this parliament, then I would like to be shown a more glaring example. I am very sure that all of us, especially now that the farmers have so many difficulties to contend with, are very anxious that they be permitted to carry on their activities under the most favourable conditions. Personally I sympathize with that view; but surely Parliament is not going to accept the principle that it !is justified in destroying any industry, any legitimate Canadian industry, which permits the great mass of the people of Canada to buy a wholesome article at a lower price than the price of butter, in order to benefit and add to the profit of any other industry. I think that is an absolutely unassailable position to take. This Parliament is not justified in destroying one legitimate industry for the purpose of assisting another legitimate industry, important as the latter may be. If we accepted such a principle, where would it lead us?
I am going to draw a few comparisons. Some may say that they are far-fetched; but I do not think so; I believe they are on all fours with the proposal made to prohibit the manufacture of oleomargarine. For example, if we can wholly prohibit the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in order to benefit the makers of butter, why should not the man who produces lard, the raiser of hogs, the owner of a packing house, object to the sale of vegetable compounds, oils and products that now enter into cooking and baking in the home? The argument is just as good for the one as for the other. Why should the manufacturer of silk stockings not object to another man being allowed to make cotton stockings, because it hurts his business? If people can afford to buy only cotton stockings why should they not be permitted to do so?


Mr. CHAPMAN:: Or paper ones.


William Daum Euler: If anyone in Canada can
make serviceable stockings of paper, I
Oleomargarine

would be quite willing to allow him to do so, so long as people who are buying those stockings would know what they were buying.


Mr. BROWN:: So, in the case of paper
boots.


William Daum Euler: As regards paper boots,
the people of Canada did not know what they were buying at the time.
Why should not the manufacturer,of the fifty-seven varieties that we hear and read so much about in advertisements, come to this Parliament and ask for a law prohibiting the housewife from canning her own fruit, pickles and preserves? The prohibition would be just as logical in the one case as in the other.
Then we are told that oleomargarine is an imitation, and merely because it is an imitation it is a reprehensible thing to allow that to continue.


Arthur John Lewis: Will the hon. member
suggest that a cotton stocking is not a stocking and that a silk stocking is?


William Daum Euler: Not at all. The point
which I am endeavouring to make is that, if you are going to destroy one industry because it is hurting another industry, you are wrong. Therefore, I say that the silk-stocking manufacturer-and this is merely by way of a homely illustration

is quite as much justified, because his business is being interfered with by the cotton-stocking manufacturer, to raise an objection. Merely because an article is an imitation is not necessarily a reflection upon it, so long as the people who buy the imitation know what they are buying. We have that constantly in commerce. You go to a fur store, and you are a better expert than I am if you can distinguish some of the furs sold under one name or another. But if a person is buying a class of fur coat, knowing that it is merely an imitation of another class of fur coat, I do not see why there should be any objection to that person being permitted to purchase it, so long ac she, because it is nearly always one of the gentler sex, knows what she is buying. We might say that concrete cement, is an imitation, or a substitute, if you like, for stone, and a very good one, and just beci.ase it is an imitation or a substitute is no reason why we should not use it. Cotton is very often used in place of-wool, and a very good article it is.
The hon. gentleman who moved the resolution spoke of vitamines; he said the butter

contains a large percentage of vitamines and that oleomargarine does not. I am not sure whether he is correct in that or not; but surely he will not argue that, because there are no vitamines in oleomargarine, the people who are buying oleomargarine are necessarily not going to get their vitamines in some other form. He will have to devote his attention to many another prohibitory measure. I read the other day that potatoes contain a very large proportion of vitamines. These vitamines are located immediately under the skin of the potato. If you peel it as most housewives do, you lose all the vitamines. I propose that we also pass a resolution prohibiting housewives from peeling their potatoes and thus force the men to eat them whole. I sometimes go into a restaurant in which, opposite the various items of food, there is to be found the number of calories or heat units that each one of these foods produce. I think bacon tops the list. Would the hon. gentleman, therefore, argue that we must all eat bacon to the exclusion of veal, beef, eggs, cereals, meat and all the rest of them? It is entirely absurd to argue along that line. If that principle were recognized, we would be obliged to have a food inspector at every man's table to see that we are eating only those things which have the proper number of vitamines, calories and so on.
The hon. gentleman also stated that there can be no great demand for oleomargarine, because of the fact that, whereas we consumed some 12,000,000 pounds some few years ago, last year we consumed only 3,000,000 pounds. If he is correct-and I have no doubt he is-his difficulty is going to settle itself in a very short time. If people bought only
3,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine last year, that shows that they prefer butter or that they can afford to buy butter. But if there are still some who like to buy it, why should the Parliament of Canada take away from them the right to do that? Such a course amounts to prohibition. I rm not speaking of prohibition in its ordinary sense; but even in the prohibition of liquor, the chief argument we heard usually was that it was a detriment to the people who use it and to those who are dependent upon those who use it. That may or may not be a fair argument; but even in that case, many people set up against it the argument of personal liberty. I am not going to discuss that at all; but as regards oleomargarine, the excuse cannot be

Oleomargarine
made, that it is harmful, and, therefore, we should not have prohibitory legislation with regard to it.
Butter, it has been said here to-day, is at present being sold at 48 cents a pound and oleomargarine at 28 cents a pound. That in itself constitutes a very important reason why those people, who cannot afford to pay 48 cents a pound for their Butter, should not be deprived of the opportunity and right to purchase that which satisfies them and which is the best they can do under the circumstances. But I would go a step further than that; I would say that, even if oleomargarine costs more than butter and it is wholesome and I want to buy it, no man has logically a right to interfere with me if I want to buy oleomargarine and to pay for it. That is merely the right of the individual, and I think that is the issue at stake in this resolution more, perhaps, than any other.
I would be very much surprised to hear my hon. friends, who are directly, not angularly, opposite, support this resolution, because it is protection in its worst form. It is more than protection; it is prohibition. Tariff protection, if I may say so, is directed usually only against the foreigner. The manufacturer who wants tariff protection in this country desires as much as possible to shut out goods coming from a foreign country. On the other hand, if this resolution passes, we shall prohibit our own Canadian people from engaging in a certain industry, producing an article which, it is admitted, is a legitimate article of commerce. That would be the grossest and most unjustifiable interference with personal liberty that might almost be imagined. The law prohibiting oleomargarine should have been repealed long ago -not merely suspended from year to year. It was passed as long as thirty, six years ago. Well, it is about time it was repealed, and I would say that the Government, instead of again debating whether they should suspend this prohibitory law for another year, should make up their minds about it and repeal it absolutely, so that it shall not be necessary next year to repeat this performance, and do the same thing the following year and the year after that. For the reasons given I am definitely opposed to the resolution. I trust the law will be repealed and this vexed question settled once and for all.


Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds) :: I propose to support the resolution introduced and so ably discussed by the hon. member
for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). He has gone into the subject so exhaustively that very little remains for me to adduce in support of the reasons he has given to the House. Undoubtedly hon. members have been recently supplied with literature presenting the arguments on behalf of both interests in the matter. The arguments that have been submitted in support of the permission to import and manufacture oleomargarine have been amplified in the literature that has been sent to us. It is said that oleomargarine is manufactured and imported under the strictest regulations. Apparently it is; but I wish to emphasize the difficulty of enforcing regulations of this kind and the possibility, indeed the probability, of their being evaded, besides the opportunity that is presented to those who sell this inferior article of representing it as being equally as good as butter. It is claimed that it is a wholesome article. I do not dispute that. It is said that it is a legitimate article of commerce. That cannot be disputed either, for it has been made so by the laws of our country. It is also said that many countries permit the sale of it; and that, too, is true. And we are told, further, that it is made largely from the products of the farm, although there is a difference of opinion as to the exact quantity of animal products that are used in the manufacture of oleomargarine.
My objection to the manufacture and sale of this article does not rest upon the ground that it is an unwholesome foodstuff. I place my objection on the broad ground of protection. I am a believer in protection for every industry in this country-protection for the manufacturer, protection for the labourer and protection for the farmer. I believe that any one who enjoys any of the benefits in his particular line must be prepared to concede that there is some disadvantage and some handicap in another line. Now, the farmer and the dairy interests of this country need protection against anything that unduly interferes or competes with their products, and they certainly need protection against the free importation of this article. They therefore need protection against the manufacture of it as well. I wish to read a resolution passed by the National Dairy Council of Canada at its meeting held in Winnipeg on January 31st last. That resolution, dealing with the question of oleomargarine, reads:
That owing t|>
the depressing conditions of dairying, the present low prices of butter fat, the importance of stimulating and encouraging
Oleomargarine

an increase in the production of cream on the farms in Canada and the difficulty of securing suitable markets, both domestic and foreign, for the butter at present manufactured in Canada, the National Dairy Council of Canada is of the opinion that no further encouragement should be given the importation, manufacture or sale of oleomargarine by the Parliament of Canada. And that this council urgently requests the Dominion Government to refrain from introducing any legislation dealing with oleomargarine at the next session of Parliament.
That resolution comes from an organization representing the dairymen of Canada. I think it may be accepted as their considered opinion on the subject, and frankly again I want to state that my attitude towards this matter is based upon the ground of protection to that vast industry. There is no industry in the country that is more exacting than agriculture, and that requires a greater effort at the hands of those engaged in it. There is no industry that, perhaps, in years past, has yielded so moderate a profit, and the men who are engaged in it to-day feel that they should have protection against the importation of this inferior substitute, because it is inferior. That is the ground upon which I place my objection to the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine.
Now, the hon. member who spoke last (Mr. Euler) said that we should not destroy any legitimate industry in this country. Well, as I understand the facts, this industry was established with the distinct notification and the clear knowledge that it was only a matter of permission granted during, and by reason of, the war. From its inception the unequivocal understanding was that it might be terminated at any time. So that in connection with this in-' dustry there is no vested right which can be advanced in argument against any action which Parliament might think it wise to take in the matter. I said I was in favour of protection. I have heard a good deal in this House about the disadvantage in connection with high freight rates; and I sincerely hope that some way will be found to overcome the obstacle which the farmers in the West have to contend with from the present high freight rates. I believe that they should, if possible, be protected against the great handicap of distance under which they labour. And I would point out to my hon. friends on my left that they might, and indeed fairly should, consider that as a feature of the principle of protection. I should like to see the coal producers of the maritime provinces protected against the same handicaps of dis-
tance and, if possible, some concession given them in the matter of rates in order that they might have a market for their product in the West.
I do not think I need elaborate this question; I have made my position clear. I believe the dairying interests of the country should receive very careful consideration at the hands of Parliament. It has been correctly stated that the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine in the past was intended to be permitted only during the war and because of war conditions. Those conditions have disappeared and the industry finds itself confronted with shrinking markets. It has a surplus of products, and the markets of the world are to a certain extent demoralized. Prices are falling and the conditions that existed when this permission was granted no longer prevail. We are back again where we were before that permission was given.
The House should take this question into its very serious consideration from the standpoint I have urged, namely, the principle of protection purely and simply. I believe in protection for every industry in Canada. The farmer is entitled to protection in this matter, and others should be prepared to concede it to him. I hope that the resolution will meet with the approval of the House and that any legislation necessary to implement it will be brought down in order that the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine may be prohibited, at least until it is found that conditions generally are such as to render it advisable, in the interests of the public, to permit the operation of the industry. I know there is a great difference of opinion in this House upon the subject, but I urge that the interests of our dairy and general farmers should receive favourable consideration, and that they are entitled to that fair measure of protection which the prohibition of the manufacture and importation of this product would give them.


Mr. A. T. LEGER (Kent, N.B.):: In the interests of dairy and mixed farming in my constituency I am heartily in accord with this resolution. We are encouraging mixed farming and dairying in my part of the country as much as we can, and it is undoubtedly true that the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine is, to a certain extent, destructive of our farmers' efforts to raise more stock and more dairy products.

Oleomargarine
The subject matter of this resolution has been before the House for the last five or six years, and when, the first year after the war, the question of continuing the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine was considered, although, I believe, the majority of the people's representatives were opposed to such continuation, they felt that it would perhaps be better to extend the period for another year when conditions would be about normal.
No one can expect to make this House believe that any article containing a mixture of tallow and oil with a small amount of milk or cream is a good substitute for butter. I was amused to see the exMinister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) produce a package of oleomargarine. The exterior looks fine, but, Sir, I do not believe he ever examined the inside of similar packages. I purchased a package on one occasion to satisfy my curiosity. I found the contents to be a greasy, oily looking mixture which I could not believe was fit for human consumption. But it is pressed on some poor people. I would not like to see my people use such a substitute for butter. I always like to see a poor man use good, substantial food, and not these unsatisfactory substitutes.
In stock raising we have to use the milk from our cows. I ask hon. members, would it be right for us to throw away the cream, as we would have to do, so that oleomargarine may take the place of our butter? I think not. Now that we are getting back to normal conditions there is no longer any necessity to import or to manufacture this stuff at the expense of our dairy and stock raising industry. Therefore I am strongly in favour of doing away with the further importation or manufacture of oleomargarine, and I shall have much pleasure in supporting this resolution.


Mr. E. A. MUNRO (Fraser Valley) :: Mr. Speaker, the main argument in favour of the continued importation and manufacture of oleomargarine seems to be changing ground somewhat. It never was considered equal to butter for its food value, but it was thought advisable to encourage its use as a cheap substitute for our poor people. I would ask, where are the poor people in this country? A good many of us have heard our Progressive friends describing the hard conditions that at present exist in the prairie provinces. Personally, I believe what they have told us. You may ask me why. I reply, simply
because I am a farmer. But you have got to convince a good many people besides farmers, as you will find out before you get through here. Therefore I am sympathetic when my friends from the prairie provinces ask for the re-establishment of the Wheat Board with all its original powers. But, mind you, I am consistent, for while I am ready to grant my Progressive friends that assistance so far as I am personally concerned, still I consider it to be a form of protection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Elgin Albert Munro: I repeat, I consider it is a form of protection, and more, it is an interference with personal liberty to a certain extent. Nevertheless, governments have taken similar action in the past, and why should they not do so in this instance, if you people are in the condition you say you are, and I believe you, because whether farmers are grain growers or dairymen, their condition is very unsatisfactory. Therefore I am sympathetic and I am going to stay with you.
I may be told that I am dealing with the grain issue instead of the dairy issue. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how many grain growers are in the dairy business. I presume that many grain growers have some milk cows. Now, just to show what condition the dairymen find themselves in out west, I am going to read a newspaper clipping from the financial Post of February 24, because I take it that when the dairymen and grain growers come down to this House and ask for protection they need it, and need it badly. But the dairymen in question have not come down and asked for any special legislation. Here is the despatch, sent from Edmonton:
This province will produce 18,000,000 pounds of butter in 1922, and 25,000,000 in the year following, according to an estimate of the Alberta Dairymen's Association. This will be 100 per cent increase in two years, and as prospects are now It is thought not too high a mark.
Listen to this:
The dairymen have gone on record as favouring an increase in duty of from 3 to 6 cents a pound on butter coming in from New Zealand which is Alberta's chief source of competition.
Is that protection? I do not say they are wrong; but we in British Columbia need it even worse than you do, because we get your butter from the East; we get the New Zealand butter from the Coast: we get Chinese eggs; and a whole lot of things like that, all of which makes it very interesting for us.
Oleomargarine


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that New Zealand butter sells in Vancouver in competition with butter manufactured at home there? It is rather remarkable.


Elgin Albert Munro: Why, New Zealand butter is all over Canada; it even goes to New York. Some reference has been made to the poor people and how necessary this oleomargarine is to them. Well, judging from the story we have heard from the Progressives, the poor people are not confined to the towns and cities; I never heard a barder-luck tale in my life than we have heard this session on the floor of this House, and it can be duplicated over and over again. "We have the pioneers living on their farms in lonely, secluded places, going to the grocery store with a few pounds of home-made butter in order to obtain the necessities of life, while many so-called poor people living in the town and cities, move about on the bright and cheery streets, and attend the moving picture shows and the theatres while the orchestra plays: " Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag"; "We won't go home till morning", and so on.
It is alleged that oleomargarine is a substitute for butter. Does the price of butter in this country justify the sale of oleomargarine as a substitute? I am a dairyman; I have been at the job more steadily, perhaps, than the ex-Minister of Agriculture, (Mr. Tolmie), and I do say that butter is being manufactured in our country at a loss to-day. If it were not for the fact that the Fraser Valley Mi'k Producers' Association had access to a market in Vancouver whereby we can supply whole milk at prevailing market prices, we would go out of business. We are just marking time. Just to give you an example, last year the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association, a purely co-operative concern owned by the dairymen of the Fraser valley, produced 143,000 pounds of butterfat in excess of the production of the previous year; yet they received $500,000 less in money. Wages were also cut last year by $50,000. At present the dairymen are not making one cent profit; at the rate they are selling now they cannot pay taxes and live unless other commodities drop accordingly; yet some people say that the dairy industry is not being injured by the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. I was talking to some Ontario men the other day-farmers, practical

men who have made good. They told me that they were having a hard time in getting along; that they did not know how they were going to get through the present difficult situation. I met another man the night before last who had recently visited the scene of his early life on the farm, the place where he had farmed for years. He told me that he never saw so many farmers up against it in his life. He said:
" They are all trying to borrow money, not knowing how they are going to pay it back."
We hear a good deal about the value of our home markets; almost any hon. member will wax eloquent in five minutes when he comes to talk on that subject. Now, is it a reasonable suggestion that the sale of oleomargarine in this country will build up a home market for dairy products? You know it will not build up a home market; if it would, do you think the dairymen of this country would' send a resolution such as was read by the hon. member for Deeds (Mr. Stewart) ? Did the hon. member for Leeds not read a resolution of the British Columbia Dairymen's Association?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was a resolution of the National Dairy Council of Canada.


Elgin Albert Munro: Well, it was approved by the British Columbia Dairymen's Association at their annual convention held at Chilliwack in February last. This resolution read as follows:
Whereas the dairy industry is becoming one of the most important branches of Agriculture in the province of British Columbia;
And whereas the present low prices received by dairymen for all dairy products make it necessary that the market for dairy products both at home and abroad should be stimulated and enlarged in order that those in the business may be suitably remunerated;
And whereas the admission of oleomargarine free of duty into this country from the United States, while there is a high duty on Canadian butter entering the United 'States, and the sale and use of oleomargarine as butter, often without the knowledge of the purchaser, are unfair and injurious to the manufacturers of butter [DOT] in Canada;
And whereas the price of butter Is now so low that it is within the means of all who desir^ it;
Therefore, the British Columbia Dairymen's Association, in annual meeting assembled, is of the opinion that the admission and manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada should be discontinued, as its use is now detrimental to the best interests of the country;
And that a copy of this resolution be sent to the honourable the Minister of Agriculture for the Dominion of Canada and to the federal members of all constituencies in the province of British Columbia.
Some bon. members try to convince the House that it is not at all a serious mat-

Oleomargarine
ter for the dairy bufeiness if the sale of oleomargarine is permitted in Canada. But who knows the dairy business best, the men actually engaged in it, or those who have never had anything to do with it? I submit that the men Who have been engaged in this business for a long time know the most about it. The convention of the British Columbia Dairymen, to which I have referred, was one of the largest gatherings of its kind that has been held in British Columbia, and I have read the conclusions which they seriously arrived at, and which they have submitted to hon. members of this House.
I contend also, Mr. Speaker, that if'the Government permits the continued sale and manufacture of oleomargarine in this country they will be taking a course inconsistent with both federal and provincial government policies in the matter of assisting in the establishment of creameries. Why, I believe that the federal government had a travelling creamery go about the country -I shall be glad to be corrected if that is not right. I know that in the province of British Columbia the government are spending a lot of money to assist pioneers in different parts of that new country by buying up good stock, putting it in there and sending out instructors to give the people a start in the business. They realize its relationship to successful pioneering and farming. Is the Government going to take the trouble and incur the expense of instructing these people in the making of good butter, the handling of milk, and that kind of thing, and at the same time permit the manufacture of a substitute like oleomargarine to take its place?
With regard to the argument that the manufacture of oleomargarine should be permitted because we have so many poor people, I would like to ask hon. members this question: Have we so much poverty in the towns and cities of this big new country of Canada, with its population of 9,000,000, that we have to import a substitute for butter from the United States? Is anybody willing to take the position that we cannot supply our own people with good butter; that we must import a cheap substitute? Shall we take that position when butter is selling at such a low price that the dairymen are working for nothing, and we are looking for a market in which to dispose of the large surplus dairy products which we cannot consume at home? It seems to me that the argument is ridiculous. If it ever had any justification, it was during the war, but conditions now have come back to normal and we do not need to continue something which was adopted as a war measure. We dairymen differ from our friends the Progressives to this extent: we are asking that we go back to pre-war conditions; they are asking that we continue war conditions. We want to go back where we were. We did not ask for this thing; it was brought in, as it was alleged, in the public interest; now we want to return to normal conditions. The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that butter is being manufactured under cost price, and any further depression of that market will simply have the effect of injuring the industry to that extent, if not of wiping it out altogether. I may add that these are the thing's that are driving the producers from the soil and swelling the ranks of the poor people in the cities. Instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul, we should encourage the so-called poor people in the towns and cities to go out on the farms and make butter for a change. Many people seem to think that when you get a piece of land your troubles are at an end; it would be the finest thing in the world if we could get these people on the land and let them see whether or not their troubles are no more.
Another argument advanced in favour of the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada is that this article is used in other countries. But Canada, for the most part, is in its pioneer stage; it is a new country. The dairy industry is not so well established in this country as it is in older countries. Here we have labour conditions against us. It has been the policy of this country for a great many years to protect the young industries of Canada from outside competition by a tariff or a subsidy. The system of protection, based on this principle, is recognized and in force to-day, and I say that if protection is the policy of this country at the present time, the dairying industry is entitled to protection under the tariff just as much as any other industry in Canada. Do those who oppose this resolution argue that because the United States trades in oleomargarine, Canada should also be prepared to follow the example of the United States and give to the Canadian farmers and dairymen a Fordney tariff? Let me here point out that the following states on the other side of the line have passed laws prohibiting "filled" milk: New Jersey, Colorado, Utah, California, Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio, Maryland and New York. What about following that example? I ask again, are you prepared to go as far as the United States have gone and give our Canadian farmers
Oleomargarine

and dairymen a Fordney tariff? If so, I say as a dairyman you can pave your streets with oleomargarine, so far as I am concerned.
In conclusion, I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the last census of Canada points out certain things, one of which is that we are not holding very many of our prospective settlers who come to this country. The mesh of our colonization and land settlement schemes seems to be too large, and these prospective settlers are slipping through it and are lost to us. Apparently the evidences of peace and prosperity on the farms in this country are not sufficient to persuade these people to stay.
There is still a greater tragedy taking place, Mr. Speaker. We are not holding our own sons and daughters on the farms of this country, even though those farms be improved and represent the toil and savings of a generation. It is always a hard thing for fathers and mothers to watch the trunks being filled as their sons prepared to leave the old farm, but there is a harder thing still, and that is that we have no sane argument to offer to induce them to say at home on the farm. Poets write and fools rant about the back to the soil movement, but as a matter of fact, the secret of the migration from the farms can be told in four words-long hours, and low pay. There is no line of farm work-and I speak with knowledge because I have been on the farm all my life from fifteen years up-that can hold a candle to dairying for a form of slavery. You have to be up at five in the morning to milk the cows; you work all day providing for the cows in the winter and doing a thousand and one other jobs, and at five at night you have to milk the cows again. You may say: Get somebody else to do that work; but as soon as you talk milk to a man he begins to look for the road. I have had men come to me who I knew were good milkers, and they would want $3.50 a day and a house built for them, and then they would say, "I do not know how to milk," and I knew they had been milking for years. Men who can milk and are willing to do the work are demanding all the milk is worth. You cannot trust a greenhorn to do your milking, and an experienced man can practically make his own terms.
Furthermore, dairying to-day is an expensive business. Municipal authorities and governments are constantly making the sanitary regulations more strict, which 
means that you have to provide costly equipment to produce good milk. Then there is the expense of constant replacement of pure bred sires. You have frequent losses, and never know when another is going to occur. Last year a little disease, of a very common kind, in my herd meant a loss of $1,000 to me, and I could not recoup myself. I had to go through the form of milking these half-dry cows all summer and pay men to do it. I got a letter from home only the other day saying that a breeder of pure bred Jerseys had had sixteen 'high-priced animals slaughtered because of tuberculosis. He will get some compensation from the government, it is true, but not enough to begin to square himself. It will take him years to make up that loss. This is a business that is becoming harder and harder to carry on, because of the aversion of all classes of men to milking. You mention milk to them and they will not work for you. It simply means,-and I know the farmers in the House will bear me out,-that you have to do the work yourself. I heard of farmers on the prairie last fall who were nearly crazy over their crops with so much to do, and who would try and persuade one of the hired men to milk, but they would all try and get out from under it. one after the other. Young men do not want to milk cows and the old men are worn out at the job. What is going tc happen when the old men die? They who have camped on this job and done the work no matter how long it took or how much they got for it? What is going to happen when these men drop out, and the modern man starts operations and is up against the modern idea of six or seven hours a day, and time and a half for overtime, and has to provide for depreciation, overhead charges and interests on his investment? That is where we are headed, and you will be sorry, Mr. Speaker, when that day comes, that you did not eat more butter when it was cheap.
The hon. member for North Waterloc (Mr. Euler) has said some rather peculiar things in his speech this afternoon. He seemed to think that imitation was all right, but I would suggest that imitation is a rather dangerous thing, and I will give an example. Toadstools and mushrooms, for instance, are very much alike, but if you eat a toadstool for a mushroom, the results are very disastrous.


William Daum Euler: Would you say a toadstool is an imitation of a mushroom, or a mushroom an imitation of a toadstool?

Oleomargarine


Elgin Albert Munro: The points of similarity are so great that either might be an imitation of the other. The hon. member also spoke of paper stockings. I submit this as a farmer. We do not ask for paper stockings, but what happened last fall, when we were paying two prices for stockings not much better than paper? The farmers had wool hanging on the poles in their barns, and they could get hardly anything for it. I submit, when you talk about paper [DOT] stockings, that the manufacturer who gets 30 per cent protection should be content to furnish socks at decent prices or have that tariif reduced.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, we have heard presented the strong features of each side of this case with respect to the importation into, and manufacture in Canada of oleomargarine. Many arguments have been adduced, based upon the interest of some particular section of people. The views of the National Council of Dairymen have been presented on the one hand, and the views of the organization in support of oleomargarine have been urged on the other. But I submit that we must find some guiding principle that should actuate the Government in this matter, we must consider principles of public policy rather than the demands of political expediency. Some hon. members may be influenced through opinions in their constituencies; it may be the influence of the Dairymen's Association in one particular section, it may be the influence of the manufacturer of oleomargarine in another locality. Therefore the views of these hon. members are coloured by what they see behind them or what they anticipate in front of them.
I suggest that the only proper way to determine a question of this nature is to consider, in the first place, what the functions of government are in relation to it. In my own opinion there are two functions the government should bear in mind. First, they should make sure that oleomargarine is a pure food; that it is not a food which contains chemicals or ingredients that are injurious to health. The second, is that the government should make sure that the people will not be deceived, that when they buy this particular article they will know exactly what they
are buying. To venture beyond this, Mr. Speaker, is to undertake an exaggerated form of paternal legislation.
It might be asked if a government can tell the people that they can or cannot use oleomargarine-perhaps I am repeating the argument of some hon. members but it will bear repeating-why can they not also enact laws that people shall eat three meals a day, or that they shall drink milk instead of water, tea or coffee? It may be asked why cannot paternal legislation cause the adoption of such regulations as will require the farmers to feed their cows on clover, or their horses on clover and timothy and hay instead of on timothy and hay and sometimes straw? Further, it may be asked, why cannot it be provided that people shall eat No. 1 fresh butter instead of imported butter from other countries, or that they shall eat ordinary butter instead of the oleomargarine which is the subject of the present discussion? I submit that what should guide us in coming to a conclusion in this matter should be the national consideration of what is best in the general interest and welfare of the people; and that the functions of a government, as I said before, should be directed to inquiring whether this particular food is pure and whether the people are being deceived in any particular with respect to it. When hon. members allow considerations beyond these to determine their attitude, I submit they are not founding their decisions upon the right premises.
I would like to direct the attention of the House to some of the considerations in support of the importation of oleomargarine into Canada and its manufacture here. In a circular issued by the Retail Merchants Association of Canada, a very large organization, they tell us:
Having a trained knowledge of our 1)0810688, we stand ready at all times to express our opinion, when requested, as to the quality of the goods selected, and in the case of foodstuffs to advise as to their healthfulness, etc.
Then the circular proceeds:
The members of our Grocers' Section who sell oleomargarine, before recommending it, made exhaustive enquiries as to' its manufacture and the ingredients contained in it. The Chief Analyst for the Dominion Government was consulted and pronounced it a perfectly good food, and he stated that it contained no harmful ingredients. On each package is stamped the approval of the Department of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada, and our retail grocers and general store merchants thoughout Canada, therefore, feel perfectly justified in stocking it and offering it for sale. If our customers did not want it there would be no sale for it, but our experience shows that
Oleomargarine

they want it, and, in our opinion, seeing that it is a non-injurious and palatable product, and that it contains nothing that is unhealthful, they should be allowed to buy it if they so desire and no law should be passed to prevent them from having it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that is the real point of this discussion: if the people want to buy oleomargarine why should they not be allowed to do so? The only reason why it is proposed they should be denied the privilege of buying it, is because one section of the community believes it will be prejudicial to its best interests. The strongest argument that I have heard in support of the resolution came from the hon. member who said, " I *base my contention entirely upon the question of protection." But this is not a question of protection. The resolution proposes to prohibit entirely the importation into, and the manufacture of the product in, this country; and so even the argument of protection has no foundation in fact so far as the merits of this case are concerned.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does not my hon.
friend think that the dairy industry has as much right to ask for the protection of the importation or manufacture of oleomargarine, as the shoe manufacturers have to ask for a tariff in order to keep shoes from the United States and other countries out of Canada?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. member apparently misses the exceedingly important point involved: he does not distinguish between prohibition and protection. If this resolution asked for the imposition of a tariff on oleomargarine I would say it would come within the consideration of reason; but when it declares that, although oleomargarine as a food is good, people shall not use it, I cannot understand how the parliament of any free country could seek to impose its will to that extent upon the public.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Why any protection on anything?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. member is getting into a very wide field when he considers the question of any protection on anything. I believe before Parliament prorogues, that question will be pretty fully discussed and all kinds of arguments will be advanced. That, however, has no reference at all to the point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House. In my opinion, the question is a very simple one. As I was saying, an organization that is sup-

porting, and that desires the right to purchase, oleomargarine in the stores is the Great War Veterans' Association in different parts of Canada. This is a resolution passed by the Toronto branch:
Be it resolved that the Great War Veterans* Association, Toronto district and York county command, urge the Dominion government promptly to take steps to assure the continued manufacture and sale of oleomargarine so that housewives may be enabled to continue freely to purchase oleomargarine for their families if they so desire.
The National Council of Women also wish to be permitted to continue to exercise that right, and I am informed that a great number of organizations in different parts of the country desire to have that right. I should like hon. members, who are opposing the merits of the contention submitted on our side, to direct some attention to the point whether it is within the functions of a government to pass such paternal legislation as will prohibit people from buying in any store a product of this or any other kind which is pure and which people want. That is the whole point of this discussion, namely how far is Parliament going and to what extent is it entitled to pass legislation of that kind?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. member speaks about prohibition and protection. Was not his object, when he advocated the prohibition of Asiatic immigration, the protection of Canadian labour?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I cannot conceive that it would be easy to impose a tariff in the sense of the human equation on Asiatics coming into this country. That is largely a social problem, whereas this question is largely an economic one.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to briefly express my opinion in support of the proposed resolution for the prohibition of the sale of margarine in this country. I already had occasion, last session, to expound my reasons for opposing the manufacture and sale of this product. At each session, some member deems it his duty to introduce a resolution to prohibit such sale. That alone would suffice to show that such legislation is not sound, that the act which was passed some years ago, allowing the sale of this product, is unwarranted, and that there is no general wish for its maintenance, on the part of the people of this country. Such being the state of public opinion, it should be dispensed with.
I think the time has come,

since that legislation is about to lapse-to remind the

Oleomargarine
Government that it is the wish of our farming community, of our agricultural societies, of the settler and of the farmer, that the manufacture and sale of this product should become a thing of the past, as far as I am concerned, I do not think it should exist. In fact we are asking very little when we request that this transitory legislation, which is on the eve of lapsing, be discontinued; we ask for a return to the statu quo, we ask, on behalf of the farmers, the same legislation they had in former years.
Previous to the late war, which compelled us to enact special legislation in order to supply needs which circumstances required, we existed without this butter substitute, without this famous margarine which certain countries got in the way of consuming and that we always look upon with horror in this beautiful agricultural country. There is no reason whatever to maintain a product of this kind in Canada. Agriculture is the principal industry of the country, and we do not need, I repeat it, to have recourse to this detestable legislation which was enacted in times of hardship, to permit the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that it was during the sad days of the great war, when we lacked sufficient products in this country to feed our own people, when the European markets were wide open to us, when our products were sought and sold at exceedingly high prices, it was then that it was considered expedient, but only for a limited time, to adopt transitory legislation, so as to allow for a year or two and no more, the sale of oleomargarine. On the eve of this act lapsing, the advisability of maintaining it was discussed in this House; there was then question of continuing it for two years; protests were voiced in this House; we did not want it maintained for the excellent reasons then brought to bear and which still hold good to-day, and we asked that, instead of enacting a new law for two years, it should be re-enacted for a year only. Presently the act will lapse and that will be the end of it.
We have nothing to ask for; we must simply abide by the acknowledged fact and let that enactment become null and void so as to return to normal times, those good times during which we lived (before the war, having none of these ephemeral laws, none of these makeshift enactments. Let us allow that legislation to lapse and we shall witness once more that heyday of prosperity we enjoyed before the war. We want no such legislation as existed these last years in order to bring back upon the market that substitute for butter which is not needed in this country, because we have that good farm product in such quantity and of such quality as will satisfy our needs'-in such large quantities as will allow us to place it upon foreign markets, and to let the whole world know the fair name of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that some honourable members should ask for the maintenance of such an enactment. I regret it, I say, because this is a time in the year when everything seems to get a new lease of life; the beautiful countryside is verdant once more, and in the fields the farmer's band throws out the prolific seed. The tiller needs encouragement and we, lawmakers, must not stand up and say to him that the most splendid product from his farm, the product of the dairy industry, will not have a free scope as formerly and that we shall have it compete with an inferior article. He needs encouragement, that farmer, when he holds in his hand and spreads the seeds of wheat which bring wealth to this country; he wants us to stand by him and support him in that most important dairy industry, and tell him: Now, farmer, carry on as in the past.
The dairy industry is still the greatest source of wealth in our land. It is that industry we are developing in this country and in my beloved province of Quebec, where our public men have devoted the best part of their time towards securing the success of an industry that has built up Quebec's reputation. It is to that industry that have devoted themselves men like the present minister of agriculture in that province, the Hon. Mr. Caron, a model farmer, who has favoured it with all his might, all his heiart, who has brought it to a high degree of perfection and who wishes that it be the foremost in his province. Were we to tell him: You have followed the wrong path; on that industry we shall graft as a rival a substitute for butter, we shall place upon our market, upon the table of our fellow-citizens that substitute for butter which is called oleomargarine and have it to compete with that splendid product. Such a course would be an unfortunate (blunder on the part of this House. We ought to look after the farmer and encourage him. The farmer was the pioneer in our country. He certainly deserves our support and the best encouragement we could give him would be
Oleomargarine

to repeal such, an enactment which opens our markets to oleomargarine as well as to butter.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaven-ture) :: Mr. Speaker, I feel it my duty to say a few words on the question before the House, representing as I do an agricultural constituency in which is made about the best butter to be found in the province of Quebec. The future prosperity of this country rests almost wholly on its agriculture, and anything that this House can do should be done to encourage a return of population to the farms, because unless we can build up this basic industry I see no hope for Canada in the future. Since 1882, the province of Quebec has developed a magnificent market, abriad as well as at home, for butter and cheese. By the statistics for the year 1920, I observe that the output of butter brought a return of $23,000,000 odd and cheese over $13,000,000. There are 1,800 factories distributed throughout the province of Quebec, and the making of butter and cheese is probably the most promising of all our industries. The splendid donation made by the province of Quebec at the outbreak of the war of half a million dollars' worth of cheese was a great stimulus to the industry, to which it attracted considerable attention.
I should consider myself recreant to my duty if I did not vote against the continuance of this attempt to foist upon the country a product which I do not think the people want. It was allowed as a substitute during the war and there is now no further need for the manufacture of it. Those who can buy butter at any reasonable price do not care for oleomargarine. I do not think that any man going into a store would buy this article if he could get butter at a fair price. People had to buy oleomargarine during the war because the price of butter was very high, but now prices are all reasonable and they can afford to get the genuine product.
We should give the farmer every encouragement possible. He does not enjoy the protection which the manufacturers and the capitalists are given; and, furthermore, he has to contend with weather conditions and markets. The markets of the United States are now closed against him, and the farms are all suffering from an exodus of the rural population to the cities. Thousands of people have left my constituency, and the same is true of other places in Canada. We must make the conditions of

rural life attractive so that these people may be induced to return to the farms. In the province from which I come particularly, there is no more promising industry than the dairy business, and I therefore feel it my duty to support this resolution. I congratulate the hon. member who introduced it (Mr. Neill) for the very fair and complete manner in which he laid the question before the House.
Mr. WILLIAM F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond) : The speeches on this question have been very brief and I hope to follow the example set by other hon. gentlemen. I do not personally like oleomargarine. I had the misfortune of being obliged to eat it for some considerable time and I know something about it. As I understand the question before the House, however, it is not a matter of taste but a question whether or not we should permit the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in this country. I take the ground that a person who can afford to buy butter will buy butter, while those who are unable to buy it will buy oleomargarine. So that I fail to see the force of the argument that the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada is going to injure in any way the dairy interests of the country. The hon. member who so very ably presented the question to the House said that there was a great deal of sham and fraud about the manufacture and sale of this article. Well, we are all more or less in the hands of those who sell us anything we eat or anything we wear. For example, how many people out of the 8,000,000 or so who inhabit this country are able in the fall of the year to clothe themselves in the very best of woollens? A very small percentage. Indeed, very many people in Canada are obliged to wear underclothing which is not made of wool at all. No doubt they would like very much to be able to get the real article, but they cannot afford to pay for it, and because they are bound to get inferior clothing we might as well say that they are the victims of fraud and sham perpetrated by those who sell them the cheaper goods. Again, there are a great many different grades of shoes, and sometimes we find them with soles that are made of paper instead of leather. Nevertheless, there are people who buy shoes of this kind because they cannot afford the more expensive grades.


An hon. MEMBER:: Should these manufactures be protected?

Oleomargarine


William F. Carroll: I am not considering the question whether there is too much protection or not enough protection. I am not arguing from that standpoint. Now, if the people of the country do not wish to eat oleomargarine there is no duty whatever imposed upon them to eat it. If they can pay for butter they will certainly not buy oleomargarine; but if they are unable to buy butter and are perfectly satisfied with a substitute, why should they be hindered from procuring it? I do not see how they can possibly injure the dairy interests by buying oleomargarine when they could not buy butter in any case. I am not speaking for my own constituency in this matter. For once, in my life, at all events, I may speak from the broader and more national point of view. I do not think that there are ten pounds of oleomargarine used in the constituency I represent, although it is one of the largest industrial constituencies in Canada. But if there are people in this country who desire to use oleomargarine as a substitute for butter or for cooking purposes, I do not think that this Parliament should deprive them of that right which they should enjoy as free-born Canadians. I shall vote against the resolution for these reasons and for many more which I could state.
Mr. AIME M. DECHENE (Mont-magny) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, on every occasion when this question was discussed in this House I had the honour to take part in the debate, and my firm attitude of the past, on this question is the one which I intend to maintain this evening, in other words, to oppose the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. It is therefore a pleasant duty for me to support the resolution of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and to ask all our colleagues to join us in our effort to remove from the market of this country, a certainly inferior product which has not the value attributed to it; for after all, oleomargarine and other products of the same nature have but a very small value. It may be eaten with bread, as for instance on a slice of bread which we give to children, though devoid of the most nutritious constituents found in butter; but it cannot be used in a very palatable way to cook food. We all know that when oleomargarine comes in contact with heat it disintegrates immediately and a tallow smell is given out which is very disagreeable; this explains why no one likes to consume hot food prepared with oleomargarine. It however finds a ready sale, under the disguise of cheapness, with the people who think they are economizing by using, instead of butter, oleomargarine, an article of inferior quality.
During the war, we were forced to allow the use of a substitute owing to the 'high cost of the dairy products such as butter and cheese. This was a war measure, one which should have been repealed immediately after the armistice; but, in order to meet the wish of everybody, the government of that day thought it prudent and wise to continue this legislation for a few months more. Last year it seemed absolutely decided that we would, this year, see the end of such legislation; however rumours are spreading which forecast a further continuation of this legislation for some time to come. This would certainly cause considerable harm to the dairy industry of this country. Some twenty years ago, dairying was very little thought of, not only in this country but in the foreign markets. The problem was solved by encouraging the dairy industry and prohibiting the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine and other such products. Ever since the dairy industry has had full scope, it has progressed considerably. Our products have acquired a great value. In the past they were considered of inferior quality in the market, however, to-day they are highly appreciated, not only in Canada but in foreign markets. The Department of Agriculture observing that the greater part of the population was interested in the success of the dairy industry, established these past years, competitive examinations following courses of instruction in butter-making. The result of these competitions is published yearly. That of last year showed that we had made considerable progress in the manufacture of butter. Every year, since this co-operation has been established, there is a marked improvement. Now, that we are in a position to meet competition from Denmark and New Zealand, and to compete against them on an equal footing in the British, French and Belgian markets, we seek to obtain permission, in Canada, to sell substitutes. Having laboured for twenty years to improve his herd, having faithfully followed the advice of the Department of Agriculture, at Ottawa, and of the provincial agricultural departments, the farmer will behold all his work reduced to nought; now that he is on the eve of securing a market

Oleomargarine

and establishing a good reputation, while his industry is becoming remunerative, he will find that we allow the sale of products which are substitutes, simply imitations, and therefore bound to be a very unfair competitor.
Some of the hon. members who spoke this afternoon or this evening said: "You will ruin an industry and the capital invested will prove a loss." According to the manufacturers' own figures, there has been manufactured, during the year 1921, 3,780,392 pounds of oleomargarine in Canada, and according to the same source, 2,057,035 pounds were imported. On the other hand, there was more than $199,000,000 worth of butter and cheese produced amongst 3,258 factories. Should we, by continuing this year this legislation help to develop an industry which would compete and ruin the one we already have? It is all very well to allow, in this country, the development of as many industries as possible, however, on the other hand, we should take the necessary steps, not to ruin those which our rural population have established within the past twenty or twenty-five years, on a basis which does credit to Canada. We had in the year 1920, about 3,258 factories making butter and cheese. How many oleomargarine factories are there? I think, we could say, without fear of contradiction, that they are no more nor less, but side lines of the large packing establishments of this country and that they alone really benefit by them. They tell us, on the other hand, that if they are not allowed to manufacture oleomargarine, they will be at a loss to dispose of the by-products of the steer. I see, by their own figures, that they have imported from the United States a quantity of vegetable, mineral and even animal oils in a greater proportion than what is manufactured in this country.
So as to enable them to import a few thousand pounds of mineral or animal oils, that can be produced in their present industry which is deserving of encouragement, should we also allow them to create a monopoly and jeopardize the industries already established? I contend, Mr. Speaker, that we would then be working towards demolishing what we have built with so much perseverance upset the calculations of the farming community. Do you not 'believe that, if one of these days, the farmer realized that the sale of oleomargarine and its by-products, or any kind1 of oil mixed with butter, proved a serious competitor in the market, that he

would do as many others have already done and say: "Well, there is already very little money in farming, I shall give up the dairy industry. I shall discontinue rising at half past three or four o'clock in the morning to milk the cows, I shall not retire to bed at eight or nine o'clock, at night, after having again milked the cows and given the necessary care to the herd, thus I shall give up competing against the sale of all those vegetable and other oils, which are imported from the United States. Why so much worry to supply certain privileged ones, with a few pounds of butter, when the large manufacturers of this country, themselves, favour American industries by importing hundreds of thousands of, dollars worth, nay, several millions, of their products in preference to our own.
A young man brought up on the farm with his father would naturally come to this conclusion: "Conditions on the farm are so bad, the farmer is so poorly encouraged that he is not even allowed to retain what he has to-day, moreover unfair competition is 'being brought to bear to annoy him, I shall therefore follow the example of other young men, go and live in the city." Thus we shall again be working to depopulate the rural districts in the interest of large cities. If you wish to keep our young men on the farm, give them a chance to lay something aside for themselves. Otherwise they can not be blamed if they move to large centres, to work as labourers, and walk the streets at half past seven or eight o'clock at night.
Some one said, a few minutes ago: "That there was a market for oleomargarine therefore we should produce some for sale". This reasoning struck me as being false, because any dealer, any man who is acquainted with the ways and means of selling a product to others, can sell them any thing whatever. We know to-day that it is not the value of the goods themselves which render them marketable, but rather that man who is a hustler who sells them. Place the best article in the hands of an ordinary commercial traveller he may have very little success but place an article of little value in the hands of a man of experience, and you will see how quickly he will dispose of it. Why? because all depends on the salesman, the article itself plays no part in the. transaction. Because a product is saleable, is that a sufficient reason to allow its sale to the detriment of good products which should have the first place on the market?

Oleomargarine
The price of butter and cheese, at the present time, is very nearly what it was before the war. Any labourer or salaried man whatever could at that time purchase butter. He had enough money to do so. Yet, his salary was rather less than it is to-day. If he earns more money now, if his income is greater, should he not therefore have the means to purchase the butter which his fellow-countrymen are manufacturing and which would help the farmers to hold their farms, since the latter are obliged to pay the high prices demanded by labour.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the great majority of the agricultural population of this country understand, as we do, that 't is necessary to immediately suppress such an industry before we allow it to develop. Those who have invested capital in the manufacture of oleomargarine, of butterine or other substitutes for butter, knew what they were doing. They knew that it was an industry bound to disappear with the war, just like that of ammunitions. To-day, then before this industry develops, why not prevent any further expense, but immediately prohibit the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. I believe that in this manner, we shall prove to the country that we really wish to do something to help farmers to improve their present condition. Let us give everybody a chance, and we shall never regret having done our full duty in this as in many other circumstances. Let us pluck out the thorn before it causes any serious injury.


John Livingstone Brown: I think
it would be unfortunate if this debate closed without those who sit in this corner of the House making themselves heard. I cannot claim that there is perfect unanimity among the organized farmers of the prairies in this matter, but I think I can enunciate the principles that from the very beginning have lain behind the organizations which we represent-principles which we have not consciously departed from. I know it is being urged in some quarters these days that we are not true to our principles in making our request for the Wheat Board. I can only say that in so doing we have not, consciously at least, departed from our principles, as we certainly would be departing from them if we were to support the resolution submitted by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr Neill).
The resolution most distinctly declares that it is being advanced in the interest of the dairy industry-and, of course, it is added
114J
"the public generally." The hon. member might just as well have left out those words as his argument in favour of the resolution from the standpoint of the "poor consumer." The hon. member would have been perfectly consistent if he had done so, for he is already on record to the effect that in his view protection is simply a local matter, and that he is prepared to be protectionist or free trader according to the location in which he is placed. Therefore when he spoke of looking after the interests of the consumer, I say he might just as well have saved himself the trouble, for in view of his previous statement no one will believe him.
Two arguments are being advanced in favour of this resolution, arguments that should be kept distinctly apart, but instead of keeping them separate the hon. member has rather mixed the two together. When he was speaking I could not but wonder if his association with the Chinamen had made him as expert in camouflaging a situation as he said the Chinamen are in camouflaging the kind of meat they place before their customers. If that is true it is unfortunate, and it certainly affords one more reason, in addition to those already given, for the exclusion of Asiatics.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, two arguments are advanced in support of this resolution, one from the standpoint of the consumer- the "poor consumer," who is to .be protected from something he might eat that would do him physical harm. On this point I do not presume to have an opinion. I know nothing about oleomargarine, I have never eaten it to my knowledge; but we have testimony from a great variety of sources that this product when manufactured under proper supervision is not unwholesome, and I am prepared to accept that evidence 'as perfectly valid. If it can be shown that the consumption of this product is detrimental to the health of our people, well, we will be moved to consider the advisability of restricting or even prohibiting its sale. But that is not a question which I wish to consider from the standpoint of the farmer; it is a question that must be settled by those who are specially competent to deal with it along these lines, and on that account I do not presume to have an opinion on it, I am, as I said, content to accept the opinion of those who are competent to deal with that phase of the question. We might say this,
Oleomargarine

however, that even the layman can easily understand that the manufacture of this product must be surrounded by certain safeguards. That is evident on the face of it. If those safeguards are not sufficient, if the restrictions already imposed upon the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine are not what they ought to be, then by all means let us impose further restrictions; but so far as interfering with its sale, I cannot see my way clear to adopt such a position at this time.
Now, let us consider it from the standpoint of protection to the dairy farmer. Our organizations-I am speaking of the farmers' organizations-have been built upon the principle of no special privilege. Those who sit in this corner of the House were elected on a platform containing a plank in favour of the free importation of foodstuffs, and for my part I have no intention of going back on that principle. Let me say a word to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) who has advocated protection for the farmer. He advocated the discontinuance of the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine purely from the standpoint of protection; therein being a protectionist he was, of course, perfectly consistent. But if he has been able to find out how the farmer is to be protected, it is something that we have not been able to find out yet. My interest in political affairs began in the election of 1878, when Sir John Macdonald introduced his national policy, and I remember well the arguments that were then advanced in support of that policy, that the farmers must have protection. The poor farmers of that day were deluded, and many of them are still labouring under the delusion that it is possible to protect farmers although the great bulk of their exports find a market in foreign countries. From the standpoint, then, of consistently maintaining our principles, I feel that I for one-and I know there are many who feel like me-must oppose this resolution. I do not think, even if we admitted that principle, or were willing to violate our platform, that the protection sought would really be of any value to us. I think that argument can be maintained in this as well as in other connections, that when we have to compete in the markets of the world with our foodstuffs it is not reasonable to suppose that .this trivial protection could be of any value to us. Even if I were convinced that the discontinuance of the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine could be of any value to farmers, I would still, from the standpoint 
of the principles that have placed behind our organization, be compelled to vote against this resolution.
When I come to discuss these matters before the public and to urge our position on other questions, I want to be able to say to the labouring man: We will pay you good wages, but there must be no loafing on the job; we want an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. ' And I want to be able to say to the manufacturer: You must stand on your own feet just as we have to stand on our own feet. Therefore on this question of the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine I do not propose to lower the flag under which our farmers' organizations have marched during the last twenty years.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, like nearly every other subject of debate, there are two sides to this question. I freely and frankly admit that at the outset, but I propose to take one side and try to show cause why the resolution should be sustained. The history of oleo dates back to 1867, when an eminent French investigator discovered how to make cheap butter out of the natural fats and oils. Ever since it has been used as a substitute for butter.
I am not going to take exception to those who put up a plea for the poor man's butter, but let us investigate to what extent it has been used, and to what extent we might be able to compromise probably with that plea and make some advances in the direction of meeting those demands. The extent of the manufacture and importation of oleo during the last three years goes to show that its consumption is directly related to its price and the price of butter. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1920, the consumption of oleo in Canada amounted, in round numbers, to nearly 15,000,000 pounds; in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1921, it was nearly
11,000,000 pounds. Last year, when real butter, through the drop in price, came within the reach even of many of the poorer people, the consumption of oleo was reduced to 3,250,000 pounds. This shows that when conditions return to normal or nearly normal, the demand for oleo decreases accordingly, and presents a justification for the course taken in 1917, when the price of retail butter ran up to 70 cents or more, and it was regarded as a hardship upon the people to be obliged either to purchase butter at that price or do without it. It was at this time that the prohibition

F !.
Oleomargarine
of importation and manufacture of oleomargarine was removed, and it has never since been re-established. I realized something of the difficulty which would be involved in removing a law of
9 p.m. this nature once it had been enacted and vested rights had become established. Accordingly, in 1917 I opposed the importation and manufacture of oleo, believing that the reasons for doing so were not sufficient and that there would be difficulty in reverting to former conditions.
So long as we have in force another prohibition which is effective with regard to the production of butter in Canada, it seems to me that we should be making a mistake in permitting the importation and manufacture of oleo. I refer to a prohibition which was enacted in 1886 by the government of that day and continued in force in its earlier form until 1903. In that year the dairy industry-which was a struggling one in those days; it was not as well established as it is now-was given further encouragement in the prohibition of the manufacture and importation of renovated butter. The idea was to enable the dairy industry to get upon its feet, because it was not an easy matter to start that industry in Canada. Some people take the ground that dairying is an industry indigenous to this country. But it is not so indigenous to Canada as it is to many other countries with which we have to compete; not so indigenous as to make it unnecessary for the legislators of 1886 and and 1903, in order to give it a fair chance, to prohibit the manufacture and importation of oleo as well as the renovation of dairy butter by mixing it with creamery butter, thus deteriorating the quality and discouraging the creamery industry. So long as that prohibition upon renovated butter prevails it seems to me we are moving in the wrong direction; we are putting the cart before the horse. Now, some people take the ground that renovated butter is objectionable, but not half as much objection can be urged against it as was urged some years ago against the introduction of oleomargarine. I find on discussing this matter with my fellow members that a great many of them are not aware that a prohibition upon renovated butter was enacted in 1903 and exists to this day. The effect of this prohibition is most strongly felt in connection with dairy butter made in the frontier districts of Canada in places remote from creameries. Those who make it are poor people; their
facilities are not the most ample, and though the butter is not manufactured under unsanitary or unclean conditions, it is produced in primitive surroundings and without proper storage. It is put on the market in the ordinary country store; it goes to the retail store, then to the wholesaler, then to Winnipeg or Calgary. Finally it is banished from the country. It is not permitted to be renovated and find a market in Canada; it has to go to St. Paul, climb over the 8-cent Fordney tariff wall, pay the freight rate to St. Paul-and you can imagine how much the man on the frontier gets for it when it goes through that procedure.
I have before me a summary of the quotations on butter and oleomargarine in the Minneapolis market of the 8th of this month. At that time the retail price of creamery butter was 40 cents a pound- it varied from 40 to 42, but I give the low figure in each case; renovated butter was 32 cents, a difference of 8 cents; oleomargarine was 25 cents, or 7 cents cheaper than the renovated butter. I am persuaded, Mr. Speaker, that if the renovation of this butter were permitted in either Calgary or Winnipeg the result would be to save the freight rate to St. Paul, to save the 8 cent duty imposed by the Fordney tariff bill which would make at least a saving of nine cents, and to enable this product to sell in Winnipeg at the same price as oleo. That is only an estimate, but I think it is a fair one. I do not think the price would be above that of oleo, but even if it were two or three cents more, it would still have many advantages over oleo. It is not merely three or four per cent butter fat, as oleo is; it is 100 per cent butter fat and has 100 per cent content. Those of us, then, who feel solicitous on behalf of the poor man and are desirous of giving him cheap butter should be willing to give him real butter manufactured in Canada. Remove the restriction; let this butter be renovated and we will kill two birds with the one stone; we will come to the relief of the frontier man who to-day can hardly get a living price for his dairy butter; we will let that butter come within seven cents of being worth as much as first-class dairy butter. At the same time we will help the poor people who have to buy this necessary article of diet. Let us take that course rather than let the by-products of the big plants of Canada or of any other part of the world enter into competition
Oleomargarine

with the honest dairy cow of this country. I am prepared, if my colleagues will agree with me, to take that prohibition off by legislation this session, as a means of giving real relief; as a means of giving butter which is not 2 per cent butter-some of my friends here claim that they have had enough 2 per cent-but 100 per cent butter with 100 per cent food content. Then, if we subsequently want to throw on more brakes with a view of taking action affecting the dairy industry in the West as well as in the East, that will be a matter for consideration.
Now I am going to take up a number of the arguments that have been made in favour of oleo. We have heard of the poor man's butter and of the greater food value of oleo. I always used to hear it claimed that oleo was of lesser food value than butter, but let us suppose that it just evens up, that there is an equal number of calories in butter and oleo. That depends, of course, on who takes the sample. If you have butter with a large water content, and oleo with a small water content, the analysis will show to the advantage of oleo, but if the samples are taken fairly and show an equal number of calories, that, after all, is only one factor in the analysis. It shows the energy, the heat property, but it does not show the assimilative power of the human system to make use of these articles. .Everybody knows that butter is not only more palatable than oleo, but more easily digested and assimilated. There is no comparison between the two articles in that respect. How many of us here, if given the choice, would take oleo? Not one.
Then it is said that it is contrary to free trade principles to prohibit the importation of oleo. Here I find myself strangely aligned to-night; but we want enough votes. I find myself aligned with my protectionist friends, I like them for one thing; they are at least candid, even if they are wrong, but in this instance they happen to be right.
I hear the argument made by some that they do not believe in prohibition of anything. Others say that they do believe in prohibition because they want to prohibit this article. I am not going to be forced into the position of being a protectionist, nor do I think it is necessary, because in the sense in which we usually use that word this is not protection at all. Why? Protection means a tariff or tax on some commodity to encourage the production of a similar commodity in our own country.

' Is a cow similar to a packing plant with which you are asking it to compete? Not at all. There is no comparison, so the question of protection does not arise. I take the ground that the prohibition of the manufacture and importation of oleo is not protection at all in the sense in which we usually use that term, because the things competing are different. It is a cow competing against a packing plant, and not only the packing plants of Canada, but of the entire world. If that be so, the question of protection does not come in.
The other evening we discussed a question where there were two classes of the same species competing with each other, and to that extent it was like against like. That was the question of the exclusion of the Asiatics or the restriction of their immigration. Every man in this House, if 1 recollect aright, took the ground that they should either be excluded or their numbers restricted. In that instance it was man against man, the yellow race against the white race. It was admitted by everybody that the competition was unfair, and that is what I claim in this case. The comparison in the case of the Japanese versus the white- race was more justifiable because the two classes competing were both men made after the same pattern, and recognizing the same Creator. The competition was unfair. We all recognized that it was unfair. Every man in the House who acquiesced in or voted against that resolution recognized the unfairness of certain kinds of competition. We can do that without being charged with toeing protectionists. Would you have a game-cock compete with a utility barnyard bird and call the competition equal? Would you have the Japanese compete with the white man in British Columbia and call that competition fair? So if exclusion or restriction in that case is justifiable, it is much more justifiable that the good dairy cow should not be asked to compete against the immense packing plants of this continent. 1 am just as much a stickler for free trade, and for as little restrictions on trade, as any other man in this House, but there is such a thing as absolutely unfair competition and this is a case in point-and unfair competition is something that we have all recognized should not exist.
Another argument is that people should have the right to eat what they want. Anybody who takes that ground must also go a step further and say that people should be able to drink what they like. We have lots of precedents in Canada, we

Oleomargarine
have seven out of nine provinces that say you cannot drink what you like. Whether that is right or wrong, that is what we have said. Consequently we have a precedent before us.
I want to refer to another prohibition and this raises an important point. If we permit oleo to be manufactured and imported how many steps will it be from that to the permission of the importation and manufacture of filled milk and cream? Just one. In fact, we have it now. Somebody put a question, and a very proper one, on the Order Paper the other day asking if we were going to legislate against filled milk and cream. I inquired into the matter through my staff, and we found that it had obtained more or less of a foothold already in Canada. However, until we knew what we were going to do with oleo, it was thought we had better let the matter stand because the two questions were on all fours. Oleo is in many cases almost entirely made of natural fats, and in other cases of vegetable oils, and in nearly every case there is from two to five per cent of butter fat. The oil is injected into the butter fat to make the article appear like butter. But in filled milk and cream the butter fat content is taken out from the milk and the cream by the separator, in the usual way. Then the sweet skimmed milk is filled again with other vegetable oils as a substitute for the natural butter fat taken out, and there you have filled milk, with the natural oils taking the place of the butter fat. The same is true of filled cream.
In the United States they permit the manufacture of oleo; the business is established there. I am not criticising these older countries at all, but although this oleo business is established there, nine of the states have prohibited the manufacture and sale and importation of filled milk and cream. That is what is happening right at our door. The question is shall we put in the thin edge of the wedge by recognizing oleo, for if you recognize oleo you are going to have great difficulty in stopping the importation and manufacture of a similar product, except that it applies to milk and cream instead of butter. Where are you going to draw the line? Are we going to let great vested interests establish themselves in this country for the purpose of making filled milk and cream? Should we not rather nip it in the bud now? I am not complaining of the lobbyists who have been around here for the last two or three weeks with their propaganda
on behalf of the manufacture of oleo; I have no objection to that at all, but the farmers are a little too busy just now looking after other things to come here to Parliament and look after their own interests. They are at a disadvantage in this respect, and the moment a vested interest grows up in this country, either by legislation or by common consent, there is a lever that you find it pretty hard to work against.
And so I say, if this privilege is extended to oleomargarine we shall have the same thing demanded in the case of filled milk and cream. As a matter of fact in the answer which was given to the deputation referred to by myself on behalf of the Government I said there was no legislation at present; but if it was found that the Public Health Act, the Pure Food Act, and the health laws of this country did not protect the public, then legislation might be required later. That was our answer and I do not see how there could be any other answer to this because, to all intents and purposes the same principle is involved. Nine states in the American Union say to the public "You cannot consume this filled milk or cream". And yet it has a considerable food content, it is of considerable value as an article of diet; but it is deemed not to be in the public interest in the United States that the dealing in this article should be recognized by law and established; that is the point.


Mr. BRISTOL:: I am very ignorant about this matter. In the United States is oleomargarine prohibited by law?


William Stevens Fielding: Hear, hear; that is the question.


Edmund James Bristol: If not, why prohibit oleomargarine in Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I was pointing out that this question was on all fours with the other one alluded to. But I may say that in the United States the dairy industry is well established. It is older than ours in Canada-and I will deal with that aspect in a moment-and certainly the competition is not as disadvantageous there to the dairying interest. But when we come to Canada it is a horse of another colour. In both cases the principle is the same but I think we should draw the line here. The question has been asked: If a person wants to eat oleo why should he not be allowed to? To that I reply: If we want to drink anything why should we not be allowed to do so? But seven provinces
Oleomargarine

of this country have prohibited intoxicating liquor; and nine states of the American Union have passed a prohibitory law as to filled milk and cream.


Mr. JACOBS:: Would the eating of oleo set a person drunk?


William Richard Motherwell: No it would not, I hope not at all events, but it would be deleterious to the chief corner stone of agriculture, the live stock industry and especially dairying-there is no question about that. It would be discouraging to every man that milks a cow and knows what it means to hunt after them; it would be discouraging to those men who have been putting up with the vicissitudes of dairying. I want the House to remember that it would take very little to put men out of dairying. It is the last straw that breaks the camel's back, and we do not know that this is not the last straw. We do not make sufficient butter for home use in this country because we import supplies. That raises a very important question. We do import and we feel the competition very keenly. But are we asking for protection against importations of butter from Denmark or New Zealand? I know some men who have taken a stand all their lives against protection, but in the peculiar position in which they find themselves in the dairy industry to-day, beset by difficulties on all sides, they have actually proposed that we raise the protection on butter. I have diligently, and I hope as consistently, refused to agree. I have said "No" and I continue in that stand. We are not asking that the duty be raised on New Zealand or on Danish butter, although we could find a lot of people who supported the Liberal policy in the past who would to-day support the raising of the duty on American butter ini retaliation for the Fordney bill. However, we are not doing that, we are not asking for such a thing; but if the fair play asked for by the dairymen is not granted I know that a demand for better treatment will come from many sources, sources that are not dreamt of to-day, and which will be hard to resist because it is not fair to subject our dairy industry to this competition.
I might say while I am on this subject that oleo has been used for many years in the Old Country as well as in Denmark and Holland. That does not mean anything to them except as a source of revenue. Look at the situation of those countries compared with ours. All that Denmark and Holland have to do is to put their butter
[ Mr. Motherwell. ]
on the boat, run it two or three hundred miles, or a little more, across the North Sea, and up the Thames, and they are right in the heart of Old England-one of the best markets in the world, in fact the world's market for butter-with practically no expense for transportation. And then in those countries you have an industry that was established hundreds of years ago, whereas we have practically only just started in this country. And then another thing, is that in Denmark and in Holland the people are frugal, thrifty and industrious, and for business reasons they choose to eat oleo and sell their high class butter. That is what a lot of our people do not even want to do. We used to do it fifty years ago, but it is not done to-day except to a very small extent. There is no comparison between the situation of dairying in this country and the situation of dairying in these European countries. In other ways they are situated advantageously as compared with us. Take their climate, take their pasture lands, take the comparatively few months of the year they have to feed their dairy cattle as compared with ours, and a dozen other things I could mention in which they have the advantage of us. If we were so situated, and the dairy industry in this country had been established for hundreds of years, you would not hear very much talk about prohibiting oleo in Canada either.
Take New Zealand and Australia. While oleo is not prohibited in those dominions it is very little used, at least so I am informed by the members of my staff. New Zealand, on the other hand, has also a favoured climate and a comparatively short stabling season. It puts its butter right off the grass into British Columbia in competition with our winter made butter, and we have a hard struggle competing with it and yet we do not ask for a higher duty. And you tell me that that is protection? Why it makes one think one might as well have the game as the name. Still we are not asking for higher protection, I do not even think of suggesting it; but I do ask that we reconsider this question now after having tried it for several years merely as a war measure.
Now, we are asking for fair play and the restoration of the conditions that existed prior to 1917. The governments of both the old time parties were wedded to that system. The old Conservative government of 1886 brought the law in. The Liberal government of 1903 supplemented it by

Oleomargarine
further legislation against the renovation of dairy butter. In 1917 oleomargarine was admitted as a war measure and to-day we are talking about its prohibition entirely. I would go further, Mr. Speaker, and say that if dairying was developed all over Canada in the manner in which it is in the eastern provinces we might not say so much about oleomargarine; but in western Canada to-day the dairy industry is in exactly the same condition that prevailed down here forty or fifty years ago.
Let me address myself in a kindly way to the eastern provinces. All that we ask is the same kind of fair play that you enjoyed during all the years during which your industry was put on the map. I know something of farming conditions in eastern Ontario; I know what they were before the dairying industry was established. I took part in the establishment of it as a boy; and I know this much-it was dairying that put eastern Ontario on the map. I believe to a large extent it has done the same thing for Quebec- although there it is not the only factor-and for some of the maritime provinces. Dairying developed in Ontario when not only oleomargarine but renovated butter was prohibited. To-day there are four new provinces in the West. From the east you are sending us your banking institutions; and your lecturers who go out to the West tell us that we should not be farming exclusively along the lines of grain growing, that our land is becoming depleted of fertility. Then, when we think of taking your advice-and it is good advice although perhaps given a little prematurely, but still with good intent-and we start out into dairying, you come along and propose to hold back from us that measure of fair play that the dairy industry enjoyed in all these eastern provinces during past years. I know the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) does not believe me. He comes from a city; but before I have finished my remarks, he will at all events see the other side of the question, however he may vote.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is there in the world any country which prohibits the manufacture of oleomargarine?


William Richard Motherwell: Not that I am aware of. Is there in the world any country that professes to be a dairy country so disadvantageously situated as Canada is, with no market?


William Stevens Fielding: Such cold winters.


William Richard Motherwell: It is the cold
that makes one do one's best; a cold country makes the men in it. The reason why we have the men we have is because we have to fight against the natural advantages of other countries; but we do not want to be overburdened as we will if the sale of oleomargarine is to be continued.
Everybody knows the advantages which New Zealand possesses, and the Argentine is also becoming a competitor. All these countries have short feeding seasons in the winter and they all have water transportation. The Amazon and La Plata run into the heart of South America; they tap that country on all sides, and whether the product be wheat or cattle or butter, it can be transported by river and ocean to the various other countries of the world. Our chief competitors, Holland, Denmark, Ireland-another country on the water-New Zealand, Australia and the Argentine-you cannot mention one of them so disadvantageously situated as Canada, especially on the plains of the West. Look which way you will, to the West or to the East-to the West you have high freight rates that paralyze trade and to the East long freight hauls, and the West is working under more or less primitive conditions, just at the very period that it would expect to receive the succor and support that this legislation afforded to the East for such a long time in its pioneering stages.
It has been said that every country permits the sale of oleomargarine, and I have discussed that point. If you give this country an opportunity to get established for one-quarter of the time that other countries have been established', we shall then not ask for this small measure of support to the dairy industry in this cold country of ours. When anybody makes light of the cold or the long winter, let him feed stock and thus realize by experience the expense of feeding stock in the winter, and then let him make good butter under such conditions. We are overcoming that tremendous handicap, but we do not want any further handicaps imposed on the dairy industry.
The argument is advanced that vested interests are involved. I have not a thing to say against the packers; I know they are having a hard time of it at present, and if there were about half as many of them as there are now, there would be some business for them all. I have nothing but sympathy for them; but when they knew that this legislation was only to be temporary as a war measure, they should

Oleomargarine
not have invested any substantial amount of money in capital expenditure. I do not think they have spent very much money in the establishment of buildings. The plea is advanced that capital is locked up, and while I have no doubt that some capital has been invested in this way, I believe a great deal of it can be used as it was used prior to the manufacture of this article in 1917. Some people never miss an opportunity of having a crack at the packers, but I am not going to take that attitude at all. I take the opportunity of saying that possibly some of their places which are used at present for the manufacture of oleomargarine can be used instead for renovating our butter, thus creating an industry indigenous to the country. There is a home-made article that can be made into a better article of consumption than any oleomargarine I ever saw.
The hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie), made a comparison between the convictions made under the Oleomargarine Act and those under the Dairy Products Act. The convictions for the manufacture of some kind of spurious butter, that is butter with too much water in it or something of that nature, numbered 126 and the violations in regard to oleomargarine numbered 14. But if you work that out on a percentage basis, the number of the violations in regard to oleomargarine, if you take the quantity of butter into consideration, was greater than the number of violations in regard to butter by 30 per cent, so that point is not well taken.
I have not said anything against oleomargarine as an article of consumption; I have said not one word against the sanitary conditions surrounding its manufacture. As a matter of fact, I do not think we can consistently take such an attitude. At one time we could; but as the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) said, a reasonably good article is being put on the market in packages plainly marked. There is a strict prohibition against putting it up otherwise, and it is inspected at every point. That is all well and good and all true; but nevertheless the information which I have received from the members of my staff in the Dairy branch goes to Show that, while this is all performed religiously up to the mark, one-half of the oleomargarine that is purchased, is used, not to spread on bread, but for baking purposes, for which any of the other 
ingredients now on the market could be used. On the other hand, a considerable proportion of that which is used for spreading on bread is used in boarding houses. It is purchased just as it is described, legally enough; but colouring matter is procured at an adjoining druggist, and the oleomargarine is coloured to look like butter and is put on the table as butter. Thus a man thinks he is getting a cheap butter is paying just as much for it as if he were eating real butter. I asked Mr. Ruddick why a tab could not be kept on this, and he said: "We have not a sufficient appropriation to keep the necessary mass of inspectors who would be required to prevent this masquerading of oleomargarine as butter." Every respectable dairyman will tell you that. Notwithstanding all the precautions that have been taken,-and some speakers have said that if there were not enough restrictions more should be put on-there are some things that it is simply impossible to put sufficient restrictions on to prevent violation of the law, and this seems to be one of them. It is a simple proposition for any one to buy oleomargarine perfectly legally, and then to get colouring matter to mix with the oleomargarine, which is then put on the table as butter and not as oleomargarine at all. Of course, we cannot take too strong exception to oleomargarine on that ground, and I refer to it mainly because the ground has been taken that it is not used in a masquerading capacity for butter, but it is. That is not an unanswerable argument, because practically every law in the world is evaded more or less.
I might refer briefly to some of the reasons pro and con. The first legislation in regard to this matter was passed in 1886, and it is interesting to read the first act and to see what it amounted to. It reads:
Whereas the use of certain substitutes for butter, heretofore manufactured and exposed for sale in Canada, is injurious to health; and it is expedient to prohibit the manufacture and sale thereof: Therefore, Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons c*f Canada, enacts as follows:-
1. No oleomargarine, butterine or other substitute for butter, manufactured from any animal substance other than milk, shall be manufactured in Canada, or sold therein, and every person who contravenes the provisions of this Act .in any manner whatsoever shall incur a penalty not exceeding four hundred dollars and not less than two hundred dollars, and in default of payment shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months and not less than three months.

Oleomargariyie
That is the original law. While I do not think our present law is quite as severe as that, yet the main principle of it was observed up to 1917. Canada in spite of her disabilities has grown to be an outstanding dairy country which is prepared to compete, so far as the tariff is concerned, with any other dairy country in the world. And she has done that. I have a very interesting communication from Mrs. Elizabeth Sbortt, President of the National Council of Women, resident in this city. I will not read the letter nor my reply, but she has been doing useful work, from her standpoint, in enlightening the public on the subject. Then there is a letter from Mr. James A. Calder -this is not the real Calder-manager of the Saskatchewan Creameries Company, Moosejaw.


An hon. MEMBER:: Any relative of the "real" Calder?


William Richard Motherwell: No relative; this is a creamery man. This gentleman has one of the leading creameries in Saskatchewan, if indeed it is not the leading one, and he speaks strongly all through the letter with reference to the disabilities imposed on dairying in the West, at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are turning in hope to this industry as against exclusive grain growing. And now they are faced with this extra disability. When I go West after this session, as I hope to, and tell the people what we propose to do in connection with dairying, and inform them that it is our hope to do something in the way of encouraging silos, the growing of corn and sunflowers and the putting in of what are known as trench silos, that will look very good; and then some guy in the audience will say: "That's all very well, but do you expect me to compete against oleo"? I suppose I should have to reply: "Yes, unfortunately. I was opposed to it myself, but the House decided that we should encourage the manufacture and importation of oleo, and of course the Government had to take the responsibility for what was done." The man would say, naturally, that he had some hesitation about going into dairying. He might say that he came to this country to get away from chores night and morning and thought he could make some money growing wheat and also in taking up dairying. And he will add that the Government the people expected so much from had put this permanent disability on the industry-because it is no longer a war measure-so
that the struggling dairymen were unable to get along. What can I say in reply to such a representation? I have no answer at all.
I have a resolution regarding filled milk. The gentleman who sends it sees a cloud on the horizon no bigger than the proverbial man's hand, in the shape of filled milk. He says that whereas an industry has developed in the United States for the manufacture of a substitute called "filled milk", whereas this and whereas that, therefore "don't you do it, because it will get you sooner or later". Those, of course, are not his words. I am paraphrasing his language. And there is a resolution passed by the National Dairy Council with regard to oleomargarine. I believe the member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) read that.
Now, for the first time to-day I heard a dairyman expressing himself in favour of the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine, and that was the member for Victoria Ci'ty (Mr. Tolmie). Every single authority I have been able to get in connection with dairying has been opposed to the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, and while there may be other dairymen like my hon. friend from Victoria city I have never heard them voice approval of this article.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for
Victoria City does not make his living by dairying. He only tinkers at it.


William Richard Motherwell: I am a dairyman in a sense too.


Alan Webster Neill: Perhaps only tinker too.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, while perhaps I may not be exactly a dairyman, I may say that in the pioneer days of the Northwest Territories I was kept out of the poorhouse by dairying, and it was home dairying too. Later on I was associated with the industry in an administrative way, and have been privileged to help start dairying in Saskatchewan. But if you are going to compel the industry to face this disability, while it may not be ruined thereby, you will greatly discourage the people in southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta who are just trembling on the brink to-day. They do not exaggerate the hard-luck story, but there is no doubt about the fact that they are on the very brink of the precipice and it is questionable whether or not they can be placed in a position of safety again. Certainly,
Oleomargarine

they cannot be put on their feet by exclusive grain .growing; that is too precarious. It must be by some form of live stock industry, and nothing will bring quicker revenue than dairying. With that hot country, capable of growing corn and sunflowers as fodder, and with the policy of the provincial governments of providing dairy cows, all that is needed is to create a desire on the part of the people to combine these circumstances to establish a life saving industry that will put them on the map again.


Edmund James Bristol: Is it domestic oleomargarine manufactured in Canada, or the article manufactured in Chicago, that gives trouble to the dairy farmers of Saskatchewan?


William Richard Motherwell: Both. One is largely vegetable and the other animal fat. It really does not matter which kind is sold, but the imported article is more objectionable.


Edmund James Bristol: It occurred to me that transportation on the imported article might affect the price in eastern Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: You might put an embargo on imported oleo, but that would afford an element of protection to the man who made it at home. I thought of that alternative, but it only got me into difficulties.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister suggest that the price of butter is affected by the use of oleomargarine manufactured in Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: The consumption of butter is.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am asking about the price.


William Richard Motherwell: I shall answer
the question in my own way. Dairying was the branch of agriculture that stood up the longest after the war, and for that reason people are going into the industry more than ever the world over. It is the one safe line of agriculture, and because of that we are going to have great difficulties not only in securing markets but in holding them. Consequently, anything that deprives the dairyman of the home market is a detriment to the industry; and to the extent that oleomargarine is used as a substitute for butter it will lessen the demand for the dairy product. I do not say how much it is likely to interfere with
fMr. Motherwell.]
the price, but oleomargarine will certainly interfere with the market for butter. Every country is seeking markets, and that is the story in Canada. The situation is very acute, and at all dairy conventions in Canada since New Year's, it has been the same tale from East to West: We must hold what markets we have by improving the quality of our product, and at the same time endeavour to get new markets for disposing of it.
I will now refer to some of the arguments that have been advanced during the course of the debate. As I said at the outset, there are two sides to this question, and I am prepared to make a compromise proposition rather than insist on those who think as I do having our way, or those who think opposite having their way. I believe in a free-for-all such as this we are speaking our real heart's opinion, and if that be so, as I am sure it is, then if we can come to a compromise whereby the man or woman who wants cheap butter can get it without prejudicially affecting the youthful, incipient dairyman, then I think such a compromise would be a very commendable one. That is what I appeal for.
The hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) spoke of the effect that either the manufacture or non-manufacture of oleo would have on beef cattle. From inquiries I have made I find that only 10 per cent of the tallow generated in our beef cattle goes into oleo. Of course, if oleo were freely manufactured it would gradually require a greater supply of tallow, but at the present stage the consumption of tallow does not amount to any appreciable volume.
Then the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) said that Canada is not justified in destroying one industry in order to build up another Now, Mr. Speaker, is it fair to say that the manufacture of oleomargarine is an industry when it was permitted to be established on grace and to meet a temporary condition only? The manufacturers were permitted to manufacture oleo to meet the scarcity of butter due to the heavy export demands during the war. They knew at the time that the manufacture had its limitations, and they deliberately engaged in it. The very fact that its importation and manufacture was extended for one year last session shows that the industry was always regarded as of a purely temporary character, and there can be no doubt that those who engaged in it recognized its limitations. Consequently

O leomargarine
it cannot be said that we are destroying any industry. It was a catch piece of business for the occasion, and the manufacturers took their chances at the time they started to make oleomargarine, and they will have to take their chances if its importation and manufacture should be discontinued. But if those same manufacturers are permitted to manufacture renovated butter, part of their loss of business may be made up, and this renovated butter will make a very good substitute for oleomargarine. The hon. member took the stand: You have no right to interfere with me as to what I want to eat. Well, I have pointed out that if he takes that ground, it logically follows that we would not tolerate our right to interfere with him in what he drinks. If he insists upon perfect liberty in one direction he must naturally insist upon it in the other direction; the two go together.
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) supports the resolution because, he says, it means protection to the dairy industry. That is an attitude I cannot agree with, and I have given my reasons. However, if all my hon. friends immediately opposite who do honestly believe in protection see protection in this proposal, why, we will welcome every one of their votes on this occasion.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Munro), who is something of a philosopher, said: The young men will not milk; the old ones cannot, as they are broken down. So when they die, what are we going to do? I suppose the answer again is: Eat oleo. But that is not sufficient. Undoubtedly the young men do dislike milking cows. We have so many attractions- we have our fine, inter-urban highways; we have our high-powered cars; we have our barrel of gasoline, and all we have to do is turn the tap and fill the tank of the car; we have a baseball match down the line; we have a nice road, and we have a nicer girl, if you like, across the way that the young man wants to take to the baseball match. How can the dull routine of dairy farming stand up against such a temptation, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. McMASTER:: Away with the girl!


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Away with the
Ford!


William Richard Motherwell: On top of all that you are going to let oleo have a chance. Is it any wonder that our dairymen are
alarmed now? As my hon. friend said, the younger people do not want to milk cows- and there is not a man across the way who has raised a family but knows that. I do not know how we are going to change the tastes of our younger people. We have got to get back to hard work again, Mr. Speaker. We have got to recognize the virtues of honest toil faithfully performed even in milking cows. There is no question about that. My hon. friend says, let the hired man do it. There is about one in twenty hired men who will milk, that is all; the rest will tell you to milk the cows yourselves-they will tell you something else worse than that sometimes. Now, you have got to do it yourself or have some member of the family do it for you. With the young men refusing, and the old ones going out of business, we have got to the point where every little discouragement, no matter how slight, is sufficient to turn the tide against dairying in this crisis we are going through. Do not make any mistake now. I am not jesting about this. I know the hard, insistent, exacting work connected with dairying, and I know if you add one more discouragement it will be just enough in many instances to turn the tide against dairying.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) remarked that the introducer of the resolution might as well have left off the latter portion of his speech. I do not think so. If it can be established that dairying is going to be discouraged by the introduction of oleo, and you are going to strike at the chief cornerstone of our agricultural interest, then I say that all Canada is affected. There is no question about that. We can only plead for the dairy industry to the extent that it is interwoven with the general industry of the country.


John Livingstone Brown: I think the hon. minister misunderstands my argument. What I suggested the introducer of the resolution might as well have left off was his argument that margarine was deleterious to the consumer.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know that he made that plea, Mr. Speaker, but it is the general public weal that we must take into account. In just the same way when my hon. friend of the party over the way at an angle of forty-five degrees, asked for a wheat board-and we hope we will get some kind of a wheat board, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, that sounds better than dairying. Now, can any hon.
Oleomargarine

gentleman who advocates a wheat hoard turn down this proposition? After all, it all depends on whose ox is gored. We may as well all admit-with the exception of the hon. member for Victoria City-that we are selfish, and that we cannot help seeing any question but from our own particular viewpoint. But I see this question from the viewpoint of one who has been charged for the time being, Mr. Speaker, with the duty of administering the Department of Agriculture over this vast country, and I cannot for the life of me see this question from any other standpoint than that the introduction of oleo at this time is a discouragement to one of our basic industries, and if you discourage dairying-


Mr. IRVINE:: Will the hon. minister support the wheat board1 on the same principle as he is supporting the prohibition of oleomargarine?


William Richard Motherwell: No, the illustrations are not parallel. They are along the same lines, but not exactly the same.


William Irvine: The hon. minister makes
them parallel by saying that if the people sitting at an angle of 45 degrees opposite advocated a wheat board they ought to advocate this on the same basis. The application to the minister's argument, therefore is evident.


William Richard Motherwell: It is rarely that
you can get exact parallels in this world. This is not a parallel, any more than the Japanese question is a parallel. The one deals with cows, the other with men; in the case of my hon. friend it is the Wheat Board. But in the case of the Wheat Board my hon. friends are asking for something of especial interest to themselves. If a thing is in the public interest; if the interest of an industry is locked up with the public interest, then it is good business to advocate it, and that is what I am endeavouring to do in connection with the dairying industry. An hon. member has put this note in my hand:
Oleo lessens the number of cows raised and therefore starves the soil and hurts mixed farming in general.
That is true. In the older countries of the world the people are so much concerned about the fertility of the soil that they do not use mechanical power on the land because it is non-productive of fertilizer. I had the pleasure of visiting Europe eleven or twelve years ago, and I asked the older farmers there why they did not make more use of mechanical power. They use all

kinds of animal power, even to native oxen from the Carpathian mountains, proceeding on the principle that every hoof of live stock which can be obtained and maintained should be kept on the farm. So it is with the dairying industry; every additional hoof kept on the farm results in increased fertility of the soil. I know that may not appeal to western men; the question does not affect us there as yet. In fact, our difficulty is to get our manure piles taken from the barnyard with the least possible expense, though in the older sections the fertilizer is being used on the land as it should be. But the amount of live stock in the older parts of the country will determine to what extent the fertility of the soil will be maintained and increased.
Some hon. members have had the ad-vantage of discussing this matter in the House on several different occasions. More than half the members of this Parliament are new members-I am one of them- and to those new members the subject is not a worn out one as it may be to hon. gentlemen who have been here for some time. There is an honest difference of opinion on this question. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that if we apply the brakes at all we should start with renovated butter? I am prepared to advocate the removal of the restriction in that regard, which would result in the liberation for sale in our own market, at approximately the same price as oleo,-of 1,000,000 pounds of real butter which is 100 per cent fat and has 100 per cent food content.


William Stevens Fielding: trade, in the name of heaven why shall we in Canada say we cannot trust our people to know whether or not they want oleomargarine?
I do not think there is a sound argument used from beginning to end against oleomargarine. I deny that there is competition between butter and oleomargarine. They are two distinct products, and if you provide that the oleomargarine shall be distinctly marked and labelled-and the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) showed us a sample to-day plainly marked, plainly labelled-there is no chance in the world of any one being imposed upon by getting oleomargarine in the shape of butter, unless he is very dull and wants to be imposed upon. Every shop that sells oleomargarine has to sell it labelled as such.
Oleomargarine is used by the poorer people of this country to-day. It is nonsense for my hon. friend to talk of giving them cheaper butter. We do not want cheaper butter. We want the dairyman to get a good price for their butter but inasmuch as it is a fact that many of the poorer people in this country cannot buy butter even at its moderate price to-day, surely we are not going to deny them, especially those in the cities and towns, the right to get a substitute so long as it is sold under its proper name; and in that case it cannot be a competitor with butter. I insist that they are two distinct products, and there is no real competition between them at all. _
There were many points raised by my hon. friend that I should like to speak to but I shall not enlarge upon them tonight. The whole question is this: Here is a commodity that is traded in by every country in the world except Canada. Surely there is no reason why it should not be traded in in this country, unless our people are lacking in the intelligence that we believe they possess. It is because I believe they are intelligent, because I believe they are able to know what they want and able to make a distinction, because I believe they are not going to be so easily fooled and humbugged into having oleomargarine palmed off on them as butter, that I am going to oppose the motion made by my hon. friend from Co-mox-Alberni (Mr. Neill).
I was surprised to get a certain piece of information from the Minister of Agriculture to-night. I have always understood that Canada was a dairying country. I have been down in the eastern townships of Quebec and have heard eloquent

speakers declare that there was no finer agricultural, grazing, or dairying country in the wide world than those eastern townships of the province of Quebec, but tonight I learn from my hon. friend that that is a mistake. It is a country in which the dairying interests are in such a perilous position that at any moment they may be destroyed by the butter which is being brought up from the Argentine. I have a better opinion of Canada as a dairying country than my hon. friend, but I do not want to argue that question. I simply say that oleomargarine, whatever it may have been in the old days, is now an article of commerce which every other civilized country in the world recognizes as such, and I can see no earthly reason why the Canadian citizen shall be told, in effect, that he is not intelligent enough to distinguish between oleomargarine and butter when he goes to the grocery shop.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: The question of the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine first came up during the early days of the Union government. Previous to that time, we did not have oleomargarine in Canada, and there was a distinct pledge given at that time, when it was admitted owing to war conditions, that when the war terminated and those conditions passed, the act would cease to exist. Since that time, however, it has been extended from year to year, and some have been advocating that it should be made permanent. Among those I believe was the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I think his criticism of last year and of two years ago was that the act should not be simply extended for a year, but be made permanent.
I listened with a good deal of interest when I came into the House to-night to the address of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). I was somewhat in doubt as to just what policy the Government were going to pursue on this question, for they have undoubtedly discussed it, and as I listened to the eloquence with which the Minister of Agriculture dealt with the question I wondered if he was going to live up to the reputation he has been establishing during the last few weeks in Parliament and in the country. After listening to the hon. gentleman who is leading the Government to-night (Mr. Fielding) who, I would imagine, has given us the policy of the Government on this question, I can picture in my mind the Minister of Agriculture turning another sharp cor-

Oleomargarine
ner just about as quickly as he has turned some others during the past few days.
I do not think that the fate of agriculture or of the dairying industry depends to any great extent upon how this question is determined. We have heard the Minister of Finance refer to oleomargarine as a wholesome article of food, and point out that no one has shown it to be anything else. It is somewhat singular that although we now have a Department of Health connected with the Government, there is not a member of the Government, nor was there of the late government, who could inform this House just what constitutes oleomargarine-not one. I have asked the question repeatedly, and I have been unable to find any one who was able to give us that information. "Oh," they say, "it is manufactured under strict supervision in the abattoirs in this country, and there are a number of veterinary inspectors who are looking after this matter." But what about our Department of Health? Why are they not looking into this article of food for human consumption?
The plea has been made repeatedly in favour of oleomargarine on behalf of the children of the poor in this country. Mr. Speaker, it is on behalf of the children of the poor in this country that I am arguing here to-night against allowing oleomargarine to be imported and disposed of in this country as it has been in the past few years. It is surprising how many people you find who like to get something for nothing. Milk fat differs from all other fats in that it contains certain life-giving substances that are essential for promoting the growth of the young. It appears that an all-wise Creator has placed this substance in the milk fat of all animals, and that it is not to be found anywhere else. Yet some clever people, realizing that this is a food product absolutely essential in promoting the growth of the young, have got the idea that if they can only get some cheaper commodity and be able to dispose of it under the plea that it is a wholesome food and will take the place of butter, they are going to make a whole lot of money out of it. That is about the size and substance of the arguments in favour of oleomargarine.
The Minister of Finance says that every country in the world except Canada permits the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. I say there is no country in the world that gives these people the same privileges and freedom with regard to the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine that they have in Canada-not one. In France they will not even permit it to be sold at the same shops with dairy products. Yet in this country you find this stuff advertised in all the market reports in the dairy column. Why should that be the case? If it is not a dairy product, why should it be advertised as a dairy product in this country? They say they are going to sell oleomargarine on its merits. Then why should they be so anxious to put it up in pound prints of exactly the same size and shape as butter, and make it look like butter, and churn it in milk to give it a butter flavour? It is also mixed with butter, not only two per cent of butter, but in some cases as high as thirty-three per cent. Why should that be the case if this is a wholesome food? It is because they know it adds to the value of the article. I have spoken consistently against oleomargarine ever since it was permitted to be imported and sold in this country. It was one of the first-born children of the late Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). He has upheld the manufacture of oleo in this country; he was responsible for the enactment of regulations such as they have in no other country where this stuff is used. I will quote from these regulations and then ask you whether you think the dairyman has a grievance or not. Here is one example:
No person other than a manufacturer of oleomargarine shall mix oleomargarine and butter.
Why should the packing houses have a special right to mix oleomargarine and butter in this country? The regulations further say:
Oleomargarine shall not be manufactured in Canada in any premises used as, or connected with, a butter factory.
Now the butter manufacturer is subjected to the most stringent regulations not only by the municipal and provincial authorities, but by the federal government, in order to ensure the wholesomeness and the purity of his product and to standardize it. Notwithstanding that, the federal government grants a license to some of these packing companies, who manage to get their ear, permitting them to use highly coloured June butter-as was admitted in sworn testimony given before a committee of this House-to colour the tallow and oil and make it look more like butter. Because we have it on the strength of the sworn evidence of the manager of the Harris

Oleomargarine

Abattoir in Toronto that unless that was done the stuff would taste like tallow and the people would not buy it. Consequently these packing houses buy highly coloured June butter in order to mix with their product. The privilege was granted as a war measure and there was no complaint heard from the farmers of this country. An Order in Council was passed, under the War Measures Act, commandeering all the butter that was being manufactured in the creameries of this country from September 1, 1918, down to a certain time. Now there were twenty-five million pounds of butter in the cold storage warehouses in Canada at that time and in the hands of the oleomargarine manufacturers there were 3,622,830 pounds. The butter that was being turned out by the dairymen of Canada was commandeered, but the oleomargarine manufacturers and wholesale dealers were left in charge of their supplies.
These are some of the things I have objected to in the past; and when the hon. member for Marquette was Minister of Agriculture I directed his attention to a number of the injustices which I considered the dairymen of this country were suffering.
I have endeavoured to be consistent in this matter although I have had to criticise those with whom I was associated politically, and I intend to be consistent whether what I advocate agrees with the policy of my associates or not. Nor am I taking the stand I do because the county from which I come is interested in this matter to any great extent, because the great majority of the farmers there are purchasing their butter instead of manufacturing it, although the county is one of the most noted dairy sections in the whole Dominion. I ask hon. members whether they consider it is a good thing that an old established industry, like the dairy industry, should be jeopardized to the extent that butter making has often been in the past by reason of legislation enacted by this Parliament. For it must be remembered that the future of western Canada, as well as the East, as the Minister of Agriculture has pointed out, depends wholly upon the live stock industry. We have induced thousands of returned men to settle upon farms; yet in the fact of that certain hon. members would pass legislation to deprive these men of their means of livelihood; because that is exactly what it means.
I did not hear the arguments which were advanced early in the afternoon with

reference to this matter. But I have heard some of the reasons advanced by the manufacturers of oleomargarine for continuing this policy, such as are contained in the circulars which have been diligently sent out by them. They claim to be using Canadian products for the manufacture of oleomargarine, when the fact is they are importing most of their stuff and paying practically no duty on it at all. Let me give you some idea of the quantities brought in for eleven months of the past year; they were all the figures I could obtain at the time I received this information: Lard compound, 335,161 pounds; oleo oils imported -and the manufacturers say " Oh but look at the splendid market afforded here for the oleo oils from our beef cattle"-1,731,-005 pounds; cotton seed oil 348,583 pounds; cocoanut oil 219,132 pounds; peanut oil 125,889 pounds; butter oil-I do not know what that is; I believe it must be something of the kind that the Minister of Agriculture calls renovated butter-823,558 pounds; salt 279,634 pounds; the total of all commodities imported was 3,862,962 pounds.
These went to make up the oleomargarine which was manufactured in this country during eleven months of the past year. A slight duty was paid but 99 per cent of such duty paid during the past year has been returned to the manufacturers. The amount of such drawback allowed to the two manufacturers interested was $388,345.53. The Canadian oleomargarine manufacturers enlarge on the market their industry creates for beef fats, and other articles of the kind, in this country; but when they make such importations, as I have shown from the United States, it puts a different complexion on the matter. Their claim is not well founded. It is a deliberate attempt to introduce a system into Canada that is not in the interest of agriculture because it concedes to these people privileges that those who are engaged in agriculture do not possess.
Furthermore, these manufacturers import articles upon which there is practically no duty. There is a duty of three cents a pound on butter under the British preference and a duty of four cents a pound on butter imported from other countries. During eleven months of the past year we imported butter to the amount of 5,805,422 pounds. Of this quantity 2,036,471 pounds came from the United Kingdom under the British preference. These imports had an advantage over the butter that

Oleomargarine
came in from the United States of one cent per pound. From Australia we imported 287,724 pounds; from New Zealand 2,148,752 pounds; and from the United States 1,332,210 pounds. These are some of the things that are happening right in our own country. We are appointing trade agents, and doing everything possible to find markets for the products of this country; and yet instead of endeavouring to build up and stimulate some of the industries that are natural to, but are lagging in, Canada we are working vigorously in the opposite direction.
I am not going into these questions in detail to-night because hon. members who were in the last, and the previous parliaments, know what my views are in these respects. I must say, however, I am more than surprised that at this late date, after the extent to which this stuff has been coming into Canada, with all the facilities we have, our Health Departments are not able to give us any information as to the food value of this article. No one will contend that it can take the place of butter or butter fats, notwith-' standing the agitation which is being put on foot and which had its origin in this city of Ottawa about the time that the war was very bad; when conditions apparently justified something being done along that line fats were permitted to be utilized in this way while we had not a sufficient supply of butter. I might read some of the resolutions which have been passed by some associations in this city, although that is something which I do not like to do. I know, however, that the activities which have been shown during the past few months by certain associations throughout this country, have had their origin in this city amongst those who are not so vitally interested in agriculture as many other people in this country are. In 1919, resolutions were passed in this city, and the members of these associations endeavoured to get into touch with the various branches of these associations throughout the country so as to have them write to their member and to the Government advocating that the sale of this stuff should be legalized permanently. Let me read one resolution which was passed in Ottawa. This is taken from the Ottawa Citizen of April 14, 1919:
It was moved by Mrs. Adam Shortt and seconded by Lady Pope,
That whereas fat is an essential food for human beings, and that children deprived of it suffer not only from malnutrition in the
present, but are permanently injured in physique ; and whereas, there is not enough butter in the country to supply everybody if margarine were banished ; and whereas, butter is so high a price that thousands cannot have butter, because of the cost; and whereas, margarine is a butter substitute of equal caloric value with butter; and whereas, margarine has been allowed in the country under the War Measures Act, which comes to an end with the signing of peace ;
Therefore, be it resolved that we women of Ottawa do now appeal to this federal Government now considering child welfare, to permanently legalize margarine in Canada, in order that children may thrive and not decline and that consumers be not deprived of their legitimate right, as in other countries, to have margarine for domestic use.
And so on including arguments which have been advanced in support of oleomargarine.
Is it a wholesome article of food for children? I have in my hand some evidence to the contrary, not furnished by dairymen's associations or any one interested in dairying. Probably this has been referred to by some previous speaker, and, consequently, if I am repeating something which has been said before, it goes only to strengthen previous arguments. This reads:
When oleomargarine was admitted to Canada as a "war measure" (and subsequently continued as packer's and produce dealer's measure) the children of Canada were betrayed to an insidious, relentless enemy. Chief among thoise betrayed were the children of the lower strata, where money to buy genuine butter, might be as scarce as the inclination to spend the extra cent or two a pound for it.
There is plenty of evidence to show how insidious is the enmity of oleomargarine to childhood-how it imperceptibly stunts the growth of the child, and prevents its development, at the same time apparently providing a satisfactory and necessary food element.
The eye is deceived, but not the body. The profits accrue to the packer-manufacturers and the distributors, but a toll of under-nourishment is taken from the children who eat it, in order that these selfish profits might be made.
The city of Rochester recently had a noteworthy experience in connection with the use of butter and oleomargarine in an orphan asylum.
In this asylum the practice has been followed for years of weighing every child at regular intervals. Because of the high prices of butter, the management substituted oleomargarine on January 1, 1917, and supplied it to the children for six months. At the end of this time, results were so unsatisfactory that butter was replaced in the ration. Here are the weights of seven children over four periods of six months each:
The first six months, while butter was fed, these seven children gained 23.75 lbs.
For the next six months, while butter was still being fed, the seven children gained 44.25 lbs.
For the next six months these children were fed oleomargarine in place of butter, the diet being otherwise the same. The result was a loss of 9.5 lbs.
Oleomargarine

In the next periods, butter was again replaced, with the result that, in the following six months, the children made a gain of 56.87 lbs.
This official report from the city of Rochester is one of the strongest indictments of oleomargarine we have ever seen and it comes, not from the dairy interests, but from a city organization. The class that would stand to gain most from the suppression of oleomargarine would be the growing children.
It is on behalf of the growing children and the working people of this country, the people who are putting their good money into this spurious article, that I am speaking to-night, and not on behalf of the dairymen, because, as time goes on these people will realize that this commodity cannot take the place of butter and people of good judgment and sense will see that their children are supplied with the genuine article. In the meantime, however, is it the duty of the Government to permit this stuff to continue to be sold and not to have it inspected ? I would have thought one of the first steps that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) would have taken would have been to see that the medical authorities of the Department of Health made a proper analysis of it, so that he might have been in a position tonight to inform this House as to the true food value 'of this commodity. This has not been done, and, consequently, we do not know even yet what the food value of this article is.
I opposed it in the past because of the regulations which were enacted giving these people the freedom which they have. What right have they to purchase butter which has been manufactured under the strict regulations to which I have referred, to take it into a packing house and to mix it up with 'cottonseed oil and other vegetable fats, to churn It with milk, to go to all these pains in order to deceive the consumer and to sell it under butter's trademark, because that is what they are doing when they put it up in a package in imitation of butter? Although the wrapper may indicate that the content is oleomargarine, when it is stripped off the wrapper, when it is cut up into blocks and put on the tables of boarding houses throughout Canada, how are you going to detect it? It is said that you canot detect it from butter; that it is wholesome. It may be wholesome, but we do not know 'how wholesome it is. It is possible a grown up person would not feel the injurious effects of it; but as regards the young and growing child, never yet has anything been discovered that can take the place of the qualities that milk fat contains. People may attempt to imi-
[ Mr. Sutherland. ]
tate, and they may eventually discover something that will take the place of butter; but so far nothing has been discovered that can take the place of milk fat. Consequently you will find that some people will be anxious to put some spurious article on the market, and I contend that the poor of this country, because it is the poor and not the wealthy people who are buying this stuff, have suffered more as the result of this policy and will continue to suffer more than any one else.
No doubt other hon. members desire to speak on this, and I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House; but I want to re-emphasize the fact that dairying is not such a profitable industry as some people would like us to believe. In Ontario, dairying has been established for many years; in fact, the first cheese factory established in the Dominion of Canada was established in the Constituency which I have the honour to represent. Cheese manufacturing had its headquarters there for many years, and the town which is my home town is possibly better known in the Old Land as a result of the exportation of cheese and dairy products than any other town in the Dominion. I refer to the town of Ingersoll. The late Edwin Caswell, of Ingersoll, was one of the first exporters of cheese in this country.
During the last few years a census has been taken of the farms in the county of Oxford and also of the farms in the county of York by the provincial government with a view to establishing the actual cost of dairy products in this country, and I am going to point out very briefly the result of that census. In the county of Oxford, it was shown that the cost of producing 100 pounds of milk was $2.94, and in the county of York, it was $3.32. The price received in Oxford was $2.81 and in the county of York $2.85; or, taking everything into consideration, there was a loss of 13 cents per 100 pounds in Oxford and 40 cents per 100 pounds in York. These figures were obtained after careful investigation of upwards of 100 farms in each of these counties, an endeavour having been made to find out, by as minute an analysis as possible, what the actual cost of production was and what they were receiving in return. Now, these are some of the things that the dairymen of this country have through experience very well fixed in their minds, and when associations that have nothing to do with agriculture or dairying pass resolutions such as have been passed in this city and elsewhere, beseeching the

Oleomargarine
Government to see that this article that is manufactured by farmers is allowed to be incorporated with the cheap commodities imported duty free and turned out by these manufacturers and placed on the markets of the country, it is apparent that their chief plea is a fraud from beginning to end and should not be countenanced by any government. So long as I am engaged in any industry I shall feel that I am entitled to the same consideration that is accorded every other industry; and anyone who advocates the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine as at present permitted undoubtedly shows a contempt for dairying and agriculture generally.
I do not think that this commodity should be allowed to be sold in Canada; but certainly if you permit the sale of oleomargarine here the imported article and the commodities which go to make it up should be subject to a customs tariff just the same as other things that are imported. Furthermore, it should be manufactured and placed on the market on its merits. No attempt should be made to deceive the public by mixing it with butter and churning it in milk. I believe there are vegetable oils in the oleomargarine sold in England, which is entirely different from the commodity that is placed on the markets in this country. In some countries they do not allow oleomargarine to be put up in quantities of less than 10 pounds, whereas in Canada we allow them to put it on the market in pound prints identical in shape with dairy ' products.
Now, I have referred to a few of the objections I have to the continuance of the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. I heartily support the resolution, and I trust that the sale of this article in Canada will be prohibited. If, however, the Government do decide to permit its manufacture and importation, they should impose a tariff upon it like anything else, because it should not receive special privileges over an old-established industry like the butter industry. The fact that oleomargarine may have 25 or 30 per cent, of butter fat incorporated in it, and 15 per cent of milk, is no reason why it should be allowed to compete with genuine butter.
Let us do something at least to show that we are in sympathy with those men who are labouring under great (Difficulties at the present time;-I refer to the returned soldiers who have gone on the land. Many of these men, with the limited experience they had, have been tempted to go into dairying and the live stock industry. And
the country depends more on the butter industry than upon anything else. It is only by the manufacture of butter that we can hope to establish a successful livestock industry in Canada. I heard an hon. member the other night-I think it was my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) -bemoaning in very doleful tones the condition of the farmers in western Canada. He pointed out that the land was becoming impoverished and was producing six bushels per acre less than a few years ago. Well, what can you expect? We listened to the provincial Minister of Agriculture from Saskatchewan, Hon. Mr. Hamilton, the other day, before the committee on agriculture, endeavouring to prove the contention that we should have a wheat board in this country by the fact that the income of the average farmer in the province of Saskatchewan from a 320 acre farm was, I think, about $1,200 less than his expenses. To my amazement, the only two things the farmer had to sell were wheat and oats. It struck me that such a man was not much of a farmer. Any one can go to Saskatchewan and on fertile land grow wheat and oats as long as the land retains its fertility. But there comes a day when it will not be so responsive, and the only method of keeping the soil fertile is by going into the live-stock industry in conjunction with other farming. This has been demonstrated time and again, not only in Canada, but throughout the world. People need not think that they can go on taking from the land forever without putting something back, without exhausting its fertility. This is the chief cause of the trouble to-day. In many of the old provinces much of the land has become impoverished and it is no small task to bring it back to a state where good crops can be grown. I think it will be one of the greatest misfortunes this country has ever experienced if we follow the course advocated and pursued in the past and put all our lands under cultivation, neglecting live stock and dairying. We should develop this industry in conjunction with the cultivation of the soil. To-day it is imperative that we should establish the dairy industry on a sound basis, and we cannot hope to do so if we allow and handicaps to operate it. I therefore support the resolution.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The subject matter of the resolution under consideration by the House this afternoon and evening is not by any means a new one.
Oleomargarine

Indeed, it is a hardy annual that has appeared every session since I came to the House five years ago; and I agree entirely with the view expressed by the member for South Waterloo (Mr. Euler) this afternoon when he said that he hoped we should be able on the present occasion to make a final disposition of it. I have a particular interest in this matter, Sir, because of the fact that the first job I had after I became Minister of Agriculture in 1917 was to draft the regulations-assisted, of course, by expert men in the department-covering the sale and manufacture in, and the importation into Canada, of oleomargarine. These regulations were passed at that time under the War Measures Act for the reasons stated by my hon. friend from Comox-Al-berni (Mr. Neill) this afternoon. In 1918 another Order in Council was passed extending the regulations and in some respects making them rather more stringent than before. In the autumn session of 1919, when the power of the government to act under the War Measures Act had lapsed, parliament passed legislation extending the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine for another year; in 1920 parliament considered the matter further and again extended the period for another year; the same thing happened the following year, and now in this session we are once more considering whether or not this legislation shall pass out of existence or be continued.
I am opposed to the motion of my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), and I am opposed to it for the very reason that my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) supports it. I believe I have stated before in this House that the gentlemen who believe in the principle of protection in fiscal policy could consistently believe in protection to the dairy industry in this way. I do not believe in the fiscal policy of protection, I do not believe in protection at all for that matter in trade, and consequently I am opposed to the resolution.
I agree entirely with my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), in his observations on the contribution to the discussion made by the hon. member from Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie). I submit, too, that his arguments have not been answered, and that they alone constitute sufficient reasons for this House to continue the legislation in question.
The argument of the protectionists in matters of fiscal policy is that it is necessary to build up your home industry. Our

friends who argue against the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine take exactly the same position. I am at one with -the remarks made by my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) this afternoon when he described this motion as embodying the most vicious kind of protection. And it is the most vicious kind of protection, for the reason that it not only prevents the importation of a necessary and useful article of food but it entirely prohibits its manufacture at home. If protection can go any further than that, I am at a loss to understand how it can be accomplished.	.
Now, frankly, I was astonished-astonished, Mr. Speaker, is a mild word for me to use-at the speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture this evening. Why, Sir, I can throw my mind back over a number of years and recall with what eagerness I used to listen to him when he preached the sound gospel of freedom and of liberty in matters of trade, and I was amazed, indeed, I was grieved to see him haul down the flag of liberty by the most specious pleading that could be indulged in and ask for protection of the grossest form for the dairy industry. My hon. friend must surely have fallen into bad company. I hope it is only a temporary lapse, Mr. Speaker, and that he will in due time return to the true faith, which he understands as well as any man in this House.
When we come to a consideration of the merits of this question, what do we find? It has not been successfully argued, nor can it be successfully argued in this House or out of it, that oleomargarine is not a wholesome food. The whole weight of evidence shows it is a wholesome food. It is made from animal fats, excellent foods in themselves, blended with vegetable oils that are also excellent foods in themselves, and no evidence of a reliable character has been adduced to show that oleomargarine is not a suitable and valuable food product. Now, if it is a food product of value, and if it can be secured a little cheaper than the higher grades of butter, why should any one in this House or out of it seek to deprive the people of a wholesome food by absolutely prohibiting the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine? That argument cannot be successfully controverted, except as my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture tried to do this evening by the most specious pleading that could possibly be attempted.

Oleomargarine
If we take the history of this article throughout the whole civilized world we find there is not a country to-day but is using it-that permits its manufacture and sale. Now, I am convinced that if the various civilized countries are doing this, it is because oleomargarine has a food value. I have no belief in the arguments advanced that its continued importation and manufacture will destroy our dairy industry. It cannot destroy that industry. Reference was made this evening to Denmark's position in regard to oleomargarine. What was her position? It was not, as my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, stated, that Denmark has for hundreds of years been engaged in the dairy industry. If he will study the history of Denmark he will find that sixty, seventy or eighty years ago there was no peasantry in Europe more impoverished than that of Denmark, and that there was no country in Europe more backward in agriculture than Denmark.


Daniel Webster Warner: Has it been oleomargarine or butter that has helped Denmark?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend from
Strathcona had waited for a moment I would have satisfied his eager curiosity in that respect. Denmark built up her agriculture largely on her dairy industry. It is common knowledge that the average Danish farm is about ten acres in extent. Nowhere in the world has agriculture been carried on so intensively as in Denmark. They built up a splendid dairy industry. But if my memory serves me right, for the last thirty or thirty-five years Denmark has permitted the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine, and yet her dairy industry, now the finest in the world, has been built up alongside the competition of oleomargarine.


Donald Sutherland: Do you know of
a country outside of Canada where dairy products are permitted to be mixed with the other constituents of oleomargarine? It is not allowed in Denmark.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, and I submit that that is not relevant to the particular question we are discussing. I will deal in a moment or two with the point raised by my hon. friend from South Oxford. That is the position that has been taken by Denmark in regard to the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. There is not a country in the
world, I repeat, that has not permitted its manufacture and importation.
There is one other question: Has the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine injured our dairy industry? My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture knows that as far as the exportable dairy products of Canada are concerned they have been mainly in the form of cheese. Prior to the war Canada exported annually 180,000,000 to 200,000,000 pounds of cheese, which found its main market in Great Britain. The cheese industry was developed in Ontario and in the neighbouring province of Quebec rather than the butter industry, and it is only in comparatively recent years that the latter industry has been developed in this country. But has it withered and failed under the competition of oleomargarine? Not according to the trade figures, because I find that in the last four years the butter exports of Canada have been well up to the mark. In 1917 we exported almost 8,000,000 pounds of butter; in 1918, almost 5,000,000 pounds; in 1919,	13,500,000 pounds; in 1920,
17,500,000 pounds, and during those years we have been using oleomargarine.


Donald Sutherland: Would the hon. gentleman give us the exports for 1921?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know that I have those here.


Donald Sutherland: About 9,000,000 pounds.
.Mr. CRERAR: Well, it goes up and down.


William F. Carroll: Perhaps my hon. friend would give us the imports of butter into Canada.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not those figures, but I have the imports of oleomargarine. In 1918, they were 2,262,000 pounds; in 1919, 4,000,000 pounds; in 1920, when we had a big export in butter, a little over 6,000,000 pounds.
There is one other point which I would like to bring to the attention of my hon. friends who support the motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-and I would like the Minister of Agriculture to give some thought to this aspect of the question. If Canada is going to develop a dairy industry, it cannot be developed on the home market alone. No industry in Canada can be developed soundly if it is dependent only upon the home market, and that is one of the reasons, Sir, why
Oleomargarine

I do not believe in protective tariffs. If, then, we are to build up our dairy industry, we must build up our exports of butter in the face of oleomargarine competition in every country in the world. Do my hon. friends who believe that the Canadian dairymen and butter producers must be protected against oleomargarine competition at home forget that they must face that competition when they get into the outside markets of the world? The whole thing is illogical, absolutely illogical and inconsistent.
I am as great a believer as any one in the possibilities of the development of the dairy industry in Canada. Our country is splendidly located in that respect. It is only a matter of time, and not a very long time, either, when our neighbours to the south of us, the great 'American Republic, will come to Canada for their foodstuffs in increasing measure. I have mentioned it to the House before, but it is a fact worth recalling again, that more than two-thirds of the 106,000,000 people that constitute the United States proper live in incorporated towns and cities, and no part of Canada is better situated to supply the densely populated portion of the United States with dairy products than Ontario and Quebec. As that population grows, as the United States becomes a food-importing country, you will have in that country the greatest and broadest possible market for the dairy products of these provinces. If that market is not sufficient, we are only a few thousand miles from Great Britain, perhaps the greatest single consumer of imported dairy products in the world.
If my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Government desire to develop this industry, I submit it cannot best be done by preventing the sale and manufacture of a useful food product that can be supplied to some of the people of Canada at a lower price than butter. But they can best do it by promoting sane methods of marketing our agricultural products, and by assisting in the development of refrigerator services in the shipment of those products to the markets of the world. These are means by which the Government can legitimately assist the development of an industry of this kind. The waste that goes on through short-sighted methods of marketing, the loss that occurs through deterioration in quality, particularly of such perishable commodities as butter and cheese, can scarcely be estimated. It was 
for that reason that when I was in the Government a few years ago I urged my colleagues to undertake the erection of an up-to-date cold storage warehouse in Montreal in order that there might be provided at that great port the means whereby these perishable products could be kept in condition until they were placed in refrigerated space in ocean vessels and sent in the best possible condition to the markets of Europe. By these means, if we proceed intelligently, we can assist the dairy industry in the greatest possible way -far better and to a far greater extent than we can by attempting to stimulate artificially a market here at home by preventing the importation and sale of oleomargarine.
I am rather at a loss to know what the policy of the Government may be in respect to this matter. If I am to judge by the rather remarkable speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture this evening, I would not have very much hope that they will follow the path of wisdom in the matter. I trust however, that on a little more reflection my good friend the Minister of Agriculture will see the error of his ways. I wish just to assure the Government that if they bring in legislation at this session of Parliament providing for the importation or manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada, they will have my hearty support in that action.
Now, one thought in respect to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). I do not know to what extent butter is used in the manufacture of oleomargarine. I do lay this down: that it is the part of wisdom for the Government to see that suitable regulations are enforced for the protection of the public health; to see that only healthful ingredients enter into the manufacture of oleomargarine and that only a pure food product is imported. That is quite properly the function of government. But once you surround the manufacture and importation and sale of this article with proper safeguards, then I submit that the interests of the country will be best served by allowing it to be sold, always as oleomargarine, not as butter- let the people know what they are buying. The business interests of this country will be safeguarded in that way and a sound policy established, and, I trust, permanently followed.
Let me repeat, in closing, that I hope the Government will bring down legislation to make this thing permanent. We

Oleomargarine
do not want any special privilege to dairymen or to any one else in this country. I have full confidence that the dairymen of Canada can stand up against the competition of oleomargarine; the facts of the last five years prove that beyond any question of doubt. I am against special privilege to dairymen, just as I am against special privileges to manufacturers in the way of tariffs, and for this reason if for no other I will oppose the motion proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Mr. J. L. STANSELL (East Elgin) :: Mr. Speaker, it requires some degree of courage to support a resolution after it has been so vehemently denounced by my esteemed friend the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I do not profess to be the judge that he is either of sound judgment or of stupidity, but I do believe I know something about the dairy industry and the manufacture of butter. I was pleased to hear the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) inform the House that it was he who was responsible for drawing up the regulations governing the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. If those regulations had been as carefully drawn and were as strict as those governing the sale of butter, I am not sure I would have raised my voice in protest at this time, but they were not so. I do not know in what respect my hon. friend has been associated with farming, but he confessed to the House to-night ^hat he did not know what the Canadian exports of butter were for the last year, he did not know what the imports were, and if I heard aright a question this afternoon, he did not know that a large quantity of New Zealand butter was being consumed in Canada. If that is the fact, he is not the highest authority on this subject, in my estimation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend will permit me he is not quite doing me justice. I gave the export figures in my remarks to-night.


John Lawrence Stansell: For this year.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Not for the present year, but those figures can be secured from the blue books in a few minutes.


John Lawrence Stansell: I was referring to this year's figures. I have been very much interested in the arguments put forward here to-night and the different views expressed on this question which is of intense interest to the House and the country. It is a question that should be settled one way or the other, and I am very glad it has been approached in the way in which it has, for I believe that, as hon. members, we ought to respect each other's opinions. If this were a matter on which the arguments were all on one side it would have been settled years ago, but good arguments have been made to-night both for and against the resolution. Possibly I was most favourably impressed by the speech of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) who probably said everything that could be said against the resolution in the way of argument, and said it in a very logical and clear manner. He is quite consistent in the attitude he takes. It has been said that his arguments have not been answered here to-day. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has also put up a very strong argument for the other side, and in some respects his argument has not been answered.
I do not propose at this late hour to take up very much time in giving figures or going over ground that has already been covered by former speakers. I shall simply summarize in a brief way my views on this question. The question before the House is whether after September next the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada shall be permitted or not. I have received representations from opposing interests, and I think it is only fair in considering this subject that we should realize where requests for this legislation have come from. I do not think I can do anything fairer than to present the arguments that have been submitted on each side, because we can depend upon the interests affected to put up the strongest claims possible in support of their own argument. I think hon. members in common with myself have all received a copy of the circular issued by the Canadian Manufacturers and Importers of Oleomargarine. It is only fair that we should consider the financial investment of those who are desirous of having this privilege of manufacture and sale continued. Considerable money has undoubtedly been invested, and I have no doubt that the manufacture of oleomargarine is carried on in a clean manner, subject as it is to government inspection. It must be remembered, however, that when this investment was originally made, it was well understood that the manufacture of oleomargarine was permitted only as a war measure and the money was invested on that under-
Oleomargarine

standing, knowing the risk involved in the venture.
On the other hand, I have been asked to oppose the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in this country by the following interests: the National Dairy Council representing The Ontario Milk and Cream Producers' Association; The Dairymen's Association of Western Ontario; The Dairymen's Association of Eastern Ontario; The Dairymen's Association of the Province of Quebec; The Montreal Milk Producers' Co-operative Agricultural Association; Canadian Milk Distributors Association; Canadian Ice Cream Manufacturers' Association; The Western Canada Ice Cream Manufacturers' Association; Canadian Creamery Association; The Western Dairy Manufacturers' Executive; Milk Condensaries; The Provincial Dairymen's Association of Manitoba; The Provincial Dairymen's Association of Saskatchewan; The Provincial Dairymen's Association of Alberta; The Provincial Dairy Association of British Columbia; The Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association; The New Brunswick Dairymen's Association; The Nova Scotia Dairymen's Association; The Prince Edward Island Dairymen's Association; Milk Powder Manufacturers; the Holstein-Friesian Association of Canada; Canadian Ayrshire Breeders' Association; Canadian Jersey Cattle Club.
When such a number of organizations all over the length and breadth of Canada present their views in this way, representing the capital investment that they do, I think it is only fair that we should give reasonable consideration to their claims. If we were to consider this question from the standpoint of the money invested, I think all hon. members will agree that the investment and the labour employed in the dairying industry, is entirely out of proportion to the money invested and the labour employed in the oleomargarine business; the balance is nearly all on one side, that of dairying. It has been interesting to follow the arguments as to what extent protection enters into this question. I should like to give what in my opinion is the principle of protection. I cannot agree with some of my hon. friends to my left, who are sincere in being free traders and are opposed to the principle of protection. Possibly at some time in the future I may be able to agree with their views, but conditions at present are briefly these: We are, whether we believe in it or not, and whether we like

it or not, under a protective policy at the present time, and if I may venture into the realm of prophecy, it will be some years yet before the hopes of my hon. friends to my left are realized and this country does absolutely without protection. The very fact, as has been pointed out by some of the speakers, that this is a cold country, with climatic conditions that do not obtain elsewhere, makes it necessary in my opinion to have at least some measure of protection for our industries, to develop a home market. Now, if I understand the principle of protection, in whatever form it may dome, it is state aid granted to a certain section of our people, who, apparently, are not able to help themselves, to the extent that is advisable in the interest of the country. For the manufacturers the most natural form of protection is a protective tariff. For our friends from the west, who are not very greatly impressed with the idea of a protective tariff, the only protection that strongly appeals to them is compulsory legislation for the marketing of their product, wheat. Now I must say that I admire their beautiful inconsistency when they state that they do not believe in protection at all. But this is a particular form of protection adapted to their needs. Call it what you like; it is a form of protection adapted to meet the needs of the farmers of western Canada. I must say that I have a good deal of sympathy with the ideas put forth in support of that proposition. Nevertheless if that is the only kind of protection that is to be tolerated in Canada then my sympathy for my western friends begins to ebb very rapidly. I think it is realized that no matter in what part of Canada we may reside we have as much right to interpret the conditions there as to our own best interests, as those who reside in any other part of Canada have to interpret the conditions which affect them. Reference has 'been made to a request recently presented to the House from British Columbia. In that province they have a problem which they deem most important. I refere to the oriental problem. It has been dealt with in various ways, but in the opinion of British Columbia, exclusion or prohibition is the e'orrect solution. I am not prepared to dispute that position; the representatives from the province should know what form of protection is best adapted to the needs of British Columbia. Naturally the dairymen's associations, and the producers of milk and the other articles manufactured from it such as cheese and butter, believe in

Oleomargarine
a certain kind of protection which is adapted to their industry. I listened carefully to the manner in which this was characterized by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). He described it as a pernicious form of protection, and in so doing was ably seconded by the hon. member for Marquette. Possibly that is very nearly a correct description; but personally I must say that 1 do not like the words "protection" or "prohibition" nor the words "exclusion" or "compulsion." Nevertheless in the laws governing this country there are embodied very many of the principles that can be designated as either one or the other, we must submit to certain restrictions for the general good. Therefore, even if we apply the term protection to the dairy industry; if we go even further and call it "pernicious protection," in my opinion protection as applied to the needs of the farmer has not so often erred on the side of generosity that we cannot, in this instance, afford to give them the benefit of the doubt. If this is pernicious protection we might well afford, considering the condition of the dairy farmer at the present time, to make a little step in that direction.
Let us for a moment consider the composition and the value of this article. It must be remembered, as I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, that if I am engaged in the dairying industry and producing butter I am subjected to regulations that are very stringent. If, by any means whatever, I get more than 16 per cent of water incorporated in that butter-and I assure you, as one who spent some years in the manufacture of butter, that it is a very difficult thing to regulate-I render myself liable to the laws of the country. It is the same if I incorporate in that butter anything but pure butter fat, allowing only for the smallest fraction of impurities, such as a slight amount of mineral matter. If there is any thing beyond that I render myself liable. Yet in connection with the manufacture of oleomargarine there are no such restrictions. If it is clean it may contain any quantity of water, and almost anything else; there is no law or regulation governing it. If this article was composed entirely of materials produced in Canada, and was manufactured and sold only on its merits, I could not have the courage to rise and say a word against it. The claim has been made for oleomargarine that it consists to the extent of 75 per cent of Canadian products. That is not exactly borne out by the facts because
in a return that was asked for some time ago in this House and brought down, we were told that a total of 3,862,962 pounds of various products were brought in from foreign countries and used in the manufacture of oleomargarine-products imported practically free of duty. We have also been informed that the total quantity of oleomargarine manufactured during 1921, the latest year for which I have returns, was 3,780,000 pounds; while the quantity imported was 2,057,000 pounds. What, may I ask, is wrong about that? Just this: It is a form of competition that no other industry in this country would tolerate for one moment. We are protected, as manufacturers of butter, to the extent only of from three to four per cent of duty and possibly that advantage is wiped out entirely by the exchange rates. We are shut out entirely from the United States market by the high rates imposed on our products. Is it fair that any of our manufacturers should go to that country and import from there the raw materials they need to the extent to which they do, make that importation practically free of duty, and place their product on the market in competition with our butter, not on its own merits but so camouflaged by the addition of a portion of butter as to make it palatable and more nearly resemble the article it competes with. I am quite willing, as I believe other farmers in this country are, to admit into Canada articles that do not benefit us but may be needed for some other industry. All that we desire is a favourable consideration of the problems confronting the men who are at present engaged in the dairy industry. I am fairly conversant with the condition of that industry in Ontario and I tell you that the situation of those men is anything but rosy. I have that on the authority of some bank managers who tell me that never in their experience has the situation of the dairy farmers been so critical as it is now, and that collections are almost impossible. Surely other interests should be prepared to sacrifice a little in order to grant the protection needed for the dairy industry.
Something has been said by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) about the composition of oleomargarine and its food value for growing children. Let me tell the House that if the interests of the growing children of our country could be eliminated I am not sure that I would say anything in favour of this resolution. A large proportion of our po-
Oleomargarine

pulation, and I refer to the children, are not in a position to protect themselves in this and some other respects. In all experiments that have been made from whatever source, the results as given by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) have been found to apply, and no one has made any attempt to refute his argument. It is admitted in this pamphlet which I hold in my hand-and I think I am fair when I use it for illustration-that "growth accessories" are found in the oleo oil from which oleomargarine is prepared, and it is stated that they have been discovered in animal fats. This pamphlet does not state to what extent they have been discovered, but it goes so far as to say that they have been discovered in butter fats and animal fats. This pamphlet also states that they are present in the milk with which oleomargarine is mixed in the process of manufacture. That is correct, and that is the very method by which this gains its appeal with the consuming public, namely, by representing that it is equivalent in value to butter. If butter or milk were not used to any extent in the manufacture of oleomargarine, these "growth accessories" or vitamines would not be found to any great extent. Therefore, oleomargarine cannot he compared with butter for the use of growing children.
As regards cost, oleomargarine may be cheaper than butter; hut as regards actual food value, I am free to state that the poor man whom some hon. members seem to he so much interested in, if he would spend the same amount of money on butter and spread it a little thinner, would have more value than he would by investing the same amount of money in oleomargarine at a cheaper price. If we are to make any mistake at all, let us make that mistake on the side of protecting the children, the rising generation.
One of the main reasons advanced by practically every speaker is that other countries permit the sale and use of oleomargarine. In my opinion, that is the poorest argument of all, because I am sure we, as Canadians, are sufficiently wise to be able to take care of ourselves regardless of what other countries may do. If we look to the country to the south of us, to a certain extent at least they tolerate, lynching; but we do not tolerate it in Canada, and would not do so for one moment. We do not propose to imitate them in that or in many other things. If we look over some European countries, there are many conditions that prevail amongst their

peoples who, we are told, consume so much oleomargarine, which conditions we do not want to find amongst our Canadian people. We might take, for example, the Swiss who have no navy, and I believe in Canada we are coming dangerously near to that state of affairs. These arguments about other countries do not appeal to me. We surely can afford to stand alone if necessary.
It has been stated that this is a poor man's food. I have studied this question for some years, and I have heard the argument that you must not take away from the poor man the material that he needs for a spread on his bread when he is not in a financial condition to buy high priced butter. This argument has its appeal; but in every case where this argument has been presented to me, I have asked what the particular person advancing the argument did himself and without exception the reply is: Oh, we use butter for our family; it is just for the labouring man that we want the substitute. In this country I do not believe in two standards; conditions should be such that the labouring man should be entitled to a pure, healthy and beneficial food just as any other class in this country. It is only because of lack of information that an appeal like this carries any weight. If every family in this Canada of ours was sufficiently well informed as to the comparative merits of butter and oleomargarine there would be no sale for oleomargarine to spread on bread. Oleomargarine, has not, as I have pointed out, the particular life giving growth accessories as described in this pamphlet, that butter has. Butter also has peculiar value as a brain food. Surely hon. members have met many people who do not use sufficient butter. I do not, of course, refer to any hon. member in this House because it is quite evident that we have all been well supplied with that particular kind of diet. I am acquainted with some people who are sufficiently poor in this world's goods to come within the class spoken of and I have not been able to find that that class of people demands oleomargarine.


Mr. DICKIE:: We have been told that 3,800,000 pounds of various substances are imported into Canada for the manufacture of oleomargarine. We are also told that 3,700,000 pounds of oleomargarine were manufactured in Canada. We are told that a great deal of butter goes into this oleomargarine. How are we going to squeeze

Oleomargarine
our butter into 3,700,000 pounds of oleomargarine if we import 3,800,000 pounds of other substances which, go into the manufacture of oleomargarine?


John Lawrence Stansell: In the first place many of these materials are brought into Canada in the raw state and are refined to some extent which process would reduce their volume. I might say also in all fairness that I am giving not figures obtained from other sources which are available and which I have considered, but the figures from a pamphlet which I have in my hand supplied by the oleo interests. The figure of three million pounds odd refers to the manufacture of Canadian oleomargarine. The two million pounds odd refers to the importation, but strange as it may seem- and this is also given in this same remarkable pamphlet,- it is stated that the consumption of oleomargarine in Canada is 1,000,000 pounds per month. I do not vouch for the accuracy of these figures; they are there to speak for themselves. I cannot explain them. My contention is that when we in this Parliament as representatives of the Canadian people decide to encourage the feeding of the young and rising generation on an article of such an inferior quality to butter as oleomargarine, we are taking a step that, to say the least, is entering a road leading in the wrong direction. If we follow it to its logical conclusion it will only be a step until the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) will be justified and we shall be asked to provide a home market for this article known as filled milk which at present we do not know but which will follow after the thin edge of the wedge has been inserted in this matter. Those are the reasons advanced why we should vote for the continuation of the sale of oleomargarine, namely, because other countries permit it and because we should think so much about the poor man's family.
The reason why I support the present resolution is because under present regulations the competition is unfair and it would not be submitted to by any other manufacturing industry in this country. I trust that other industries are sufficiently fair to give to the dairy industry that much needed form of protection that this resolution will provide. In conclusion, let me say what should, in my opinion, be the duty of the representatives of the Canadian people. It should be the duty of Canada's representatives to guard and develop, not
a spineless, navyless, oleo-oiled, peasantry, but a healthy, strong, virile manhood and womanhood, able and willing to protect and perpetuate this country as a nation. And if in this way we can do something to guarantee the young and rising generation a generous supply of one of the best and most wholesome foods, then I submit we are taking a step in the right direction as legislators in this country. If I must choose, as I have to on this occasion, between the welfare of the manufacturer and importer of oleomargarine, on the one hand, and, on the other, -the Canadian dairy interests and the growth and development of a healthy rising generation, I am forced to give my decision and the benefit of the doubt to the latter; and in doing so I believe I am doing what is best in the future interests of the country.


Daniel Webster Warner: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is not a proper time of night to commence a long speech, but I think we are debating something which it is worth our while staying all night in order to decide rightly. The House seems to be very much divided; the different groups are broken. We are going to do very much as we please in this matter, judging by the way hon. members are talking all over the Chamber, some for and some against in every group. Consequently I feel quite at home in taking my stand in opposition to my leader (Mr. Crerar) in this group. I feel I am justified in doing so. If he had put in as many years milking cows, and if he knew the difficulty in connection with this work as well as I do, I do not think he would have made the kind of speech he delivered. I notice that most of the gentlemen who are talking here to-night in opposition to this resolution are not the men who take the milk pail and milk the cows. I have seen the difficulties of the dairy business right from the beginning of my business career. I know that it has had a hard time. I know, at the same time, that those who are opposed to this resolution are opposed to it from an honest conviction. At least, that is my belief. But, Mr. Speaker, I can hardly agree with them in the fine, dielicabe point they raise regarding the difference between asking for a compulsory wheat board and supporting the motion for the abolition of oleomargarine.


Andrew Ross McMaster: They are both unsound.


Daniel Webster Warner: I am bound to tell the House that I do not agree with those hon.
Oleomargarine

members if they are persistent in that attitude. I have not tried to convert any one in my group or in any other group to my ideas. I know, though, what the people in my constituency want, and I would not come here and misrepresent them in any respect in anything I do. But that is what I should be doing if I voted against this resolution. I know that I have a different constituency from those which some of my hon. friends to my left represent; and if we did anything that would make dairying harder for the people in my constituency we should be in danger of losing some of them. If I thought that the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine would be no more considerable in Canada in the future than it is at the present time, I would not occupy the time of the House expressing myself in favour of this resolution and opposing the importation and manufacture of this commodity.


William F. Carroll: What are the sales of oleomargarine in this country now compared with those of three years ago, taking into consideration the falling prices of butter?


Daniel Webster Warner: That question has been answered several times to-night, but I would say to my hon. friend that the conditions now are absolutely different. Furthermore, oleomargarine was asked for only as a substitute during the war, and the fact that the price of butter has come down is no doubt largely responsible for the diminution in the sales of oleo.


John Lawrence Stansell: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Irvine: Perhaps I might ask the hon. gentleman a question.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I would ask hon. members not to interrupt unduly the member who has the floor. However, my eye first caught the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine).


William Irvine: Does the farmers' platform not include the free importation of foodstuffs?


Daniel Webster Warner: I understand very well what there is in that platform, and I do not think that it has any application at all to this case. I am not aware of the need of oleomargarine in this country. I quite realize the difficulty which the dairymen are faced with, and if you prohibit the importation and sale of this article you will save the dairy business, and probably have cheaper and better butter.

But if you encourage the use of any substitute for butter you lessen the demand for the latter to that extent. However, if people are going to misconstrue a platform to the detriment of an industry, then I think that platform should be changed.


John Lawrence Stansell: Does my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) state that the Progressive party has a policy from which no member should dissent? If so, they are more partisan in their allegiance than either of the old parties.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Daniel Webster Warner: Have I the floor again, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not mind them.


Daniel Webster Warner: I am here to represent my constituency. I have been told that if I am narrow enough to represent one constituency and one constituency only, I am probably not big enough to make a good representative. Well, I will take that for what it is worth. But if I represent that constituency as it desires to be represented I feel that I am not only doing my duty but doing what is in the best interests of Canada that I should do. As I said shortly before hon. members began to bombard me with questions, I represent a constituency that is somewhat different from the constituencies which other hon. gentlemen represent. It is made up of small farms. The farmers make butter or sell cream and carry on -a dlhiiry business 'because they cam do it better that anything else. They have a brush country which they have to clear, and they can sow grass on it and have a pasture so that they can keep a few cows before they are able to break much of the land. Many, of them have been on the land for years and have got only 30 to 50 acres broken.
Now, it is one of the best districts in Canada; I except none. That district has not had a crop failure in the twenty-five years that I have been there. Those people are getting along in a moderate way; they are living, but they are not making money, and the dairy business is about the only thing that has kept them going. I know that to be so. Now, if you are going to do anything to make it harder for those people you will need a pretty good immigration policy to get newcomers to take the place of those people who may be forced to abandon their homesteads. We are talking of spending money to induce immigrants to come to this country. I say,

Oleomargarine
gentlemen, you will do more good by making the people prosperous that are here now, and you can do this better by giving them a good chance to make a success of the dairy business, than by spending money to get immigrants to come in and take their place.
My hon. friend from Marquette-my leader-mentioned that he wanted cold storage and lots of other things to take care of the dairy industry. We want them too, we are not objecting to them-neither are we objecting to the Wheat Board to take care of the wheat crop. Our leader suggested that in Denmark the dairy farmers are very prosperous. I have spent a good deal of my time in institute work, and I have been practically all my life trying to induce people to go into mixed farming, which of course includes a little dairying. In the course of my institute w*ork I have loanned that Denmark would1 not have been prosperous with the dairy business alone, if it had not been for the skim milk her farmers fed to their bacon hogs for the production of the fancy bacon exported to Great Britain where it fetches fancy prices. The Danish farmers are very favourably situated in regard to Great Britain and have the best of opportunities to put their products on the British market. I do not object if the people of Denmark want to eat oleomargarine and sell their butter to Great Britain at a higher price than they pay for the substitute; but we cannot do quite the same thing.
We have pamphlets here as part of the propaganda to further the interests of the oleomargarine manufacturers, and I have been approached to support the continued importation and manufacture of their product. Who is paying for that propaganda? The manufacturing interests, of course. And they do not expect to keep their production of oleomargarine at its present level, they are going to encroach on our dairy business more and more. The more oleomargarine that is put on the market the more butter it displaces, and the more profit will go into the hands of the big companies that already have a monopoly in this country, while the man who is out on the farm having a hard time to keep his homestead will have to get along with that narrowed market and to that extent he and his family will be so much worse off.
I am not going to quote facts and figures, it is too late to do so to-night. I have lots of them here, but it would be repeating what others have already said, and I have too bad a cold to talk at any great length; indeed, I would not have intervened in this discussion at all but for my keen interest in the matter. There are no two ways about it. As the Minister of Agriculture said, and as others have said, you cannot hire a man to work on a farm if you want him to milk cows. And I want to tell you that I do not believe the milking machine is a success yet; it takes a pretty good man to run one of those machines satisfactorily. What would we do in this country if something else were manufactured in the place of milk? The principle is the same. All day long we have been talking about how good oleomargarine is for adults to eat, but I have not heard one single member say that it was good for children-not one. We want our children, the poor man's as well as the rich man's, to have good, nourishing food, and for growing children there is not the slightest doubt in the world that oleomargarine is no substitute for butter. I suggest to my hon. friends on my left that if they will take the same money's worth of butter and spread it a little thinner they will get more benefit than they can ever expect to get from spreading this grease on their bread.
I know what oleomargarine is like; I had two kinds for dinner. I tasted and tested them pretty well. I do not like oleomargarine. If other people like it they are welcome to it; I do not object to their using it because I do not like it. But I do object to its continued importation and manufacture if it makes the dairy business harder for our farmers to continue at. We have spent milions of dollars at one time and another to try to get people to engage in the dairy business. My friend to the right read about twenty resolutions from twenty different organizations making certain requests. Who knows what is needed in this country in regard to the dairy business better than the men who are engaged in the business?
And I am not so delicate about saying whether this is or is hot protection. If you have got to stretch your mind a little to keep your business going, why, you have got to do it, that is all. I cannot see that the granting of what this resolution asks for gives protection to the dairy business any more than a compulsory wheat board would give protection to the men who are raising wheat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Oleomargarine


Daniel Webster Warner: Now, I will have this House understand that I am not opposing the wheat board. I shall continue to work for that wheat board and do my utmost to help get it. That is what we want. But I do want a chance for the dairy business; I want it to be treated in the same way, even on the same plane. I do not agree with my hon. friend from Lis-gar (Mr. Brown), any more than I agree with my leader, that this is protection. We are not asking for protection, we are asking for a chance to live, and we know how hard it is to keep the dairy business alive. We understand it. Who knows better than those who are in it how hard it is to continue in the dairy business? I know I had to sell my dairy herd in 1918 because I could not get anybody to help me carry on the dairy business. And it was a dairy herd that I thought a lot of. In the course of my life I had built up two herds, and this one I had worked with since I came to this country. But if the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine is to be allowed to continue I do not think I will be the only man who will have had to go out of the dairy business. It is only the man who has a growing family that can engage in the dairy business, because otherwise he would have to hire men to help him, and he could not afford to pajf the wages demanded under present conditions.
Now, Mr. Speaker and hon. gentlemen, this is the reason why I am speaking in support of this resolution,-simply because I cannot draw the fine distinction that it is asking for protection, as stated by our friends to the left. I do not see that we will weaken ourselves in the least by asking for protection of this kind. It is not protection in the way that we understand protection, that is, as a tax on articles that we have to buy. These people have been paying taxes on the articles they have had to buy until to-day they have barely enough to live on, and now if you put a little more burden on them maybe you will lose more of these men the very first year than you vrill gain by immigration ove~ a long period.
The returned men have been encouraged to go on the farms and they are now working under conditions that are absolutely intolerable. Many of them are living from their cows, simply hanging on, hoping that Parliament will do something to give them a fair chance. They are looking for a revaluation of their property so that they may go ahead and make the rest of the

payments on it. I have had letters from the dairymen in my constituency, men who have not more than from 30 to 50 acres under cultivation, who support the other farmers in their demand for a wheat board. They have asked me to support that; I have done so, and I do not wish to misrepresent them on this subject by voting against the resolution. They want the support of the farmers all the way through tor farmers' interests.
I do not understand this proposal as protection; I look upon it as a chance to make a living, to go ahead until things get better and we have an opportunity of clearing more land and making it available for farming purposes.
It is hard for hon. members to understand the conditions which prevail in these parts of the country unless they have been on the ground. I know what I am talking about, and I know that in many parts of Canada outside of my own constituency the dairymen are having a hard time to keep their business going. Let this House go slowly before it does anything which will make it harder for the dairy business to be carried on.


Mr. W. K. BALDWIN (Stanstead) :: Mr. Speaker, you would think from the arguments which have been advanced during the course of this discussion that every country in the world has legalized the manufacture of oleomargarine. I want to tell you that in the United States its sale and manufacture has been legalized, but only under certain conditions. For ten years the agriculturists of that country fought desperately against the introduction of oleomargarine, and not until the population of the United States had reached the figure of 65,000,000 was the measure passed through Congress. But it was provided that no one could sell oleomargarine by retail without paying a license of $60 for the privilege of doing so. That condition prevailed until very recently; I do not know that it does not prevail to-day. If any change has been made, it has been made quite recently. Now, what was the condition? The payment of the license fee of $60 by the retailer made it impossible for him to handle that conglomeration known as oleomargarine, but it did not debar the wholesaler from selling it to lumbermen, miners, or construction men who did not use butter. No injury resulted to the dairy products, because those who ate oleomargarine under those conditions were not consumers of butter.

Oleomargarine
Some reference has been made to vita-mines. Why, there are not as many vita-mines in 100 pounds of margarine as there are in one pound of butter. Let us remember also that the late government put many returned soldiers on the land. These men paid an average price of $100 each for their cows and they are having a very hard time indeed to get along. The same condition prevails down in the country where I live. There is another point which is worth remembering: if the Government destroys the dairying industry of our country by permitting this legalized conglomeration to be brought in from a foreign country the business of hog raising, involving the production of bacon, pork and lard, is closely connected with the dairying industry. The sensible people of this country know very well that if they want anything to replace butter they can get shortening, cottolene, and even lard, for one-half the price of oleomargarine. Oleomargarine is often sold as butter. The ex-minister showed us a package to-day as an example of the beautiful lithographic work which is turned out by the oleomargarine people; but the farmer uses an ordinary piece of paraffin paper; he says he can afford nothing better. Now, I am a retailer, and I do not wish to destroy the retailers' organizations, but I have handled a litttle oleomargarine and I want to tell you that I never could sell it when I had any butter. It is easy enough to sell it at a profit of eight cents a pound, but when you retail butter everyone knows the price of it; it is quoted in the papers. If a grocer buys butter and gets two or three cents a pound on it, he is getting all the profit he can get because competition regulates prices, but he can make more profit on one pound of oleomargarine than he can on four pounds of butter.
There has been some talk of vested rights in this country, but I would point out that all the oleomargarine I ever bought was made in the United States; and I would prohibit that. If there are one or two factories in Canada which are manufacturing oleomargarine, they will not be put in a very desperate position if oleomargarine is prohibited. It is the duty of the Govern-ernment to stand by the creameries and cheese factories throughout Canada which they have encouraged and in connection with which they have helped to establisn cold storage plants. Particularly should this be done at a time when the farmers of the country are having a hard struggle to
get along. The Government will be seriously blamed if they do not proceed as they should in this line.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Down in Nova Scotia, particularly along the seashore, the people use molasses when they cannot get butter. Can my hon. friend tell me the relative value of molasses and oleomargarine?


Willis Keith Baldwin: I have sold molasses and I have sold oleomargarine. According to my observation, I should say that one pint of Barbados or fancy molasses contains more food value than a pound of oleomargarine. That reduces oleomargarine to a pretty low level.
We have had debates in this House and pretty strong arguments on this subject; I have had a little hand in them myself. But I never characterized oleomargarine as strongly as some of the members of the late Government did. They said it. was worse than soap, nothing but a mixture of grease. I do not intend to continue this debate or make it any worse than it is. I stand behind the Minister of Agriculture and I would guarante that every agricultural college in this country, every manager of an experimental farm, every man, in fact, who knows agriculture, would support this resolution.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer) :: Mr. Speaker, I would not get up at this time of the night were it not to correct one slight misconception which apparently exists in some parts of the House, and that is that this resolution is only being opposed by those who are not dairymen-bv those farmers who are wheat raisers and by other people who know nothing of the difficulties involved in getting up early in the morning and getting out at night to milk cows.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I have milked cows for fifty years.


Alfred Speakman: I was not referring to the hon. member. He is supporting the resolution. I am sorry to have to disagree for once in the whole of this session with my hon. friend and neighbour from Strathcona (Mr. Warner), but as I come from very much the same sort of constituency of small mixed farms, I thought it would be well to show that even the men from those constituencies were not unanimous on this question any more than any other party or group in this House. I am not going at all into the question of the food value or wholesomeness of oleomargarine as that has been



Oleomargarine
pretty well covered. I have never eaten oleomargarine, to my knowledge, and I know nothing whatever about it, but I want to look at the question from two angles.
In the first place, if oleomargarine is a good food, and I at least am convinced by the weight of evidence that it is a good and wholesome food when manufactured and sold under proper supervision, and if it is sold as oleomargarine and not as butter, and I believe with proper supervision and inspection that can be done, then the question simply is this: Will it ruin the dairy industry? That is not the only question but it is one. I do not believe it will. I do not believe that oleomargarine is going to be a factor which will enter very seriously into competition with the genuine dairy article. What do the sales of oleomargarine during the last year prove? They prove that oleomargarine is sold only when the price of butter is so high that a great number of the common consumers cannot buy it, and that when butter gets down to the point where the average man can afford it, he buys butter, and the sales of oleomargarine fall off accordingly. That is amply proved by the manufacture and import figures during the last three or four years. Taking that into consideration, I cannot agree with the idea that oleomargarine will enter so seriously into competition with the dairy industry as to put it out of business.


Daniel Webster Warner: Does the hon. member think I claimed we would be put out of business?


Alfred Speakman: I was not really
answering the hon. member for Strathcona, but rather the definite trend of argument that had permeated the whole of this debate, not the argument of any one in particular. I think there was no doubt what the trend of the debate was. It was that the dairying industry would either be put out of business or be seriously hampered in its development. I contend that the point has not been proved that it would ibe either.
There is one point that has been raised by those opposing the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine with which I have some sympathy, that is, if it were proven, that oleomargarine was detrimental to the growing generation, if it could be proved that it was an unsuitable food for children, and that it lacked the necessary elements which go to produce healthy children, growing into strong adults. If

it were nothing but a question between these children eating butter and eating oleomargarine there would be a great deal of weight in that, but it is a question of eating oleomargarine or dry bread in a great many cases. If the butter is within their reach, they will buy it. If they cannot buy butter, where does the force of that argument come in? Because I contend that any kind of fat, animal or vegetable grease, on bread makes a better balanced ration than bread alone. From the point of view of the health of the children, I do not think that point is well taken. That is all I intend to say on that.
I just wish to take a little exception to some things that have been said in regard to the protective element in this measure. To my mind, there can be no difficulty in deciding that it is protection. It is intended for protection. It is intended to enable the dairyman to sell his butter for a better price than he could otherwise obtain. It is intended to restrict the use of other things that might enter into competition with butter, and so enable him to control the market.


Mr. CANNON:: If that is so, what is
the difference between the dairyman's claim and the claim made by the western farmer for a wheat board?


Alfred Speakman: I was rather expecting that question, and as a matter of fact, I intended to touch on it. I think myself there is all the difference in the world. What are the farmers asking for in asking for a wheat board? What is their idea in connection with a wheat board? Their idea is this: they have come to the conclusion, and I would not support the demand if I had not also come to the conclusion, that a wheat board would not increase the cost of bread to the consumer, that it would not entail one dollar of expense to the people, to come out of taxation. Granted these two points, it is simply a demand from the raisers of the wheat themselves, from those who would come under compulsion, that they be permitted to market their grain as they choose.


Lucien Cannon: How could the grain
grower get more and the consumer pay less, or, at all events, not any more than he is now paying?
Mr. -SPEAKMAN: [DOT] I am afraid at a quarter past twelve there is hardly time for me to enter into the merits of the wheat board, especially as that subject

Oleomargarine
may come up later, but I would say this, if I can give the information in two minutes time, that as a rule what the consumer pays depends on the price of flour, and the price of flour does not follow the price of wheat in its fluctuations up and down. When the price of wheat goes down, the price of flour may go down also, hut a long way after, and when the price of wheat goes up, the price of flour goes up with it. But that question will come up later, and my friend will no doubt get all the information then that this side of the House can give.	i


Lucien Cannon: I am very anxious to
have it.


Alfred Speakman: I have pretty nearly lost my trend of my argument with having to think of the wheat board. I was speaking of the proposal contained in the resolution before the House as a form of protection. As 1 say, I cannot exactly understand how it can be looked upon in any other light. If, like my hon. friend from Strathcona, I could honestly see the matter in any other light than protection, my difficulties would largely disappear; but like himself I have to consider the question in the light of my own reason, and reach my own conclusions. I have to act, speak and vote in the light of those conclusions, and I cannot see that it is anything else but protection in its most violent and most aggravated form, because it simply is intended to enable the dairymen to control the market by cutting out any possibility of competition-along this line at least. Now as to that-


John Lawrence Stansell: How can we control the market when we already produce more than that market can take and have to export the surplus?


Alfred Speakman: I would ask my hon. friend how the manufacturers of any article can control the market for home consumption when they are sending exports abroad? If they can shut out competition in the home market in any line they can control that home market to a certain extent, no matter what they are selling abroad, and to the extent they succeeded in shutting out anything which might come into competition with butter they would expect an increase in the price of that butter. That I contend is absolutely protection. Because of that; because I have taken the ground always, and because the men whom I represent, who are dairymen very largely, have taken the ground always,
116J
that giving any one part of the population a privilege which is not accorded to all the population, that benefitting one portion of the population at the expense of the rest of the population, is bad business, I think I am perfectly consistent in opposing this resolution, and in advocating unrestricted trade as far as this particular article is concerned.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question, question.


Mr. T. J. STEWART (West Hamilton):: I think it only right for me to read a resolution on this subject which has been adopted by the Local Council of Women, Hamilton. The letter forwarding the resolution says:
You will find enclosed a copy of the resolution passed by the Hamilton Local Council of Women re-oleomargarine. When this subject comes up in the House, the Women's Council will appreciate if you will present their*1 views on this subject as stated.
The resolution itself reads:
Considering that oleomargarine has proved its worth in food value, and that it is a legitimate article of commerce, this organization of women urgently requests that the ban against oleomargarine be lifted for all time.
I wish to say that I think hon. members will agree with me that women are much better judges of the effect of oleomargarine on their children, and that more than ordinary value should be attached to a resolution of this kind1 coming from such a source. Now in the city which I have the honour to represent, 85, if not 95, per cent of the people are in favour of the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada, although probably not more than 5 or 10 per cent of the citizens use that commodity to-day. The reason for such a large preponderance of opinion in favour of oleomargarine is that the popular sympathy goes out to the class of people who find it very difficult to provide adequately for their families at the present time when work is so very scarce. The majority of people are, therefore, very willing that the use of oleomargarine should continue, because the poor people who benefit by its use are unable to buy butter for their children. In many cases women have told me their hearts bled for poor children who longed for butter but could not obtain it, but for whom oleomargarine proved a fairly satisfactory substitute. The evidence given against oleomargarine has not -been very
Oleomargarine

strong; the reasons against its use exist largely in the imagination of the speakers who have opposed it. What adequate reason exists for depriving of oleomargarine these poor children whose parents cannot afford to buy 'butter? I think we should be acting very cruelly towards that class of people if we were to adopt this resolution, and I shall vote against it.


William Charles Good: I would not rise at this hour if it were not to say a word or two in reply to the statement that has been made by several speakers that this is not a form of protection. I wish to distinctly state that I regard it as a very positive and aggravated form of protection. If we are going to prohibit the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine why should we not do the same in the case of lard, crisco, domestic shortening or anything else that, in any conceivable way, may be made a substitute for butter? It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture ^Mr. Motherwell) in referring to renovated butter made out no case for the support of the resolution, but rather presented very strong reasons for the establishment of conditions in Canada permitting the renovation of butter, and I am entirely in agreement with him in that regard.
I would also say that the case he made out with regard to filled milk is no argument in favour of the proposed resolution, but rather an argument in favour of the consideration of the question of whether or not it would be wise to permit the use of that article.
I do not wish to say anything more at this late hour. I shall vote against the resolution, and I might say that in that connection, that I have also had a great deal of experience in dairying in a practical way, and it has never changed my opinion one whit in regard to the principles involved in this particular resolution.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question, question.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member who moved the resolution is now about to conclude the debate. If any other hon. gentleman has anything to say he should speak now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Close it up
quickly.


Alan Webster Neill: It had been my intention to speak for three or four hours in the hope that those who were opposed to the resolution would have the good sense to go home. I think those who favour the motion are the more resolute-shall I say the more intelligent?-and therefore they would be more likely to stay. However, I have been committed to a pledge to cut my remarks down to ten or fifteen minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is too
long.


Alan Webster Neill: Thirty minutes I mean to say and if there are interruptions I may have to occupy forty-five minutes. I have condensed a great deal I had intended to say but there are one or two remarks I must offer. In reply to the last speaker who said that this indubitably was protection let me say this: If it is protection simply to prohibit oleomargarine what would it be if we were asking for a duty of eight cents a pound on butter coming in from the United States, as provided in the Pordney tariff bill in respect to imports from Canada? What kind of expressions would then he employed by hon. members on both sides to describe that form of protection? There is a great difference between a duty of eight cents a pound as specified in the Fordney bill, and the prohibition of this cart grease we are talking of now.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) said that the exportation of butter in the year 1920 amounted to seventeen and a half million pounds and the importation of oleomargarine amounted to six million pounds. I think that amply proves the assertion I made earlier in the debate that there is no scarcity of butter in Canada, which was one of the three reasons given for allowing oleomargarine to he introduced. Out of the mouth of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) is it established that we have an ample surplus when we were compelled to make exports of 17,500,000 pounds. The hon. member says that shows we were not suffering much from the importation of oleomargarine; but if the 6,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine had not been imported into Canada, we would have had 6,000,000 pounds more butter sold locally. The hon. member remarked that it was a well known fact that you could not build up a market for any article to any great extent out of the home market alone. You cannot; we never denied

Oleomargarine
that; but is it not a fact that the home market is the best of all markets?
I wish to say, in order to disarm hostility, that I am not a dairyman myself. I am induced to take this step only by watching the struggles of dairymen in my district. Perhaps the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) will not give me credit for this, but I have also some lingering desire to give the kiddies in this country some proper nourishing food.


Mr. COOTE :: If this House were to pass this resolution and if we were to prohibit the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, could the hon. member give us any guarantee that the kiddies about whom he is so anxious would get the butter?


Alan Webster Neill: Absolutely. There is
nothing else for them to get. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his treatment of this subject differed, I thought, very strongly from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell); but on this matter I think I must accept the mature judgment of the Minister of Agriculture. His long experience in the matter surely entitled him to be considered a master mind in this regard. I could not help thinking that the Minister of Finance rather what is called begged the question. That is to say, he made an assertion that such and such was the case without proof, and thus disposed of a great deal of argument. He said that it was not true that oleomargarine is an unwholesome product. Unwholesome is a matter of comparative degree; it depends what you call unwholesome. Oleomargarine is not unwholesome
*t !S 'n the kitchen; it is unwholesome when it is in a baby's stomach. It is not unwholesome of itself; it is made m a clean manner; but it is unwholesome in a person's stomach. Dirt has been described as matter out of place and oleomargarine is unwholesome when it is out of place. Beefsteak is a very nourishing thing, but it turns an invalid's stomach and it is an unwholesome thing for that invalid. Lard-some hon, member called it a grease compound-when it is introduced into the stomachs of children and invalids is unwholesome in itself, while it would be thoroughly wholesome to cook the dog's food with or something of that kind.
Another statement made by the Minister of Finance is that oleomargarine is allowed in every country in the world. I must take exception to that because I have authoritative information from the department's
own agent that it is not used in New Zealand at all and only to a very slight extent in Australia.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say that it was used; I said that it was not prohibited by law so far as I knew, in any country in the world. I think that is correct. If I am wrong, I shall be happy to have my hon. friend correct me.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought the hon. member said that it was used in every country. At all events I will make that correct. If it is not prohibited in every country, it is not used in Australia and New Zealand.
The last statement the Minister of I mance made was that those who would vote in favour of this resolution would do so on the assumption that the people of this country were not of sufficient intelligence to form a judgment as to what they should buy or not buy. Ever since the day Adam went into horticulture and Eve flirted with the devil have we not had laws of all kinds and have they not been for the protection of the women, the poor and the children? What are we here today for if we are not here to make laws to protect somebody from somebody else? If we are sufficiently intelligent to make our hand hold our heac\ let us go home and each provide himself with a battleaxe and go out on his own. Let me go into the three-card trick. I invite my hon. friends moie particularly of the Progressive party, to come and see me to-morrow and I can demonstrate to them that the marble is under this or that particular cup, and I will invite them to bet on it. Why should I be prohibited from doing that? Let them keep themselves; their intelligence should be sufficient, in the language of my hon. friend opposite: the same thing applies to bogus oil stock and many other things such as peddling confederate bills and other things we are legislating against Law is made for the protection of the poor and helpless and that is what we are asking for to-day, as regards the secondary element of the resolution, the protection of the poor and ignorant.
Two hon. members spoke very highly of the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie). To be candid,
I followed his remarks with close attention and while this may be my misfortune, I could see only two points in his speech. One was the very unfair argument that convictions for selling bad oleomargarine were much fewer than those who were selling bad butter. In answer to that, is
Oleomargarine

the fact that twenty or thirty times as much butter was sold as oleomargarine and therefore, there were more convictions in the case of the former. Such an argument did not seem to require much answer. The other argument was apparently an endeavour to secure the support of my hon. friends to my left and it was put m a way that I do not think will appeal to them. I am not ashamed to appeal to them myself; hut I will appeal to their heads and hearts and not to their pockets or stomachs as was done by the hon. member. He held out a threat or promise or bribe-you have beef cattle and the amount of money you will get for your beef fat will enable you to become rich and retire for life. I was glad to see it fail and as regards the small amount of oleo fat that is in a steer, that would not make you very much richer than you are now. Moreover, this has been in force now for four years and I leave it to hon. gentlemen to know how much their pocketbook has been increased in that time, lhe hon. member for Lisgar went into a discussion of the tariff; but I will keep away from that. We will not call it protection; we will call it prohibition if that will make my hon. friend any happier; we will call it preservation in the same way as we seek to protect the downtrodden wheat-grower by a wheat board.


John Livingstone Brown: That was not my argument.


Alan Webster Neill: We will not discuss the subject, as the man said. I recall the story of a man who did not go to church and the minister came along and said: " I have not seen you in church." John passed the subject off. The minister said again, lt John, you have not been in church lately." The old Scotchman replied: " Weel, now, Mr. So-ana-So, we'll no discuss the subject," and at this late hour, we will not discuss the question whether it was the hon. member for Lisgar or not. I will take it back as regards him. Some hon. gentleman made-the remark anyway. The hon. member for Lisgar did discuss free trade. Free trade surely made Great Britain; it is a beautiful ideal, a beautiful theory. I believe in it as a theory, but I keep my theories in the clouds and my politics on the earth. Why, I would warn hon. gentlemen to my left that while this policy of free trade is an admirable one if you happen to believe in it, it is possible to run any theory to death, to pursue this fetish, this butterfly until it takes you 
over the precipice, until free trade becomes almost license. It was suggested this afternoon that free trace meant buying anything you like, and, I suppose, selling anything you like, whether it be oleomargarine or wheat, and drinking anything you like, and finally, in the last analysis, doing anything you like. That means simply one word-license, and that is free trade carried to excess. When 1 say that, I do not say that I shall not vote for the Wheat Board. I intend to vote for the Wheat Board, because, being in a farming community, I believe they have very hard times on the prairies and they require preservation just as we require preservation in the opposite ends of Canada in the dairying industry. The way my hon. friends to my left vote on this occasion will not make any difference with me.
I shall be very sorry to see my hon. friends from the prairies vote in any considerable numbers against this resolution, for I believe that they could not take any one single step more calculated to alienate the entire sympathies of all the rest of the farming community of Canada. I shall be sorry to see them do that, for I hold them in high respect and have a great belief in their future. I thought -the day would come when they would form a party sufficient to dominate Canada both in numbers and in policy, but if they show any tendency to sectionalism there are those who would be only too pleased to observe it. I hope they do not show any such tendency. If they do they cannot logically expect sympathy from other farmers from Quebec or the east or the extreme west. It is said that they are too class-conscious. The trouble is that -they are not classconscious enough. They ought to join hand in hand with the farmers of Quebec and Ontario and the East and on agricultural matters consider every question from the one point of view of the farmers. As the politician in the Old Country said, we must all hang together or we shall hang separately. That is the attitude which I would urge my hon. friends to take. No man liveth unto himself and no man dieth unto himself. That is good Scripture and it is still true. We are told in the literature so often rehearsed this afternoon, and in these regulations, so numerous and hard and fast, but so easy to evade, that the manufacturers were not allowed to put anything on their labels suggestive of milk or butter or cows or any

Oleomargarine
animals oil the farm. They were not allowed to put the name of any beef brand on their labels, but there is one of the labels in my hand. Does any hon. gentleman recognise the colour of that animal? I would not object to the colour of the steer which is pictured here, because it represents danger. But I object to the symbol on the label. It should not be a steer; it should be a nigger-a full big, dirty, greasy nigger with his bare feet treading out the vegetable oils in this article, which is sold under the guarantee issued in New York that it was properly made in the southern states. In fact, there should be two niggers upon the label, the one pedalling with his dirty feet and chewing tobacco, with all the habits the practice carries with it and the smaller one stepping airily into the vats to make the necessary repairs to any machinery that goes wrong. Put such a picture on the label and I shall be more willing to accept it.
_ I shall now refer to another point not introduced into the debate. I want you to think for a moment of the young girls of this country. I am interested in this phase of the question, because I have had girls of my own. Go into the country districts and look at the type of young women there. . They are strong, vigorous, deepchested women, with a complexion that they did not get out of drug stores. Then go into any town or city, from Vancouver to Ottawa and what do you find? They are small, stunted, anaemic looking.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Nonsense.


Alan Webster Neill: And if you go into the restaurants, the cafes and the cafeterias and observe many of the young girls there you will get a fair idea of what they regard as a proper meal. I saw one the other day, a young girl of seventeen or eighteen, in one of these places, and I took notice of what she ordered. She asked for a fruit salad, a mixture of little bits of odds and ends, a small roll of bread with a tiny dab of butter, some coffee and some weird mysterious confection of no earthly food value, although costly. That is the town girl's conception of what is a suitable diet. The agricultural department's experts tell us what constitutes a proper ration for a cow and a horse, but the young boys and the girls in the city are not taught the faintest conception of what constitutes even a fair ration for themselves. They certainly do not get the dairy products that the growing people in the country get.
It is not from lack of money; it is not from lack of salary; it is due to lack of sense or knowledge. These girls are well dressed, they swarm in the theatres and movies. So that the fault is not that they have no money. They could not get the proper nourishment in the things they buy, because these vitamines are to be found only in dairy products. I venture to suggest that the fine figure of my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) was not grown without vitamines. He was brought up on a farm.


William Irvine: Will my hon. friend explain what a vitamine is?


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member should have been here this afternoon when I explained this point at great length. He must excuse me if I decline to do so again. However, I might briefly reply that a vita-mine is something vital to the growth of young children and is found only in dairy products. Now then, all that is the matter with the women you see in the towns is that they are underfed and under-nourished. If my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) who is a university man, does not know what a vitamine is, how can you expect a stenographer in one of these buildings to know? Do not make it any worse for these young girls just for the sake of big profits for these corporations in the United States.
Now, we come to the question which has been so well trotted out in this debate, the rights of the poor man to buy what he likes. How tenderly these poor benighted men are dealt with in this instance by the rich corporations! We must stand up for their inalienable right, given them by God to buy what they like. I represent a workingmen's constituency and although this motion has been on the Order Paper for weeks. I have not heard a single complaint from a workingman in opposition to it. The workingmen know what virtue there is in a campaign carried on in their behalf by the rich corporations in the United States. Is it for the benefit of the corporations or of themselves? Which is their real concern? The right to buy! Yes; their right to buy an imitation. I have a formula for producing a substitute for milk. It looks exactly like milk and tastes like milk, only it has not half the food value of the real product. And in years to come, when politics cease to support me, I am going into that business, if this resolution does not pass, and I will get the support of these same hon. gentlemen, who say it is all right to palm off this spurious stuff on
Oleomargarine

the country, to sell that milk substitute then. It will be all right to sell it to the public, if hon. members think that this resolution is wrong. That milk substitute is nothing but a little hit of chalk and a lot of water, but it is just as good as this oleomargarine. W e hear a lot of talk about the inalienable "right" of the poor man to buy what he likes. Very well. Suppose we argue for a little while on his right to a decent living wage, his right to have such conditions as will afford him employment by which he may be able to earn enough money to provide for himself and his children the real article. Instead of legislating for the benefit of corporations in the United States, and calling it patriotism-a very shady sort of patriotism in my estimation-would it not be infinitely better so to legislate that employment might be abundant, work available, and in consequence dairy products brought within the reach of all? Would it not be better to do that and so keep alive that industry and build up a strong young race?
I started out with the assertion, which has not been contradicted in a single instance, that this legislation was introduced in 1917 for three specific reasons: First, it was a war measure; second, it was due to the scarcity of butter; and third, there was the question of high price. That is admitted; it has not been controverted. I asserted it in the most positive way and it is on the record, and Hansard bears me out when I say that the people of _ the country, through their representatives, made a bargain with the dairy industry that the importation and manufacture of this article would be abolished as soon as conditions in the country permitted. That has not been done. I asked, I have asked before, I asked this afternoon, and I ask the House again to-night to see to it that the pledge made then with the dairy industry shall be honoured, and that this war measure shall now be abandoned. It is for us now to keep faith with these people who are engaged in this industry.


Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Wnr! T voted. I would have voted for the
resolution.


William Stevens Fielding: I was paired with the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hock-en). Had I voted, I would have voted against the resolution.

Grain Trade


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I was paired with the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau). Had I voted, I would have voted against the resolution.
On motion of Mr. Fielding the House adjourned at 1.10 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, May 16, 1922