1923-06-06

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 196 (from the Senate), for the relief of Cecilia Maria Taylor.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill No. 197 (from the Senate), for the relief of William August Kruger.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 198 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Benjamin Brown.-Mr. Car-ruthers.
Bill No. 199 (from the Senate), for the relief of Elva Burnside.-Mr. McKay.
Bill No. 200 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alfred Thomas Candy.-Mr. Duff.

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

Mr. SHEARD:: 1.	Do elevators receive pay for separating dockages of 3 per cent or over from grain?
2.	Do these dockages of 3 per cent or over belong to the elevator?
3.	Are they binned separately from the dockages of under 3 per cent, which are the property of the elevator?
4.	When terminal elevators purchase these dockages do they not receive them in their entirety?
5.	Do they deliver to other purchasers of dockage the quality which they themselves receive?
6.	How and where is this quality determined?
7.	Is it inspected and graded?
8.	Is it (in case of dispute as to quality) subject to survey by the Survey Board?
9.	Is it standardized by the Standards Board? If not, why not?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	According to the tariff governing the operation of public terminal elevators, the holder of warehouse receipts or shut-outs covering the dockage is entitled to the same quality of screenings as taken from the car, as shown by the grain inspector's test.
7.	Yes.
8.	No.
9.	No. No provision is made in the Canada Grain Act for the standardizing of dockage.


MEDICINE HAT CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	How many employees are there in the customs office at Medicine Hat?
2.	What are the individual salaries of these employees ?
3.	What were the total expenditures in the customs * office at Medicine Hat for the years 1921 and 1922?
4.	What were the total revenues from this office in the years 1921 and 1922?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Eight, including one relieving officer.
2.	1 collector, $2,160; 2 senior customs excise clerks at $2,040 each; 1 cashier and computing clerk, $1,800;	3 customs exciseclerks, $1,600,	$1,440,	$1,380;	1 customs
excise examiner, $1,320.
3. 1921-22, $15,154.48; 1922-23, $14,890.98.
4. 1921-22, $90,592.47; 1922-23, $118,875.48.


OLEOMARGARINE-IMPORTS OF MATERIALS
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	What was the amount of importations last year of oils or fats used in the manufacturing of oleomargarine?
Questions

2.	What was the amount of duty paid on such importations?
3.	What was the amount of drawback paid on the finished article made from such importations?
4.	What are the names of the companies who imported such oils or fats and who received the drawbacks ?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1 and 2. Information not available as customs entries do not show purpose for which importations are made.
3.	The total amount of drawback paid last year on materials used in the manufacture of oleomargarine, $19,269.82.
4.	Swift Canadian Company; Harris Abattoir.


TORONTO SOLDIERS' COMFORTS BRANCH
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government decided to close, in June next, the Soldiers' Comforts branch of the Department of Civil Re-establishment at Toronto? If so, why?
2.	Have any protests against this action been received from the directors of the Canadian National Exhibition, various women's organizations, or other public bodies, and urging that this important soldier employment work be continued?
3.	What economy or co-ordination, if any, will such a course of action effect?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	The government has decided to coalesce the work of the Soldiers' Comforts branch with that of the permanent establishment of the department.
2.	Representations were received from the directors of the Canadian National Exhibition and their request has been met. Other bodies have also made representations.
3.	The Purchasing and Stores division of the department which must be maintained to supply the ordinary requirements of the hospitals-without increasing the overhead costs-is in a position to undertake the administrative work involved in the supply of soldiers' comforts, thus effecting economy to the extent of the present cost of operating and providing accommodation for a separate branch to furnish such supplies.


CAMP HILL HOSPITAL, HALIFAX
Mr. CALDWELL:: 1.	Has there been a contract entered into for the supplying of milk, cream, and ice cream, to the Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, with whom?
3.	What are the contract prices?
4.	Were tenders called for before the contract was awarded ?
5.	If so, how were same called for?
6.	Were any tenders received from any person, firm or corporation other than the successful tenderer?
7.	If so, at what prices?
8.	Is the department aware that the executive head of Camp Hill hospital is heavily interested financially in the company to which the above contract was awarded?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Yes, for milk and cream.
2.	Scotia Milk Company, Halifax.
3.	Milk 32 cents a gallon; cream 37 cents a quart.
4.	Yes.
5.	Requests for quotations were issued to eight dairies.
6.	Yes.
7.	Milk per gallon: 33 cents, 33 cents, 34 cents; cream per quart: 37 cents, 45 cents, 40 cents.
8.	No information.


SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE
Mr. MACLEAN (York):: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: I would inform the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) that this question should be preceded by an asterisk so as to obtain a verbal answer.
Question stands.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. BOYS:: 1.	By what method or in accordance with what principle is the insurance business, arising out of the transactions of the Soldiers' Settlement Board at Edmonton, distributed?
2.	To what persons, firms or companies, acting as agents for insurance companies and resident in Edmonton, was this insurance business given in-(a) year 1921, and (b) year 1922, and what were the premiums paid to each of such persons, firms or companies?
3.	To what persons, firms or companies, acting as agents for insurance companies, and resident in Edmonton, was this insurance business glyen from January 1st, 1923, until the present time, and what were the premimus paid to each of such persons, firms or companies?
4.	Are any of the persons above mentioned persons who have had no service overseas in the late war? If so, who?

Grand Trunk Pacific-Debenture Holders
5.	Is it the policy or the intention of the government to give any of the insurance business, arising out of the transactions of the Soldiers' Settlement Board at Edmonton, to persons who did not serve overseas in the late war?
6.	Is it the policy or the intention of the Government to distribute the business of insurance, arising out of the transactions of the Soldiers' Settlement Board at Edmonton, to a list of selected persons? If so, what are the names of these persons?


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports and other documents, relating to the closing of the Soldiers' Comforts branch at Toronto on June 20th next, of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: For a return showing all cases where fines and costs have been in whole or part remitted after conviction for violation of the Income War Tax of 1917, since January 1st, 1922. Such return also showing at whose instance or at whose representation, verbal or otherwise, such remissions have been made, and also showing in each case when the law was or has since been complied with by the delinquent.



LAKE FREIGHT RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: The
Prime Minister yesterday, in reply to a question, stated that, arising out of the report of the royal commission that had been investigating the subject of grain rates on the lakes, a bill would be introduced to amend the Shipping Act so as to give power to the government by order in council to suspend the coasting laws. A great deal of evidence has been taken on this subject and the commission has submitted a report making several recommendations. What the Prime Minister promises is entirely inadequate in the light of that report. Does the government intend to bring down legislation that will fully meet the suggestions that have been offered by the commission?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend refers to
certain legislation that arises out of the report, and I think it would be well for the House to wait until that legislation is brought .down to see how far-reaching it is. There are features of the report that demand very careful and thoughtful consideration. The government has not thus far had an opportunity to give to the entire report the consideration which we think it merits. However, when the legislation which is based on the recommendations of the commission
is before the House it will be open to any hon. member to suggest additions or amendments.


Robert Forke: When is that legislation
likely to be brought down? I gathered from (he statement made yesterday that what the Prime Minister outlined was the whole bill of fare that the government purposed submitting to the House. And, as no mention was made of many of the items recommended by the commission, I thought it well to call attention to the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope it will be possible to present a copy of the proposed bill early next week.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Has the government any
announcement to make concerning the visit to Ottawa of Sir Francis Harrison Smith and Mr. D. F. Forsdike, who represent the Grand Trunk Pacific debenture holders? Further, have these gentlemen waited upon any member of the government, and, if so, what is the nature of the representations they have made?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The two gentlemen referred to by my hon. friend did wait this morning upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Yielding), the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), and myself, and presented certain representations on behalf of the debenture holders of the Grand Trunk Pacific. These representations are similar to those set forth in a memorial the government received some little time ago from the shareholders' committee, and I think I could best answer my hon. friend's question by undertaking to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the memorial itself. I shall be pleased to do chat before the House rises to-day.



MONTREAL AND LONGUEUIL BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: On April 23rd an order of the House was passed for production of the report of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal on the south shore bridge. On May 9th I called the attention of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Lapointe) to the fact that the report had not so far been laid on the Tabic.
350S

Oleomargarine-Mr. Carroll
The minister's answer was that he would submit it in a few days' time. A month has elapsed and the report is not on the Table yet. I should like to know from the minister whether it is his intention to produce that report this session.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: This report was sent to the department only two or three days ago, so that it could not have been laid upon the Table of the House before now. I shall be pleased to bring it down in a few days.



OLEOMARGARINE


[Stage Direction]
Order of the Day-Special Order.
Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond) moved:: Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Oleomargarine Act, chapter twenty-four of the statutes of 1919 (second session), and the amending Acts, by providing that notwithstanding anything contained in The Dairy Industry Act, 1914, or in any other statute or law, the manufacture in, and importation of oleomargarine into Canada, and the offering for sale, the sale and the having in possession for sale, of oleomargarine, shall henceforth be permitted, subject to the provisions of the said Oleomargarine Act and to such regulations as are now or may hereafter be established by the Governor in Council.
He said: Mr. Speaker, no doubt you viewed with alarm my entrance into the Chamber this afternoon. Probably you thought that I must be armed with a very large array of papers and that the House would be subject to a long and tiresome speech from me. I want to assure you before I go any further that my speech will be brief, but I trust it will be logical and replete with facts. The question of the manufacture, importation and sale of oleomargarine has been before parliament for a number of years. In 1886, on a motion by a member of the government to place a tariff duty upon the importation of oleomargarine, a debate took place which considerably affected the standing of the commodity in this country. At that time there were no regulations in force regarding the manufacture of oleomargarine, and in the course of the debate statements were made to the effect that this commodity was manufactured out of dead horses, rats and other unwholesome ingredients. A few years later legislation was passed to ensure the purity of dairy products, culminating in the Dairy Act of 1914, which was amended in 1916 to provide for the manufacture, importation and sale of oleomargarine in this country.

Under this act various regulations were put into effect to protect our people against adulterated products, and to-day I hope we shall not have repeated the well-worn argument that oleomargarine is harmful or unwholesome, for the reason, Mr. Speaker, that the manufacture of this commodity has been under the direct control of the Department of Agriculture and it is generally acknowledged that the gentlemen in charge of that department are very careful indeed to see to it that there is nothing dangerous to the public health in the ingredients which enter into the manufacture of oleomargarine.
Without entering into details regarding these ingredients, I will content myself by saying that there is a difference of opinion both in the country and in this House as to whether or not we should allow the further manufacture, importation and sale of oleomargarine. We must approach this question in a fair and honest frame of mind and should not use arguments which, while they may have been effective up to 1916, can now be safely discounted in view of the fact that the Department of Agriculture exercises very stringent supervision over thi3 manufacture. But while there may be a difference of opinion on the desirability of allowing oleomargarine to be still manufactured and imported, we cannot ignore appeals from various influential organizations which to-day are asking parliament to make effective an Oleomargarine Act such as I propose to introduce if this resolution passes. We must consider this question not with the eye of 1886 but with the eye of the present day. If I cite the Canadian Lumbermen's Association as being in favour of the continued manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, I shall perhaps be told that this organization is looking for cheap food for its labourers. And when I say that the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada is also asking that my proposed bill be brought into effect, I shall be told that this organization, too, is interested from a financial standpoint. But, Mr. Speaker, I have stronger authority still in the fact that 200,000 of our women have shown by the votes which they cast in their respective organizations and by their circular letters that they are in favour of the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine being continued. As I say, the motives of the Canadian Lumberman's Association and of the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada may be questioned on the ground of their being pecuniarily interested; but will any hon. gentleman dare rise in his place and tell us that the mothers and sisters and daughters

Oleomargarine-Mr. Carroll
of the Canadian people are engaged in propaganda that will hurt their offspring, their kith and their kin? The stand taken by these women is one of the strongest arguments, it seems to me, that can be used in favour of the continued manufacture and sale of oleomargarine.
But to return for the moment to the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada. I presume that as business men they are not interested either in poisoning our people or in bringing about the ruin of our daily farmers. What do they say about this matter? In 1916, when an order in council was passed under the War -Vftasures Act to permit of the manufacture, importation and sale of oleomargarine, this association undertook to investigate this commodity. Their investigation convinced them that oleomargarine was not the menace to the health of our people which the propaganda of its enemies had sought to make out. Here is a circular which the association have sent out to the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, and I may be permitted to read one paragraph, as follows:
Before our members undertook to offer it for sale to the general public we made exhaustive enquiries as to the ingredients it contained and its method of manufacture. We consulted with the chief analyst for the Dominion government and he pronounced it a perfectly good food, and he stated that it contained no harmful ingredients, and, as on each package is stamped the approval of the Department of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada, our retail grocers, butchers, produce dealers and general store merchants throughout Canada felt perfectly justified in stocking it and offering it for sale. If our customers did not [DOT]want it there would be no sale for it, but our experience shows that they do want it, and, seeing that it is a non-injurious and palatable product, and contains nothing that is unheal thful, we are of the opinion that they should be allowed to buy it if they so desire, and no law should be passed to prevent them from having it.
I reiterate, Sir, that whatever may have been said regarding the harmful properties of oleomargarine should no longer be repeated, because parliament in 1917 recognized this commodity as a healthful article of food, and up to the present time millions of pounds have been sold throughout the country with the approval of the Department of Agriculture. Again I appeal to hon. members not to use the argument that oleomargarine is harmful food, because by so doing they will in effect be casting a slur not only upon the Minister of Agriculture and his predecessors but upon the departmental officials as well. Surely before the approval of the department is placed on this article which goes out in small packages, the precaution is taken to
ascertain whether or not it is a healthful article of food.
Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, regarding the injury which oleomargarine may have been causing to the dairy industry of this country. Well, I do not believe the manufacture of oleomargarine has been in any way injurious to the dairy people, because every pound of butter they manufacture has a ready sale; the milk from every cow they raise is sent out in the shape of butter and cheese. But they tell you that oleomargarine is used as a substitute and that in its sale as such the persons handling it make their customers believe that they are buying butter. I do not think there is any force in that argument, for this reason: Every package of oleomargarine that is manufactured in or imported into this country has stamped on the product itself, in letters that may be seen and read by all, the word "Oleo." Every parcel is also enclosed in a wrapper which indicates in the clearest way that it is oleomargarine and not butter. Moreover, the Department of Agriculture exercise supervision over and make regulations respecting the manufacture of this product in Canada as well as its importation. Now, follow me. This product is manufactured here, or is imported. Surely the officers of the Agriculture department are sufficiently alive to the interests of the people to see to it that not an ounce of oleomargarine leaves the factories in this country or is imported without there being stamped upon it the word "Oleo." Then it goes to the wholesaler. I hope that the Agriculture department have been sufficiently alert in performing their duty to the people during the last four years to see to it, through their inspectors or other officials, that the wholesaler who gets this bulk of oleomargarine for distribution to the retailer does not attempt to impose upon the people by erasing in any way those distinctive letters which indicate that the product is oleomargarine and not butter. Then we come down to the retailer. I do not argue that the Department of Agriculture have a sufficient staff to see to it that no substitution or erasure is made at that stage. But, Sir, I have sufficient confidence in the honour and honesty of the retailers of this country to believe they are not doing that kind of thing, and it will take a very strong line of evidence to make me think otherwise.
When did the dairy industries of this country suggest, after 1917, that we should have a prohibition against the manufacture or sale of oleomargarine? It is a very peculiar thing that in 1921, in their petition to the government of the day, they did not ask for



Oleomargarine-Mr. Carroll
the prohibition of this article of food. What they did ask for was a "standard colour of oleomargarine"; for the printing on each package of the word "oleo"; for a differently shaped package "from that now used for oleomargarine"; "for the prevention of deception or dishonesty in making purchasers believe they are actually getting butter or an article of the same food value as butter."


Mr. KAY:: May I ask what my hon. friend is quoting from, and the date?


William F. Carroll: I am quoting from a copy of a petition sent to the Dominion government in 1921 by the Dairy Council of Canada. Now, if they saw in 1921 that they should not ask for the prohibition of oleomargarine, or, to put it differently, if they did not ask for it, what has changed their mind in the meantime? Is there any evidence that dealers have been deceptive in the matter- that they have attempted to make the people believe they were getting butter when they were really getting oleomargarine? I do not believe it, Mr. Speaker. Taking this matter as a whole, I think we should use the arguments that may be used as from 1917 in respect to oleomargarine and not hark back to the times when people were afraid of anything new and when they believed that oleomargarine was made up of such ingredients as I mentioned in the earlier part of my.remarks.
I wish to impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, and upon the members of this House the fact that the parliament of Canada put the stamp of its approval upon oleomargarine in 1917 and has kept it there ever since. It has indicated its belief that oleomargarine is a nonharmful food, a food that is wholesome. In casting your votes in this connection I want you to remember that fact; I want you not to be led away by any other thought but that there are thousands of people in this country who want to use oleomargarine and who have the right to use it. I hope you will not think me a plagiarist if I use the words: Is this an article of commerce? And- If this is an article of commerce, why should we prohibit it? I am using the words, Sir, of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in a former debate in this House. He is one of the few people who have the happy faculty of placing a whole argument in a nutshell.
I ask the members of this House to give fair consideration to this whole question. I ask them to think of the millions who are asking this parliament that they be permitted to put this product on their table as an article of food. I ask them hot to be led away by

their own personal interests; we are not here for that purpose. I do not make any accusation-I believe that every member of this House will use his best judgment in the matter-but I do suggest that we be not led away by any selfish motives. Let us seek away down in our hearts and ask ourselves: Are we going to prevent the people from using oleomargarine if they wish to use it? If we are, then it is just as well that parliament should to-morrow say to the people that they shall not use shoes unless they are up to the standard; that they shall not use an article of clothing unless it is the very best; that they shall not purchas? any horse food that is not up to or, perhaps, above the standard. It may be said that oleomargarine is a cheap article of food, but it is not deleterious; it is not unwholesome. But I say, give the people of this country who wish to use that article of food the privilege of using it. I reiterate: If this parliament takes it upon themselves to refuse the common people of this country that which I consider a benefit, they will hear from them in the very near future.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria City):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second this resolution I do so with the understanding that I may suggest certain changes or in my opinion improvements to it as I go along. Under those conditions I am glad to second this resolution.
This matter has been discussed, as has been pointed out by the hon. member (Mr. Carroll) who has just taken his seat, on a number of occasions in this House in the past, and I for one sincerely hope that we shall decide finally on this occasion whether we are going to have oleomargarine in this country or not. The subject has taken up a very great deal of the valuable time of this House in previous years. On this occasion I can hardly refer to the subject without saying a word as to the way in which this resolution has been put off from the early part of the session until now when we are in its closing days-a resolution of the very greatest importance not only to the dairymen of this country but also to the consumers and to a certain group of manufacturers. I feel that this matter should have been given attention earlier in the session if possible, and should not have been avoided and side-stepped in the way it has been. I rather think the question has been evaded to a certain extent, but I shall not speak any more of that phase of the question beyond referring for a moment to what the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) said yesterday when discussing oleomargarine and in uttering the word "cuckoo" we will all understand what I mean.

Oleomargarine-Mr. Tolmie
This measure was first introduced as a war measure on account of the great scarcity of fats overseas. It will be remembered that there was a considerable demand for fats on the other side of the Atlantic during the war, and oleomargarine was introduced at that time and found very useful indeed over there. In fact, our Canadian troops went all through the war using only oleomargarine as a spread for bread. It has been suggested that on account of its having first been introduced as a war measure it should cease now that the war is over. But let me point out that the people of Canada have expressed their wishes through their representatives in this House on several occasions and have extended the time year by year, and at the present time oleomargarine is now recognized as one of the staple articles of food in many sections of this country. I think the government should carefully consider this in bringing down any measure or in giving support to any measure for making oleomargarine permanent in this country.
What is oleomargarine? In the first place it is made from selected beef fats, neutral lard, vegetable oils, pasteurized milk, salt, pure water, and sometimes includes butter. It is all churned together and then made into blocks and offered for sale. It is manufactured only under the strictest sanitary conditions. It is first necessary for anyone desiring either to import or to manufacture oleomargarine in Canada to obtain a license from the Minister pf Agriculture for that purpose, and the minister may at any time cancel that license for cause. It is made under the very closest inspection, the inspection of our Meat and Canned Poods branch of the Department of Agriculture, and their certificate and brand on any goods sent out of this country is accepted in all parts of the world. With the United States we have an exchange of certificates between our Health of Animals branch here and the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington.
The question is often asked, is oleomargarine wholesome? We find that its digestibility is about the same as butter, about 97 per cent, and its energy value is also about the same. With regard to its palatability we find that the British or English-speaking people throughout the world have a preference for fats showing the lactic acid flavour, as a result of the fermentation of milk and cream from bacteria working upon it. Oleo-maragarine will never be as popular as butter in this or any other country because it will never be as palatable, not possessing that peculiar lactic flavour I have just referred to, and anyone who understands or has an appreciation of real good butter can never
224i
be misled by any oleomargarine. He can tell the difference both by taste and odor.
One feature of this oleomargarine question that has been stressed to a very great extent in the discussions in this House in the past year is the vitamine content of oleomargarine. You will find that authorities differ a great deal on this point, some claiming that the other animal fats contain just as many vitamine soluble A as the butter fats themselves. Let me quote. William Clayton, Master of Science at Liverpool University, in a book published in 1920 says:
The published work on "The Nutritive value of Oleomargarine and Butter Substitutes", with reference to their content of the fat-soluble accessory growth substance, is due to Halliburton and Drummond whose conclusions were: That the fat-soluble accessory growth substance is present in beef fat and also oil and is present in margarine prepared upon such a basis. Such margarines are nutritively the equivalent of butter.
We find, too, that butter varies a great deal in its vitamine content, and this is indicated very greatly by the pigmentation or colouring of the butter. For instance, in winter time we find that the butter is very light in colour, and then it has a very low vitamine content as compared with the rich, bright yellow butter of June or July during the height of the grass season. Now, the butter maker is permitted to colour his butter in the winter time so that it will look like June butter. As has been pointed out by scientists who have investigated the matter very carefully, the vitamine content is shown by the height of colouring, but the butter maker by heightening the colour of his butter gives no indication to the purchaser of the vitamine content or its value as a food in that particular respect. Let me quote in this connection from Sherman and Smith's book " The Vitamines," 1922, by H. C. Sherman, Professor of Food Chemistry, Columbia University, and S. L. Smith, Specialist in Biological and Food Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture. They say:
In recent years butter has occupied a unique position because it appeared to be conspicuously the richest in vitamine A among the commercial food fats. Further work in this field indicates, however, that the value of butter in this respect is subject to rather wide variation.
Steenbock, as previously noted, found that paleness of butter fat indicated paucity of vitamine A, byt the present system of artificially coloring butter makes it impossible for the consumer to apply this criterion. The burden of responsibility for the maintenance of the vitamine value of butter lies with the producer. By intelligent and liberal use of feeds rich in vitamine A, such as alfalfa, and care in the manufacture, transportation and storage of the product, both butter and other animal fats may in time be standardized as commercial sources of vitamine A.

Oleomargarine-Mr. Tolmie
Quoting again from Mr. Clayton, of Liverpool University, lie says:
In conclusion it is well recalled that butter owing to the influence of food, storage conditions and temperatures used in the renovation of inferior products, and even the method of use of the produce in the home, may not exceed a good oleomargarine in nutritive qualities.
The whole question seems to depend upon the adequately varied and balanced diet of the individual. Children should preferably be fed on butter, but adults, with their stronger digestive powers, may with absolute impunity replace butter with either oleo or vegetable margarine, provided they consume sufficient amounts of the vegetative green parts of plants since these furnish an ample supply of all three vitamines.
You will see here that the diet of a man being very varied, a paucity of vitamines in any particular article of food may mean that the whole ration was short in that particular respect. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, a few of the common articles of food.that contain vitamines. I will only mention a few of them so as not to take up too much time of the House.
Butter; cream; margarine prepared from animal fats other than lard; milk, condensed, evaporaited or dried; nut butter; mutt-on and beef fat; heart; brain; sweetbread; cod liver oil and other fish livers oils-
Which, I may say, is one of the richest in this vitamine.
-herring oil, salmon and cod oil; liver; onions, kidneys; potatoes; fat fish, as herring, salmon fish roe; eggs-
And some forty-two others, including many vegetables.
This will indicate to you how very freely these vitamines are distributed among the common articles of food. We have also had rather sweeping statements made about the entire absence of vitamines in oleomargarine. You will see, however, that this is not the line of argument pursued by those men who are experts in this particular direction. In a bulletin issued by the National Dairy Council entitled "Health vs. Wealth" I find the following statement:
You may wonder when milk and butter contain vitamines why beef fat does not. Vitamines are in green, leafy substances, grass, leaves, twigs, whole grain and many things that a cow eats. The cow requires some for her own use and stores some in her liver, but all the rest is given off in the milk and are never deposited in the flesh. As oleomargarine is chiefly made from the waste products of the animal at the slaughter house it could not possibly contain vitamines.
This is a very broad statement indeed and is opposed by many. Now let me quote from a statement by H. Steenbock, of the Department of Agricultural Chemistry of the University of Wisconsin. He says:
In our work a somewhat similar product, the oleo oils from beef fats, prepared in commerce for the

manufacture of oleomargarine, were in some instances found richer in fat-soluble vitamine than many butters. Subsequent to the publication of these results we became aware of the fact that vitamine content as determined in our feeding experiments with these samples seemed to vary directly with the intensity of pigmentation.
Pointing out again that you may form an opinion as to the presence of vitamines by the colouring of the fat material. Now, in this particular article on "Health vs. Wealth" it is indicated that most of the vitamines are lost except those given off through the milk, but the author does not state what becomes of the vitamines fed so liberally during the grass season to those animals which are not giving milk; and we could hardly expect that nature will be so improvident, as in the case of the steer and the dry cow, as to cause an almost entire waste of this particular and valuable ingredient of food. If we accept Steenbock's theory for a moment we will recognize, as I pointed out a moment ago, that the excess of vitamines is clearly indicated by the high colour of the butter fat. Those who are familiar with the beef aspect of the question will remember that grass beef is also very much higher in colour than beef produced in winter time, indicating that there are vitamines stored up in the beef fats particularly at that season of the year.
Now in some of the American literature which has been distributed in the propaganda against oleomargarine we find pictures of white rats indicating some rats fed on vitamines which are of a very lusty character and other rats fed on a diet wholly lacking in vitamines which appear very weakly. It must be admitted that growth is due to certain chemical changes which take place in the body, and that the very best results are obtained where you have a ration that is chemically well balanced. In many sections of the country there is a paucity of certain ingredients in the soil which causes certain diseases-, for example the disease known as rickets. I know of certain sections of British Columbia where cattle, young animals particularly, pastured on certain lands soon after exhibit rickets, or a bending or softening of the bones, due to the absence of calcium and phosphates. By the feeding of cer-
4 p.m. tain food rich in calcium and phos1-phates, however, these conditions are avoided and you can produce healthy cattle on this very same land. I know certain sections of British Columbia where, during the calving season many calves live only for an hour or two after birth, a severe loss resulting from this mortality. This again is due to the absence of iodine, showing again how necessary it

Oleomargarine-Mr. Tolmie
is, in the case of growing animals, particularly that the rations should be well balanced.
I may say that during the war our Canadian troops, as I pointed out a while ago, had nothing but oleomargarine as a spread for their bread. This was also used by the British troops. The Danish army and navy is also supplied with the same material. In many Danish institutions oleomargarine is a regular part of the diet. It has been pointed out in some literature I have seen that it is necessary to have milk in some form or other for the proper growth of the human being. I do not think that this theory has been thoroughly supported by evidence. Take the case of the North American who never used dairy products in his life. Yet you see Indians out on the prairie six feet one inch in height and weighing two hundred pounds, fine lusty fellows. If we were to look into the matter very carefully we should probably find that not more than one half of the people of the country use milk or milk products.


Mr. WARNER:: I should like to know if
the hon. member has proof that the mothers among the savages do not nurse their children.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think the hon. gentleman's question is very appropriate. Every human being is probably nursed in that way, but I am talking about the individual when he reaches the period when the individual can use butter spread on bread. I am quite sure the Indians in the West have never used any butter. If they have, the practice has only commenced within recent years.
We also had very strong criticism of the vegetable oils used in the preparation of oleomargarine. I know that, either last year or the year before, we had some vivid word pictures drawn here of perspiring natives toiling in the jungles of Africa gathering the various seeds and plants from which these oils are obtained. I thought at the time the picture was rather overdrawn. I may say that the principal ingredient in the vegetable oil line used in the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada is simply cotton seed oil. While we hear many complaints about the use of cotton seed oil in the preparation of oleomargarine we find it is used in many other articles of food such as shortening, and in salad oils, without the least bit of trouble. Evidently the oil is regarded as quite suitable in those cases but apparently is objectionable when used in the manufacture of oleomargarine. In addition to that we find that even annatto used for the purpose of colouring butter is1 mixed with cotton seed oil and bv the use of this particular colouring, as I
pointed out a while ago, January butter is made to look like June butter and as though it were rich in vitamine contents.
Now, we find that the consumption of oleomargarine increases as butter goes up in price, and it lessens as butter goes down in price, because no person with a decent palate or a good taste would for a moment think of eating oleomargarine if he could secure butter at a reasonable price. Oleomargarine, though, furnishes a greal deal of relief to people in families where economy is an absolute necessity under certain conditions that are liable to occur from time to time. To indicate that oleomargarine is in demand, let me quote a telegram received from the chamber of commerce in my constituency, the city of Victoria :
We strongly urge you support resolution introduced by Mr. W. F. Carroll, M.P., Cape Breton, to make permanent legislation permitting manufacture and sale oleomargarine in Canada. Public opinion in Canada overwhelmingly favours such permanent legislation. Will you please forward copy this wire to Prime Minister and Mr. Carroll mover of the resolution.
May I say that Mr. Spencer, in addition to being chairman of the chamber of commerce, is the owner of a very large departmental store where they handle all lines of food products. I have had similar wires from women's organizations, including the Local Council of Women, but I will not take up the time of the House in reading them.
We usually find that oleomargarine is lower in price than butter, and I have in my hand these quotations of last week in Ottawa:
Wholesale price Retail price
Creamery butter	33	cents	40	centsDairy butter	26	cents	33	centsOleomargarine	
20	cents	25	cents
This shows a difference between creamery butter and oleomargarine of 13 cents wholesale and 15 cents retail, and a difference between dairy butter and oleomargarine of 6 cents wholesale and 8 cents retail.
I was informed only yesterday that it paid the grocer in many cases to sell oleomargarine, because he made a greater profit from the sale of oleomargarine than from the sale of butter. This would hardly be borne out by the figures I have cited. The profit shown in dairy butter is about 7 cents between wholesale and retail; on creamery butter, 7 cents between wholesale and retail; and on oleomargarine only 5 cents between wholesale and retail.


Mr. STANSELL:: Is the hon. member prepared to state the source of the figures he has cited?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: These figures were obtained from the city market in Ottawa last week, on the day it was expected that this ques-
Oleomargarine-Mr. Tolmie

tion would come up. I did not think it necessary to get new figures to-day.
The argument has been used that we should wipe out oleomargarine in this country, because some of our logging camps give it to their loggers to spread on their bread in place of butter. I do not think we should be inconvenienced simply because of that. That is something that should be arranged between the logging camp men and their employers. In British Columbia, as I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) will agree, you cannot put on the table of the logging man anything except just what he demands and he sees that he gets it.
Many families throughout the country are from time to time using oleomargarine in order to keep down family expenses. We have the man who gets out of work; we have the man who has sickness in his family and who has to incur an extra expense; we have those families where economy is an absolute necessity, and this occurs from time to time in the everyday life of the people of this country. The people have every right to decide for themselves in their own intelligence whether oleomargarine is to be purchased by them or not, and this House is taking upon itself a very great responsibility when it tells the people that they should not have the same privileges as are enjoyed by the people of every other country in the world.
We have three groups that are chiefly interested in this oleomargarine question. We have the great consuming group which is the first consideration; then we have the dairy man; and, third, we have the manufacturer of oleomargarine. Therefore, this is not entirely a question pertaining to the dairyman. If the poor man or the man who desires to lower his cost of living, cannot obtain the cheap oleomargarine and cannot afford the price of butter, it will be necessary for him to use ordinary beef or pork dripping, and I am sure oleomargarine would be more palatable for his use under such conditions. We should leave this matter entirely to the judgment of the people. It is not the place of the government of this country to prohibit the manufacture of oleomargarine; rather it is the duty of the government to protect the people, to see that oleomargarine is made in a very wholesome way; that there is no possible criticism along that line, and then that it is not sold for something which it is not. As I pointed out a moment ago, oleomargarine, on account of its inferiority in flavour, will never interfere with good butter.
We have also had the argument put forward I hat if the manufacture of oleomargarine is

once made permanent in this country, oleomargarine will greatly increase in quantity. I think that argument is not borne out by our experience since 1918 when it was first introduced. We find that we have had free access to the American market, and not only the ingredients which are made up into oleomargarine in this country, but the manufactured article can be imported from the United States absolutely free of duty. So, if there had been a greater demand in this country for oleomargarine, we would have had it entering Canada in very much greater quantities. The truth is that since 1918, when oleomargarine was first introduced into Canada, there has been a steady falling off in the quantity consumed in this country; but it has been very clearly shown that when butter gets cheaper in price, the consumption of oleomargarine lessens to a very considerable extent. Let me cite these figures:
Oleomargarine
Quantity
manufactured	Quantity
in Canada	imported
Year	Pounds	Pounds1918	
10,483,179	3,494,6221919	
8,450,902	5,231,2111920	
6,224,422	5,547,3451921	
3,780,392	2,057,0351922	
1,902,629	1,345,784


Mr. JACOBS:: The hon. member will notice that under the Liberal administration we have been using more butter than oleomargarine.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I am sure the Liberal government can take credit for some things, but that is rather a long step.
In the meantime creamery butter has shown a steady increase, and only last year it increased something over 15,000,000 pounds. At the present time the consumption of oleomargarine amounts to only about 2 per cent for the spreads used for bread in this country. That is, 98 per cent of the spreads consists of dairy products as compared with 2 per cent of oleomargarine. This shows that the situation is not at all a dangerous one. The dairyman of this country, therefore, might very well look at this question in a broad, liberal way.


Mr. LUCAS:: Would that condition continue if oleomargarine became permanent in this country?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: 
Mr. PUTNAM:: I presume the hon. member will admit that his figures give no intimation as to whether the coeval existence of oleomargarine would not have still further reduced the Canadian export of butter in the term of years he has referred to?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I contend that the decline in our exports of butter was not due to the presence or the absence of oleomargarine at all; I say that if oleomargarine can ruin our butter business in Canada, then Denmark should have been ruined by now, for the reasons I have stated.


Harold Putnam: The hon. gentleman, I suppose, would concede that the decline in our exports of butter would have been more , disastrous than it was if the industry had had to compete with oleomargarine throughout the period he mentioned? It is mere conjecture as to whether or not the absence of oleomargarine helped to keep the industry.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I am not claiming that the absence of oleomargarine kept it up at all. What I claim is simply that we are not making progress, and instead of fiddling around discussing a question of this kind in connection with a great industry such as the dairy industry, we should be busily engaged this afternoon trying to discover some means of improving the condition of that industry in Canada to-day.


Harold Putnam: I contend that there is absolutely nothing in the hon. gentleman's figures to show that the absence of oleomargarine had any effect on butter one way or the other in Canada.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I pointed out that from 1880 to 1921, the period covered by the fig-

Oleomargarine~Mr. Tolmie
ures I submitted, throughout almost the whole of that time except for the last three or four years, we had no oleomargarine at all in Canada, and our butter exports were on the decline all the time. These figures, I think, indicate quite conclusively that we have nothing very much to fear from the manufacture and consumption of oleomargarine in this country. What we need immediately is a well-considered, a carefully worked out, and a broad and comprehensive plan for the development of our great dairy industry; and we should be discussing the more important phases of that business rather than wasting our time on this question.
The dairy industry of Canada has a hundred times more to fear from the manufacture of poor butter than from the manufacture of oleomargarine. The reports brought back by the officials of the Department of Agriculture who recently visited Great Britain go to show that the fact that we do not obtain as much for our butter as the Danes do is due to the poor quality of our product, its poor colouring, its poor keeping qualities and its flavour. I was asked only yesterday whether I expected the people of this country to adopt the standard of living of the Danes. Now, I do not know anything about the standard of living of the Danes, because I do not know Denmark; I have never been there. I do know, however, a number of Danes who have come to this country and settled both west and east of the mountains, and I can say that they are among our very best settlers. At any rate, they are men who are willing to work; and they work with results. J can recall one man whom I met in the city of Calgary, who came here with nothing at all-he had 25 cents in his pocket when he landed. To-day he turns out butter every week at the rate of tens of thousands of pounds. Another man of this type told me last year at the Calgary exhibition: 'Tolmie, you can break me if you like and I shall be independently rich in this country in five years.'' And, Mr. Speaker, he said this in a section of the country we hear decried so much in this House.
Let me quote some figures to show what we have to fear from the manufacture of bad butter, as compared with the production of oleomargarine, in Canada. I would ask hon. gentlemen to pay particular attention to the figures with reference to oleomargarine, because we hear it stated so frequently that this article is being sold for butter in a wholesale way in Canada. In 1919, the convictions for infractions of the Dairy Act, that is, for the sale of bad butter, were 111, while the convictions under the Oleomargarine Act

were eight; in 1920, the convictions for butter were 126 and for oleomargarine 12; in 1921, the convictions for butter were 126 and for oleomargarine 14; and in 1922, for butter they were 126 and for oleomargarine 14.


Mr. NEILL:: Is not that due to two facts -first, the far greater quantity of butter sold; and secondly, the fact that there is a very strict standard of butter making while there is none whatever for oleomargarine in this country?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I do not think the hon.
member will find any very strict standard of butter making extensively applied to dairy butter throughout this country. I have been a dairy inspector myself and a good many times I have seen butter that was anything but desirable. Quite apparently there was no standard at all except to get the butter into solid condition and sell it to someone.


Mr. MARTELL:: Would not my hon. friend say that probably the reason why more oleomargarine people escaped than butter makers was due to the fact that the former were represented by more able attorneys?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I do not think so. I am not trying to argue in favour of oleomargarine as against dairy products. I am trying to quote exact figures, and it is a very poor showing indeed if our dairymen, or whoever are responsible for the administration of the Oleomargarine Act, can find only fourteen convictions from Halifax to Victoria in one year if infractions of the law are nearly so general as they are stated to be.


Daniel Webster Warner: Can the hon. gentleman tell me how many firms in Canada are making oleomargarine compared with the number of our dairymen?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I cannot tell my hon. friend the number of our dairymen, they are here by the thousands, but I think the oleomargarine manufacturers are confined to two firms. If I am not mistaken, we have two factories in Toronto and one in Edmonton.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: What are the names of those two firms?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The Swift Canadian Company and the Harris Abattoir Company.


Charles Marcil: They are American firms?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: One has the same name and is I presume a branch of the Chicago firm, although I have no evidence of that, but the other is a strictly Canadian firm as far

Oleomargarine-Mr. Tolmie
as I know. I am acquainted with both proprietors and they look like Canadians anyway.
To indicate how carefully the dairyman is protected in this country with regard to the manufacture of oleomargarine, I will quote the regulations. I do not say that this protection is ample, and I have already intimated that there may be further restrictions we can apply so as to prevent the sale of oleomargarine for anything other than what it actually is. Before oleomargarine can either be manufactured or imported the dealer or manufacturer must have a license from the Minister of Agriculture. The minister may cancel this license at any time for cause. All packages must be clearly marked "Oleomargarine." I have a package here on which will be noticed the word "Oleomargarine" is deary marked. We also have the word "Oleo" stamped directly into the material itself in letters one and a half inches high. Oleomargarine must be manufactured in an inspected establishment and, as I pointed out, the inspectors are highly qualified men who in addition to being skilled veterinarians have also passed a further examination before being taken into the employ of the Department of Agriculture. The sanitary arrangements must be first-class in every respect. The manufacture of oleomargarine in butter establishments is strictly prohibited. All materials must be inspected and analyzed if thought necessary. Oleo oil and neutral lards used for this purpose must be from inspected establishments. Importations of any of these materials must be accompanied by certificates from recognized authorities in the country from which they come. Milk from nonreacting cows or pasteurized so as to be free from tuberculosis must be used. Butter free from rancidity and bad odour must be used. I may say that some of the manufacturers are using no butter at all at the present time. No preservatives other than salt are allowed. No unlicensed person is permitted to mix oleo with butter. No colour is to be used or given away with Oleomargarine. Manufacturers of oleomargarine must not use the words "butter," "creamery," "dairy," or the name of any breed of cattle in advertising or describing oleo or on any package containing oleo. Pure vegetable oleo must be so designated. It must be sold only in its original package. In all restaurants where oleomargarine is sold there is to be a placard displayed, "Oleomargarine sold here." Now. we have heard a great deal about how oleomargarine is sold in some places for butter. I have made careful inquiry among the butter
distributors in this city, who say that that is not the case, that our restaurants here buy and use butter of the best quality. I have also asked a prominent gentleman connected with the Dairy branch who also agrees that not much oleomargarine is disposed of, at any rate under these conditions.


William Thomas Lucas: Has the hon. gentleman ever seen one of those placards in any restaurant in Canada?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Not where I eat. There are very severe penalties imposed for any infractions of these regulations. I am quite sure that frequently oleomargarine gets a reputation for certain things that it is not guilty of at all. For instance, a gentleman, connected with the Department of Agriculture at that time, travelling from Montreal to Ottawa received on the train some very bad butter. He was very much disgusted with it and very angry, and after "calling down" the waiter he placed the butter in a paper package and had it analyzed, claiming very confidently that it was not butter at all but oleomargarine. The analyst found that it was just bad butter-some of that butter I was describing a few minutes ago.
There are certain propositions being put forward for the further control of oleomargarine even more stringently than at the present time, so as to make it impossible for it to be sold for butter. It has been proposed to give it an artificial colour. You will note, Mr. Speaker, here is a sample of oleo oil used in the manufacture of oleomargarine which is of a distinct yellow colour. Here again is some cottonseed oil, which is a vegetable product and which also is a rich golden colour, indicating that the natural colour of any product made from these two articles would be yellow. It is proposed now, however, to change this colour. Whether a proper standard can be arrived at or not I do not know, but if the manufacturers are agreeable I see no reason why this proposal should not be carried out. I feel we should place this matter on the soundest possible basis, I think we should encourage our dairymen in every possible way, and if I for one moment thought that this oleomargarine manufactured in Canada would interfere with the dairy industry-last year there was the miserably small quantity of less than 4,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine manufactured compared with 240,000,000 pounds of butter-if I thought it was going to seriously interfere with our dairymen I would certainly oppose its continued manufacture. But after a very careful study during the past three or four

Oleomargarine-Mr. Tolmie
years I have been unable to find any reasonable argument along these lines.


William F. Carroll: Is the hon. gentleman himself engaged in dairying?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Oh yes, I am engaged in the dairy business, and I also have two pure bred herds of very valuable dairy cattle. My principal customers are dairymen. However, I feel that when I come down here as the representative of Victoria City I would not be justified in allowing my private interests to interfere with my public duty.


Daniel Webster Warner: Of course-


Hewitt Bostock: I would remind hon. members that these interruptions are only allowed with the consent of the hon. gentleman who is addressing the House. They must not be too profuse.


Daniel Webster Warner: I want to ask the hon. gentleman two questions. If a greater number of people were engaged in the manufacture of oleo might not conditions be different? Also, if permanent arrangements are made does he not think there will be a great increase in the amount of oleo manufactured?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No, I do not think there would be any difference at all, because ever since 1918 our people have had an opportunity to eat all the oleomargarine they want. Our figures show that instead of an increase in consumption there has been a steady falling off with the decrease in the price of butter, that is, the consumption of oleomargarine has fallen from 14,000,000 pounds to less than
4,000,000 pounds last year, which I think is a pretty fair indication that the people are getting tired of it. Had there been a duty on oleomargarine it might have affected the figures, but this commodity can be got just as cheap from the United States as in this country, and the people have shown that they have no great desire for it.	-
The butter maker is asking the oleo maker to colour this product, made from two yellow articles, either pink, green or black. I think it would be unreasonable to ask for that change in colour; it would be entirely foreign to the natural colour of the products from which the finished article is made. Remember this: The dairyman to-day-and the oleomargarine man does not object to it-is allowed to colour his butter so that he can make January look like June; he can make it look as if it were rich in vitimines when perhaps it is not. In Great Britain they permit ten per cent of butter to be added to their oleomargarine product; in Denmark fifteen per cent is allowed. In this country some of our

packers are using as much, I think, as eight per cent. This can hardly be called adulteration-the mixing of a small quantity of higher priced material with a lower priced material Adulteration, as I understand it, is quite in the opposite direction.
As have pointed out, on every package of this product "Oleomargarine" is clearly marked. I am strongly in favouf of improving that in any way possible so as' to prevent the article from being sold as butter, or so as to obviate any misrepresentation in connection with it. I am a firm believer in putting a duty on oleomargarine imported into this country and on such of its ingredients as are already manufactured here. I see no objection whatever to the standardization of oleomargarine and the placing of a statement on each package indicating exactly what is contained in it. Holland has built up a great oleomargarine industry, the product being largely exported to Great Britain. Here is a chance in our country for development along similar lines. I feel that we should take up any line of work that will increase our industry, add to the wealth of the country and enable us to overcome the difficult conditions that exist as a result of the war. I believe in the firmest and closest policing of the sale of oleomargarine and dairy products in general. Unless we put our goods on the British market in the best possible condition we are not going to get our share of the market over there.
The suggestion has been made that oleomargarine affects dairy prices in this country. I do not think that its sale affects the price of butter here at all, for the reason that we get rid of our surplus in an export market: If the dairy industry of Canada is to increase we must continue to develop our export market. Naturally the price of butter in Canada is set by the price of butter in the market in which we dispose of our surplus product; and do not forget that that butter is sold in a market where oleomargarine also is sold in huge quantities. If we cannot compete with the little bit of oleo sold here, how on earth can we ever hope to compete in the British market, where oleomargarine is s*old in such large quantities? One thing is sure, if we are going to compete over there we shall have to reduce our cost of production to such a level as will enable us to meet the Danes and our other competitors on that market; otherwise we cannot hope for good results.
It has been stated that the farmers all over this' country are firm believers in the wiping out of the manufacture and consumption of oleomargarine. I have had talks with several farmers in the West, and when the whole con-

Oleomargarine-Mr. Tolmie
dition is explained to them, as I have attempted to state it to-day, they have felt that there was no unreasonable ground for fear of the competition through the manufacture of oleo. But here is a very interesting thing: At the last session of the Alberta legislature a resolution was brought up to wipe out oleomargarine, that is, to recommend that the manufacture, sale and importation of oleomargarine in this country be made to cease. This resolution was put to a vote and that farmers' legislature voted it down by a majority of 30 to 12. I want to congratulate those farmers on the broad-minded view they took of the situation. If the dairymen throughout Canada were fully informed concerning this matter we would not have all this row about oleomargarine at the present time.


Daniel Webster Warner: May I ask the hon.
member a question?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Certainly.	[DOT]


Daniel Webster Warner: Does he know that that
vote was not so much on the question whether or not we should have oleo in Canada as on the question whether the provincial legislature should undertake to advise the Dominion parliament what to do in the matter? That is what the vote was.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes, but the hon. member knows what the resolution was aimed at. The question was whether they should recommend that legislation against oleomargarine should be adopted by this parliament, and they turned it down by a majority of 30 to 12. They are broadminded farmers, men who understand their business.
There should be a campaign in this country to increase the consumption of dairy products, to advertise their value, and so on. I think also that in connection with our export it would be well to adopt the words "Canada, approved" on our Canadian products wherever possible. These are the words that appear on our pork, bacon, ham, and so on that are sent out of this country. By having these words attached to all our products we should set up and maintain a nigh standard; we would keep up our volume of exports and maintain the quality of our goods, thus being able to get our share of the British market in a comparatively short time. I have tried to present the figures to the House in a fair way. I hope this matter gets settled one way or the other on this occasion. I know it would do me more good to take the other side of the question, as I said before in reply to an inquiry by an hon. member-to take the side of the dairyman. But I do not feel justified in
doing so; I feel that this House has no right to tell the people of Canada that they have not the same intelligence as the people of other countries and that they cannot be allowed to buy oleomargarine if they wish to do so. The whole thing hinges on that one point, in my opinion we have to leave a little to the people. We told them a while ago what they should do with their money when they went to a certain place of entertainment; now we are going to tell them what to put in their mouths, and in doing so I think we are going a little too far. Last year the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) espressed great astonishment at my stand in this connection.
I studied this question very thoroughly, both when Minister of Agriculture-when I was able to get information more easily than now-and subsequently; I have examined it carefully from all points of view, and I have come to the conclusion that the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in this country is not hurtful to our daily industry at the present time and will not hurt it in the future. Instead, therefore, of wasting our time on a question of this kind we should be busy trying to develop the dairy industry along proper lines.


William Frederic Kay: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (.Mr. Carroll), has been less belligerent to-day than he wps on a former occasion, I trust that I shall have no difficulty in keeping within the rules of parliamentary debate. I am not going to follow his argument very far, but he made one statement that I think is hardly fair. He said that oleomargarine had the approval of the staff of the Department of Agriculture. I think he has no warrant for that statement. The law was passed by this House and these gentlemen, however much they may be against oleomargarine, are in duty bound to enforce the provisions of the law.
The hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) in the beginning of his speech found lault with the government for what he termed the long delay in giving an opportunity for the discussion of this resolution. It struck me as rather curious that he should criticise the government in that respect, because if my memory serves me correctly, in 1921 when he was Minister of Agriculture a bill providing for the extension of the oleo legislation stood on the order paper from the early days of the session and was not discussed until within the last two weeks of the session.
This question has been _ discussed in this country for a great many years. The first
Oleomargarine-Mr. Kay

legislation enacted on the subject was I think in 1886, when oleomargarine was first prohibited. In 1903 the provisions of that restriction were re-enacted, and this occurred again in 1914 under the Dairy Industry Act. During all that, period from 1886 to 1917, a period of thirty-one years, oleomargarine was prohibited in this country, and we have not heard that there was any public demand or any demand whatever for its introduction. In 1917 the members of the House will remember that we as well as all the allied countries were beginning to feel the pinch and the stress of the Great War, and all the peoples of the allied countries were then willing to submit to any sacrifice which would help towards winning the war. Many things were done, Sir, not only in this country but in all the allied countries at that time which no one would have dreamt of as possible under normal conditions, and one of these extraordinary things was the enactment in 1917 of the order in council permitting the temporary importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada. Before that order in council was passed the matter was fully discussed by the Canada Food Board, an organization of the government, and by a special committee of that Food Board known as the Special Milk Committee. Upon that committee were representatives of the dairy interests, and when the great need of the boys at the front and of the allies for more butter and fats was pointed out to the dairymen they consented gladly, as patriotic citizens should, to allowing oleomargarine to be manufactured, imported and sold in Canada provided that it was as a war measure only and a temporary one. In order to show that that was the view of the government I will read the provisions of that order in council, dated October 23, 1917:
Whereas attention is drawn to the abnormal demand for butter due to war conditions and to the very great probability that such abnormal demand and consequent high prices will prevail for this product for some time to come;
And whereas it is in the public interest, under the special conditions above named, that other fats should be available in Canada under strict and reasonable conditions as a substitute for butter,-
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, under and in virtue of the provisions of the War Measures Act, 1914, is pleased to make and enact and doth hereby make and enact the following regulations providing for the importation to Canada and the permitting of the manufacture, sale and possession within Canada of oleomargarine and establishing the conditions of such importation, manufacture, sale and possession, such regulation to be in force 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 said regulations, and as a war measure onlv.

That, Sir, as I have said before, was agreed to by the dairymen of this country, but it was agreed to on the distinct pledge of the government of the day that the measure should not be made permanent. On the expiration of the War Measures Act in 1919 the government of that day did not consider that the special conditions mentioned in the order in council, a return to normal conditions, had arrived, and therefore in the second session of 1919 a bill was introduced intituled "An act to permit the'temporary importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada." Since then, Sir, as you well know, year by year, a temporary bill has been introduced, and I claim that the fact- that the bill has been a temporary measure, for twelve months only at a time, is an indication that the government still considered that a pledge had been made to the dairymen of the country.
Let me remind the hon. members of the House of a pledge made during the war by the British government with reference to the removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle. I need not remind this House and the people of the country that without exception we made a demand that that pledge made during the war should be carried out. The people of England, notwithstanding their great objection to the admission of Canadian cattle, felt that they were bound by the pledge which their government had given to ours, and so last year a government in Great Britain which was not the same government which had made the pledge, but the government of Bonar Law, removed the embargo on Canadian cattle, and to-day our cattle are admitted to England. I ask you then, Sir, is it not equally the duty of this government to fulfil and carry out the pledge which was given by the government of that day to the people of this country that when conditions became normal the temporary importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in this country would again be prohibited? Feeling that this is so, feeling that the pledge of the government of that day is the important point to discuss, I have refrained from taking up the pros and cons of the question of oleomargarine, and therefore,
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell):
That all the words after the word "that" in the first line thereof be struck Out and the following substituted therefor,-
In view of the distinct assurances given at the time that the prohibition of the importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine was suspended by order in council in 1917 under the War Measures Act of 1914, such suspension being but temporary and a -war measure only, should now be removed and the question

Oleomargarine-Mr. Euler
left, without prejudice as to its merits, in the same position as before the enactment of the said temporary suspension.	.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the amendment.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit to your consideration that the amendment is a direct negative, it is not an amendment at all.


Hewitt Bostock: 
Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: At the outset of the brief observations I propose to make I should like to say immediately that I am heartily in favour of the resolution submitted by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll). This subject has been discussed session after session, and the same old straw has been threshed and re-threshed again and again, almost every session since I have been a member of this House. I deem it unfortunate that time has been unnecessarily spent from year to year in attempting to solve a simple problem which should properly be solved only in one way, it seems to me, if the members of the House choose to approach it in a fair and unprejudiced manner. Last year the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) introduced a resolution into this House which called for the prohibition of the importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. That resolution was very exhaustively discussed, and finally was lost by a substantial majority. I contend that that vote itself was a declaration on the part of this House that it did not believe in the principle of the prohibition of oleomargarine; and I contend further that it was a direct mandate to the government to wipe off the statute book the law which provided for the prohibition of the sale and manufacture of oleomargarine. I regretted at the time that the Minister of Agriculture did not accept the vote in that way, and that he did not take steps to put himself in line with the expression of the opinion of the House as contained in that vote. As it was, the principle of the prohibition of oleomargarine was still recognized as the will of this parliament when exactly the reverse was the case, as expressed in the vote on
5 p.m. the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Missisquoi. Therefore,
Oleomargarine-Mr. Euler

in September, unless something further is done in regard to this matter the old law becomes operative and oleomargarine is prohibited. Now, we are under the necessity of discussing the whole matter again.
I accept as true the assumption that oleo is a wholesome food. I am quite content to take the word of the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie), who knows a good deal about the subjeot that it is. I have read a little about it myself, and I have personally come to the conclusion, and have the conviction, that oleomargarine is a wholesome food and contains nothing deleterious to health. That being true, my position is as it has always been in previous discussions on the question. If oleomargarine is wholesome and if it is sold for what it is, then I say this parliament has no moral right to declare that another person may not purchase, as he or she pleases, an article of commerce according to the price which they care to pay. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the issue here is a matter of personal liberty. I do not think that it should be possible for parliament to dictate to anyone as to what lie or she may purchase provided the commodity to be purchased is a sound article of commerce. Herfe is a palatable, wholesome food, a substitute for a more costly article. When butter is selling at 70 or 80 cents a pound in the winter, who dares say that the mother, we will say, of some eight or ten little children-


An hon. MEMBER:: Make it twenty children.


William Daum Euler: I will make it twenty if you like; in the province of Quebec it may be twenty-five or more-who shall say that the mother of these children, with a small income, shall be prohibited from buying the only substitute for butter which she can afford? I think the suggestion is entirely indefensible from every point of view. It is an outrage in principle, and it is unworthy of a people that calls itself advanced and progressive, and having respect for ordinary human rights and freedom.
It should not be necessary at all to make an extended argument in regard to the matter. One would almost judge from some of the statements that have been made by opponents of oleomargarine and the indignation with which it is regarded, that those of us who favour oleomargarine are trying to force people to eat it. That is not the case at all. Those who do not like oleomargarine can buy butter. All we are contending for is freedom of choice and liberty in the matter.
fMr. Euler. 1
The point has also been raised by some friends outside of the House in conversation, that because butter is more nourishing, therefore oleomargarine ought to be prohibited. If that principle is to govern, we might as well say that a good porterhouse beef steak is more nourishing than a bit of veal or a piece of the shank of the animal. That argument could be carried to absurd lengths. Cream is better than milk; milk is better than skimmed milk, I suppose. Are we, therefore, to say that the inferior article cannot be used at all? Will an interfering parliament say that one must buy steak instead of sausage or the cheaper meat which is, perhaps, the only thing a family can afford? Some people like to wear real silk, not the artificial silk that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is trying to promote. Some people cannot buy real silk for their dresses or hosiery, they are forced to buy cotton. Are we justified, for the sake of the manufacturer of silk goods, in prohibiting people from buying cotton or any other class of goods which they may choose to buy?
We have talked almost with horror of substitutes for butter. It seems to me that the fact that the people of this country or any other country have been able to devise substitutes that serve their purpose at lower cost, is simply an indication of their ingenuity in adapting themselves to the needs of the moment or general conditions. So long as there is no deception, there should be no objection to substitutes. Cotton is a substitute for wool. Would you, therefore, abolish cotton, especially because it is imported? There seems to be antagonism to some of the ingredients of oleomargarine because they are imported from other countries. Concrete building blocks are a substitute for cut stone and are made to look like it as much as possible, and why should they not? I am even told that carrots and other vegetables sometimes appear, after they have gone through certain processes of manufacture, as the finest of strawberry jam or something of that kind. In my town thejf used to make, and I think they still make leatherette, a very good substitute for leather, and they make it to look as much like leather as they possibly can. Why should they not as long as this leatherette is not sold as something it is not? In my town they make a great deal of furniture, and sometimes possibly a member of this House will purchase what appears like a very fine article of mahogany furniture, when after all he has purchased only birch which is finished like mahogany and it is perfectly good furniture. Let me take even such a matter as linen collars. Possibly members of the House think

Oleomargarine-Mr. Euler
they are to-day wearing linen collars. As a matter of fact, I think they are all wearing cotton collars, and these wear longer than linen collars anyway. Therefore, the argument of substitution, in my opinion, constitutes- no argument at all. If there is butter in oleomargarine and that improves oleomargarine, why should the butter not be used? It is said that oleomargarine is made to look like butter and that is objectionable. One might almost as well say that butter looks like oleomargarine. Butter is made for man and not man for butter, and I cannot quite understand the veneration with which some of our hon. friends speak of butter and the sacred cow from time to time.
It surely must be significant that every other civilized country in the world permits the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. The hon. member for Victoria City (Mr Tol-mie) has already made reference to the butter industry in the country of Denmark. To-day at luncheon I had the honour of sitting at the same table with a gentleman who came originally from Denmark and who has been living in this country for some time. He toi.1 us there, when the conversation turned to the matter of oleomargarine, that he could not understand for one moment, why anybody could possibly object to the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. He said: "Denmark is the greatest butter country in the world"-and perhaps he is right-and he added: "No one there thinks of objecting to the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine." I think he even said that they make more oleomargarine than butter, and I believe he said further that many of those who make butter eat the oleomargarine and sell the butter.
We talk of protection, and there has been a good deal of criticism in this House with regard to the matter of high tariffs, or, as ir is often called, "high protection." Sometimes I have been a recipient of some of those criticisms although I am entirely guiltless. Those who would prohibit the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine go far beyond the limits of high protection. They apparently believe in monopolies. Tariffs are usually directed against the outsider, the foreigner, the foreign product; but this is actually an attempt to put out of business a legitimate industry within our own country in order that another industry may benefit.
When one examines the arguments of opponents of oleomargarine-and I say this with all goodwill-there is really only one motive in the movement, and it is this:	That
all competition in connection with the commodity of butter may be removed by act of parliament, so that certain producers may
make more money at the expense of the consumers. Broadly stated, I believe that and nothing else to be the fact. All this solicitude for the poor children who will not be allowed to eat butter and who will be forced to eat oleomargarine is, as one gentleman said to me to-day, just so much eye-wash. This is a purely commercial proposition. I do not blame those who are makers of butter throughout Canada for desiring to make as much money out of butter as they can. That is business; but I do not think it is right for the members of this House who are representing all the consumers of Canada, to taka an attitude of that kind, advancing the interests of one class at the expense of another.


Mr. McMASTER:: Sound free trade argument.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid the hon. member for Brome is putting on my remarks an interpretation that was not intended. Therefore I say that the sole purpose of the prohibitory law as regards oleomargarine is to destroy by law competition in connection with butter and nothing else. Can this parliament afford to recognize a principle of that kind? I say that it cannot. If it can, if we can do that for butter, we can do it properly for any other commodity that is manufactured in Canada. I would even go so far as to say that the man who raises cattle ought to object to anybody breeding hogs for fear that pork might come into competition with beef. And one could suggest numerous comparisons of the same kind.


Mr. ELLIOTT (Dundas):: The hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) stated in his speech that the price of butter was fixed in the markets of the world. How will the hon. member (Mr. Euler) make that statement conform to what he has just said, that we are looking for protection for the dairy industry in this matter?


William Daum Euler: For the simple reason that if people buy oleomargarine they will not buy so much butter.


Preston Elliott: But the hon.
member for Victoria City stated that the price of our butter was fixed in the markets of the world. What has that to do with oleomargarine? .


William Daum Euler: I will leave the hon. member for Victoria City to stand behind his own statement; I did not make it. Another argument has been advanced and it is the only one which to my mind carries any weight; and, at that, I do not think it goes very far.
Oleomargarine-Mr. Forke

It is that the prohibitory law was suspended on the strength of a pledge given by a former government that it was only for the duration of the war, and that the old conditions should be restored at the conclusion of hostilities. A pledge is a pledge, and I do not think that it should be violated or viewed in any light that would be regarded as a reflection on national honour, on parliamentary honour, or on the honour of any government. But surely a former government cannot perpetually bind succeeding administrations. This is a parliament elected by the people of Canada since the war, and it undoubtedly has a perfect right to legislate as it sees fit in the interests of the whole people. If that principle were not admitted, then any law that we now have on the statute books, enacted by the last government or any other before that, would necessarily have to be maintained by this parliament. That is absolutely unthinkable. This House has a right, moral, legal and in every other way, to legislate with regard to oleomargarine precisely as it deems fit in the interests of the people of all Canada.
Finally, I do not think that the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine is going to injure the dairy industry. The hon. member for Victoria City dealt with that aspect of the subject better than I possibly could because he is much more familiar with it. When butter is low in price or comparatively low- because it is never very low now to those who live in the towns-I do not believe that people will buy anything else to any great extent. When, however, it is extremely high, going up to 75 and 80 cents, as it does in the winter time, and is readily and profitably sold, there should be no objection on the part of those who sell it to the use of oleomargarine by people who cannot afford butter. Surely when butter is selling at these high prices, the men who are out of employment or who have scant employment, with a small income, should be allowed to purchase this substitute. I do not think that any hon. member of this House would say to any man or woman with a large family who cannot afford butter that the purchase of this wholesome substitute for butter shall be prohibited, so that their children may be deprived of something to eat with their bread.
I would add, before concluding, that no one can deny successfully that oleomargarine when properly made is thoroughly wholesome. And it is cheaper than butter. It is sold as oleomargarine and nothing else; and I would say that if the government or the Minister of Agriculture feels that oleomargarine is still being sold as butter, or feels that it should be surrounded by further restric-

tions, provided it is not actually prohibited, I am ready to support any measure that will ensure fair protection for the dairy industry. Let the manufacture of oleomargarine be surrounded with all sorts of safeguards in the public interest. But if oleomargarine is wholesome-as undoubtedly it is-and if it is properly safeguarded, then we have no right to forbid its manufacture and the use of it by the people. Such prohibition is an interference with the right of citizens and cannot be justified on any grounds. In my opinion the government should bring in a bill to repeal the old prohibitory act and then if necessary, introduce another providing for the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine under proper conditions and with adequate safeguards.


Robert Forke: I had not intended making any speech on the motion and the amendment thereto, but after listening to the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Euler) I feel that I should offer some explanation of the way in which I propose to vote. The closing sentences of his speech practically state all that I intend to say at the present time. The amendment declares that at the time the prohibition of the importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine was suspended by order in council in 1917, under the War Measures Act of 1914, the assurance was given that as such suspension was but temporary and a war measure only-
-it should now be removed and the question left, without prejudice as to its merits, in the same position as before the enactment of the said temporary suspension.
An order in council is not merely a scrap of paper that carries no consequences whatever, and it seems to me that the proper step to take now is to remove that order in council, "without prejudice," so that the matter might stand where it stood before. Then, if the government will bring down a bill dealing with the subject of oleomargarine I shall be prepared to discuss it. In the meantime I shall vote for the amendment, because I believe it proposes the proper step.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to associate myself with my hon. friend (Mr. Forke) in what he has said and in the attitude he is taking. I should not like at this time to go into the respective merits of the prohibition or the importation of oleomargarine, but I do think that an undertaking was given a large interest in this country, under circumstances to which this House and parliament should pay attention. As has been mentioned by

Oleomargarine-Mr. Mackenzie King
the hon. member who introduced the amendment (Mr. Kay), during the period of the war, there appeared before the Milk Committee of the Food Board members of the dairy industry, to whom it was represented that the interests of the country rendered it advisable on patriotic grounds that the government should be given a free hand in the matter of permitting temporarily the importation of oleomargarine. The dairy interests acquiesced at the time, freely and willingly, in the belief and on the understanding, backed up by the government of the day, that when the circumstances had passed which had given rise to the necessity for this temporary arrangement, the measure permitting the importation of oleomargarine would be repealed. I think it would be a great misfortune if any large interest in this country, any large body of our citizens, had reason to feel that the government had not to the fullest measure lived up to any obligation assumed under circumstances such as then existed. Reading the order in council which was passed at the time, I think there is no room for any difference of view whatever as to the exact ground on which the importation of oleomargarine was then permitted. It has been read by the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) but I may requote the first few paragraphs. It is dated October 23, 1917:
Whereas attention is drawn to the abnormal demand for butter due to war conditions and to the very great probability that such abnormal demand and consequent high prices will prevail for this product for some time to come:
And whereas it is in the public interest, under the special conditions above named, that other fats should be available in Canada under strict and reasonble conditions as a substitute for butter.-
Therefore His Excellency the Governor General in Council under and in virtue of the provisions of the War Measures Act 1914 is pleased to make and enact, and doth, hereby make and enact the following regulations providing for the importation int/ Canada and the permitting of the manufacture, sale and possession within Canada of oleomargarine and establishing the conditions of such importation, manufacture, sale and possession, such regulations to be in force 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 said regulations and as a war measure only.
I think this clause in the order in council makes it abundantly clear that the action taken by the government at that time was in the light of war conditions, and with the distinct understanding that when the war was over and, to use the words of the order in council, "the present abnormal conditions cease to continue," the order in council would be repealed and the dairying industry would
be put, as respects the importation of oleomargarine, exactly where it had been prior to the time it acquiesced in this particular order being passed.
Now, there is further evidence it seems to me which is conclusive in large part, and that is the legislation which extended the period of permission for importation. The act assented to on 10th November, 1919, 10 George V, Chapter 24, is entitled, "An Act to permit the temporary importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada." Why was that word "temporary" inserted in the title unless it was to emphasize the fact that the conditions which were set forth in the order in council had not, in the view of the ministry of the day, yet fully ceased to exist, and that this period of extension was to go on for another year.
All subsequent legislation on this subject has been in the nature of an extension year by year. I agree with what the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) says about a government not necessarily being bound by all the acts of preceding administrations. I think every case has to be considered in the light of all the circumstances surrounding it, and I confess that had I seen or known of the existence of this pledge last year, I should have been inclined to attach very great importance to and place strong emphasis upon it, and to have seen that it was referred to in the course of the debate. As nearly as I can gather, no reference whatever was made to this particular pledge in the debate last session. When a deputation representative of the dairy interests waited upon members of the government some little time ago, they stressed very strongly what they had conceived to be the representations of the government of the day and what they had represented to other members of the dairy industry as a consequence, and I felt at that time doubly convinced-I had previously learned of this pledge, and having learned of it decided to see that some recognition was taken of it- I felt strongly convinced at that time that the dairymen would not in all probability have acquiesced as they did in the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine during the period of the war if the pledge had not been given; and inasmuch as their action was taken for patriotic reasons, I feel it is the duty of this parliament to see that that pledge is carried out. Once it is carried out, I think parliament should be perfectly free to take whatever subsequent action it may deem fit with respect to the continued importation and manufacture of oleomargarine.



Oleomargarine-Mr. Meighen


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
say that I am surprised at the stand taken by the Prime Minister in this matter. If I describe it as a stand I do it compliment overmuch. It really is not a stand at all. It is merely an evasion recommended to this House, and a very clumsy evasion, of a direct and definite question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I ask
my right hon. friend where he stands in the matter of the pledge given by his government?


Arthur Meighen: I will stand by any
pledge given by the late government. But I must say that I find the Prime Minister a lot more anxious and solicitous about a pledge given, as he says, by the late government, than he is about any pledge given by his own. Pledge! Really this talk about a pledge appeals to my mind as so insufferable that I can hardly command patience or find language to address myself to it. We are told by the Prime Minister that the late government gave a pledge that oleomargarine would be swept away when the war was over, and that we would return to a policy of no oleomargarine as we had before. He leads that pledge into an order in council, which was passed in the year 1918 and by which he states this parliament is bound. Well, I will have to try to address myself to that question before coming to a discussion of the merits of what really is before this House. What is before this House is whether we are going to have oleomargarine or whether we are not. Does any hon. member think that	if we	accept this amendmentin that way and slip the question outside the door this government is going to come forward with a bill to restore oleomargarine or indeed with any bill on the subject at	all?	Let	us all	rememberthat oleomargarine dies if this parliament does nothing this session. The legislation passes out of existence.	Now let	us be assured first	of all,	that	once we	vote for
this amendment and thus get rid of this resolution we are in effect shoving the subject out of doors because, take my word for it, this government is not going to come in with any bill once they have the excuse of the passing of the amendment.
But I said I would address myself to the question as to whether or not there was a pledge that binds us to support this amendment. In 1918 the government of the day, having behind it a War Measures Act passed in 1914, which virtually gave them power to legislate instead of parliament in respect of 
all matters that concerned the war, even indirectly, passed an order in council under the authority of that act whereby oleomargarine was admitted whereby the statute was suspended which had forbidden the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. Naturally the government did this as a temporary measure, and plainly stated in the legislation that it was a temporary measure. As a matter of fact the government had no power to enact other than a temporary measure under the War Measures Act. We had no power in the world permanently to alter an act of parliament; we only had power to do so temporarily in so far as we felt it justified and called for by the emergencies of the war by which we Nvere then surrounded. Consequently, we made it plain in the order that this was to be considered by the people of Canada as no permanent commitment on the subject but merely as a temporary measure resorted to by the government under the authority of a temporary act. We made this clear in our order in council. Not satisfied with that, next session we advised parliament what was done and recommended that the temporary measure which we had put into effect by order in council be made a temporary measure by legislation. Thereupon, by an act of the parliament of this country, the order in council was merged in a statute, and we no longer rested on the order in council. We rested from 1919 onwards on the statute of this House. Consequently-although I do not impugn for a moment the sincerity of the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke)- there is now no order in council to wipe away. Does anybody honestly imagine that there is to-day an order in council in effect? It has no more existence or effect than a piece of blotting paper?


Robert Forke: The question was voted upon last year and the decision was in favour of the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. That was a decision of the House last year. Will the passing of this resolution have any more effect than that resolution had?


Arthur Meighen: I doubt it very much. I doubt, even if we pass this resolution, whether the government can then make up its mind. It could not last year, and I have not seen any evidence of additional virility this year. I doubt if it would; but we must do our duty when a resolution is before us- whether the government is able to do its duty or not.


Robert Forke: We want to clear the way, anyway.

Oleomargarine-Mr. Meighen


Arthur Meighen: There is no order in council to get out of the way, nor is there anything else to get out of the way. The order is as dead as Julius Caesar; it was dead a year afterwards. It was merged in a statute which provided that oleomargarine should not be forbidden to enter, nor forbidden to be manufactured for a period of time thereafter, parliament thereby taking the ground that under the conditions then prevailing, which were undoubtedly abnormal, we should not legislate in a permanent way; we should legislate in a temporary way only and leave parliament absolutely free when the temporary period was over to legislate just as it desired. What I am seeking to impress on the House is that at the expiration of the period fixed by parliament in the legislation of 1919, parliament was left free to act either one way or the other, as it might see fit. Parliament was free from all pledges of any kind. There had been indeed no pledge of any kind, affecting anyone, the moment the legislation expired.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my right hon. friend tell me when that period was?


Arthur Meighen: I think it was last year. No; the first period expired in 1921.


Charles Marcil: Was it a fixed period?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it was a period fixed; it expired in 1921. The government of the day came in with a bill to extend it permanently and recommended that bill to parliament. There was a very great difference of opinion in the House-a difference of opinion as to its merits, confined not at all to the opposition alone but manifested by some on the government side. We finally, in view of the opinion of parliament, modified the bill to have it last only for a year and recommended to parliament that a measure to this end be adopted. The operation of the act was to expire one year from then, leaving parliament at the expiration of that period quite free to act as parliament might in its wisdom see fit. That law expired last session and this government being without any policy of its own at all placed the subject in the hands of parliament to be decided on a motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). Parliament on that motion declared emphatically against a policy of forbidding the admission to and manufacture in Canada of oleomargarine. One would have thought that the government then would have introduced a bill pursuant to such vote of parliament, but it did not; it introduced a bill providing for prohibition for one year and one only.
I have recited these events in order that parliament may understand its position now, in order that no hon. member of this House may feel that his vote or his decision is in any way restrained or his rights as a member of parliament abbreviated by any action of any previous government or by any action of any previous parliament. There is no excuse for any hon. member shelving this question to-day because of anything that has heretofore taken place. No hon. member I know is bound to vote for the admission of oleomargarine because of anything that was done before; every hon. member is just as free to vote against the admission of oleomargarine as if nothing at all had been done by the late government or by the late parliament. Surely it is not necessary to emphasize again that an order in council which is dead and which made no pledge at all save that its own life would be temporary, as necessarily it was, forms no hindrance to the free action of this House. Surely it is equally unnecessary to say that a statute which was declared to be temporary, to exist for a limited period only, forms, when that period is over, no obstacle to the free exercise of the rights of hon. members of this House. As I said at the beginning, the whole thing is so absurd, it is so beyond the pale of reason, that one can scarcely have the patience to hover round such a subject now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask another question? I think when I asked my right hon. friend before about the period expiring he had in mind the expiration of the particular act. He has just said the order in council contained no pledge. I would like to read these particular lines:
Such regulations to be in force and to have effect for the period during which the present abnormal conditions continue,-
That was a pledge.	,


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: the conclusion of such period to be determined by His Excellency the Governor General in Council.
That was another pledge. I will ask my right hon. friend if that period was ever determined by His Excellency the Governor General in Council?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. undoubtedly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where is the record?
.3528

Oleomargarine-Mr. Meighen


Arthur Meighen: I will have to go over a little of the ground again, I see. Undoubtedly a pledge was given that the order in [DOT]council would be temporary. Well, was the order in council not temporary? Is not the order in council dead long ago?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was the prohibition that was temporary, not the order in council.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly the prohibition was temporary and the order in council too. There were hundreds of prohibitions passed under the War Measures Act that were just as temporary. Was parliament by those acts tieing anybody's hands after the temporary period was over? Were its hands tied, can anyone seriously argue, against freedom of legislation at the expiration of that period? Why, the Prime Minister can go through the records of the orders in council and I will guarantee that he can find two thousand of a like temporary character. Parliament was just as free at the expiration of these orders to legislate in regard to the subjects covered by them as in regard to any subjects within the purview of this House. The only pledge if you call it a "pledge" was that it would be temporary; that does not mean that parliament is not free later to make it permanent. The Governor in Council determined the period of the existence of the order in council the moment the subject was brought before parliament and a statute passed. We .brought it before parliament and parliament passed a statute for a temporary exclusion, .[DOT]and at the end of the expiration of that period parliament is free either to make it permanent or to do away with it for good. I do snot doubt that every hon. member of this -House, as an intelligent man, knows that parliament is to-day as free as if there had never been previous legislation, either orders in council or a statute of any kind. So I banish from my mind the suggestion that in any way we are tied by a pledge; we are not. We have to act; we are wholly free; what should we do as free men and a free parliament?
I have no hesitation in saying what I think should be done. I do not find, however, that any member of the government, upon whom now is the responsibility and who ought to take the initiative in this House on public questions, seems equal to the task of declaring what he thinks should be done. I think oleomargarine should be admitted. I do not for the life of me see any argument why an article which is a food and which unquestionably-at least it is unquestioned-if properly made is a wholesome food, should be forbid-

den entrance to or manufacture within this country. The only argument attempted against it is that it so resembles another article of production-butter-that there is danger of its being mistaken for that article, confused therewith, to the damage of and injustice to the producers of that article. I am ready to agree that it is no more than right and justice that the producers of butter should have ample protection against such confusion and against substitution. If I were convinced that it was impossible to give ample protection, to provide those safeguards that would make the conditions of produc- ' tion fair for dairy butter, then I think the lesser evil would be to vote against the admission of oleomargarine. But I have never heard anything so to convince me. I am not convinced that even under present conditions, the regulations are such as do not sufficiently protect dairy butter. I am not convinced, on the contrary, that they are sufficient-I do not know enough about it-but I am thoroughly convinced they can be made sufficient. And if it were necessary to go to the extent of providing a colour standard up to which the producers of oleomargarine might go and beyond which they might not go, I would support the establishment of such a colour standard and I guarantee this, that if you compel the oleomargarine maker to keep the colour of his article below a certain standard, you will never have it mistaken for butter and never do any injustice to the dairy industry. I am not saying it is essential to have that done. I do say it is practical to have it done, and I do say, if the Minister of Agriculture or the government feel that it is essential in order that the distinction may be defined and clear and unmistakable, then they ought to go ahead and do it. It can be done; it has been done.
Consequently with the burden on the administration to so frame and enforce regulations as will prevent confusion, as will prevent unfair substitution, I say there should be no objection to its admittance. Now I am going further.


Mr. VIEN:: Was the right hon. gentleman of the same opinion in 1917?


Arthur Meighen: I was of the same opinion.


Thomas Vien: Then might I ask further, instead of passing a temporary measure under the War Measures Act why did he not pass a law to admit oleomargarine permanently?


Arthur Meighen: I thought I had told the hon. gentleman. I had told the House. Under the conditions of those times, which were abnormal, we did not feel that in

Oleomargarine-Mr. Meighen
matters of general policy affected by those passing forces we should legislate permanently. We came to parliament and committed ourselves to permanent legislation in 1921. We were quite prepared as a government, indeed we actually did recommend to this House the permanent admission of oleomargarine under proper regulations. That is where I stand to-day.
Now I would go further. I believe as regards oleomargarine the same as regards other articles produced in this country or substitutes for which are produced in this country, that we ought to have a fair protective tariff against importation, and I say so more with regard to the needs of the dairy industry of this country, because it is not asked for so far as I know by the makers of oleomargarine-I say so more in justice to the dairy industry of this country than I do with regard to any producers of oleomargarine. We ought to have a duty against the admission of oleomargarine. I want to know why the farmer of this country should in this market which he helps to build up, to which he contributes every time he pays a dollar of taxes or buys a dollar of goods, be subjected without any restraint to competition of others from other countries who do not do anything to build up the market of Canada. We ought to provide a duty against the admission of oleomargarine and against the admission of the ingredients that go to make up the element of oleomargarine. If anyone can provide me with a reason why there should be a preference given in the tariff of Canada to the admission of oleomargarine I should like to hear it; it should be treated the same as other products against which duties are placed on their admission into this country-


William Daum Euler: Would the hon. member place a duty against the ingredients of oleomargarine?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. I do not see how we could be fair to the butter makers if we did not.


William Daum Euler: On cottonseed oil, for instance?


Arthur Meighen: There may be some ingredients you should not tax, but there are others you should. You cannot be fair unless you impose a duty against some of the ingredients anyway.


Mr. GOULD:: Would not that duty take away the cheapness of the argument that has been presented in favour of oleomargarine?


Arthur Meighen: You mean the cheapness of the article. It would not affect the cheapness of the argument. I do not think it would affect the cheapness of the article, or I should say, would not substantially or permanently affect it. It would in some measure for a time, but permanently I doubt very much if it would. But why should we in this country subject the farmer who produces his butter to the free admission of a competitor when the man who produces butter across the line has an eight-cent-a-pound duty against butter and an eight-cent-a-pound duty against oleomargarine? That is the condition today? The United States farmer has his market. He has a preference there because he helped to build it. He has his own country as a basis to rely on, on which to build his industry. He has a duty of eight cents a pound against butter and a duty of eight cents a pound against oleomargarine. We here have a four-cent duty against butter, and nothing against oleomargarine. That is an unfair position for the producer of butter in Canada. That is a position that should last no longer, and I venture to say that if you place the Canadian butter producer in a position comparable with his American competitor, you are not going to find him unreasonable on the question of oleomargarine. Do those two things-provide by more stringent regulations, because certainly more stringent regulations can be provided, against the possibility of substitution, that is to say, of the palming off of one article for the other; provide against that, put oleomargarine in the same position as other importations into this country that compete with productions in our own country and in our own market, do those two things, and, of course, make sure that only wholesome food ingredients enter into its production, which I understand is provided for already-and then if these three conditions prevail I know of no argument against the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine.
Mr. ROBB. How long has oleomargarine been allowed to enter Canada free under the Customs Act?


Arthur Meighen: Oleomargarine was entirely forbidden up to 1918, and since 1918 the ingredients have been free.


Mr. ROBB:: And oleomargarine.


Arthur Meighen: And oleomargarine too,
as I understand its history. We should have placed a duty on oleomargarine before. We should place a duty on it now and place a duty on such ingredients as compete with

Oleomargarine-Mr. Fielding
Canadian products. We should place these articles in the same category as other products of our country. Then see that the oleomargarine is manufactured only from wholesome substances, see that the restrictions are such that it cannot be unfairly substituted for butter, and these things done I do not know how we can argue against the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. There may be difference of .pinion on this subject; there is room for difference of opinion. But that is my view and I deem it my duty to state it to the House and state it clearly.
On the other question as to our being under some compulsion to vote for this amendment because of the 1918 order in council, there is no room for any difference of opinion at all. There is no room for sensible argument. It is a mere sham or screen erected in order to enable those who desire to do so to evade a fair and square issue that is before parliament.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING:: (Minister of Finance) : I did not desire to speak at this moment but if no other member wishes to address the House-


An hon. MEMBER:: Call it six o'clock.


William Stevens Fielding: -I would like to be
permitted to finish, if I may, before six .o'clock. May I first direct myself briefly to the constant complaint of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) that the government as a government does not deal with this question. He has repeatedly emphasized that, indicating that he attaches great importance to it. Let us have a little common sense on this question.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a difference of opinion among members of the government on this question. My hon friend, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has one view, I have another view. Does my hon. friend contend that on a matter of this kind one or the other of us should resign? Is it a matter of such vital importance as to justify a member in leaving the cabinet because he differs from some of the others? Surely he would not take such an absurd position. We take the position that inasmuch as there is a difference of opinion in the cabinet, the commonsense view is to ascertain the opinion of the House of Commons and be content to accept its judgment.


Arthur Meighen: You got that last session.


William Stevens Fielding: But only for a short
time.


Arthur Meighen: You got the view of
the House of Commons last session. I would take it that it would be for all time.


William Stevens Fielding: We are taking the
position to-day that inasmuch as there is a difference of opinion among ourselves, the commonsense view is not to make it a matter of vital importance and break up the cabinet, but simply to invite the judgment of the House of Commons and accept it whatever it may be. What has my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition done about it? In 1921 he took the noble stand that we were going to make this permanent, no longer any question about it, and he introduced a bill. Noble soul! But immediately he abandoned the bill. He made a change. He agreed to a bill that was not permanent. He agreed to temporize. He agreed to play safe for another year. If that be the case, if my right hon. friend felt perfectly free to do that at that time, cannot he give us the gracious privilege now of having a difference of opinion in the government and being content to accept the judgment of the House of Commons.


Arthur Meighen: The difference is this: The former government, as a government, took a stand without any previous direction from parliament. This government had before them a previous direction from parliament last session, but they refused to take a stand, and they still refuse to take a stand.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend says his government took a stand. They did not do so very strongly and they did not stick to it very long. My right hon. friend practically abandoned one bill and took another bill.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


William Stevens Fielding: That is practically what my right hon. friend did. A good many years ago when oleomargarine was an unsought product, it was prohibited in Canada. For many years I had the pleasure and duty of introducing the budgets of the country, and I want to say this: To the best of my knowledge and belief the question never arose as to what was to be done with oleomargarine. So long as butter could be got at a reasonable price nobody wanted oleomargarine, and nobody cared about it. And to-day if you can get butter at a reasonable price nobody wants oleomargarine. With the progress of time oleomargarine seems to have improved in character. It seems to be a product now which eminent physicians and health authorities certify is all right; there is no objection to it, it is a wholesome and useful product. I believe that if anybody had drawn attention to it

Oleomargarine-Mr. Fielding
in earlier years the prohibition would have been removed. I state again that oleomargarine remained on the prohibited list, not because anybody agitated for prohibition, not because anybody demanded it, but because the subject was not at all considered. Nobody wanted oleomargarine so long as he could get good butter.
I think I am correct in saying that Canada is the only civilized country in the world which refuses to allow the use of oleomargarine. I know of no civilized government in the world which prohibits oleomargarine except Canada. Hon. members know the old story as to the man who differed with his brethren on the jury and who said "that he never met such stupid men in all his life as those eleven fellows." Are we the only intelligent people in the world? Is the whole world, outside of Canada, wrong in its policy on this question? I think myself that the real question bdfore parliament to-day is simply this: Are the Canadian people as intelligent as other people? If we admit that the Canadian people are as intelligent as others, why cannot you give to these intelligent people the right to buy an article which is wholesome when they want it? It is not a question between butter and oleomargarine. Nobody wants oleomargraine to-day if he can buy butter at a moderate and reasonable price. I submit, as the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) put it, that the issue upon this question is: Are we an intelligent people? Are we to be trusted with the duty of looking after ourselves? Is there a doubt lest we shall not always take care of ourselves wisely in a matter of this kind? Now, there are some things as to which we have prohibition-I will not say prohibition but restriction. To-day, for example, there are explosives which are dangerous. We do not prohibit them, we put restrictions upon them; we say they shall only be sold in a certain way. Then there are narcotics and drugs. We do not prohibit them but we say they shall be sold subject to restriction and to restraint. Oleomargarine is the only thing in the commercial world which the people of Canada cannot be trusted to buy if they want it. It is an awful accusation to make against the people of Canada that they cannot be trusted to buy oleomargarine.
To-day nobody condemns oleomargarine on its merits. We have this extraordinary position-I say that with great deference to my respected leader-that it is claimed we are under an obligation. I cannot admit that for a single moment. If that is so when is this pledge to end which was given in 1917? We have had a new election, a new parliament.
What a preposterous thing it is to claim that the members of this new parliament are bound by something that was done by a previous government and a previous parliament. We are free to vote as we like, and let us vote as we like on the merits of this question. We are bound by nothing that happened in a previous parliament. "Ah!" it is said "in the cattle embargo a pledge was given; a change of government took place but nevertheless the pledge was carried out." Yes, the Right Hon. Bonar Law was a member of the government that gave the pledge, and he was called upon to fulfil the pledge given by the government of which he was a member. I have never joined in the argument that because of that pledge Canada's case was very strong. When you want to make a case before a rival or competitor you bring every argument you can. I think that in England there were some excellent men who did not want to admit Canadian cattle who used that pledge as a convenient excuse. I do not quarrel with them for doing so, but I decline to admit that the members of one House of Commons are bound by the act of any previous House, and I am bound to say that I see no foundation whatever for the statement that in this matter there exists a pledge that binds us. If there is a binding pledge I have a right to ask when does it end? If it binds us now it binds our successors, we are no longer a free parliament. No, the real question is not as between oleomargarine and butter. The people who want oleomargarine only want it when they cannot get butter at a reasonable price. If they cannot afford to use butter they will use oleomargarine; they want a substitute which is wholesome. Do not let anybody be deluded by the cry that oleomargarine is not wholesome. The highest medical authorities tell us that it is wholesome. I cannot for the life of me see why the intelligent Canadian people cannot be trusted to decide for themselves what they want. If we are as intelligent as any other people in the world give us the right to exercise our intelligence.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for
the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. T. H. McCONICA (Battleford):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of detaining the House with any lengthy discussion of the proposition before us. There are, however, some features that I think have not been

Oleomargarine-Mr. McConica
touched on and that we might well consider. We are asked to allow the permanent manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada. What is oleomargarine? Nobody knows. You may search the statute books of Canada from end to end, and you will find no definition, no formula, no restriction, no anything that indicates what oleomargarine is. The hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) gave us a formula, but does anybody follow his formula? We have no evidence that people do. There are a dozen or twenty different kinds of grease that they say may go into oleomargarine, but in what proportion and with what other constituents we have no means of knowing.
My objection to oleomargarine is that it is not presented upon its merits; that it does not stand on its own legs. We are told that men should have a right to buy as they see fit, and it is quite possible that most of us who buy oleomargarine know what we are buying. That is not the point. The question is:	Does the fellow who eats it know
what he is eating? That is the thing we want to be instructed on. Your Chinaman may go to the wholesale establishment to buy oleomargarine, and it has a government wrapper on it, with a label with oleomargarine in large letters printed on the side. He slips it in through the back door of the kitchen; the wrapper goes into the stove; the case knife wipes off the big letters; he mixes up about five pounds of it with one pound of butter; then he sells that to you and to me and to his other patrons as butter, and we pay for it as butter. I venture to say that 90 per cent or more of the oleomargarine that is consumed in Canada today is consumed as butter. The ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) was asked: Did he ever see a sign up in a restaurant or a hotel that they sold oleomargarine? He said that he did not eat in such places. How does he know? Do any of us eat there? We do not know. I would not be surprised if he had eaten a ton of oleomargarine.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I do not think I look like that.


Thomas Henry McConica: It may have that effect on some people; I do not know. I have an idea that if he knew how much of that stuff he had eaten when he went home after prorogation, he would be ashamed to look his own cows in the face. When he eats oleomargarine, what is he eating? He does not know. He knows he is not eating butter. He knows that oleomargarine, in its natural state, does not look like butter; that it does not taste like butter; that is does not smell

like butter. He knows that certain greases, what kind he does not know, are taken and treated chemically, then deodorized, decolourized, and mixed up into some sort of a conglomeration which is called oleomargarine. We have had a statement from scientists that they have analyzed it. Does any man state what the food value is? Does any man put down a table stating that butter is so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so, and that oleomargarine is exactly or very nearly the same? Certainly not. When a man eats that stuff, thinking it is butter, he is taking into his system something that is entirely foreign, something that his system does not require. Experience shows that milk is the natural food of the human being; that milk products are naturally adapted to building up the human system. What about this oleomargarine? We do not know. For that reason I do not think this is a question whether a man shall have the right to sell it or not. The question is:	Shall a man have
the right to feed it to some other man under false pretences? That is the point, and that is the one thing that, I imagine, is the vital point in this discussion.
An hon. member suggested that to prohibit oleomargarine from coming into or being sold in Canada is protection, similar to tariff protection, and he argued that we on this side should never support the prohibition of oleomargarine for that reason. I am not a protectionist, and I hope the time may soon come when nations will conclude that protection is a mistake. I very much doubt the right of a nation to tax one private individual for the benefit of another, and that is what protection is, in essence. When one man is protected someone else protects him, because there is no magic by which the passing of a protective law will create wealth for the fellow who is protected without imposing a burden on some other person. I repeat, if one man is protected some other man has to protect him. For fifteen years I have been selling my farm products in western Canada, and I do not think I ever sold a dollar's worth that brought me one single cent more because of a protective tariff; while I have not bought anything for which I did not pay more by reason of such a tariff. That is something I do not believe in. But if protection means to protect the people of Canada against fraud, against paying for something they do not get, against buying one thing and having to accept in lieu of it a rank imitation and counterfeit, then I am a protectionist.
I am not here urging this as a matter of protection to the dairy industry or to the

Oleomargarine-Mr. McMaster
farming industry generally. I urge that we prohibit the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine from the standpoint of the people of Canada, who are the consumers. We have the statement of the lumber boss that he is in favour of it; have we anything from the lumber jack? That is the point. Where is the man who eats it that is asking that this stuff be allowed to come into Canada or be manufactured and sold here? There is not one word from any such person. Did anyone ever hear of any hotel keeper who advertised: "Nothing but high grade oleomargarine used in this hotel?" Why, the effect of such a pronouncement would be to empty the dining-room in a day. No; the trouble with this thing is that it is not sold on its merits; it does not stand on its own feet. It is an imposition on the people who use it, and for that reason I shall certainly support the amendment offered to the House.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Can the hon. member cite a single instance that he knows of where oleomargarine was sold as butter?


Thomas Henry McConica: I do not say it is sold as butter; I say it is served as butter on the table.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Can you name one single instance of that


Thomas Henry McConica: Yes, I can.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Tell us.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The question now before the House has occupied our attention on several previous occasions and it is to be hoped that on this occasion, after a full discussion, we may make up our minds and act accordingly. So far as I am concerned, I am not in favour of the prohibition of any wholesome article of food. I cannot take any other stand, holding the principles I hold; and therefore I am in favour, not necessarily of oleomargarine, not necessarily of butter, but of liberty and freedom of choice for the people of Canada. I do not think that anything has been proved before the House to show that oleomargarine is not a wholesome article of diet; and once the fact of its wholesomeness is established, the whole burden of proof is thrown upon the shoulders of the restrictionists and those people who believe that liberty of choice should be interfered with.
I take it for granted that there should always be a presumption in favour of liberty. What is the object of eliminating oleomargarine? The eloquent member who has just taken his seat (Mr. McConica) has placed his opposition to oleomargarine on the highest
ground. Ear be it from me, he says, to advocate anything for any special interest; it is the welfare of the people that I am considering; it is to protect the people against this deleterious substance that I wish to see legislation passed. May I observe that, if oleomargarine were an unwholesome article of diet, we have a distinguished doctor in charge of the Department of Health of this country who would see to it that 6uch an article was prohibited. No, Mr. Speaker, the object of the propaganda is, as I trust I shall be able to show, the mistaken idea that by prohibiting oleomargarine you are going to enhance the price of butter, or at least to stabilize it. That is the real object lying at the basis of this propaganda against oleomargarine. But we are not here to represent merely what we may imagine are the views of our constituents. We are here to look at matters from the point of view of the national interest.
Let me just examine for a moment the real, though unavowed object of those who are in favour of the elimination of oleomargarine, that is to say, the raising of the price of butter. Will it raise the price of butter to eliminate this substitute? I do not think it will. The price of butter, of which we have a large exportable surplus, is determined not in Canada but on the markets of the world. There the butter enters into competition-if there is such competition-with oleomargarine, and the price of our butter will not be affected by oleomargarine in this country. This was most conclusively argued by the member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy) two years ago when the matter came before the House. I do not believe that oleomargarine is a competitor of good butter; I believe it comes into competition only with butter of an inferior grade. If that is the case, as I believe it is, What is the result of the prohibition of the manufacture in or importation into this country of oleomargarine? Well, the first result will be to give an example of class legislation which will redound very little to the credit of those who support such a move. I say class legislation; it is not even class legislation, because it cannot be imagined, for instance, that to prohibit oleomargarine will help the farmer who raises beef cattle, and for whom the market for oleomargarine helps to maintain the price of what he produces. If this prohibition is to help any one it will tend to help-I do not believe it will succeed in doing so, but that is what is aimed at-only a section of a class, that is, the dairy farmer. Nor do I believe that it could help this section.

Oleomargarine-Mr. McMaster
Furthermore, it would deprive the people who cannot afford to buy good butter of a wholesome spread for their bread. Now, I know that in appealing to the members of this House I am appealing to gentlemen who are humane and reasonable. Can they place themselves in the position of an unorganized workingman in a city? Organized workingmen, through combination, are generally able to raise their wages to a reasonable height; but the vast majority of people working in cities are unorganized, they have to sell their labour for what they can get. There have been those who have justified the manufacture of oleo as a war measure. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are those who under the present organization of our society are always at war with poverty and with debt, and they have a right to be supported and to have liberty to exchange their labour for what they want as long as they are not buying what is poisonous or positively deleterious. I ask those who support the idea of the elimination of oleo to put themselves in the place of some poor working man with a large family. He comes home at night after this legislation is passed, after oleo has been driven off the market, and not being able to afford good butter-in the winter time good butter goes beyond the price Which the poor can afford to pay-he finds his children with dripping on their bread, perhaps lard, and if they say to him, "Father, why cannot we have that nice stuff that we had on our bread last year?" "Oh well," he answers, "the representatives of the dairy farmers have said you cannot have it." Is there a supporter of the prohibition of oleo who would like to overhear that conversation? I do not think so.
Now, there are others too, there are the clerical classes, there are the school teachers, there are the ministers of the Gospel who find the cost of living pressing heavily upon them. Are you to tell them that they shall not have oleo if they want it to spread upon their bread? And let me say this-and I make the plea very strongly to those who agree with me on tariff matters-if you vote to eliminate oleo you are placing in the hands of the protectionists a rod for your own backs. For if you vote for the elimination of oleo, how in the world can you expect anyone to listen to	you when
you protest against the imposition of duties which raise the price of what you must buy?
I would implore hon. members who agree with me on tariff matters to think very deeply before they commit themselves to an attitude which will be in direct contradiction and IMr. McMaster.l
repudiation of the principles they have advocated in this House. They will be regarded as inconsistent people-and we are told that consistency is a jewel.
And let me with all frankness and with all courtesy expose to those who think differently from me what posture they will appear in before the people of Canada, before the vast numbers who live in our towns and cities and who are not interested in having oleo eliminated. First of all, those who vote for the elimination of oleo will place themselves before the nation as the representatives of a class who are thinking of their selfish interests and not of the public weal. No one is obliged to eat oleo unless he wants to, we are not forcing oleo down anyone's throat, but we who believe in the principle of liberty do feel that there should be liberty of choice.
Then may I make this argument also? I think it is a sound one. Those who in Great Britain fought for fiscal freedom made their appeal first to the workman in the town, then to the manufacturer, subsequently to the farmer on the land, and finally to the landlord, and they got the vast majority of the British people to agree with them. They could not carry on the battle successfully themselves, they had to get the cooperation of other people. Now, in the fight which many of us wish to make for lower tariffs, for greater freedom of trade and commerce, we need the help of the consumer in the town, we need the help of the workingman in the factory, and if by our vote we restrict the liberty of those classes in the towns who wish to purchase something which they think they need, we will be in a poor position to ask for their help. The matter is not of tremendous importance in one way; it is of tremendous importance in another. People have got to be guided either by expediency or by principle, and it is hard for me to understand how anyone who desires to have his conduct guided by principle rather than by expediency can one day vote for lower tariffs, for greater freedom of exchange-because in the long run that is what it is, allowing a man to exchange the product of his own toil, his own capital, for what he lacks-and then next day say that so far as a certain exchange is concerned the possibility of making that exchange shall be cut off.
You are a student of history, Mr. Speaker, and no doubt you will be interested to note the similarity of the idea underlying this proposed legislation to eliminate oleomargarine with the ideas on trade and commerce which obtained in the time of the Stuarts. I have before me the Encyclopaedia Britannica,

Oleomargarine-Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure)
and I read with interest that by an act passed in the reign of Charles II it was decreed that all dead bodies should be buried in woollen shrouds. They must not be buried in linen shrouds, nor in cotton shrouds, they must be buried in woollen shrouds. Why? Because the lawmakers of those days wished to favour the interests of the woollen manufacturers. And I say with all courtesy that legislation which would prohibit the manufacture and sale of wholesome articles of food in this country is legislation on the lines of that which prevailed in the time of Charles II. I think perhaps with that historical allusion I had better leave the question to be decided, I trust, by the enlightened intelligence of the members of this House.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of an agricultural constituency I do not wish to give a silent vote on this question. Oleomargarine is unknown to the people I represent; they eat good Canadian butter. The only requests I have received from my constituency to vote for the continued manufacture, importation and sale of oleo were from a couple of lumbermen so they might be able to supply it to their shantymen in the winter time. Therefore I am free in the matter. My electors are consumers of good butter, and I hope will continue to be for a long time to come, and I should like to see the majority of Canadians following their excellent example.
We are dealing with an aftermath of the war. Nobody ever dreamt of allowing the importation, manufacture and sale of oleo in Canada previous to the war. Our parliaments before that time-and they were made up of reasonable men-never thought of allowing this product to be sold to the Canadian people. But during the war it was allowed in under the abnormal conditions which then prevailed. Those conditions are now at an end, and I think we are free to act in the matter. I am going to cast my vote to re-establish the embargo on oleomargarine, and thereby I am satisfied that I shall have done my duty towards my constituents and the people of Canada generally.
There is one great problem in Canada which must be solved and solved soon if Canada is to remain the country that it is or is to have the future that we hope for it; the people must go back to the land. That is the main salvation of Canada. In the first ten years that I had the honour of representing my constituency in this House its population increased by five thousand people; in the second ten years the increase was only five hundred people. Their explanation is that the young people are leaving the farms and going to the cities because farming no longer pays. I have heard the agricultural question discussed from the point of view of the West; the condition that exists there exists in the province of Quebec just as acutely, but little is heard here of the grievances which our farmers have. But the people of my province are a patient and long suffering people. The progenitors of some of them were there some ten generations ago, and they have passed through many of the crises experienced by Canada during that time. They have stood the burden and heat of the day and are willing to stand it yet, but I say frankly to this House that unless we do something immediately to induce the people to return to the land we are facing a great crisis in this country.
I know of no industry in the province of Quebec that is of more importance in every respect than the dairy industry. Quebec occupies an enviable position in that respect. We have a land which is eminently suited to the purpose of dairying and a climate which is exceptionally favourable to the raising of cows and the making of butter. I would therefore, dislike to see this House give a vote which would jeopardize what I consider to be the leading industry of eastern Canada-the dairy industry. I was pained and surprised to see that a large number of agricultural representatives from western Canada last year forgot the agricultural interests of eastern Canada to the extent of voting against the dairy products of eastern Canada in favour of oleomargarine. After all, oleomargarine is a mere fancy; it never existed in this country before the war. Nobody thought of it then, and it was allowed in under certain well-defined rules, with a positive engagement that as soon as the abnormal days disappeared the privilege then granted would be repealed. There were too many substitutes of various kinds during the war; it is difficult now to go into a store in any part of Canada and buy an article which is not a substitute of one kind or another. Manufacturers and others during the war lent themselves too readily to the making of substitutes of this kind or that, and I am not in favour of encouraging any more of them.
I do not see why the farmers of Canada, the dairy farmers especially, those who have the courage, and, I may say, the patriotism, to stick to the land when so many others are deserting it, should be given a slap in the face by this House of Commons in favour of an article which, after all, is consumed by very small numbers of people. We are told the consumption is only 4,000,000 pounds annually, its use being confined mostly to the
Oleomargarine-Mr. Lewis

cities; in the agricultural districts it does not exist. I should be surprised to see the representative of an agricultural constituency vote in favour of the main motion now before the House. I will say nothing further, Mr. Speaker, than this:	I will vote for the
amendment, and in casting that vote I think 1 am acting in the genuine interests of the farming community of Canada.


Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in regard to the situation by which we are confronted. I do not feel that the amendment is necessary; the defeat of the resolution offered by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) would have accomplished the same purposes that the amendment has in view. However, now that the matter is before the House I wish to make my position clear.
During the by-election in Moose Jaw-and I want to speak as kindly as I can in regard to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell)-he stated that when the vote was about to be taken last year on the subject of oleomargarine I, with about five or six others in this corner of the House, immediately slipped under the bam and the only part of me that could be seen was my feet. Well, I hope the whole of me will be seen when the vote is taken on this occasion. But what the minister said was not quite correct, and as the charge was repeated in a paper in my own constituency, I wish to answer it. It is true that the Minister of Agriculture spoke to me in the afternoon-not a short time before the vote was taken, but in the afternoon -in respect to oleo, and also about the conditions in southern Saskatchewan and the need of entering largely into dairy farming. With all of that I quite agreed. But about eleven o'clock in the evening I asked the whip, when the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) was1 speaking, how many more members were going to speak, and he said, "Oh, possibly ten or eleven." I wanted to speak on the subject, but he did not think the vote would be taken that night and I left the House about eleven o'clock. I understand, however, that the vote was taken some two hours afterward. So that I did not slip under the bam just a few moments before the vote was taken. As I said, I understood that the vote was1 not going to be taken that night.
Now, I wish to speak only about three or four things. The second thought that came to me when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was speaking was this: Since when did he become solicitous about the keeping of pledges? It is only a few weeks since the party of which I am a member
[Mr. Marcil.J
presented an amendment because they felt, either rightly or wrongly, that the Liberal party were not implementing their pledges of 1919. It seems to me that a government should think about keeping its own pledges before concerning itself about keeping the pledges of the government that preceded it. At all events, so far as the pledge was concerned, it may have been a pledge, as the hon. member for north Waterloo (Mr. Euler) said this afternoon, to the dairy interests. So far as it was a pledge to them, it should be kept; but I think there is a greater pledge to the Canadian people, and they have spoken since that time in no uncertain voice.
The third point I wish to make in regard to the amendment is this: To me it appears to be somewhat of a camouflage. I went upstairs immediately after I had heard the amendment read and I looked over the resolution that was proposed last year by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). It did seem to me that that resolution superseded any pledge that had been given to the Canadian people in 1917 or any time afterwards, because it assorted that it was in the interests of the Canadian people that oleomargarine should not be imported into or manufactured in Canada, and the House voted against it. The majority was not large, it is true, but at the same time it was a majority, affirming the view that the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine should be permitted. So it is that we have heard the expression of the representatives of the Canadian people in this parliament; they have spoken definitely; they have expressed the opinion that the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine should be permitted.


Mr. CANNON:: Will my hon. friend allow me a question? Am I to understand that he contends that a vote of parliament may supersede a pledge?


Arthur John Lewis: I understand that the pledge was given at that time. Well then, automatically when the vote is taken which gains a majority, showing that the Canadian people wish oleomargarine to be manufactured, imported and sold in Canada, that to me seems to be the supreme will of the people.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member also refers to a pledge. I do not know what he means by that. To whom was the pledge supposed to have been given?


Arthur John Lewis: I understand from what 1 have heard that such a pledge was given to the dairy interests, and that the measure was simply passed as a war measure.

Oleomargarine-Mr. Lewis


Arthur Meighen: Was the pledge given in the terms of the order in council or at some meeting?


Arthur John Lewis: In the order in council.


Arthur Meighen: The order in council simply states that it is temporary for the war period. Does the hon. gentleman think that is a pledge to the dairy interests?


Arthur John Lewis: I am not arguing in support of this pledge.


Arthur Meighen: I know that, but I do not want a misunderstanding on the part of the House that something was said to the dairy representatives. If it was, I have no recollection of it.


Arthur John Lewis: I would say in answer to the question that indirectly, whether it was meant or not, the dairy people of Canada took it as a real pledge from this parliament, but even if they did, the expression of the will of this parliament, who are really the representatives of the people, should govern, and if it is the opinion of parliament that it is for the wellbeing of the people that that pledge should be abrogated and another law put in its place,
I do not say that we have not the right to do so.


Daniel Webster Warner: I would ask the hon. member if he knows how many members of parliament were not present when that vote was taken?


Arthur John Lewis: I shall answer that in a few moments, because I was charged by the Minister of Agriculture with shirking the vote. If I shirked the vote I shirked it in good company, because the right hon. the Prime Minister himself was absent and about eighty other members, probably not expecting the vote to be taken that night, and that is the reason why I feel justified myself in regard to that matter.
As far as the resolution is concerned, it does seem to me that parliament, although eighty members were absent when the vote was taken, wanted the sale of oleomargarine. But let us go one step further. The laws we pass here are not the laws of the Medes and Persians, and if this year it is necessary to change that vote, and if we think it is in the interest of the primary industries, but not in regard to a matter of principle, that that vote should be changed, I think parliament is competent to change it without being inconsistent at all. What I do feel is this: It seems to me that there is a certain lack of courage on the part of the government after the resolution passed last year by the vote
it obtained, in not bringing down a measure and shouldering the responsibility. I think it was the duty of the government to have done that, to have shown that it had backbone enough to bring in a measure of that character. I hate to cast my vote in regard to a camouflaged motion, and after hearing the speech of the hon. member to my left (Mr. McMaster) it is very hard for me to reconcile any position I may take to-night, because we are not really fighting or voting on the merits of the question.
There is one thing I do want to urge upon the government earnestly, and it is this: If this amendment carries and the importation and sale of oleomargarine is defeated, I feel that the government should insert a clause whereby people in Canada can at least manufacture oleomargarine for export, and thereby use up the by-products in some of these large concerns. If it is the will of the Canadian people that we shall not eat oleomargarine, well and good; I am willing to abide by that, but it does seem to me that these manufacturers should have the privilege of competing with Belgium and other countries in the British market. That is all I have to say on this resolution, but I hope that a measure will come before this House where there will be no side-stepping at all, and where we shall be able to vote on the merits of the question.
Just before I came up to the House I spoke to a washerwoman with a large family and said, "Possibly to-night we shall vote for the elimination of oleomargarine." She said, "If you do what are we going to do in winter with butter at sixty-five cents a pound? I shall not be able to put anything on the bread for my children." That is the situation as it seems to me at the present time. We are not forced to eat oleomargarine, and as far as the West is concerned, when I was out there I went into many and many a store to find out if they ever sold oleomargarine, and I never came across one village store in my constituency that sold it, so that I cannot see that it enters into competition with butter. Furthermore, I want to say as a member of parliament with the family I have that I have bought oleomargarine as a test for my children, and as far as some of them were concerned they could hardly tell the difference between oleomargarine and butter, especially in regard to that cottage roll the minister speaks of. I am not saying it is a good thing for the children, but it does seem to me that the people of this country have a right to say what they are going to eat, and if it can be proved that this is a wholesome food I do not see why we should restrain

Oleomargarine-Mr. Dechene
this trade in any way. As far as I am concerned, I would like to see this question fought on its merits, and not on a camouflage or an amendment such as is before the House at the present time, on which we really cannot get a consensus of opinion in regard to oleomargarine.


Mr. DECHENE (Montmagny) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much pleasure to the greater part of this debate on oleomargarine. I was already well acquainted with the views of most of the members and nothing new has transpired in the present discussion, unless it is the word "camouflage" which was freely made use of. The last speaker (Mr. Lewis) clearly proved to us that there existed camouflage among a greac number of members sitting around him. In fact, last year, when this debate took place, the interests of the large packing houses were strongly emphasized and we were told: "These packers allow us, we from the West, a better price for our beef when the manufacture of oleomargarine is permitted, because they can make use of a large portion of the beef fat, which gives them some return." Now, we know, through the circulars of these gentlemen which have been distributed to all the members, that there is about twenty-five to thirty pounds of beef fat or such per head used in the manufacture of oleomargarine, the price of the former being four or five cents per pound, this would mean that the manufacturers would pay for beef about SI or $1.25 more per head. This would amount to very little for the cattle-breeders of the West, and even this slight advantage would not exist in the eastern provinces. For over twenty years, the governments of the eastern provinces have exerted all their energies to promote the dairy industry. Large sums of money have been paid to agricultural and co-operative' associations, and also to farmers, in a word, to all those who took an interest in the growth and improvement of the dairy industry in our provinces.
Every year, parliament is called upon to vote large sums for the improvement of the dairy stocks of the different provinces. Every year, the provincial legislative assemblies vote large amounts for the same object, always, with the idea of fostering lively competition among the farmers, and, bearing in mind the improving of the dairy herds and at the same time benefiting the farms and the commonwealth. What would be the object of having spent such enormous sums, if by a majority vote of this House, we allowed the manufacture of oleomargarine on a large scale.

We are told: There are but three or four million pounds of oleomargarine sold yearly, it is very little compared with the 270,000,000 pounds of butter produced and sold yearly, in Canada, or by Canada. This may be true to some extent, but one must not lose sight that last year parliament passed an act extending for one more year the right to manufacture, to have in one's possession and sell oleomargarine. Evidently the large manufacturers of this article did all they could to keep down this trade, so as to show how small it was and not to frighten the other industries. However, I think that the majority of members will not be deceived by this camouflage of the manufacturers who, to-morrow, should the law permit them and the markets be thrown open, would spread over the country a product of an entirely inferior quality.
The hon. member (Mr. Lewis) who has just taken his seat, told us that he made, last year, the experiment of oleomargarine on his children. I do not think that he is much to be congratulated on this matter. If he had had some experience with this product, he would not have tried it a second time and I am certain that his wife would not have wanted him to bring oleomargarine home again. Most of the experiments made consist in placing oleomargarine or butterine on bread. If these gentlemen would only go to the kitchen and place this oleomargarine on hot toasts, or else, do some frying with it, I think they would much prefer not to be the cook when this is happening; it is healthier to be in the open air or pace up and down in front of the house while the wife is leaning over the pan. I do not think that all those who have a delicate sense of smell and like to eat well, bear a love for oleomargarine to the extent of putting up with the smell of tallow on their toasts or again in cooking. There is nothing so unpleasant as the odour of suet or oleomargarine in the frying pan and I have heard this as a fact from more than one person who has given it a trial. It is a substance which disintegrates with the heat and that is why when it is used on toast or in cooking it is abominable. When you are told, Sir, let the workman give it to his children to butter their bread, I think, that is a very poor argument. Here is another weak reason given in behalf of the labourer: How do you expect the working class in winter to purchase butter at 65 cents a pound? They forget to tell us, however, when these prices prevail, oleomargarine has increased in price and is sold from fifty to fifty-five cents a pound,

Oleomargarine-Mr. Warner
and even much dearer, with profits ranging from 100 per cent to 125 per cent. The price of manufacturing oleomargarine is 12 to 15 cents per pound and it is sold at 24 and 25 cents per pound; it is sold just sufficiently low enough to compete with butter, but not in keeping with the workman's purse. Very few working men, if not influenced, buy oleomargarine. It is forced upon them. It is forced upon them when the large companies feed their men with it. It is forced upon them in all restaurants of cities, where meals are served at cheap prices, without mentioning if butter or oleomargarine is supplied. This article is coloured and given the appearance of butter, it is served to those who come and eat in such places at a rate of 5, 10, 20 or 30 cents per meal, but great care is taken not to mention that as the hon. member who preceded me in this debate stated, we serve only oleomargarine of the best make. This is simply camouflage. Another reason that certain speakers invoked this evening and which I feel certain cannot but have astonished you, is the freedom of choice. Here is an article which is not worth much, everybody admits- perhaps it is worth nothing-however we are free to purchase it, we are told. Is this the only instance, in our country, where a citizen is not allowed to purchase what he finds good to his taste? Have we not in Canada a temperance act which applies to the whole country, and have we not in this province where we live, at present, a law which decrees: You shall not have the right to drink beer and you shall neither have the right to drink wine? Do we not know, Mr. Speaker, that beer plays a very important part in the Enalish workman's diet?
There was almost a revolution in England, during the war, when they tried to stop the workman's beer. Do we not refuse -in certain parts of the country, not only to our workmen but everybody the right of drinking beer, even though it may be a pleasure to them? Is beer a deleterious product? Evidently not. It is a product made from malt which is recommended by the medical profession but one must not make use of it to excess. Neither would it be wise to eat too much oleomargarine.
In France^-as you are better aware than I am, Mr. Speaker, wine is part of the diet, not only for the well to do classes but also for the working classes, and cider is also part of the diet of the farming class. Even here, in certain parts of the country, is not the use of wine prohibited? In this province we are allowed to make wine, to sell it by the dozen bottles, but you are not permitted to
purchase it by the bottle. What becomes of individual liberty? When it does not suit the purpose, we abolish it. This is not a serious argument. I therefore state, Mr. Speaker, that we should brush aside that part of the reasoning in favour of oleomargarine and treat it laughingly.
One last word before closing my remarks. We were told a short while ago that this was part of our political platform, that we even made promises that the greater number of the members of the government would be bound by these promises of the Liberal party and should vote against oleomargarine. It is not the first time that the Liberal party places on its programme this question regarding oleomargarine. I remember-when I was still at the university or college-when the Liberal party under Sir Wilfrid Laurier prohibited the importation of oleomargarine. What was the result? Oleomargarine was prohibited shortly after 1900 and immediately the dairy industry improved and expanded, and a few years later our country had become known abroad as an exporter of butter and cheese. The prohibition which Sir Wilfrid Laurier had then imposed on this article had been favourable to the trade development of our country. We have the experience of the past, why not follow in the same footsteps? This plank in the programme of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1900, is still part of our programme; and I am, to-day, happy to adhere to it as well as to many other measures by asking that imports of oleomargarine be banned and by strongly supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Missis-quoi (Mr. Kay). _


Daniel Webster Warner: Mr. Speaker, as short speeches have been the order of the day in this debate I hope I shall not speak at undue length. Although there is quite a lot I should like to say I will try and make my speech as brief as possible. I wish to say that I want to discuss this matter from, perhaps, two viewpoints. First, as to the effect of the use of oleomargarine on the young folks that we expect from this time on to grow up and become citizens of Canada; second, as to whether the government should or should not carry out their pledges; and, perhaps, I shall have something to say as to the possible financial effect on Canada, of a question of this kind if we do not act wisely.
One thing that is always present in our minds is what is best for the children of our country. The state, it will be admitted, has the right to say something with respect to the conduct of parents or people who are taking care of children. If parents, through

Oleomargarine-Mr. Warner
carelessness, negligence or other cause, do not send their children to school the law steps in and declares that those children must be given a certain amount of schooling in order that they may develop into proper citizens. Some people may regard that as unfair towards the parents. Nevertheless such is the law. Is it any more unfair or unreasonable to go one step further and provide
9. p.m. that the parents or guardians of children shall give them nourishing food in order that their physical development may be of the right character. It has been stated many times in this discussion that it has not been proven that oleomargarine is not a healthful food. I challenge that statement especially for children. Let me tell hon. members who have been quoting authorities, that some of the authorities that have been quoted have been quoted on both sides of this subject. I have under my hand several quotations. One is from Dr. McGill, until recently Dominion Government Analyst, who says that one pound of butter is equal in producing value to four and one-half pounds of beefsteak. He gives a long list of comparisons, but the important thing is in the next paragraph of his remarks:
In addition to providing heat and energy for the body butter promotes growth and health to a remarkable degree because it is rich in that vital element called vitamines (fat soluble A) which is absolutely indispensable to health and growth and as a factor in the building of bone and teeth. There is no problem before the country of greater importance than the one of properly feeding and nourishing it* people.
Statistics in the United States show that one out of every four in that country is suffering from under nourishment, and that 350,000 of them die every year from no other cause than poor or deficient food. It is not a case of poverty, so much as a case of ignorance. The food now given those children costs even more than proper food would cost. Similar figures are not available for Canada. While the condition of our children is doubtless not as shocking as the United States because a greater proportion of our people live on the land, where the children are fed on milk and butter in greater abundance, still children suffering from mal-nutrition are far too numerous in our centres of population.
It is the sacred right of children to be given wholesome nourishing food, that they may grow up to be strong and healthy men and women.
The next is Mr. Herbert Hoover, a member of the United States government, who won so much honour for himself and his country as United States Food Administrator during the war. He puts the case clearly when he says:
The basis of child welfare is health and physical development, the foundation of child health lies in proper feeding. In its broad aspects the proper feeding of children revolves around a public recognition of the interdependence of humans upon dairy cattle. The white race cannot survive without dairy products.

That is Herbert Hoover's idea. Professor E. V. McCollum of Johns Hopkins University, Who is one of the greatest authorities on the use of foods, for the preservation of vitality and health, in his book, "The Newer Knowledge of Nutrition," at page 16, after alluding to certain experiments in diet, says:
With this diet the interesting observation was made that growth could be secured when the fat in the food mixture was butter fat, whereas no growth could be secured when the butter fat was replaced by lard, olive oil, or other vegetable oils. Under these conditions, why should ignorant parents be permitted to give oleo instead of butter to helpless little children merely because it may be a few cents cheaper when butter is an essential to the health of the v-ild and the welfare of the nation?
I might say that is proof-and I have more -that it has not been proven that oleomargarine is a proper food for children. It has been proven that it is not.


Mr. STEWART (Hamilton):: What is that from?


Daniel Webster Warner: I got this statement from the secretary of the Dairy Council, who obtained the information from the parties who have been quoted. I wish to quote from Dr. Wiley who has been quoted on both sides as I think these other authorities have. I wish to quote a statement by Dr. Wiley copied from a letter that Mr. Love, secretary of the Alberta Dairymen's Association, got from Dr. Wiley himself. This is what Dr. Wiley says:
Originally my objection to oleomargarine, and this is quoted by the dairy interests, was based on the fact that it imitated butter. Not only did the makers of this product seek to resemble butter in colour, but also in flavour, and for this reason in the making of oleomargarine it is, I believe, universally churned with cream or milk. I have always been opposed to this process in the manufacture of oleomargarine. I believe that the churning of oleomargarine with milk or cream is solely for the purpose of simulating butter in the taste or flavour. For that reason it masquerades, or seeks to masquerade, under assumed properties which are possessed by butter itself.
Since the oleomargarine problem first presented itself in this country-
He is speaking of the United States.
-there has come a new discovery of supreme importance to the health of our people, namely, the vital factors, commonly called vitamines, in foods. Investigation shows that butter fat of all known fats has the most abundant supply of vitamines. Next to butter fat comes the fat of eggs and the fat which attaches itself to the vital organs of the animal body. For this reason animal fats which are used in the manufacture of oleomargarine are far inferior to butter fat, and to this extent oleomargarine is inferior in wholesomenes3 to butter. There are some animal fats used in the manufacture of margarines which contain no vitamines at all; for instance, lard. The same objection holds in regard to vegetable fats used in the manufacture of margarines.
It has been stated, further, that the feeding of oleomargarine to children or young animals

Oleomargarine-Mr. Warner
is distinctly injurious because a lack of development ensues in many ways. Here is what Dr. Margaret Patterson has to say on this point:
In Denmark (one of the best dairying countries in the world) the high price obtainable for butter induced the people to ship all the butter out of the country. The butter-fat was extracted from practically all the milk used in the country. The children were given plenty of separated milk, (a very valuable food for it contains all the lime salts, in fact, the only lack is the butter fat). This lack of fat was supposed to have been made up in fats of other kinds. The proper number of calories were given, but after a time the children developed a very troublesome type of sore eyes. The eyes showed no signs of improving under the most skilled physicians and had it not been for the research work carried out by Dr. McCarrison in Britain, and Prof. McCollum and others in America, the cause and cure of the disease might have remained unknown, and hundreds of children would have lost their eyesight.
This doctor goes on to say that as soon as butter fat was given to the children, and without any further treatment, a noticeable recovery followed. An hon. member has informed the House that we do not know what oleomargarine consists of. I do not believe we do. I have here a statement from the Dominion Cold Storage Commissioner in which he quotes Mr. Love, the secretary of the Alberta Dairymen's Association, in reference to the question as to the formula for oleomargarine. I read the following:
We asked J. A. Rudick, Dairy and Cold Storage Commissioner of our country, for the formulae to make oleomargarine and he was forced to reply as
follows:
"We have these on our files as well as the formulae used by most of the American manufacturers, who are exporting oleomargarine into Canada. These were supplied to us by the manufacturers on the undertaking that the information should be considered as confidential, and we are, therefore, not able to pass this on to you."
We can see how the thing is covered up so that no one can tell what oleomargarine contains. No one knows anything about it apart from the cold storage authorities who take charge of it. To continue:
Compare Mr. Ruddick's statement with the law of Canada on butter, as found in section 21, page 27, of the Food and Drugs Act, Department of Health of Canada, 1920, which read as follows:
"Butter is the clean, non-rancid product made by gathering in any manner the fat of fresh or ripened milk or cream into a mass, which also contains a small portion of the other milk constituents, with or without salt, and contains not less than eighty (80) per cent of milk fat, and not more than sixteen <16) per cent of water. Butter may also contain added colouring matter of harmless character."
The oleomargarine manufacturer does not even have to make his formulae public, so that the public may know what to look for in his product and help the government of our country to prosecute violators of the law, the same as is done in the butter business.
Everybody in Canada knows exactly what the contents of butter are, but no one can possibly tell you of what oleomargarine is made.
However, we have the printed portions of two parchment wrappers off oleomargarine and margarine prints sold in California, U.S.A., which read as follows :
"Milcoa Brand Oleomargarine.-Ingredients:	77.50
per cent cocoanut oil, 5.50 per cent peanut oil, 12.00 per cent moisture, 2.50 per cent salt, and 2.50 per cent milk solids.-Morris & Co., Los Angeles, California, U.S.A." and
"Nuco:-Ingredients: 76.00 per cent cocoanut oil, 5.00 per cent peanut oil, 2.50 per cent milk solids, 2.50 per cent salt, and 14.00 per cent moisture."
Now then, the people who are talking about oleomargarine being made from animal fats are under a delusion as well. The practice is becoming more and more general all the time to make oleomargarine out of vegetable fats, and these are imported. I do not wish to weary the House by reading it, but I have under my hand a statement by John Burns, manager of one of the biggest packing plants in Alberta, and perhaps in Canada, in which he says that they do not pay any more for an animal on account of the oleo oil they expect to get out of it.
The hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) stated this afternoon that only about 2 per cent of the spread for our bread was oleomargarine, the other 98 per cent being butter. He also quoted the convictions of men for wrongful handling of these two commodities. He said that for one year there were 126 convictions in the case of butter as against 14 convictions in the case of oleo; the following year the figures were 106 and 11 respectively. Now then, when we analyze these figures we find that the convictions relating to the handling of oleo constitute 9i times more than those relating to the handling of butter. I do not believe it will he possible to control the manufacture, importation and sale of oleo once we remove all restrictions.
Now I shall take up another feature, that is, as to whether our dairymen were misled by the government at the time they acquiesced in what was considered to be purely a temporary war measure. I am told that it is not a good argument to say that the dairymen are holding the government to their pledge, but I claim, Mr. Speaker, that such a pledge was made and still stands. If for no other reason, it is plain to me that the temporary nature of the legislation demonstrates that such a pledge was given by the government of the day. I have in my hand a letter from the wtorthy Minister of Agriculture at the time this temporary legislation was intro-



Oleomargarine-Mr. Warner
duced, the Hon. Mr. Crerar, in which he says in part:
You have doubtless noticed that an order in council has been passed providing for the admission of oleomargarine into Canada under certain provisions during the period of the war.
That is, during the period of the war alone. Further, he says:
I think you can rest assured that it will not be the policy of the new administration to do anything that would in any sense permanently injure the dairy industry.
That is what Mr. Crerar wrote me when he was Minister of Agriculture in 1917. I wired him at that time on the request of the Alberta Dairyman's Association, and that is the answer he gave me. I have before me the first act which is entitled:
An act to permit the temporary importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada.
Now, that is all temporary and the government have never denied that the legislation was intended to be of a temporary character to meet the abnormal conditions arising out of the war. The dairymen understood, and I understood, when I got that letter from Mr. Crerar, that that is what the government, meant, and I believe the people of Canada still entertain that view. Therefore I am going to support the amendment to restore the old condition of affairs before there was any order in council or any other action to permit the temporary importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. I believe that is where this commodity ought to be, and I should like to see the government take the responsibility of dealing with the matter in accordance with the pledge given by the former administration.
Regarding the value of dairying and its national importance, I have been in the dairy business all my life, since I was old enough to milk a cow, and I think I understand it from one end to the other. I know from experience how hard it is to keep people in this business. I also know how important it is to Canada to have our farmers continue as dairymen. It is worth something to Canada to encourage our farmers and help them to make a success of the dairy business, and thereby help to bring about national prosperity. For this is what it means. I have heard some people view this problem merely from the standpoint of the profit that is made out of butter. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that is only a detail. The pork which will be produced by increasing our dairy business will be equal to the amount of money derived from our dairy products. Denmark is one of the greatest dairying

countries in the world, and she is also one of the greatest bacon producers in the world, as everyone knows. Now then, are we by allowing this substitute for butter to cut off two valuable lines of production? You can call it protection or what you like, but I say that it is not a proper thing to put oleomargarine in competition with butter when we have spent so many millions of dollars to develop the dairy business of Canada. I do not think it is good policy to do so. I think I know enough about business to understand that Canada needs every dollar she can get from every honourable and legitimate source, and our farmers need the elimination of oleomargarine to place them in a position where by increased dairying operations there may be a corresponding increase in bacon production, which will enable them to do their share in bringing back this country to a prosperous condition.
I have been studying this problem ever since Mr. Crerar wrote me the letter from which I have quoted. I come from the United States where they have always been unable to control the oleomargarine business. I do not wish to use harsh words or harsh illustrations, but I want to tell you that these corporations that are putting oleomargarine on the market are just as hard to control as the bootleggers in the liquor business. I do not believe we can control it.
I appeal to hon. members for support to this amendment; I believe that such an attitude on our part will give renewed confidence to the farmers. The government are thinking of an immigration policy; are they going to permit the "sale of a substitute for butter that will make it harder for the people who come to our country to go into the best business we have? I do not believe the government can afford to do it; speaking for myself I hope they will not do it.
Now, just a word in regard to whether the prohibition of oleo would or would not be protection. We are not asking for protection on an article that enters into fair competition with another article. I think I have shown that oleomargarine is not a proper food for children. It is a substitute for butter, the best you can make. If it were a question of butter coming into this country and we were asking that a tariff be put upon it to shut it out, that is what I would understand as protection. I am looking at this matter, not from the monetary point of view, but from the point of view of the welfare of our children, I have references here which show that children attending school who had been fed with butter on the one hand and oleo on the other ad-

Oleomargarine-Mr. Fortier
vanced in knowledge and in physical weight where they had used the butter and lost where they had used the oleomargarine. That was demonstrated by actual test; I could read the Quotation, but I do not need to. Let me point out also that we compel the parent who might otherwise be negligent to send his child to a school to get an education. Are we going to say that he may, without perhaps knowing the actual effects, feed to his children something that will prevent them from absorbing the instruction that is given in our schools? Are we going to be as inconsistent as that? There is enough butter in Canada to enable everyone who wants a proper spread for his bread to get it; there is no question about that. Science tells us that the parent who buys oleomargarine to give to his children would do his family more good and would make a better investment of his money by buying butter with it, thus getting a natural food and a perfectly wholesome product. I think, Mr. Speaker, I have said enough on the subject; I shall not take up any more of the time of the House.


Mr. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the motion of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) and I shall endorse with pleasure the amendment to the resolution brought down by the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay).
I disapprove of oleomargarine and I favour butter, good butter; I wish to see our farmers succeed, to help in promoting both the development of our farms and this always increasing industry known as the dairy industry.
This question of oleomargarine has been discussed in every possible way and examined under different aspects by the hon. members of this House ever since the beginning of this debate. For my part, I shall briefly touch upon it. One of the phases to which my attention has been drawn the most, is the economic aspect of the question. It was said with a great deal of truth that every pound of oleomargarine Which is imported, manufactured or sold in this country, has for object the replacing of one pound of butter. Those who supported the resolution of the hon. member for Cape Breton South also stated that, for the last few years, the sale of oleomargarine had considerably diminished in this country; that three or four years ago, if I am not mistaken, the sale amounted to about 14,000,000 pounds and that last year it only amounted to 4,000,000 pounds, and they seemed to infer from this fact, that we had nothing to fear from the sale of oleomargarine, we, the advocates of the dairy industry, because, as we are aware, the sale of this article decreases from year to year and tends to disappear. If such is the case why legislate with the object of continuing the sale of this product? If it tends to disappear, if the public has taken an aversion to oleomargarine, in my opinion, there is no use passing a law allowing to place once more on the market this famous substitute for our Canadian butter.
It was the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), I think, who so ably discussed the economic aspect of the question. He represents one of the most beautiful counties of the province of Quebec, a flourishing region of Gaspe. May I be permitted to tell him that the electors of another district of the province of Quebec, the district of Labelle, who have devoted themselves to farming and have opened up, in the heart of the Lauren-tian hills, a beautiful and large domain, are: fully in accord with him this evening, because they share the lofty views he so well expressed. As the hon. member for Gaspe so ably stated, it is more than time that the people give their thoughts tc the land, and develop their agricultural industries, for agriculture will certainly be the salvation of the country, and, among these agricultural industries, the dairy industry has not its equal. Indeed, we are passing through, at present, a period which is perhaps more critical than the one we went through s few years ago; however, those who are in touch with history, will remember that about the year 1S82, our rural districts were being depopulated; a constant emigration from our country was taking place and many of our farmers disheartened, abandoned their farms to cross over to the United States. We are facing at the present moment a situation somewhat approaching the one our fathers experienced. At that time the public men of the province of Quebec were moved by the sad state of things, even the clergy came to the rescue and all proclaimed: We must save our farmers. It was then that we witnessed the development of our dairy industry in that province, the organization of numerous dairy associations. Eminent men took up the good work in the province and from that date we rejoiced in seeing the farmer take an interest in the land and produce in greater quantities butter and cheese. He paid his debts, cleared his mortgages and made the land productive. In my opinion, it is the dairy industry that saved Canada. We should be attached to this industry. If the people were so much attached to it in the old centre of the St.
Oleomargarine-Mr. Fortier

Lawrence valley or in the old provinces of Canada, should we not be so, we the representatives of those colonization districts. I should like to see in my region of Mount Laurier industrial dairy associations; lecturers to teach the people, the settlers, how to make a success of these farms and keep them to some extent, away from the bush, the home of shanties, so as to enhance the agricultural industries in all those valleys. I should like to see subsidies granted to the county that I have the honour to represent, for the establishment of butter and cheese factories, and to obtain better herds of milch cows. I think that this would be one of the most important acts that the government could accomplish. This work of the dairy industry, I may say is the first, the one that dominates to-day.
I therefore take pleasure in stating that I am absolutely opposed to the sale of oleomargarine which is placed on the market to replace butter. It was advanced in support of the motion of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, that oleomargarine is a product which is sold cheaper than butter and that consequently it might have a certain attraction for the poor and labouring classes. We must not lose sight of the fact that oleomargarine is a product which unfortunately tends to replace butter.
What we especially require, is pure food; and between the two, there is no hesitation of choice. I think we should even protect the poor or the workman against this substitute which certainly has not the value, nor the taste of good butter. We are told: Canada is the only country in the world that prohibits the sale of oleomargarine and all the other countries, even those that produce butter in large quantities, have permitted for a great number of years the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. I think we should be thankful that our country has never adopted legislation to that effect. After all, we are perhaps in the infancy of the development of this great dairy industry, we therefore need to encourage it the more. That is the reason why we should not cast aside any means that are apt to help in its development. We cannot compare ourselves to the European countries, to Denmark for instance, who for a number of years past, has not ceased to work for the development of its dairy industry, the source of its wealth. Here, we are in the earliest stages; we live in an agricultural country where we find natural resources in abundance, where we can produce more than any other country, butter and cheese, for exportation. We cannot compare with Denmark or Switzerland so far as

this is concerned, but let us wait. We are the owners of vast territories, numerous rivers, magnificent and large lakes and the richest soil. For that reason, I state that we should be more drawn towards the development of this great dairy industry and that we should oppose energetically the thought of allowing the manufacture of oleomargarine.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is based on the premises that the suspension of the legislation preventing the importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada was a war measure, and therefore being a war measure was by inference of a temporary nature, and that the suspension should now come to an end. It is true that the war >-over, but with the end of the war we did not settle the question of the importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. We must now deal with it as an economic question The conditions, let us admit, permitted ol temporary action during the war, but conditions at the present time demand something more. They demand that this House and this parliament face the question of whether or not oleomargarine should be manufactured in and imported into this country as a permanent measure.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Might I ask how many dairy herds there are up in the Yukon? Is there a dairy industry up there


George Black: I am happy to say that we have a dairy industry up in the Yukon.


Mr. LOGAN:: Reindeer?


George Black: But the people of the Yukon I am quite sure though proud of their dairy herds do not wish to prevent the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in that country or other parts of Canada where such sale will be of great benefit to the majority of the population. It is subterfuge to say that because we dealt with the matter temporarily during the war we should not deal with it now at all. Supposing the action during the war was temporary, that does not relieve this parliament of its obligation to deal with the matter now one way or the other. It is purely an economic question. It is not a matter of sentiment in any respect. Both at the last session of this House and at this session the government has shown itself decidedly averse to taking a stand on this question, although I think it is fair to say that at the last session, represented by the Minister of Agriculture, the government tentatively pledged itself to deal with the matter this session. In support of that I shall quote
354E

Oleomargarine-Mr. Black (Yukon)
briefly the words of the Minister of Agriculture when the bill of last session was before the House. Excusing himself for not being in a position at that time to deal finally with the matter of oleomargarine the Minister of Agriculture said:
We have had before this House evidence indicating that it was more nutritious and also evidence that it was less nutritious than butter. I want to know which is the fact and other conditions in connection with oleomargarine before a permanent bill is brought down if that is found to be desirable. I want time during the recess-
That was the past recess, so he has had the time.
-to find out if it is desirable to bring down a bill, and, in that event, to know exactly what I am doing. That I could not know at the short time at my disposal. Hence I bring down-
In the classic words of the Minister of Agriculture.
-this rotten old bill that my hon. friends have passed 'on three or four occasions.
That is how the minister speaking for the government described the oleomargarine bill of last session. I say that the government through its Minister of Agriculture tentatively pledged itself there to deal with the matter at this session. A bill was brought in at this session. Evidently the Minister of Agriculture did inform himself for he brought in a bill dealing very copiously with oleomargarine, but suddenly and for some unknown reason the government, represented by the Minister of Agriculture, experienced a change of heart and withdrew and washed out from the slate this' bill dealing with oleomargarine upon which the Minister of Agriculture has taken the recess to inform himself. Strange to say, the explanation given to the House for the change of heart was that some law officer or departmental clerk without the minister's knowledge and against his wish had so altered and tampered with the bill after it had passed its' first reading that the government could not follow it and was obliged to destroy it. Truly an extraordinary situation for the head of a department to find himself in.
It is also true that the Prime Minister expressed his disapproval of the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture in sending out, through his department, anonymous communications seeking to influence those in receipt of such communications against legislation favouring the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. Perhaps the minister will * protect himself in this instance, as he did in regard to the mutilation of this bill, and say that some clerk in his department improperly, unlawfully, without his authority and against his wish, took the stationery of the Department of Agriculture and issued this appeal against oleomargarine. Otherwise he will have to take the responsibility for it.
Now, to ask us to believe that the government consider themselves bound by any pledge, made or implied, by any former government is to put too great a tax on the credulity of the members of this House, too great a tax on the credulity of the public, having in view this government's record in the matter of observing their pledges and carrying out their platform. However, be that as it may, I say this is an economic question to be dealt with now in the best interests of the public. The evidence is that oleomargarine is a good wholesome food composed of nourishing ingredients. It is manufactured under regulations ensuring cleanliness and sanitation. To allow its manufacture will build up an industry with all its attendant advantages, including increased employment in Canada. To allow its importation will provide revenue by applying a tariff charge both to the finished article and to the ingredients which enter into its manufacture. A man of straw is built up to be knocked down by opponents to the legislation in favour of oleomargarine by saying that it will hurt the dairy industry. The evidence is that in the countries allowing the manufacture of oleo the dairy industry does not suffer from that cause. Why should we suppose that the dairy industry will suffer in Canada? That being so, what argument is left against the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine? It would be just as reasonable to prohibit the manufacture and use of homemade bread in the interest of bakeries because the use of homemade bread lessens the consumption of baker's bread. That would be just as reasonable as to prohibit the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine because it might be used in some instances instead of butter. The importation of butter from Denmark and New Zealand gives the Canadian butter makers much more effective competition than the use of oleomargarine, but we hear no agitation to prohibit the importation of butter.
Beyond all question oleomargarine is a health giving food. It is a fact that the Canadian corps overseas were fed on oleomargarine, they were not fed on butter. They got oleomargarine and plenty of it, and they were a healthy lot; there were no healthier men on the face of the earth. Oleomargarine did not injure their health in the slightest, any more than it will injure the health of the people of this country. And it must be remembered that oleomargarine was supplied to the troops
3546	COMMONS
Oleomargarine-Mr. Black (Yukon)
under conditions that permitted of adulteration to a far greater extent than do the conditions of the present day. I say that to admit the quality of oleomargarine cannot be controlled and its use regulated, is to admit inefficiency on the part of those in charge of the administration of the laws of the land. For my part I say: Encourage its manufacture as a Canadian industry, allow its importation, and regulate it, as in the case of any other food, under the pure food laws of this country. I say let the people use it according to their needs, whether as a substitute for axle grease or for food.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: On the 15th of May, 1922, the question of oleomargarine was discussed in this House at considerable length and a clear-cut declaration of position on the question was made. The resolution proposed at that time read as follows:	.
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.
That resolution was negatived by a vote of 83 to 57, 95 members of the House being absent. It appears to me that was a clear-cut and distinct declaration of position on the part of this House as to what, in the opinion of parliament, should be done in the matter of further prohibiting the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. That is how the question appears to me, Mr. Speaker, and may I say that I represent a farming community in Ontario second to none. But. if that farming community expects me to contend for the protection which I find embodied in the motion before the House they have got entirely the wrong individual to further any such scheme, which I regard as the rankest demonstration of protection that has been witnessed in the House since I became a member of it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: But did you not vote for greater protection?


James Murdock: The hon. gentleman, as usual, is ever ready with a side remark. He is absolutely right in that statement but it merits, in view of the form in which it is made, a little explanation. I find that for these many years protection has existed with respect to very many, altogether too many, walks of life. I find that protection, with the bright	lights of the	industrial prosperity of those protected has attracted too many of our young men and young women from the farms of Canada. It has brought them to the towns for the pur-
[Mr. G. Black.\
pose of continuing a protection which, in my opinion, is wrong and should never have been tolerated. But I am not ready, as the representative of an important constituency in this House, simply because I believe that the principle of protection is absolutely wrong, first, last and all the time, to bring industrial or business chaos to Canada by saying that we are going1 to wipe out at one fell swoop all the protection that exists in Canada to-day. Holding that view, Mr. Speaker, I am not ready to quietly acquiesce in encouraging a species of protection which, in my
10 p.m. opinion, is less justifiable than any other protection we have had in this country in the years gone by.


Alan Webster Neill: May I ask the minister if he expressed those views to his dairy electors before he was elected?


James Murdock: Unfortunately I did not.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


James Murdock: I was elected by acclamation and my constituents did not have the opportunity of hearing these views. I am hoping though that they will have an opportunity now of hearing my views, and I shall be glad to go to them if good fortune should permit, and state the same views that I will express to this House to-night.


Preston Elliott: Will the minister explain to the House how this is protection of the dairy industry?


James Murdock: I will try to come to that logically and in sequence. I was much interested in noting the efforts made by two of my hon. friends across the aisle to my right, one of them, the hon. member for Battleford (Mr. McConica) intimating that he was against protection, but that he would vote for this amendment because oleomargarine w'as not sold and put before the consumer on its merits. Then the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Warner) also was in favour of the amendment because oleomargarine is an imitation of butter. These seem to me very plausible apologies for overlooking the rank feature of protection embodied in the matter that is before the House to-night. If the view of the hon. member for Strathcona with regard to the imitation feature is correct, why should this House to-morrow or the next day not legislate against wooden legs and glass eyes and go the whole length in respect of preventing imitations.
Some hon. members referred to the fact that the women of Canada were in favour of continuing the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. I think that great and

Oleomargarine-Mr. Murdock
undue stress has been laid upon the fact that this was a war measure which permitted, in the first place in 1918 and since that time, the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. I want to place before the House the views of part of the community of Canada, whose views I think should be given consideration. Under date of April 22, 1922, there came to me on the letterhead of the Great War Veterans' Association, a letter addressed to the Minister of Labour, reading:
Dear Sir,
I have the honour to submit herewith attached resolution adopted by the convention representing the Province of Ontario Great War Veterans' Association when in session at Ottawa the 21st April, 1922, respectfully urging that legislation may be enacted to permit the continued manufacture and sale of oleomargarine within the Dominion of Canada, which product has proved a boon to large families with small earnings and to those suffering distress through unemployment, as well as the provision of a channel for continued employment of a number of our citizens.
This resolution has been submitted to the Hon. Prime Minister of Canada.
I beg to remain, Sir, yours very obediently.
J. V. Conroy,
Secretary, Great War Veterans' Association, Toronto district.
This is the resolution:
Whereas oleomargarine is widely known as a good and palatable food of high nutritive value and obtainable at all times at a considerably lower price than butter, and,
Whereas its sale is freely permitted in all parts of the British Empire (except the Dominion of Canada) and in other countries so long as it is sold on its merits, and
Whereas by a conservative estimate there were last winter 200,000 unemployed persons in the Dominion (of whom 17,000 men, three-quarters of them married with dependants, were reported in Toronto) to whom the lower price of oleomargarine was undoubtedly a benefit, and
Whereas members of the Great War Veterans' Association, Inc., know from experience that oleomargarine is a hygienic food which furnishes the necessary fats required in the diet, and
Whereas there is reason to fear that the present regulations permitting manufacture and sale in Canada may be allowed to lapse in September next:-
Be it resolved that this Ontario Provincial Convention, Great War Veterans' Association, respectfully and earnestly urges the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and the members of the Dominion government promptly to take steps to assure the continued manufacture and sale of oleomargarine within the Dominion so that housewives may be enabled to continue freely to purchase oleomargarine for their families if they so desire.


Alan Webster Neill: What year was that?


James Murdock: April 22, 1922. Those were the viewsi of the Great War Veterans' Association. Then we have also in an editorial the expression of the Labour Leader, and I am rather surprised to note that the Labour party in this House is conspicuous by its absence to-night, as I think this is one of
the most important questions concerning labour that has been dealt with for some time.


Arthur John Lewis: I should like to inform the hon. member that the two labour men are in the Banking committee which is sitting to-night.


James Murdock: They ought to be looking after the feeding committee.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I would call the attention of the House to the fact that they are not the Labour party. There are a number of members representing Labour in this House. The minister is one of the best representatives of labour.


James Murdock: The editorial of the Labour Leader in part says:
A product which was considered a good palatable food in war times by all competent authorities has a right to be so considered in times of peace. A glaring example of government by orders in council is reflected in the way permission to manufacture, import and sell this product has been granted. Yearly extensions have been made and undoubtedly several manufacturers who would equip their plants to make a- high-class product have hesitated to make the outlay and thus create industry because of the uncertainty.
To allow this right to lapse would appear to be class legislation by protecting dairy interests at the expense of the wage earner. Oleomargarine has won a definite place in our commerce and so long as Canadians desire it, they should not be denied the privilege of making their own choice.
I could not in any way add to the statements made by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), when he pleaded for the poor family and the working man, that they be permitted to purchase oleomargarine. We have heard to-night, for the first time so far as I know, that a distinct assurance was given at the time when the prohibition of the importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine was suspended, that such suspension was but temporary and a war measure only. I should like to inquire why it was that last year when this question was discussed and when by a majority of twenty-six it was, in my judgment, decided that the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine would continue, the question of such assurance was not raised? Is it conceivable that because on the 15th May, 1922, the House passed judgment on this question adversely to those who now desire to prevent the continued sale of oleomargarine, this is an after-thought of an assurance given in 1918, and that they are now trying to bring this forth, as some hon. member suggests, from a camouflaged viewpoint in order to influence this House to make good on some alleged agreement that w*i given in 1918.

Oleomargarine-Mr. Murdock
It seems to me that the House should do to-night what was done on the 15th day of May, 1922; it should pass upon this question on its merits, and on its merits alone. A great deal of literature has been read to-night in regard to the comparative food values of butter and oleomargarine. I have before me a statement which it has been stated is an analysis of the energy values of food and which was published by the British government. The author is R. H. A. Plimmer, D.Sc. who was attached to the Directorate of Hygiene of the War Office, and in this analysis the following statement appears:
Butter, margarine, dripping, lard: As is well known, these foodstuffs consist essentially of fat and their energy value is entirely due to this constituent. The amount of protein present in butter and margarine is a negligible quantity. Butter and margarine have a lower energy than dripping and lard, owing to their content of water and salt. It is owing to the variability in amount of these two constituents that there are differences in the proportion of fat.
It is not necessary to enlarge further on this because I realize, from the documents that have come to my hand during the past few weeks, that it is possible to get a view either one way or the other on this particular question, and you can obtain all sorts of expert advice and decisions in regard to it. But let us come to the real question of protection involved, which is now being advocated openly for the dairying interests of Canada. In my judgment they want protection in its most glaring form. And how much protection is involved? Let us analyze the matter and see. Some of the figures were given to the House this afternoon by the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie), but there were not submitted all of the comparisons which I desire to draw therefrom. In 1916, there was produced in Canada-I am just giving the millions and thousands-26,966,000 pounds of butter, while there was imported into the country 2,091,000 pounds. In the same year we exported of this product 7,787,000 pounds. In 1917, there was produced 34,274,000 pounds of butter; we imported only 466,000 pounds and exported 4,-
344,000	pounds. The tendency was gradually to increase the ratio until 1921, when we find that there was a production of 128,784,000 pounds of butter in Canada, while in that same year there was imported into this country 4,-
018,000	pounds and exported from Canada
9,132,000	pounds. Last year, 1922, we produced in Canada 146,863,000 pounds. But that was not sufficient; 6,396,000 pounds of butter was imported into the country, while we exported 21,504,000.
As to the production of oleomargarine, I have here a report of the Canada Food Board for 1918, which gives in detail the results of
IMr. Murdock. 1
its work as a food board for the months during 1918 in which it was in operation. At page 57 of the report reference is made to the enormous amount of business over which the board exercised control, and the statement is made that oleomargarine was imported to the extent of 1,000,000 pounds monthly during the year 1918. In 1919, the production of oleomargarine in this country was 10,084,000 pounds, while during the same year we imported 5,221,000 pounds. * In 1920, we produced in Canada 10,565,000 pounds of oleomargarine and exported 5,553,000 pounds. In 1921, we produced in Canada only 3,824,000 pounds of oleomargarine, while during the same year only 2,057,000 pounds was imported. Last year, 1922, the production of oleomargarine was 2,326,000 pounds, while the importation was 1,032,000 pounds.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If the prohibition of
oleomargarine is rank protection, what about the prohibition of mechanics from entering Canada?


James Murdock: Just at the moment we are not dealing with alien labour, but if we should come to that subject in the course of the debates in this House I hope to maintain a sane, fair and reasonable view on the question. The point I wanted to make in quoting these figures was this: If we are really going to do, here and now, something for the real protection of the dairy interests of Canada, why not let us go the full limit and not only prohibit the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine but put a stop to the importation of the 6,396,000 pounds of butter that came into this country last year to compete with our Canadian butter?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


James Murdock: An hon. gentleman says, "We do not ask you to do that". But it would be equally consistent to go that length and adopt the real essence of protection so that nothing but Canadian manufactured butter should be spread upon the bread of any citizen of Canada. That is virtually what is proposed, if I understand the protection that is intended.


Oliver Robert Gould: Chinese eggs too.


Lucien Cannon: Is the hon. member in favour of abolishing the duty on butter?


James Murdock: At this particular moment I am not putting that view forward; nor would I be prepared to support that view any more than I am ready to subscribe to the proposal to prevent oleomargarine being manufactured in Canada or imported into the

Oleomargarine-Mr. Murdock
country. Is it protection that is really proposed? Well, we have to go back to the records of the House in order to answer that question. This subject has been discussed in previous years. We find that on the third day of April, 1918, a resolution was proposed by the then hon. member for East Lambton to amend an order in council and more strictly to enforce it-
In order that the great dairy industry of Canada should be adequately protected.
Protection was what was desired. Various other orders in council were passed subsequently, until we come down to the year 1920. In 1920 an hon. member in this House spoke against the admission or manufacture of oleomargarine and said:
But there is a bigger thing at stake. It affects a great big industry in this country, one of the biggest industries in the Dominion with hundreds of millions of dollars invested in it,-
Which is admitted.
-employing hundreds of thousands of people and spending millions upon millions of money in wages. Surely this is an industry which is entitled to protection.
Another hon. member said:
It does not want protection.
And the first hon. gentleman said:
It does want protection, so this government says, as did the former government, and in fact every government from confederation down to the present time.


An hon. MEMBER:: They must have been Tory.


James Murdock: 
Mr. McBRIDE:: If I might ask the hon. minister a question-is he suggesting that the farmer should pay a tariff on everything he buys and get no protection whatever?


Lewis Herbert Martell: You are right there.


James Murdock: Absolutely no. No
member of this House would be more ready and willing to work with my hon. friend from

Oleomargarine-Mr. Murdock
Cariboo (Mr. McBride) to remove so far as possible the burdens now placed on the farming community by improper protection. But holding the views I do on that subject, I am not by my vote going to help inaugurate a system of protection which is improper and unfair and is not in effect in any other civilized country in the world. We do not want to go from bad to worse.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If the minister will permit me-in the light of everything that has been said and of all the votes I have seen in this House, will he undertake to say, whether the question be protection, free trade or anything else, that how the members vote depends in a great many cases on whose ox is gored?


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, that may be good logic and the proper attitude to adopt in Hants, but so far as I am concerned, as I said some time ago, I represent an important agricultural community and I want the farmers in Kent to know where I stand on this proposal to inaugurate another line of protection. I shall be prepared to go before them and repeat what I am stating here in possibly more extended form.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will my hon. friend permit me another question? So far as Hants county, Nova Scotia, is concerned, we do not want any protection, if he wishes to know-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: -But I want to ask my hon. friend if he is not advocating what he considers is in the best interests of his constituents, just as I advocate anything that in my judgment is in the interests of my constituents in the county of Hants?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I know the rules of the game, but I thought I was here as a member of parliament from Kent county to represent, as best I could, what in my judgment is in the best interests of the people of Canada including my constituents. That is what I am trying to do to-night in speaking as I have. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that the House should take the position it took a year ago the fifteenth of last month when it decided by a majority of 26 that it would be improper any longer to prevent the people of Canada, the poorer classes of Canada, from having oleomargarine where possibly they could not secure butter.


Mr. SUT HERLAND:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I understand he is 
an authority on oleomargarine. Will he inform the House what are the ingredients that make up that product?


James Murdock: The hon. member for
South Oxford, as is so often the case, is entirely misinformed. I am not an authority on oleomargarine. So far as my knowledge goes I never ate it in my life, though I assume I have eaten it, because I have had a great many meals in restaurants. I never bought a pound of it and I do not know how it is made. I care little how it is made, as [ am told on what to me is sufficient authority that it is a wholesome food. I know it was sufficiently wholesome to be utilized under war time conditions and I know that the returned soldiers and the poorer people ol Canada are now contending that oleomargarine should continue to be used, and their views and their judgment are sufficient for me.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Will the hon. member permit another question? Does he think it is fair to the people who are purchasing oleomargarine that they should not know what goes into it?


James Murdock: No, I do not think it
is fair, but that is a matter of regulation.
In conclusion I wish to give the comparative prices of butter and oleomargarine in this country during the last few years. The figures given are the Toronto retail prices for January and July respectively in the years stated: 1918, butter, 55 and 52 cents; oleomargarine, 32 and 33 cents, 1919, butter, 60 and 60 cents; oleomargarine, 40 and 42 cents; 1920, butter, 75 and 65 cents; oleomargarine, 42 and 42 cents; 1921, butter, 64 and 37 cents, oleomargarine, 40 and 27 cents; 1922, butter, 49 and 44 cents; oleomargarine, 27 and 27 cents. 1923, January, butter, 46 cents; oleomargarine, 26 cents. There are many times when the widow of a soldier or his children cannot afford to buy butter, and I say it is unfair to establish a protection for the great dairy industry of Canada that will deny to such persons the right to get a spread for their bread which will take the place of a product the price of which may be too high to permit them to purchase it.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, all the dairymen are not opposed to the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine, and I am glad to say this evening that I can claim to come within that class of dairymen. I have been interested to some extent in a dairy herd, although many of my friends regard me as a lawyer.


An hon. MEMBER:: A butter lawyer.

Oleomargarine-Mr. Ladner


Leon Johnson Ladner: What was the gentleman's remark? Well, there may be some hon. members more slippery than a butter lawyer. I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been able to see both sides of this question. Last year the matter was discussed in the House for a whole day, and I venture to say that when the debate commenced to-day there was not an hon. member who did not have his mind practically made up on the matter. We would not have had this confusion, we would not have wasted another day in debating whether $800,000 worth of oleomargarine should be brought into this country or manufactured here, if the government had assumed and discharged the responsibility which was deliberately and decisively placed upon them last year.


Harold Putnam: Which government?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Your government. There may be three of them in the House-the parent government, we will say.


Hance James Logan: They are all on this side of the House, anyway.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Alleged government.


Leon Johnson Ladner: They do not seem to demonstrate any evidence of being a real government.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In this matter of oleomargarine there is involved a simple question of principle. There has also been indicated in the debates of the House a desire to serve political expediency. Some hon. members represent dairy constituencies; many of them are sincere in their advocacy of the total prohibition of importation or manufacture of oleomargarine. But I suggest that most hon. members are impelled to their conclusions against oleomargarine largely by political considerations. How can it be argued for a moment that it is within the proper authority of parliament, that it is one of the functions of parliament, to prohibit the manufacture or importation of a food which has been demonstrated to be wholesome and useful to the community? The consumer, I submit, is the person to be primarily considered in this question. I know of no better argument on the subject than a few lines contained in the circular issued by the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, part of which has been read to the House and part of which I will now read. This circular presents the views of the Grocers', Butchers' and Provision Dealers' sections of the association throughout Canada. They say:
We have no interest to serve, only that of serving the public with what they want, and the fact that
the demand from the consuming public for oleomargarine for the past year has been greater than that of any previous year is the best evidence we can offer you that the people want it.
Now, if the people want it, what right has parliament to prevent them from using it? Then the circular continues:
Before our members undertook to offer it for sale to the general public we made exhaustive inquiries as to the ingredients it contained and its method of manufacture. We consulted with the Chief Analyst for the Dominion government and he pronounced it a perfectly good food, and he stated that it contained no harmful ingredients, and, as on each package is stamped the approval of the Department of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada, our retail grocers, butchers, produce dealers and general store merchants throughout Canada felt 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 they do want it, and, seeing that it is a non-injurious and palatable product, and^ contains nothing that is unhealthful, we are of the opinion that they should be allowed to buy it if they so desire, and no law should be passed to prevent them from having it.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in that simple statement we have all or most that can be said in favour of the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. Every country in the civilized world permits it. On what principle does the parliament of Canada deny the people of this country the right to use oleomargarine if they want it? The dairyman's gain, I submit, would be microscopic, even if the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine was eliminated. I have figures on good authority which show that in value there was about $800,000 worth of oleomargarine consumed in Canada in 1922, and about $74,000,000 worth or a little more of butter, or less than 4,000,000 pounds of oleomargarine and about 240,000,000 pounds of butter, including both dairy and creamery butter. If you calculate these figures you will find that of the spread on bread about II per cent in value is oleomargarine and 98f per cent is butter. I inquired from several dairymen who are members of the House as to the profit per pound on butter and I was informed that there is no profit or only a very small profit. This whole proposition I submit simply comes down to this, that the small amount of profit on the $800,000 worth of oleomargarine is not a factor which should cause the government of Canada to put that small profit in the hands of the dairymen and deny the working classes of this country the privilege of obtaining a species of butter fat which is perfectly wholesome, and which otherwise they could not have. If this question is considered on the basis of principle, on the basis of fair play, on the basis of the liberty of the subject, on the basis of the right of
Oleomargarine-Mr. Ladner

a man to buy what he wants provided it is healthful to him, and considering the infinitesimal advantage there would be to the dairy interests and the great loss to many of the poor people of this country, I cannot understand how any hon. gentleman could deny the citizens of this country this right which is accorded in every other civilized country of the world.
- Mr. MARTELL: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Two.


Lewis Herbert Martell: In the case of boots and shoes, which are protected, there are very few manufacturers and the public suffer. Would not the same thing apply to the dairy industry? The protection to the dairy industry is for the benefit of the farmers, just as the protection on boots and shoes is for the benefit of the manufacturers, and the public in the final analysis pay the shot, do they not?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman is entirely wrong. The duty on boots and shoes is only a regulatory measure in order to encourage the manufacture of boots and shoes in this country. It is not total prohibition. It does not say: You shall not wear shoes; go in your bare feet. It says: You can wear shoes, but there will be a small addition to the price in order to encourage the manufacture of that article in this country.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is it not the case that the tariff is so high that it almost means total prohibition? In any event it is the same principle, and the principle is wrong.


Leon Johnson Ladner: As the hon. gentleman finds it necessary to resort to such extremes in argument, I think his question hardly merits an answer, because he knows perfectly well that the protection on boots and shoes is not a very high protection.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Acting Minister of National Defence):: There are one or two words only that I would like to address to the House on this question with a view to explaining what my position is in regard to it. I come from a constituency in the Maritime provinces which was a, pioneer in the dairy industry in our part of the country. I know how important the development of the dairy industry is to the farmers of eastern Canada, and I am sure the experience that ' we have had there has been equally felt in all parts of this country. There has been no development along agricultural lines which has been so satisfactory and of such benefit to the agricultural people of our part of the
[Mr. Ladcer.l
country as the development of the dairy industry during the last ten or fifteen years.
All parties in this country down to 1917, about the middle of the war, apart from any question of free trade or protection, had decided that in the interests of the Canadian people from every standpoint there should be a prohibition of the sale and importation into Canada of oleomargarine. That was the situation, and nobody ever questioned it. But solely and only on account of the situation that was created by the war the government of the day under the War Measures Act, without the consent of parliament, without asking parliament anything in regard to the matter, proceeded to pass an order in council which expressly recited the circumstances under which this prohibition was to be removed. It stated that it was due entirely to the abnormal demand for butter, and that as high prices would prevail for this product for some time to come it granted permission for the sale and importation of oleomargarine under regulations to be enforced and take 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."
When the provisions of the War Measures Act and the orders in council that were passed under it ceased to * have effect, by reason of the fact that abnormal conditions still continued in the country, a statute was passed extending the provisions of this order in council for another year, then later another statute was passed extending it a further year, and last year a third statute was passed extending the permission for the temporary manufacture and importation of this article to the 31st day of August, 1923, and the offering of same and having possession for sale was permitted up to the 31st day of March, 1924.
Now the matter comes to this House by my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) bringing forward a resolution in which he asks the House to reverse the policy of the Canadian parliament and people which has obtained ever since confederation, and to permit the importation and sale of oleomargarine in this country without restriction except in so far as the regulations of the act provide. We have an amendment moved to that resolution by my hon. friend from Mis-sisquoi (Mr. Kay) which I would interpret as meaning, if adopted by this House, and I hope it will be, that these temporary acts shall be done away with and that we shall revert to the condition of affairs that existed before the orders in council and these statutes were passed, and that oleomargarine shall

Oleomargarine-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou)
only be permitted to be manufactured until August, 1923, and ita sale permitted only until the following March.
The question is what ought we to do? It is all very well for my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) to argue about the virtue of consistency, but of what use is it for a man to congratulate himself upon consistency in voting today for something that he supported five years ago, when in this changing world with the varying conditions that we have seen in that period what would be in the interest of the country to-day might not have been in its interest five years ago? Consistency is not the only virtue a public man should possess. Again my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) undertook to give his lecture ex cathedra to the gentlemen who sit next to him as if he had had some holy principle committed to him alone and the Ark of the Covenant was in his charge. I submit that neither of these gentlemen is taking the proper position. Apart from either of their theories, our attitude on this question should be that which would be of the greatest advantage to and contribute to the advancement of the country as a whole.
Now, what is the situation that confronts us? We have the dairy industry developing in Canada in the manner in which it is, and bringing to those engaged in it the greatest amount of money, derived from any part of the agricultural system of Canada outside of that derived from the sale of wheat. Are we to say that it is not wise in the interests of this country to encourage the development of that industry still further? Because somebody says that oleomargarine is good to eat and somebody else says that it is not, are we to imperil that industry? Are we going to give notice to the people in those parts1 of Canada where it has not yet been developed that they must not co-operate for the purpose of building up this great industry to a greater degree, or that they are not to teach agriculturists proper methods for the production of butter? For myself I care not what theories may be advanced. I believe it is in the interest of the Canadian people that the dairy industry of this country should be encouraged. May I venture the statement, Mr. Speaker, that there is too much of a tendency on the part of many in this* House to indulge in theorizing. Why cannot we look every business proposition that is submitted to this parliament squarely in the face, and say honestly what we think in regard to it and whether it is in the interest of the Canadian people or not. If we are actuated by that idea when we approach the determination of this proposition we need
not care what theory may be violated or what maxim may be overlooked so long as what we decide upon is in the interest of our people. It does seem to me that this House would be wise and would be doing that which will be best for the country as a whole if we support the amendment which has been submitted by my hon. friend the member for Missisquoi.
The hon. member who immediately preceded me (Mr. Ladner) read from a circular issued by the Retail Merchants Association this statement:
The fact that the demand from the consuming public for oleomargarine for the past year has been greater than that of any previous year is the best evidence we can offer you that the people want it.
Now I find from an authoritative official statement that in the year ending December 31, 1920, the quantity of oleomargarine manufactured in Canada was 7,182,936 pounds. In the year ending December 31, 1921, the quantity manufactured was 2,632,250 pounds; and in the year ending December 31, 1922, the quantity manufactured was 1,964,243 pounds, or 5,000,000 pounds less in 1922 than in 1920. This shows that if there was a large portion of the Canadian people consuming oleomargarine they are getting heartily sick of it, and that the product is going out of use.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Do the figures which my
hon. friend has given cover importations?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The story in regard to importations is much the same. The importations in the years referred to were reduced in like proportion.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the hon. gentleman
give the figures showing importations?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am unable to put my hand on the figures, but they are, roughly speaking to this effect: In 1920 the imports amounted to 5,000,000 pounds and in 1922 they had been reduced to 1,000,000 pounds. The consequence is that instead of warranting the inference suggested by the circular of the Retail Merchants Association the figures show that the people of this country are giving up the use of oleomargarine. Therefore, it seems to me that if the people do not want to eat oleomargarine we should not try to force it upon them. The fact that the unanimous opinion of parliament for so many years was against the use of this article should influence us in our decision. It was never pretended on the part of the then government that the act authorizing the use of oleomargarine was to be anything but temporary in its operations due entirely to the abnormal conditions created
3554	*	COMMONS
Oleomargarine-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou)
by the war. It would be well, therefore, to follow the example of those who dealt with this question in the past and revert to the legislation which was enforced for so many years in this country. By doing so I believe we will be doing that which will be for the best interests of Canada and its people.


Mr. R. H. HALBERT:: (North Ontario): After all the discussion that has taken place in this House during the last four sessions on oleomargarine I had decided not to say anything on the present occasion, and I would not be taking up the time of the House now had it not been for certain remarks made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). However, what I have to say will only occupy a few minutes. The Minister of Labour professed to be speaking for the labour people of Canada, and he said it was not fair that they should not be allowed to buy oleomargarine instead of butter. I wonder if he was thinking of the thousands of labour men who work in the mines and in the lumber camps who do not want to eat oleomargarine but are forced to eat it under present conditions or else lose their job? Oleomargarine was allowed to be manufactured in Canada under the War Measures Act of 1917. Up to 1917 we heard no person complaining about the price of butter. Were there no poor in the country then? Prior to that time there was little or no oleomargarine used but we heard no complaints from the poor such as we have heard to-night made on behalf of labouring men.
My main reason for taking part in this debate is because of the allegation that the prohibition is desired for the purposes of protection. We are told that oleomargarine raises the price of beef cattle because of the use that can be made out of the fat of these animals. If I were to advocate the use of oleomargarine the Minister of Labour, with as much truth, could allege that I was asking for protection for the farmers who raise beef cattle in this country. It would be just as appropriate for him to argue that by supporting oleomargarine I was advocating protection for the beef cattle industry as it is for him to say that by urging its prohibition I am recommending protection for the butter industry. It must be remembered that the legislation on this subject was passed during war time. The dairy industry of Canada made no protest against that legislation; they were willing to do anything that would help to win the war. The war has long been over, and all war time measures have gone out of existence with the exception of this. The oleomargar-
ine law has been extended year after year down to the present time.
It has been stated that oleomargarine is a good food. That is for adults. We do not hear it said that oleomargarine is good for infants. I would advise the manufacturers, therefore, not to eat any oleomargarine because their- industries are still in the infant stage-so they claim at any rate-and it would not be good for them. If we were advocating more protection for butter the protection argument might be brought in, but it is certainly far-fetched to say that any person who votes for the amendment is advocating protection for the dairy industry. When the manufacture of oleo was not permitted the labouring men of Canada were getting not more than half the amount they are receiving to-day. Still -we had no complaints. I think, Mr. Speaker, that under present conditions we should revert to the legislation which prevailed before the war. I am not saying whether I am in favour of the manufacture of oleomargarine or not. Let the
11	p.m. subject be fought out on its merits and give the dairy industry its just dues because the general belief is that the legislation on this question was only a temporary measure. I think, therefore, we should revert to the former status and give the manufacturers of oleomargarine on the one hand and the dairy industry on the other a chance to fight out the question on an even footing, because we know that this was the thin, end of the wedge that was introduced, and now the manufacturers of oleomargarine want to drive it home. Possession, we are told, is nine points of the law, although I do not know whether all the members who are lawyers will agree with that. These people have been permitted to come inside and now they refuse to go out. Let us put both the manufacturers of oleomargarine and the dairy interests on the same footing. I intend to vote for the amendment.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker, I shall be extremely brief. I am rising only for one purpose. I did not intend to say anything at all on this matter and I know how I am going to vote. I rise particularly to say that I object to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) or any other hon. member saying that he represents labour. There is not a member on the Liberal, Progressive, or Conservative side who does not represent all classes of citizens in his community and in the constituency which he represents in the Canadian parliament. Personally, I have organized unions in my constituency, and I happen to-

Oleomargariiie-Mr. Martell
be solicitor for those unions. I am not here as a Labour representative; I am not here as a Progressive; I am not here as a Conservative; I am here as a Liberal, and I believe that I represent labour just as truly as hon. members who sit in yonder comer and the Minister of Labour do. One of my chief objects in rising is to protest against certain men setting themselves up in this House as the supreme arbiters in all matters pertaining to the labour interests, so-called, in this country. We are all labourers when we get down to the final standpoint. Some may be lawyers, others doctors, merchants, men who have to take the pick and shovel; in fact, we are all labourers in our particular vocations in life. Personally, I have stood in court when I have defended members of labour unions without money and without price. I do not apologize for that; I am proud of the fact, and I am glad to say that these men, not foreign agitators, but natives of my constituency, are my friends and will vote for me when election day comes around. Therefore, I protest against the Minister of Labour and other members in this House arrogating to themselves the right to be called representatives of labour in this parliament.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: When some of us
were elected distinctly on a Labour ticket, how other can we possibly denominate ourselves than Labour?


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend may have run on a Labour ticket; but what I regard as Labour is men who are willing to take their place in life amongst all the rest of the people without asking any particular favour, not men who run on a socialistic ticket and who advocate communism.
All I have to say in regard to the subject under discussion to-day is this. Most hon. members know that I am regarded as a radical. 1 do not apologize for that, but I do believe good radicalism is good Liberalism. My Liberalism is hereditary Liberalism fostered by the fact that my small education has convinced me that Liberalism is right. I am, however, ready to accord to people who cannot agree with me the right to have their particular views. I have particular views of my own; other people have particular views of theirs, but on the subject which is before us to-day, namely the matter of oleomargarine, some of us have been told that we are advocating protection. If protection is going to be the system in this country, then all industries should be protected. I am not saying that protection is the system of this country. What I say is that this is not protection in the way of tariff legislation; it is
simply preventing people from being able to put up against the dairy industry of this country a combination of fats, Heaven knows whence they come. I am prepared to say to the people of my constituency: If you want oleomargarine, you can have it, that is if my hon. friends opposite or some other people like the Minister of Labour want to give to the people of this country things that he will not eat himself. I am sure the Minister of Labour, if he had placed before him oleomargarine and good creamery butter such as is manufactured at Selma in the county of Hants, would not eat the oleomargarine. I am not prepared to stand in this House of Commons and give my vote for a conglomeration of Heaven knows what against the good creamery butter of Hants. Therefore, I am going to oppose the question of the admission of oleomargarine into this country.
I come from a seafaring race. When I was a boy at school, my great ambition was, when the summer vacation arrived, to go on a trip with my father on his old boat. After my parents had passed beyond the vale, I went to sea for a couple of years, and all the oleomargarine I saw was used as slush to slush down the masts of the schooner. Are we going to place before the people of the Dominion of Canada slush to eat rather than the good creamery butter manufactured at Selma and ether places in Nova Scotia?
I am opposed to oleomargarine primarily because it should not be permitted to come into competition with a natural industry. Oleomargarine is an artificial product; butter is a purely natural product, and if we are going to protect the people of this country, we do not want to protect the decrepit, the aged and those who have passed beyond the three score years and ten. We want to protect* the children of the country. As the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) has said, nobody has ever said that oleomargarine is a good food for children, and the children	are	going	to be	the peoplewho will govern	this	country in	the future.As I have said already, artificial products should not be permitted to come into competition with natural products. Let us protect the children who will be the people of to-morrow, and	not	those	who	should be
buried if they are not already buried.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very gratified for two things, one the shortness of the speeches on this issue, and	the	other	that	some hon.
members seem to be becoming rather proud to associate themselves with Labour. I do not know whether that is because there >-
Oleomargarine-Mr. Irvine

an anticipated election, but I am gratified at any rate that they wish to deny to other people the right to represent Labour and say that they are doing that. The hon. member (Mr. Martell), while he was very willing to assume his share of the representation of Labour, very definitely dissociated himself from Labour ideals as expressed by organized Labour.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does my hon. n friend
represent Labour, and does he want to set himself up in this House as a supreme arbiter ' as to who or who should not represent Labour.
Mr. IRVINE I will allow Labour to say who are to be its representatives, and I do not think that Labour has placed its hand upon the head of the hon. member who has asked the question. I should not have been taking part in this debate but for the fact-


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will the hon. member permit me


William Irvine: -that the Minister of Labour took occasion to refer to the "conspicuous absence" of the Labour members.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I represent Labour; you represent socialism.


William Irvine: The Minister of Labour, I am given to understand, stated that the Labour members were not in their seats, and when some hon. member pointed out that they were in the Banking committee, he passed the remark that the feeding committee was of much greater importance than the Banking committee. I am not quite clear as to the inference that the hon. gentleman would wish us to draw from that remark; but- if this is a feeding committee and the Minister of Labour is a member of it, then I have no fear for the committee. I have no doubt he Can handle the situation, from the point of view of either Labour or anybody else, quite well as a feeder. If, however, he meant to imply that this comparatively paltry question of margarine is comparable with the great question of finance, then I will leave the famous utterance of the hon. gentleman to the laughter of history.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will the hon. member permit me a question?


William Irvine: I have no objection.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does he not think that his reference to the Minister of Labour is akin to the Biblical injunction which he enunciates on Sunday, "Feed my lambs"?
[Mr. Irvine.I


William Irvine: I must ask the hon. gentleman to repeat his question, because I did not perceive the humour of it, and there certainly was nothing of any serious consequence about it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: You do not know anything about Scripture.


William Irvine: The hon. gentleman has been quoting Scripture, I see; I did not know he was quite as modern as that. I have no doubt, however, that he can possibly out-quote me, for that matter; I do not often indulge in Biblical quotations myself. Nor do I care what text the hon. gentleman cares to apply to my attitude in this argument. But to return to the point at issue. If the Minister of Labour wished to imply that oleomargarine is of more importance than the question of finance, then I shall simply leave his judgment to the people of Canada. If as an economist, if as a graduate from the ranks of labour organizations, if as a Minister of Labour in a government that came into power as the great Moses that would lead us into the land flowing with milk and honey, the best that the hon. gentleman can give us is oleomargarine, and then tell us that finance does not count, I must be content to leave him to the consequences of his own declaration.
The minister claims to be a representative of Labour, I gather from the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has been putting questions to me. I do not object to his claim; he can make all the claims he desires in that direction. That, however, will not get him very far. I am glad, just at this stage, to note that the minister has come into the House, the hon. gentleman who a moment ago was conspicuous by his absence. The seat which was vacant just now is at this moment filled with the august presence-is that proper, Mr. Speaker?-of the minister himself. Let me inform the minister that I, as a representative of Labour, am more interested in giving to the people real good fresh butter instead of margarine; and if the best that the minister can offer them is this substitute, I am not sure that he will get a very great following from the ranks of labour. I assure him that if he does not change his attitude considerably he will have to grease Labour with something better than oleomargarine.


Harold Putnam: What would you suggest?


William Irvine: I simply desired to explain how it happened that the Labour members were absent from the House when the minis-

Oleomargarine-Mr. Irvine
ter referred to the fact. This question in itself has nothing more than a passing interest for me. It is not a fundamental question. I do not think it will make a very great deal of difference to Labour whether the minister offers them oleomargarine or not. I have discovered that on all big questions in which Labour interests are really involved the Minister of Labour has not been quite so outspoken as he has been on this comparatively paltry subject. When it comes to a [DOT]question of protecting the miners of Nova Scotia he sends them guns rather than butter.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker-


William Irvine: When it comes to a question of economic importance-


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker-


William Irvine: -such as-


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, I rise to
a point of order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I rise to a point of
order. The hon. gentleman has referred to something that occurred in Nova Scotia, with which he associates the Minister of Labour. I submit that this has nothing to do with oleomargarine, which is the question before the Chair.


James Murdock: I rise to a point of
[DOT]order. The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Irvine) is, unintentionally, of course, misrepresenting the facts, because he cannot instance any situation wherein the Minister of Labour had anything to do with any matter involving a strike in Nova Scotia where soldiers were sent down. I therefore respectfully submit that it is entirely improper for the hon. gentleman to be making representations for the delectation of those who he thinks will agree with him in what he says.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I have observed
many interruptions in the course of this debate, which after all should be very peaceful.


Joseph Archambault: It is a slippery
matter.


Hewitt Bostock: I would request hon. members to be good enough to allow the debate to proceed in that peacefulness and tranquillity which we should have every reason to expect. I would also ask the hon. member (Mr. Irvine) who is addressing the House to confine himself more closely to the question at issue. The question has been well
put before the House by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) who moved the resolution and by the hon. member who has submitted the amendment (Mr. Kay), and any excursion into a county where any Strike may have occurred has nothing to do with it. Any remarks of the kind are irrelevant. I trust that the hon. member will confine himself to the subject matter under consideration.


William Irvine: I shall endeavour to do so, Mr. Speaker, but I think you will agree with me that, the Minister of Labour having taken occasion to refer to the absence of the Labour members earlier in the evening, I should not be hindered from explaining the reason for their absence.


Mr. BUREAU:: The reason has already
been given.


William Irvine: If the Minister of Labour
was out of order, then, of course, I am out of order also. But if he was in order, I should think that I ought to be in order in explaining the point he raised. However, I must abide by the ruling of the Chair. I simply wanted to explain that the Labour members were absent because they had been in the Banking committee for six hours. If the government of which the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) is a member was not in such a hurry to put this Bank Act through we could have been here instead of in the Banking committee.
But to come down to the subject of oleo, from which I was led astray by the logic of hon. gentlemen opposite. In the first place, I am not opposed to freedom of trade of any description, nor am I opposed to the manufacture of anything that any person wishes to manufacture. At heart I am a free trader. I do not care what sort of stuff you manufacture or sell so long as the people want to buy it. Therefore in regard to the principle of this question I' am going to vote for oleomargarine. But I aidd this rider: I want to see oleomargarine so marked that these labour men-whom we are all so anxious about to-night-will not be paying for grease under the impression that they are getting butter. Therefore if those who are interested in getting an oleomargarine bill passed will kindly arrange the legislation so that when a labour man sits down in a restaurant and pays for butter he will not be served with margarine, I am prepared to vote for the bill.
That is all I have to say on this most profound economic question, Mr. Speaker. I think we might have settled it much more speedily. There is nothing involved in this



Oleomargarine-Mr. Stansell
simple principle that I can see, and I repeat that while for myself I want to have the privilege of eating butter, I am very much concerned to see such economic conditions prevail in Canada that our labour men will all be able to eat butter, I should like to see the margarine plants starved out simply because they could not sell the grease they are handing out instead of butter, and I appeal to the hon. Minister of Labour to help the Labour members bring about such improved economic conditions. Then he will be in a position to claim that he is a Labour man, which he cannot claim to be at the present time.


John Lawrence Stansell: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the dairymen of Canada I think something should be said to place them in the light in which they wish to appear before the public on this question. There is a great deal of misconception as to the attitude of the dairy interests, and I think as president of one of our dairy breed associations I have a fair idea of what they really desire in this connection. I do not think our dairymen are anxious to say to the consumers what they shall or shall not eat. All they are desirous of getting is a fair deal in a matter that vitally concerns their industry.
I believe I can point out what is the real cause of complaint. I think it will be generally agreed that there has been no complaint on the part of the dairy interests over the manufacture of apple butter, peanut butter, maple butter or similar preparations because they each have their own peculiar flavour and are sold entirely on their merits. What dairymen complain of is the unfair competition from oleomargarine, which is made to taste and smell and look like butter-the article which it is aimed to supplant. The dairymen also feel that another element of unfairness in this competition is the respective restrictions applied to the manufacture of these two articles. The law requires that butter must contain pure butter fat to the extent of at least 80 per cent, with not more than 16 per cent of moisture and a small percentage of salt and other natural milk solids. Those proportions may not be varied, and if departed from the butter-maker is liable to prosecution. But on the other hand the manufacturer of oleomargarine may manufacture his commodity from any material he wishes and the only restriction is that it must be approved by a government inspector as being clean and sanitary. The public are not given the formula by -which the oleomargarine is made. A large proportion of the ingredients originate outside Canada and

are imported practically free of duty, there being a drawback of 99 per cent. The butter-maker is shut out of the country to the south by a duty of 8 cents a pound. Therefore he has to compete in his home market with an article which is imported free of duty.
I was interested in the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). He says he represents a farming constituency, and he added that he did not make known his views before his election, as he was adopted without any questions being asked. I could not help thinking that his was a case of being left on the doorstep for adoption when questions are not usually in good taste.
Something has been said in the course of this debate about settling this question once for all. I submit that this cannot be done, for there is nothing to prevent a resolution or a bill being introduced next session to provide for, or to prohibit, the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine.
This question may be considered from two points of view. We have heard a good deal about the relative values of butter and margarine from the health standpoint. I have noticed particularly that those who claim oleomargarine to be a wholesome product adduce nothing in support of their statement. I have yet to learn of any investigations either in this country or outside that have not shown conclusively that oleomargarine bears no comparison to butter as a life-giving food. I was interested in the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie), in the course of which he quoted an authority to the effect that there were certain vitamines present in milk or butter which were not to be found in the product of the slaughterhouse. I think his statement ran something like this: He did not understand that nature would be so partial as to distribute these vitamines freely to the dairy cow and have them entirely wasted in the steer. Well, I need only remind the hon. member that the steer is not entirely a product of nature.
From the standpoint of health we have had many investigations and experiments made, all of which go to show that in food value oleomargarine is so far inferior to butter that it can scarcely be compared with it at all. As something has been said about this question being viewed from the women's standpoint, let me quote from the remarks of one who is regarded as an authority on the subject; I refer to Dr. Margaret Patterson. Summing up this question she states:-
Which do we want in Canada-health for the many or wealth for the few? When one sees the question in writing it looks too foolish to be regarded seriously; yet as a people we act as if we were more interested ir

Oleomargarine-Mr. Stansell
producing a few foreign millionaires than in giving our Canadian children a chance to grow into strong, healthy citizens. We have long since accepted the truism "that every child has the right to be as healthy as knowledge can make it." The knowledge gained in the research laboratories has shown us that milk (whole milk) is an absolute necessity for proper development, both physical and mental, of the child, yet we allow the importation and sale of substitutes for dairy products.
Reference has also been made to the manufacture and consumption of oleomargarine in Denmark. Attention has been called to the fact, too, that when its use was very general in war time, considerable difficulty was experienced through illness of children and it was found that the only way to effect a cure was to have a resumption of the diet of butter fat. I would like to mention one more experiment that was not referred to either last session or this in the progress of the discussion on this subject-one that comes closer home. It is from the same authority that I formerly quoted, and it says:
An indisputable demonstration of the necessity of butter to the growing child was given us quite near home. It was during the war, when both as a matter of patriotism and economy, oleomargarine often replaced butter. In an orphanage for boys the board ladies decided to reduce expenses, and also save butter to be sent overseas, by serving the boys in the orphanage oleomargarine. Shortly after the butter was stopped there was a great deal of illness. The children seemed to have no resistance and contracted every disease with which they came in contact. The teachers began to complain that the children were not making progress in their work as they had previously done and were restless and inattentive. The nurse also noted that the increase in weight had either stopped or very markedly decreased. The doctor made careful inquiry and when he learned of the butter substitute he at once thought that this was the cause. But he could not make the board ladies believe this, for they had heard a lecture on the food value of oleomargarine. They had even heard a doctor say that it contained more calories to the ounce than butter, therefore the theories of the orphanage doctor were all wrong. Fortunately, the doctor had been keeping abreast with the findings of the research workers. He asked the ladies to allow him to provide butter at his own expense for the boys in one of the cottages. This he was allowed to do, and in the course of a few weeks the difference was so marked that even the board ladies were convinced and the supporters of oleomargarine will find no market for their product in that school.
But you say: Does not the importation of oleo keep the price of butter from soaring away beyond the reach of the labouring people? I believe it has the opposite effect. It tends to spoil the market for our home dairy product. It is not fair to ask our farmers-
Mark you, this is from a woman not engaged in farming.
It is not fair to ask our farmers with dairy cows to compete with the product of the American slaughterhouses, nor can we expect our Canadian farmers to keep up an expensive dairy herd unless they are assured of a home market for their produce. When we educate our people to the value yea, the absolute necessity of plenty of milk and butter in the daily diet, we will have a constant demand for the products of the dairy farm. This will ensure an abundant supply. The question of demand and supply always regulates the price. When the farmer is sure of a market for all
227J
he can produce he will produce more and at a reduced cost. The price of butter will be lowered to the consumer. Butter is cheap food at any price, for it contains that which is essential to health, and which money cannot buy as a separate product.
This is the	opinion	not	of the dairy interests but	of	a noted	lady physician in the
city of Toronto who has the welfare of growing children and the rising generation at heart. What she points out is the result of investigation.
A great deal has been made of the argument that	we	should	not	say what a manshould eat	or	drink.	But	we must confess
that we are saying it by legislation all the time. There are many countries in which articles of food that we ban are in common:' use. We believe that horse meat is not fit for food, but there are some countries in which this form of meat is very largely consumed by the people. I presume it might at least be considered fit to eat if the horse had been in good condition and free from disease, but we in Canada do not recognize it as wholesome food for the people; therefore we say that this form of meat must not be offered for sale. Now, we could argue on behalf of the man who came from a foreign country and who wished to partake of his favourite article of diet, as our friends argue on behalf of oleo, that parliament has no right to forbid that man from having the food to which he has been accustomed and which, in his case, has proved to be wholesome. So that considered from the standpoint of health we have a perfect right at least to give the benefit of the doubt to the consumer, especially to the children, in an effort to protect them as far as possible by giving them the most wholesome product we have at our disposal. If there is to be any doubt, let us err on the side of safety.
A great deal has been said about the poor man in this connection. I have personally asked a good many questions on this point, and I have yet to hear of anyone who was pleading for the poor man and his family who would admit that he used oleo for himself. It is always a case of someone giving advice for the benefit of the other fellow. It is very much like the argument of those who say, "Go back to the land;" they always want the other fellow to go back. In my own experience we have not had any complaints from labouring men or poor people; we have not had any requests from them for the continuance of the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. We have had complaints from the lumber interests and from the Retail Merchants' Association. It has been claimed that the manufacture of oleomar-
Oleomargarine-Mr. Stansell

garine is on such a small scale that it does not affect the dairy interests. But I believe that once the oleomargarine interests were assured that they would not be disturbed they would quickly take steps to put the business on a very dangerous competitive basis. In a local town, where dairying is the chief industry, oleomargarine has practically for the first time made its appearance in the local stores. It was featured very strongly in window displays and I asked the proprietors why this was done. Invariably the answer was that they would make a larger profit for themselves in handling oleomargarine; therefore they were pushing the sale of it. In other words, the profits allowed them were greater than they could obtain in the sale of butter.
I am not going to express an opinion as to what should be done as the result of promises. But I believe I can say this, representing the daily interests, that it was generally understood by the dairymen that if they submitted to this as a war measure it would be regarded as a temporary measure only. Rightly or wrongly they have come to that conclusion and they have been waiting with a good deal of patience for the time when abnormal conditions would be considered as safely past and they would again have possession of the home market that they are so well fitted to supply. The statement has been made that if it was in the nature of a promise the present government could not be expected to carry out promises made by the former one. I have nothing to say regarding that, except that the present government might well take a little warning :from the experience of the former one. Whether a promise was made or not, let us consider it from this point of view: It has been amply brought to our attention in this House that the present condition of farming is anything but rosy, and especially is that true of dairy farming. We have a large staff in our agricultural colleges, and we have heard a good deal in various parts of the country, as well as in this House, urging people to take up dairy farming, because it returns more fertility to the soil, enables the employment of more labour and is generally the most satisfactory method of farming. With all of that I can quite agree.
There is no use encouraging an industry unless you can provide a market for its output. We must admit that the condition of European countries is not now such as to enable them to buy the amount of exports we would like to send them, and the home market has been invaded by many of these coun-
JMr. Stansell.l
tries. We are therefore faced with the problem of finding a market for what we produce at present, rather -than of how to encourage greater production. Even if oleomargarine only displaces butter to the extent of four or five million pounds a year that is a market well worth catering to, and the money invested and the thousands of men and women engaged in the dairy industry should be sufficient I think for this House to have some concern for its welfare. It it comes to a choice between encouraging an industry based on importations from tropical or foreign countries and encouraging an industry at home, surely there can be only one answer from this House.
If we consider this question from the health standpoint, if we are to believe the results of investigations so far, there is no question as to the advisability of feeding our Canadian boys and girls butter in preference to oleomargarine. I will go further and make this statement, that if the food values of the two are carefully analyzed it will be found that at present prices, although oleomargarine can be bought cheaper, a dollar's worth of butter contains very much more food value than a dollar's worth of oleomargarine. Because the competition of oleomargarine is unfair, for it trades on the reputation of butter, because I believe it is in the interests of this country to encourage our people in the use of the best product and because the condition of the dairy industry is such that it needs every encouragement we can possibly give it, I have only one choice and that is to oppose, as at present regulated, the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine in every legitimate way.


Lucien Cannon: As a representative of a rural constituency wherein the dairy industry is of great importance I wish to give a few explanations before I cast my vote. On the other hand I also wish to give the assurance to the House that my remarks will be very brief. This debate has been long, and I could add very little to what has been said. .
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that most of the speakers who have addressed the House have treated this question as being one where high principles are at stake. I do not think that any high principle is at stake in this matter. The question is very simple, and should be treated in a very simple way: Should butter be preferred to oleomargarine? In my opinion good fresh butter should be given the preference.

Oleomargarine-Mr. Cannon
We are told that we cannot vote in favour of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) without being considered high protectionists. That argument was made by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). But how can that argument be seriously put forward? How can it be high protectionist to support an amendment that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) is opposing? Is there a man in this House who can be considered more of a protectionist than the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition? He has fought for protection since his entry into this House. He has fought for protection on the floor of parliament whenever the occasion has arisen, and to-day therefore can I be considered a protectionist if I vote the other way from him?
Another argument which has been brought forward is that by voting for this amendment we interfere with the freedom and liberty of the citizens of this country. Can this argument be seriously considered, Mr. Speaker, when it is brought forward by the hon. gentleman, for instance, who represents Swift Current (Mr. Lewis), who is a strong prohibitionist? Is it interfering more with the liberty of the citizen to prevent him from eating oleomargarine, which may be most unhealthy, than it is to prevent him from drinking beer or wine if he wishes? I say that these arguments have nothing to do with the question. It is not a matter of protection; the attitude of the leader of the Opposition proves it. It is not a matter of the liberty of the citzens of this country; the attitude of the hon. member for Swift Current proves it.
It has been said that the dairy industry is of great importance. I do not wish to add to the arguments which have been brought forward in support of this industry. It is an important industry, and it should grow every year in Canada. I am quite sure that every member of this House will give to that industry the encouragement that it deserves. An argument was brought forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) this afternoon that struck me particularly. The amendment mentions that we should revert to the condition of things as it existed before the order in council was passed under the War Measures Act. The hon. Minister of Finance said that parliament was in no way bound by acts or orders in council passed by former governments or by former parliaments. With all due modesty, with all due respect for the hon. gentleman's opinion on account of his vast parliamentary experience, I say that if there is one thing which is important
in Canada it is political consistency. Can one government undo what former governments have done? Can one parliament undo what former parliaments have done? Constitutionally, yes, but as a matter of political expediency, if that course were followed, where would be stability?


William Stevens Fielding: I admit at once that where there is a contract made the government is obligated and must carry it out. That is quite a different thing from an order in council.


Lucien Cannon: If an order in council was passed permitting the importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, and it was worded in such a way that it told the dairy industry of Canada that the agreement was an agreement with these people for only a short period and that it would not last any longer-


Arthur Meighen: What agreement does the hon. gentleman refer to?


Lucien Cannon: I say that it is an implied 'agreement. When an order in council is passed saying that such-and-such a thing will prevail for only a limited time, I say there is an implied agreement that that period will not be exceeded. That is the ordinary interpretation to give to plain everyday English.


Arthur Meighen: With whom?


James Murdock: Will the hon. gentleman repeat that part?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Lucien Cannon: I think the leader of the
Opposition had the floor.


Arthur Meighen: I was asking the hon.
member with whom was the agreement?


Lucien Cannon: The agreement was with
no person in particular; it was with the people of Canada in general and especially with the dairy industry.


Arthur Meighen: If the agreement was
with the people of Canada one would think the people through their representatives might release the other party to the agreement.


Lucien Cannon: There is no doubt about
that. I say that according to our constitution this parliament can undo what a former parliament has done, but should we adopt this attitude of undoing what former parliaments and former governments have done where will be stability in Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: Then we can repeal no
legislation?

Oleomargarine-Mr. Bouchard


Lucien Cannon: Certainly we can repeal
legislation. I shall give an example to the House. For instance, when the Irish treaty was passed by the Lloyd George government and there was very strong opposition in parliament to it. The people who opposed the Irish treaty were the people who put Lloyd George out of power, nevertheless they respected the treaty that statesman had entered into with the Irish people. That is the way the English constitution is to be interpreted. On the one hand we have the Minister of Finance telling the manufacturing interests of Canada we are going to have a stable tariff. But how can we have anything stable in Canada if on the other hand the same gentleman says in the House that we need not be consistent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion let me say (hat before the French Revolution there was a class of philosophers who wanted to replace God by nature. Since then we have had the Americans in industry, who wanted to replace nature by chemistry. In Canada we want to stick to nature and the longer we do so the longer we protect the farming industiy, the longer we protect the dairy industry and the longer we can hope that Canada will be a happy country.


Mr. GEORGE BOUCHARD (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker I would feel more at ease dealing with this question of oleomargarine in my mother tongue, but I believe there are no more converts to be made among the French speaking members of this House. Consequently, I crave your indulgence. Mr. Speaker, and that of the House whilst I add my remarks to this debate. The fact that this matter of oleomargarine covered more than seventy pages of Hansard last year, and will cover about the same number of pages this year, Tenders it hard for a new member to be original on this question. I am glad, however, to raise my voice in this debate and to summarize the reasons which induce me to oppose the motion of the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) and to vote in favour of the amendment.
In studying the history of oleomargarine, Mr. Speaker, we find that it was- introduced shortly before the Franco-Prussian war, and that in 1870 Mege Mouries was awarded a prize for his invention by Napoleon III. From this it will readily be seen that the introduction of this article of diet was essentially a war measure, and was naturally looked upon with favour at a time when rats were at a premium for eating purposes. At first oleomargarine was made entirely from animal fat,

principally fresh beef. Gradually the proportion of animal fat was decreased and replaced by vegetable fats such as cocoanut oil, cohune oil, cotton seed oil, kapok oil,
and sometimes by fish oil.


An hon. MEMBER:: Coal oil. Whale oil.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: That is why we have
to be selfish and protect ourselves against the oleomargarine. These oils are transformed into hard fats by a process known as hardening, or hydrogenating. This is accomplished by treating liquid oil with hydrogen in the presence of a catalytic agent, such as nickel, or its oxides, or salts, or other agents. It is generally agreed that a small quantity of the catalytic agent often remains in the finished product. Practically all oleomargarine is emulsified in skim milk or in cream, in order to give it the flavour of butter. In considering any article of diet, its nutritive value is a most important factor. Any food to be efficient must not only provide heat and energy but must also promote growth. Recent researches in nutrition have demonstrated that certain elements known as vitamines are essential to promote growth. These same researches show that while butter contains a very high percentage of these essential vitamines, oleomargarine is almost entirely, if not wholly, deficient in them. From this we may logically deduce that compared with butter, so far as its nutritive value is concerned, oleomargarine is an inferior article of diet. In this connection, I may well quote the following from Dr. McCollum's book entitled "The Newer Nutrition," which is recognized as an authoritative treatise on this subject.
The vegetable fats and oils such as olive oil, cottonseed oil, peanut and cocoanut oils, although good energy yielding foods, do not furnish this dietary essential. The body fats of animals such as lard, beef fat, etc., are not important sources of the fat-soluble A.
Practically all of McCollum's findings have been endorsed by the Lister Institution of Great Britain and the British Medical Research Committee. I would not like to tire the House with the quotation from Dr. McGill's statement as the hon. mem-12 m. ber for Strathcona (Mr. Warner) has already given it. This all tends to prove, however, that in the last analysis, nature has endowed the cow with the best process for producing good edible fat.
The supporters of this resolution have given the impression that the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine is a benefit to the poorer classes. This argument is poorer than the poor to whom it refers. No one in this House I am sure has more sympathy

Oleomargarine-Mr. Bouchard
for the poor than I have, being one of a large family brought up on a small farm where the conditions were very hard and where many sacrifices were necessary to secure my education. I know by experience the meaning of privation. If cheap food is required for poor people, as undoubtedly it is in many cases, why should we not induce them to eat raw materials similar to those from which the oleomargraine is derived such as good refined lard or good oils, both of which are just as nourishing and almost twice as cheap as oleomargarine. "Poor people" they say, and yet by legislation they would invite them to pay a tribute of 10 cents to 20 cents a pound tc manufacturers and distributors of oleomargarine. "Poor people"-this sounds well at first, but would it not be better if the poor people, instead of getting two pounds of oleomargarine, bought one pound of lard and one pound of genuine butter for about the same amount of money?
"Poor people!" and we are to make them and the country poorer by legalizing the sale of a food so evidently deficient in vitamines. If any class of people requires good butter, full of vitamines, it is surely the poorer class who have not the means to indulge, in fresh green vegetables all the year round, and whose staple article of diet in the winter time is potatoes which, as hon. members know, are very deficient in vitamines and many other things.
The statement has been made that the competition 'of oleomargarine vdth butter would tend to keep down the price of butter. When we consider, however, that our Canadian butter has to compete on the world's market, the weakness of this argument will at once be realized. As a matter of fact, if the Canadian supply of butter was insufficient to meet the needs of the home market

a condition of affairs which would naturally tend to raise the price-New Zealand or some other butter producing country would soon send its products to Canada and this would reduce the price at once.
Let us now glance at the history of legislation concerning oleomargarine in Canada since 1886, when this question was first discussed. From that date until 1917, oleomargarine was absolutely excluded from the Canadian market. In 1903, the Hon. Sydney Fisher, Minister of Agriculture in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's cabinet, reiterated the viewpoint of the government on this subject.
Following this, in 1914, the Hon. Martin Burrell, Minister of Agriculture when the Conservative party was in power, took exactly the same stand, and in the debate which was aroused he made the following statement:
I am not saying that oleomargarine is not a wholesome product to eat but if you allowed the sale of a substitute looking exactly like butter although not made of the same ingredients you would have a tremendously large staff of inspectors to prevent men from selling it as butter. They have had a great difficulty in the United States over that, and I believe the general opinion of this country would be against it.
Of course at that time there was not much question of the vitamines. In 1917, however, an order in council was passed, and as this order in council has been fully quoted, 1 would call the attention of the House just to the following words:
Such regulations to be in force and to have effect for the period during which the present abnormal conditions continue. . . . and as a war measure only.
That is, we see that oleomargarine was invented as the result of a war, and was also introduced into Canada under similar circumstances. Thus doth history repeat itself.
When the division comes on this resolution, the responsibility for saying whether the promise made to the farmers of Canada in 1917 was only another scrap of paper or not, rests with the hon. members of this House. My Progressive friends will readily agree with the statement that agriculture is the backbone of the economic structure of this country, and that dairying is one of the most important parts of the agricultural industry. It is recognized that this industry must be developed upon a much larger scale, and this has already been pointed out by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and other hon. members. How can we expect, however, that prospective investors will put money into an industry over which there hangs such a sword of Damocles as is represented by the unfair competition of an inferior substitute for butter?
It may be said that this is only another form of protection; but my Progressive friends have already admitted, in principle, that growing industries need protection, and when we consider the highly specialized state of the dairy industry in New Zealand, Denmark, Holland, we cannot do otherwise than admit that here in Canada, this industry is still in its infancy. Admitting this principle, let us begin by protecting our basic industry, an industry which should appeal to you as it does to me, as l'industrie par excellence. Let me quote a statement which I read recently:
The decline in dairying, an industry which more than any other farming industry maintains best our soil fertility, would have an unfavourable effect upon farm practice in all sections where dairying is now practised and extending.
If this resolution is carried, and a law permitting the importation and manufacturing of oleomargarine is placed upon the statute books,
Oleomargarine-Mr. Neill

the door will be opened for numberless frauds. In this connection let me quote from the Journal of Agriculture, Quebec, under date of July, 1917:
The question of controlling the manufacture and sale of margarine involves so much, a small army of inspectors would be required. Even then frauds will be numerous. In England, where, I think, they usually observe laws perhaps better than we do, there are two cases of prosecutions weekly for offences against the Margarine Act.
I would not have hon. members infer from this that every manufacturer and importer of oleomargarine would sell his product for other than what it is; but it must be remembered that much of the margarine wihch is sold goes to boarding houses, lumber camps, and so forth, where workmen are boarded and where they are supposed to be given butter.
In conclusion, and before resuming my seat, let me emphasize again the following points: First, that oleomargarine is a very inferior substitute for butter, and while possibly deceiving the eye, the palate, and even the stomach, will never deceive the physical nature, and especially that of our children who will be unable to find in it the vital elements of real food; secondly, that its importation and manufacture have been prohibited by all previous governments; and that it is a real menace to the development of the dairying industry.


Alan Webster Neill: I will not detain the House, Mr. Speaker; I promise to introduce no arguments that have been advanced by any other member, which at this stage of the game will be a somewhat diffcult undertaking. I wish for a moment to deal with the position of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). He told us that he represented a dairy constituency; that his views-shall I say his sinister views?-on the oleomargarine question had not befen put before the electors prior to his election; that he had not put them before those people since, but that he intended to carry out those views, as he believed in them, without any regard to his constituents. Now, I think I can best leave the electors of the county of Kent to deal with that situation.
I have seen in another House a member coming from an election where he did not have to fight for his seat and proclaiming in that House his indifference, his aloofness, his absolute independence of the men that presumably had sent him there. I have seen more than one man do that, but I have never seen the same man do it more than once. I think it is Solomon who describes this situation somewhat aptly. He says:
[Mr Bouchard.]
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof is death.
I am sorry that the minister devoted so much time to a consideration of this agricultural question, with which he is evidently only imperfectly acquainted. I do not, of course, blame him for that ignorance because the matter does not come within the scope of bis ministry. It is regrettable, however, nevertheless, that he spent so much time on the subject, because there is a field that opens directly in his own department which presents a much larger scope of undeveloped territory demanding instant attention. There was a pledge, we are told, in connection with oleomargarine; there was also a pledge in connection with labour. In the Treaty of Versailles, and confirmed by labour conventions later on, there was a very definite pledge given to labour, by virtue of and in reward for their services during the war, that a certain definite schedule of labour reforms would be aimed at, and carried out at the earliest possible moment. Canada was one of the signing parties to the agreement, and that was five years ago. So far as I know, not a single iota, jot or tittle or these reforms have been carried out in this country. So that this is a matter that presents great scope for a man of the energy of the Minister of Labour, without his delving into these remote subjects of more strictly agricultural concern.
Now, there is no need for me to go into the merits of the case, and I do not propose to do so, especially seeing that I spoke at great length on the subject last year, and in view of the fact that the amendment of the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) has limited the discussion entirely to the question of a pledge given and the desire to fulfil that pledge now. I can only say, in order to save time, that I entirely and heartily endorse the stand taken, first by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke), and secondly, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). It would be painting the lily and adorning the rose for me to try to add anything to the able way in which those hon. gentlemen have dealt with the subject. There is no question that the pledge was given. The conditions have passed away and now the time has come -in fact, it has long since passed-when that pledge should be fulfilled.
The right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) stressed to some extent the point that the order in council was of a temporary character, and he indicated that the government of that day only had power to pass, under the War Measures Act, legislation

Oleomargarine-Mr. Neill
for a temporary purpose. That, no doubt, is true. But the order in council went further than that, for it not only took certain action but it specifically stated that there would be a time when the suspension of the prohibition would cease to take effect. Not only did it say when that suspension would cease; it even went to the trouble and the precision of defining the body who would decide when this condition had arrived; the conclusion of the period of suspension was to be determined by His Excellency the Governor General in Council. It is true that the order in council no longer exists; we are aware of that. But the temporary character of its enactment was carried on into legislation, because we find the word "temporary" apears in the title of the act into which the order in council was later crystallized.
I desire for a moment to turn to a consideration of the stand taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who asked us more than once, when or where a pledge would end. He told us that a government had no business, or was not bound-I think that was the precise word-to carry out the undertakings of its predecessors. While that is technically true, it is so only in a very limited sense. There is no doubt the government of to-day can cancel the laws of yesterday; they can cancel their own laws. But a government cannot cancel contracts without providing some compensation therefor. That is the difference between changing a law with the consent of parliament and cancelling a contract or repudiating a pledge, legally or even morally given, with all its obligations. The Minister of Finance asked us again and again, when does a pledge end? I think the answer is obvious: a pledge ends when it is fulfilled. A promise ceases when it is carried out. Let us consider a few illustrations.
Any hon. member of this House who has been under the necessity of -pawning his watch in a case of temporary financial embarrassment will understand what I mean. This experience has never occurred to me, because in the many periods of my financial disability I have never had a watch worth pawning. But one can realize if he did find himself in that position, that he would not get his watch back until the pledge was redeemed in the ordinary way. Or take a more businesslike illustration-a mortgage, say. I am speaking now of a hypothetical case under British Columbia law, which follows the English law, and may or may not be different from the law in the province of Quebec. In a mortgage, the outstanding feature, the gravamen, is personal obligation. There is a phrase indicating a promise to pay to So-and-So the
sum borrowed. That is the centre, so to speak, of the mortgage. Of course, the bondage of the land is also valuable, but that is only as collateral security, and if that security diminishes in value and does not realize the amount of the mortgage, then a personal obligation rests upon the man who borrowed the money to repay it out of whatever other funds he may possess. In other words, his pledge continues until he has paid back the money. The same thing is true in reference to a note. I am not aware that our note wears out like a suit of secondhand clothes, if you have it long enough. There is, it is true, a statute of limitations with regard to debts. But who would suggest that we should invoke the statute of limitations in connection with the moral or legal obligations of a government?
I think the example cited by the hon. member for Missisquoi was a very good one, that
is,	in connection with the British government. The case there was even stronger than it is here. In the matter of the removal of the embargo on cattle, the British government had no order in council that could bind them; they had no legislation that could compel them to do what they did. It was a simple fulfilment of a promise given by a British statesman across the table to a Canadian statesman. But the British government made good on it. The British government did not want
it,	the people did not want it, and they held an election on it and said, "We do not like it, it is going to hurt us"-they thought it would at any rate-"but we have made a promise and we must stick to it." For my part I am proud to be associated with a government and a parliament that will follow the very best traditions of British public men in this regard.
I should like to say a word regarding the Progressive party in this House-not by way of commendation, Sir, for that would be presumptuous on my part, but the man on the outside sometimes sees conditions from a somewhat different angle to that from which they are viewed by those immediately concerned. I do not think that up to date the party has done anything that will strengthen them more in the confidence and esteem of the country than by the action they have indicated they are going to take on this measure to-night. It will be years before they will have a very great-shall I say?-clientele outside the farmers. It is to the farmers of the country that they must look in the first place. They have been accused in the past of being one-sided, parochial, short-sighted, but the action they intend to take to-night, as expressed by the leader of their party and by many of those who follow him, will show
Oleomargarine-Mr. Neill

that they are capable of taking a broad, national view of this subject, and as a consequence they will secure the esteem and support of fanners from one end of Canada to the other-the first occasion I think on which they have received it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, at any rate I am sure that this action will be favourably received from one end of Canada to the other and will materially increase the standing of the party in the country. I am safe in saying that. They have deserved the name which is given to them of the National Progressive party, for their attitude shows that they have taken a national and also a progressive view in the best sense of the word in regard to this subject. I have criticized them in the past, and therefore I am glad to be able, on behalf at least of the dairy farmers of my constituency and, I believe, of British Columbia generally, to thank the National Progressive party for the stand they are taking to-night.
Referring to the original motion moved by my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll), I think hon. members will find that if they look at the amendment introduced by my hon. friend from Missisquoi (Mr. Kay), which I think the right hon. leader of the Opposition described as clumsy, they will find I think that it is clear-cut and distinct, for it indicates exactly what is proposed to be done under it. But let me refer for the moment to the original motion. You will find there a strange confusion of ideas. In the first half dozen lines it provides that despite certain acts-and it is quite proper to express it in that way-such and such shall happen, that the offering for sale and so on of oleomargarine shall henceforth be permitted. So far as that goes you understand clearly the position. It says, in defiance of certain acts to the contrary, that henceforth the sale and manufacture of oleomargarine shall be permitted. Had it stopped there it would have been intelligible, but the motion goes on to say, "subject to the provisions of the said Oleomargarine Act." Well, the said Oleomargarine Act-there is only one, which has been extended from time to time-says that oleomargarine shall go out of business on the 31st day of August. So while in the early part of the motion the hon. gentleman expresses a determination that its sale and [DOT] manufacture shall henceforth be permitted, he also says that it shall be "subject to the provisions of the said act." If it is subject to su,ch provisions, the manufacture and sale . of oleomargarine will automatically cease on

the 31st August. Had the hon. member put in the words, "in other regards" or "subject otherwise to the provisions of the act," that would have expressed a different meaning. But as it stands the motion is vague and confusing and ultimately binds the government to nothing and is in sharp contrast with the distinct meaning which is expressed by the amendment.
The hon. member who introduced that motion has, as we all know, a high legal standing in his profession. He is a man of repute in his profession, and we all know his ability as we have seen it expressed in this House-and I am not saying this in sarcasm at all, I am speaking the sober truth. However, believing that as I do, it is impossible for me to so impugn the hon. gentleman's motive as to suggest that he drew that amendment wrongly by accident, blunder or incompetence. While it might be in order for me to so assume, I do not believe it is justified by what we know of his ability and his reputation. Therefore I think I am justified in concluding that he drew it in that way of deliberate intent; and, if so, I am pleased to say that I am proud of his action in that regard. If he did so of deliberate intent, why then he put that abortive, or at least noneffective, resolution on the order paper presumably to stop other resolutions that might be more effective, and he has taken this method to show-and I honour him for it- that the Swift Company of Chicago have overdone their lobbying in this House and he has shown this House I hope that he possesses -and I always thought he did- a rugged independence that would never allow him by any means to be put in a position where it might be suggested he was the man Friday of any alien corporation in the States or anywhere else. Now, I have sat in this House for over four months and watched with a good deal of interest and a certain amount of disgust the persistent lobbying in this House of these alien interests from Chicago. They have camped in the galleries, they have haunted our rooms, they have slept on our doorsteps, so to speak, and one of their main arguments has been their desire to give the poor workingman of Canada a wholesome food at a cheap price. I have sometimes wondered when I have seen the lobby that is carried on whether, if they succeed in establishing oleomargarine permanently in Canada, that poor workingman would not ultimately have to pay the price of this lobby, because you can easily conceive that when conditions are such that there are only two companies allowed to

manufacture oleomargarine in Canada it would be easy, once its manufacture was permanently established, to so manoeuvre and manipulate prices that the cost of this extensive lobby would be amply repaid out of the pockets of the poor workingmen for whom the Swift Company of Chicago profess to take such an altruistic interest. I have sometimes wondered when I have seen all this going on whether it was these paid lobbyists or whether it was we ourselves who took the oath of office when we came down here that we would act in the best interest of our constituencies and the country. It is not they who took the oath, it is we. We have got to answer to our God so far as our oath is concerned, and to our constituents for the pledges we made before election and since. Therefore I would suggest that we throw aside all these paid arguments and address ourselves to the consideration of this subject animated only by the oath we took and the pledges we gave that we would one and all of us legislate in the best interests-putting it on the lowest basis-of our constituents. If we do that I think the aggregate result will also be in favour of the best interests of the people of Canada.


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to submit to the House that the amendment which has been proposed serves rather to becloud and sidetrack the real issue.
I think this issue ought to be faced, and it might as well be faced now as at any time. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Shaw:
That the amendment be amended further by adding thereto the following words:
"and that the government do before the end of the present session submit to parliament such legislation in the premises as may be deemed advisable."


Hewitt Bostock: Does the hon. gentleman
intend to speak on this sub-amendment?


William Charles Good: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have
not much to say further. In my judgment it is necessary and desirable that -the real question we have in the back of our minds be settled before the end of this session. If the first amendment which is now before the House should carry, it will leave the whole matter in the air. The government may choose to do nothing. I do not think it is desirable that the government should be enabled to simply sit tight. I think the issue ought to be faced and decided, and it is for the purpose of bringing the matter to a head in that way that I move this further amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
sub-amendment. Those in favour of the subamendment will please say "aye."
6, 1923	3567
Oleomargarine-Mr. Bird


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker,
I was about to rise before this amendment was proposed, and I was about to say that I did not like the amendment. I do not like its head; I do not like its body, and now that it has got a tail I do not think that it is improved thereby.
My intention in rising was to make a word or two of explanation, because I intend to vote against the amendment, and now against the amendment to the amendment. I think it is always easier to make an explanation before one votes than afterwards. I do not envy the position of some hon. members who will have to explain themselves afterwards.
I do not wish to impute any motives to those who are responsible for this amendment or who support it, but I have observed certain things in the debate that have raised questions in my mind. For instance, I have thought that some of the hon. members have been supporting the amendment from purely humanitarian motives, a kind of inverted Benthamism, the least good for the least number. Now, I do not take very much stock in humanitarian arguments on economic questions. I think that all good economics, all just economics, are fundamentally humanitarian and that you do not need to be continually dragging in the widow and the orphan and the poor workingman. I have a great deal of respect for the poor workingman and the widow and the orphan, but for the purpose of rational discussion it might be just as well if we abolished them. I think we could even afford to bury them in wool or, perhaps still better, in butter, I do not, as I say, take any stock in that kind of argument. We hear it frequently in discussions of questions of this kind but I do not think it deceives anybody.
Now, another thing occurred to me, I hope I am not going out of my way to impute motives, but it seemed to me that this amendment was not so much an amendment as a convenient sand-hill in which political ostriches might hide their heads for the time being, until somebody made a definite move in the matter. It seems to me that everybody is waiting for somebody else to declare himself on this question. I do not know whether or not this is general, but it is a type of procedure which I personally object to. I think hon. members ought to be willing to say "no" or "yes" to the motion on the order paper without all this seeking of convenient refuges and putting it up to somebody else to take the first step in the matter.
Then, again I have thought that perchance some moralist had invented this amendment in order that the sanctity of pledges might

Oleomargarine-Mr. Bird
be observed. I think that pledges from parliament to parliament ought to be observed and held in veneration, and also pledges from one party to another. That is, pledges of governments or parties when in power and out of power ought to be held sacred, too. If we are going to talk about pledges let us talk	about pledges per se-in
themselves. I do not think there is a great deal in the moralistic side of this argument. I cannot persuade myself that there is much sincerity in it. I do not think this parliament is greatly concerned in the keening of pledges. 1 cannot say that any hon. gentleman sitting opposite can claim to be specially interested in the sanctity of pledges. There have been those who have referred tc this amendment as a piece of protection for the farmers, and I honour the frankness of the hon. gentlemen who take that position, because I think it is the only straightforward position to take. I am standing here to-night not as one who is a hard and fast believer m consistency. I do not draw that distinctic-between expediency and principle which the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) does. For instance; I believe that expediency is principle, or a kind of principle. It all depends on how you use it. If you use it openly and with a declared purpose and without any intent to mislead or deceive, I think that is justifiable. I have a great deal ot sympathy with some hon. members on my own side of the House who imagine that by prohibiting oleomargarine they are doing a service to the cause of agriculture. However, I have been watching this process very keenly, and I hope with some foresight, and it seems to me that the farmers of this country are beginning to nose around the protection trough, they are beginning to sniff around it. They have seen other people in it for fifty years and they have been shoved aside or have been persuaded to keep aside. But tonight the farmers of Canada, it seems to me, are beginning to see the attractions of that trough and some of their old time prejudices are being held less firmly than before. Will any man stand up in this House and say that they are to be blamed for that, that they are swallowing their principles? Why, what are principles for but to be swallowed:
A marciful Providunce fashioned us holler O' purpose thet we might our principles swaller.
It is not the swallowing that is wrong; it is the inopportune time that we choose to swallow. This is a very opportune time for the farmers to swallow their principles, because they will go down very easily with oleomargarine-or butter. I want to point out
IMr. Bird.]
this, and I hope I do not need to point it out because everybody with his eyes open will have seen it before now, that the farmers of this country are of the same flesh and blood as farmers elsewhere in the world, and we have seen the British farmer go to his government with the plea for protection; we have seen the United States farmer go to his government with the plea for protection, and we have seen the Canadian farmer to-night not exactly asking the government for protection but just hovering around and trying to hint to the government' that they would like some protection if they dared give it to
them.	That is the position. Now where are we coming to? We are coming to this position; we are just beginning to get in the thin end of the wedge and by and by you are going to have a Farmers' party in Canada that will be one hundred per cent protectionist. They will all be in the trough
then.


Robert Henry Halbert: Never.


Thomas William Bird: You are getting in it to-night, those who are going to vote for this amendment. I am laying down lines of logic, and those who say "never" will be up against something in the future. I am not speaking against any gentleman in the Farmers' party to-night who thinks he ought to vote against eloomargarine to protect the farmers' interests. That is what we are all coming to. For fifty years the farmer has been wedded to a theory, and where has it got him? He trusted to a free trade party to' bring him relief, and where has that got him? The farmers of Canada cannot afford to go on for anothei fifty years on the same principle. They must have something more to live on than simply professions. I was wondering to-night how much difference it would have made to this debate if someone could have given us an authoritative definition of what a dairyman is. Supposing Mr. Speaker could have settled for this House what a dairyman is. Is it the man that milks the cow, or the man that milks the man that milks the cow? That is what we are up against to-night, and that is why all the parties are divided because they do not know whether they are supporting the farmer or the manufacturer, and we are slithering around all over the place on this question of oleomargarine simply because we do not know whom we are supporting.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Speak for yourself.


Thomas William Bird: I am speaking for myself and I think I am speaking for a good many more too, if they would only get up and say so.

Oleomargarine-Mr. Putnam
Some hon. gentlemen are very eloquent from their seats in this House, but we rarely see them on their feet to express their opinions.
I foresee the time, and you can judge whether I am speaking ironically or not, when this party here will ha,ve lost all the faith they ever had in the free trade party in this country. I do not think they have lost it all yet. We are still hoping we will get some support from the free trade party in this country, but our faith has been badly shaken and I think it has pretty nearly got to the vanishing point. What are we going to do? There is a party at the other end of this House, the high protectionist party, and what are we going to do when he have lost faith in the party across the way? We are going to turn to this party at the other end. We are all going to be high protectionists. We are going to turn to them and say: "Get out a scheme, you protectionists, and you manufacturers' associations, and come and hold conferences with the long-suffering farmers of Canada and see if we cannot get some remedy for the position we have been in for the last fifty years. We have to do something. We cannot live in a vacuum. We have got to have actual benefits." That is economics. We are not here to prate about theories or anything of that kind. You cannot live on theories. Who is the theorist in this House anyway? Who is the expedient man in this House? Why I was amazed today and I rubbed my eyes when in another place I saw a high protectionist quoting Adam Smith as a sound economist. I thought that was about the furthest I could get, but to-night I rubbed my eyes again when I saw sound free traders advocating high protection, and protection as somebody has said, in its worst form, but I would say in its most naive form. It reminds me of the story of the deputation of orange growers that went to McKinley to get a duty on bananas. He said, "We do not grow any bananas in America," but the deputation said, "We know that, but we calculate like this: We think if the people get their stomachs full of bananas they will have no room for oranges." That seems to be about the position of the advocates of the elimination of oleomargarine. They seem to be afraid that if the people get their stomachs full of oleo they will not have room for butter. I say that is the most naive kind of protection you can think of. Where are we getting to? Our principles are all up in the air together. We are none of us on solid ground, and therefore we have to get together as all sensible men should and try and arrange a practical solution for the difficulties of the dairyman, however you may
define him, and for the farmer generally in this country. I am only throwing out a hint to the party to my right. I leave it to them to work it out as best they can.
One hon. gentleman said to-night that this was the first time that the Progressive party had ever done right. That is a very significant remark that I would like the members of the Progressive party to think about. It seems to me that is where the confusion of right and wrong comes in. His right is our wrong and our wrong is his right. This is the first time we have done right, which means to our way of thinking, the first time we have ever done wrong.


Harold Putnam: I did not intend to delay the House and would not have risen but for some rather remarkable statements which in the last few moments have fallen from the last speaker, the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird). From his occupation and training I had hoped for a logical speech; I had expectation of a charitable speech, but as far as any attempt on his part to interpret my reasons for casting the vote I shall give is concerned, he was utterly uncharitable, and therefore I must occupy a few moments to make myself clear.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. gentleman seems to imply that I had some direct implication with regard to himself. I have not heard the hon. gentleman speak.


Harold Putnam: I did not intend to imply that, but I take up his imputation of motives. He professed some lingering faith in the Liberal party and some hope in the Conservative party but he showed an absolute lack of that greatest grace of charity towards many of us who are voting for this amendment from a special reason. The hon. gentleman professes his inability to distinguish a humanitarian from an economic question, and he gave the concrete and instanced or implied that those of us who are voting on this question on the basis of child welfare were not sincere, and he said in terms that only those who approached it from the standpoint of protection for the farmer were doing so with any straightforwardness, or words exactly to that effect. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that two hon. gentlemen in this House the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Warner) and the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard), based the major portion of their speeches on the argument of child welfare, and I for one found my information in that regard very much supplemented and buttressed by the excellent speeches of these two honourable members, and I cannot thank the
Oleomargarine-Mr. Putnam

hon. member for Nelson for telling us that the
only straightforward vote from those opposed to oleomargarine will be on the part of those who are frankly for protection for the farmer.
I was impressed, Mr. Speaker, with the humanitarian aspect of this question which the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) professes so frankly to ignore. In this country we have rather a unique climate. It is very rigorous in the winter, it is in many parts very severely warm in the summer; and while, for the moment, I cannot recall exact figures it is a tremendously unfortunate fact that infant mortality in Canada is comparatively heavy. That infant and child mortality is heavier in the Canadian cities. I am not going to say that solely because the children in the country have plentiful access to the products of the dairy the mortality there is less. But, Mr. Speaker, that fact stands as a very obvious circumstance in connection with an unfortunate situation. Now while the hon. member for Nelson professes to ignore the humanitarian aspect of this question he has done nothing to dispute, or dispose of, or disprove the statements and the arguments of two or three hon. members of this House who at least did base their case upon the welfare of the little child who cannot even say what is palatable always-the little child of the poor man. That child should have access as freely and openly as possible to products of the dairy during his growing years. It is not disputed that oleomargarine lacks the vitamines which are necessary for the bringing of that child to a healthy maturity. Oh, you may say, he will get them elsewhere, he will get them from vegetables. But let us remember that those fresh vegetables are just the very things that the poor man in the cities cannot always afford, that he gets but a very small quantity, and in many cases none at all. Having regard to the parents of whom these poor children are begotten does it need more than the opinion of a layman to recognize that if it is a bad and an unwholesome thing for the children to be reared without the vitamines of butter, that the parents themselves, getting along on oleo, minus these vitamines, will unfortunately reflect that very deficiency in the life of their little children.
Mr. Speaker, we are confronting a problem as to how we shall get immigrants to this country. I am not going to utter any word of censure or reproof on anything that has been done, but we all know that it would be a valuable asset to raise a good healthy Canadian as compared with importing a foreigner and trying to convert him and educate him in Canadian ways. I believe it is 
quite within the conception of probability that children of the Canadian poor are dying in our Canadian cities in substantial numbers, or that their health is becoming impaired, because the products of the dairy are not circulated freely enough amongst them. You may tell me "Oh, the poor man may get nothing at all for his children if he does not get oleomargarine." But, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the question from a sensible basis. In those long years when oleomargarine was prohibited in Canada the child of the poor man did get its butter, and the parents of the poor children yet to be born got their butter. There is tangible argument here that child welfare cries out that oleomargarine should be discouraged because it is a plagiarism of butter; and I for one, though I represent an agricultural community, hope to-night that I am taking higher ground. I most respectfully resent the imputation that the hon. member for Nelson has cast against the vote which I intend to pass. I shall not have the blood or the impaired health of any child crying from the ground because of any vote of mine to-night which might encourage the consumption of oleomargarine and thereby necessarily discourage and lessen the use of butter amongst the children of the poor or amongst the potential parents in the ranks of the poor. With all the goodwill in the world certain women's organizations in the cities of Canada have been working for the permanent recognition of oleomargarine by the law of this country. I must humbly advise them that I consider such propaganda inimical to the ultimate health and life of the children of the poor.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Montmorency): I rise to a point of order. I do not believe that the sub-amendment proposed by the hon. member for Brant is in order and I would ask for your ruling on the point. [DOT] Rule 36 provides that when a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it with a view to improving it, or accomplishing some such good purpose. The sub-amendment provides that the government of the day, before the end of the present session, shall submit to parliament such legislation as in the premises it deems advisable. The resolution before the House asks that the manufacture, importation and sale of oleomargarine shall henceforth be permitted; and the amendment of the hon. member for Missisquoi declares that the prohibition respecting oleomargarine was, under the War Measures of 1917, only removed for a certain limited period of time. Now, the only thing necessary in order to carry out the object of

Oleomargarine-M r. Casgrain
the hon. member for Brant is to pass no legislation because I understand that the continuation of the importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine was permitted only until next August or September. Therefore it is not necessary to bring in any legislation such as is contemplated by the sub-amendment. We do not need to introduce any legislation when the permission given expires in August or September, and it will not be permissible after that time for any person to import, manufacture or sell oleomargarine. I therefore maintain that the hon. gentleman's subamendment is out of order.


William Charles Good: Does the hon. member think I am proposing this in order that the prohibition shall lapse?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: No, but you ask the government to bring in a law to enforce the motion made by the hon. member for Missis-quoi. I say that is not necessary. You obtain the same result by not bringing in any legislation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Hewitt Bostock: I should like to hear the opinion of the House on the point of order.


William Charles Good: May I speak to the point of order? I only do so to remove what I think is an entire misapprehension on the part of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Mont-morency (Mr. Casgrain). I may say very frankly that I am not in favour of the prohibition of the importation and manufacture of oleo. The hon. member assumed that I was in favour of that, and that it was the reason why I moved the sub-amendment. I may frankly state that my purpose in moving it was to prevent inaction which might result in the automatic revival of the prohibition. I want the matter to be settled. I do not want the government to dodge the issue and to allow the whole thing to drift back again to where it was in 1914.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is arguing the general merits of the question. That is not a point of order; he must speak to the point of order.


William Charles Good: Perhaps I was departing a little bit from the point of order, but I wanted to explain the
1 a.m. purpose that I had in mind in order to clear up the objection which is raised.


Mr. GRAHAM:: How could that be an
amendment to the amendment which does not provide for that?


Arthur Meighen: I do not agree with the amendment, but certainly I see no substance to the point of order. How it can be argued that the amendment is out of order passes me. Let me put it in this way: The amendment calls upon the government to come down to parliament with a bill. The hon. member argues that if the government decide against oleomargarine, they do not need a bill. Such may be the case, but how does that argue against the validity of the amendment? If it were an argument against the validity of the sub-amendment, it would be an argument against the validity of the main amendment. We do not need, for example, to pass any legislation or any resolution to get rid of the present legislation. It dies of itself. The argument would be equally valid against the main amendment, but in my judgment it is equally invalid against both. I argued against the main amendment on the ground that it is a direct negative, and I think it is, although His Houour the Speaker ruled against me; but I submit this is no argument against the validity of the sub- amendm ent.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The question as to the relevancy and regularity of the first amendment was settled by you, Mr. Speaker, and the statement of my right hon. friend on that has no relevancy to the point raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Mont-morency (Mr. Casgrain). May says at page 261 on the question of moving a sub-amendment to an amendment:
Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the House, the question, or amendment as amended, would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
The effect of the amendment of the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) is along the line that no legislation should be passed at all. That is its effect. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) comes along and proposes a sub-amendment which declares that the government should bring down legislation to give effect to the amendment when manifestly and clearly no such thing is possible. Therefore it is a direct negative, and the suggestion of the hon. member for Brant is a direct contravention of the rule I have read and also a similar rule which is laid down by Beauchesne in rule 333 at page 93. To put the matter again, if the House should agree to the proposition of the hon. member for Missisquoi, it declares itself committed to a proposition which involves no legislation being introduced. Then the hon. member for Brant asks the House to
3572	COMMONS
Oleomargarine-Mr. Macdonald. (Pictou)
stultify itself by declaring that the government, if they deem advisable in the premises, should bring in some legislation to give effect to the amendment. This, of course, would be absolutely absurd, and I cannot see how it would be possible to vote for such an amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: A resolution might be absolutely absurd and yet absolutely in order. The sub-amendment may be absurd-I am not arguing the point at all; I think it is a mistaken amendment-but it is simply adding words to a previous amendment, and although I cannot see any necessity for it, on the pure question of order, I do not see any objection to it.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: To show that the sub-amendment of the hon. member for Brant is out of order, let me say that the main motion is that legislation be introduced. That substantive question is before the House, and surely it cannot be in order to have it again brought before the House in the form of an amendment.


Mr. SHAW:: I should like to point out in answer to the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), that the sub-amendment is rather contradictory of the original proposed resolution. The original proposed resolution suggests that legislation should be provided that oleomargarine shall henceforth be permitted. I take it that that means a permanent oleomargarine measure. The government in their wisdom, if acting under the subjamendment, may bring in legislation looking to a continuance of the permission to manufacture and sell oleomargarine for a year or, perhaps, a longer period.


George Perry Graham: If the amendment to the amendment carried, how would the amendment as amended read? What would be the sense to it?


William Stevens Fielding: The question is not whether there is any sense to it or not; the question is whether or not it is in order.


Arthur Meighen: With all deference to the minister, I think it makes sense. The amendment reads, that all the legislation passed, that is, in 1918, should be swept away, in order that the matter will stand as if such legislation had never been passed; that is, in the words of the amendment, that the matter will stand "in the same position as before the enactment of the said temporary suspension." If we were in the same position as before the enactment of the 1918 legislation, we would *be free to enact as we liked, and the govern-

ment would be free to bring in legislation as though previous legislation had never been enacted.


George Perry Graham: If the amendment carried, would any enactment be required?


Arthur Meighen: The government would be free to bring in legislation. For the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) to say that they cannot do so, is absurd. Further, the amendment to the amendment recommends that this legislation brought in such as the government deems wise. Certainly this makes sense. I am against the sub-amendment, but it is an amendment undoubtedly.


Robert Forke: I understand this amendment means that it simply puts the situation back where it was prior to the legislation that made it possible to manufacture oleomargarine. If this amendment is carried, it still remains open for the government to introduce legislation if they see fit. That is the only reason I could find for supporting the amendment.


Donald Sutherland: The motions moved appear to be a direct negative of each other from beginning to end. This process started about a week ago on a bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) followed by a resolution in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) and a further amendment introduced by the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay), which was a direct negative. It appears to me that this is another negative. The words used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that the resolution might be absurd but be in order, I think will apply to the whole process. It has been an absurdity from the beginning to the end, and it has been an encroachment upon the privileges of parliament to introduce such a process of shirking responsibility as we have had.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion which was introduced this afternoon by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) briefly expresses the desire that the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine should be made lawful in Canada henceforth. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) expresses the desire that the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine should not be made lawful, but that we should revert to the situation in which we were before the order in council granting a temporary suspension of the prohibition was passed. The drafting of this amendment is amply justified by May, pages 253 and 258. It is my authority on the subject. The amendment states that the suspension was

Oleomargarine-Mr. Carroll
but a temporary war measure and that it should now be removed and the question left, without prejudice, as to its merits, in the same position as before the enactment of that temporary suspension.
The prohibition against oleomargarine will be resuscitated, by the simple efflux of time, in a few weeks or months from now. That prohibition might be qualified or it might be complete. The sub-amendment, in my humble judgment, is in order because it asks that before that time shall have arrived the government shall take action and therefore say during the present session what it will do. In other words, the government is directed by parliament to take action not later on in a few weeks or months but now whilst parliament is in session on the proposition submitted in the amendment as moved by the hon. member by Missisquoi (Mr. Kay). I therefore rule the sub-amendment to be logically in order.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I have very few words to say in reply; I shall confine my remarks now to a consideration of the order in council passed in 1918. It has been stated that the order in council as drafted contains a pledge to the dairymen of the country that the manufacture of oleomargarine would be prohibited at the close of the war. I say that there is no such pledge in the order in council; no pledge of the kind was intended when that order in council was drafted. The order in council simply conformed to the usual order passed under the War Measures Act of 1914. I believe it was passed in August; and when hon. gentlemen make any assertion of the kind that has been put forward in this debate, they are evidently doing so without having fairly read the order in council and the act based thereon. I was not a member of the House at that time, but I have no doubt in the world that the dairy interests of this country were never approached in the matter, and never approached the government, because I do not think that the government of that day made known to any interests in Canada, daily or otherwise, any order in council which they intended to pass based upon the War Measures Act of 1914.
Some hon. gentlemen say that for fifty years oleomargarine has been kept out of Canada. Yes, Sir; and for five hundred years the franchise was kept from the people of England, but they ultimately got it; and for sixty-five years responsible government was kept from the Canadian people in some provinces, but
they, too, ultimately obtained their right. So that this is no argument whatever against the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada. The manufacture of this butter substitute is not an imposition on anybody in this country; it absolutely is not. On the other hand, it undoubtedly is an imposition on the Canadian people to deprive them of oleomargarine if they desire to have it. You are not imposing on any people in this country by allowing the manufacture of oleomargarine, because you do not compel anyone to eat it or even to have it on his premises. The member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) had a few kind words to say about myself, and no doubt he meant them. But I do resent the latter part of his speech wherein he talks about paid arguments in this House. So far as I am concerned, I want to assure the hon. gentleman that my arguments are not paid for except by tne indemnity I receive. And when the hon. member goes on to refer to certain interests staying around doors, I should like him to look around the galleries to-night and say who, apparently, are taking more interest in this matter-the paid servants of the dairy industry, or those whom he pretends to see there, and whom I have not seen, as representing the oleomargarine interests of the country. My hon. friend from Missisquoi in his opening remarks said that I was less belligerent to-day than I was on the last occasion this subject was before the House. I am never very belligerent, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes I am spirited; and I shall continue to be spirited so long as hon. members break the rules of the House by using in reference to myself language which you, Sir, declare to be unparliamentary. Before I sit down, I hope that hon. members will give to this question a fair meed of consideration. If they do, I believe they will vote for the main resolution and against the amendment.


Arthur Meighen: I am rather reluctant to crave the indulgence of the House even for a moment. I desire to state, though, that while I agree to the validity of the sub-amendment offered by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) I am compelled to oppose it. Did the sub-amendment stand alone, the principle it embodies would receive my support. I feel it is quite consistent with the amendment, and should be added if the amendment is to carry. In other words, if the amendment is a correct statement of fact and principle and goes into effect, it should be followed by action on the part of the government. I cannot support it because it is an addition to and incorporated with the sub-amendment. The subamendment I regard as a false statement as the



Oleomargarine-Mr. Meighen
official imprimatur of this parliament, a false implication to the people of Canada. Consequently, no matter what is appended to it, I must vote against it.
Anyone who believes the amendment I cannot understand voting against the subamendment. I disbelieve the amendment; I believe it is a subterfuge, admirably described by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) as camouflage. It is only a means of escape from an affirmative or a negative answer to the main motion. The amendment states that assurances were given at the time of the prohibition of oleomargarine that the suspension was but temporary. The implication is that some contractual assurance was given certain persons that at the expiration of the temporary measure parliament would not be free to enact such legislation as it liked. No such assurance was given. Nothing was done save the passing of legislation, first by order in council and subsequently by this House. It is passing strange to me, Mr. Speaker, that this House of Commons, which last year knew everything it knows to-day, which last year	knew	all	that was	embodied in the	order	in	council, whichlast year knew	every	word of the	statute, and which	last year	felt itself	perfectly free to enact a prohibition of oleomargarine or to enact art abolition of such prohibition, should now after twelve months find that it had tied its hands behind its back four years before it deliberated last year. Nobody has ever insinuated that there was anything in the world in the way of an assurance that was not contained in the order in council and in the legislation. We knew of the order in council last year, we knew of the legislation. Then how is it that we felt perfectly free last year, and now we find ourselves fettered and shackled? Really to assert to any person that parliament is not free at the close of temporary legislation to do as it feels right in the interests of the people of Canada is an affront both to its intelligence and to the intelligence of the nation.
I make an appeal to hon. members of this House to face this as we ought to face any situation. Leaving aside the question of government policy-and I think the government should have a policy-the matter is now before parliament. Then let us be honest, do not let us try to escape a clear yes or no under an assertion of an assurance, which assurance never existed. That is my appeal to hon. members. I make no further argument on the main motion or on the question that we ought to get finality. I make an appeal that we

sweep aside these subterfuges and get to the question, and that hon. members vote yea or nay upon it. I have stated my position upon it alreadjr and I will buttress it by no further argument.
Hon. members who are opposed to oleomargarine, who believe it is bad for the dairy industry and for the nation in general, who think it is going to hurt little children and all the rest of the community, let them sweep away the arguments and push oleomargarine aside. Why should hon. members put this amendment between themselves and oleomargarine? Why does the hon. member whose heart is bleeding for the little children and who thinks they are going to be hurt argue against the merits of oleomargarine behind an amendment of this sort? Is the man who believes that oleomargarine is an unsound food, that it is deleterious to health, that it is condemned by medical authority-is he going to stand up and say that he is not free to express his opinion because of an assurance given by a government or by a parliament five years ago? Could anything be more absurd? Were it not parliamentary I would say: Could anything be more cowardly? I can understand hon. members being opposed to oleomargarine. I am free to admit that I am myself opposed to the unrestricted manufacture and importation of oleomargarine under conditions as they are to-day, and I can understand hon. members being opposed to oleomargarine under any conditions. Such a position may be right; I do not think it is. But I cannot understand hon. members who have opinions upon the subject at all seeking to hide the expression of those opinions and their reflection by a vote in this House behind an amendment which, I repeat, is an affront both to the intelligence of the House and of Canada.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am induced to say a word or two in reply to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) who intimated that there was no promise or assurance given the people of Canada or the dairymen except that implied in the order in council. Even if that were so, in addition to the very distinct assurance implied in the order in Council, we have the sworn testimony of Mr. Stonehouse, president of the Canadian Dairymen's Association, taken before the Agricultural committee this session, in the course of which he said:
Therefore the expressed-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I regret to say that the hon. minister may not refer to a statement made before a committee unless its report is before the House.

Oleomargarine-Mr. Sutherland


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for the question?


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, I have refrained from taking part in the debate up to the present, but in the face of the statement made by the mover of the resolution with regard to the influence of paid servants of the dairy industry claimed to be in the galleries, I wish to take exception to any implication that I am in any way influenced by any person outside of those I am here to represent. I repudiate any such suggestion, and I am surprised that it should come from the member who moved this resolution, with which I am not in accord.
I have heard something with respect to the order in council which permitted the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. I have a very distinct recollection of the time it was passed and from that time down to the present I have been strongly opposed to the regulations which were issued in pursuance of that order. I have stated repeatedly that I was not opposed to the manufacture and importation under proper regulations, but the regulations which have been in effect are such as have never been in effect in any other country in the civilized world. The manufacturers and importers of oleomargarine have been given a freedom and a liberty such as has obtained in no other country, I care not where you go, and it was for this reason that I have so bitterly opposed the continuation of the permissivt legislation.
A year ago we had a lengthy address from the hon. Minister of Agriculture in relation to this matter. He is a practical farmer and realizes the unfairness which was done to those engaged in dairying by reason of the legislation which has been renewed from year to year. We have heard a good deal during this debate with regard to the injurious effects of oleomargarine on the health of the people, and we have also heard claims made that it is a splendid food and the people should not be debarred from using it. But these statements of the wholesomeness and food value of oleomargarine have never been supported by any conclusive evidence. Notwithstanding that this has been a bone of contention during the past four or five years, and that we have to-day a Department of Health and officials by the thousand to enforce the law, there is not a member of the government who can tell parliament what oleomargarine really is-not one.
If there is a minister present who can give such information, I should like to hear from him. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) told us about the poor man and his children, about the families of the soldiers who went overseas and did not return, about the man who was earning a small wage, and the importance of a cheap substitute for butter. Let me call attention, Mr. Speaker, to something that may open the eyes of my hon. friend in regard to this matter. In 1919 valuable evidence with regard to the manufacture of oleomargarine was secured by a cost of living committee of the parliament of that day, and it was brought out how highly coloured June butter was purchased to be mixed with these other ingredients in order to make the product look like butter and thus deceive the people. When the question was asked, "Why do you go to all this trouble and expense; if oleomargarine has the virtues you claim for it, why not sell it on its merits?"-the reply came " Oh, it would be like eating lard; the people would not eat it at all." So that shows there has been a deliberate attempt on the part of the manufacturers of oleomargarine to deceive the people and induce them to consume this article by making it look and taste like butter. We are voting millions of dollars to the Department of Health, yet not a particle of evidence is laid before parliament to show whether this stuff that has been consumed in this country has or has not any merits. It is impossible for a private member to secure this information, but it is not impossible for the Minister of Agriculture and members of the government to secure it. The Minister of Finance (Mr Fielding) has been taking an active part in this matter; if he were really anxious to put before parliament the conditions as they actually prevail in this regard, this could very easily have been done. I remember a speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) a year ago, and I thought he was very extreme in the statements he made on that occasion. I would just like to refer to some of the evidence given by the manager of one of these packing houses with regard to the manufacture of oleomargarine. He was asked about fixing the price of oleo-the value of the oils imported for the manufacture of oleo does not fluctuate from day to day or from year to year- and he stated:
I think every man in business gets all he can.
And a little further on:
I am not an expert in the prices of the retail trade.
I have not given it the same study, but I do not

Oleomargarine-Mr. Sutherland
think you are getting anywhere if you blame a man for taking-


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. gentleman
is reading from the report of a committee which has not been laid before the House, he is out of order.


Donald Sutherland: The committee of
1919 was one I had been referring to. It is true that what I am now quoting was stated before a committee of this House, the report of which has not been presented to the House.


William Stevens Fielding: This session?


Donald Sutherland: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: That is out of order.


Donald Sutherland: I presume it is out of order if the committee do not want to hear it -and I am not surprised that some of them do not want to hear it.


William Stevens Fielding: It is out of order even if the committee should want to hear it.


Donald Sutherland: It may be out of order, but it will not be forgotten. I am sure it is on the records of the committee which have been published, and if any hon. members desire to secure the evidence to combat the arguments advanced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) all they have to do is to refer to the evidence given by Mr. McLean, general manager of the Harris Abattoir Company, to show-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member is an old member of the House, and he knows the rule just as well as I do. I am sure he will not insist on referring to the evidence taken before a committee which has not yet reported to the House.


Donald Sutherland: I submit to your
ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was merely refreshing the minds of the members so that they might later refer to this evidence in order that the matter might be cleared up in their minds. But I have here something further dealing with the matter, and I presume it will be in order. It' is taken from a newspaper report-the Toronto Globe-of a speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Agriculture in 1922 before the Ayrshire Breeders' Association in the city of Toronto. The report states:
On the question of the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine, Mr. Motherwell said that, being introduced as a war measure, it had served its purpose and would do well to die a natural death. "All that we want to do with oleo is to do nothing at all," the speaker said. The legislation expired on September 1, 1922, and it would be up to the other fellow, he said, to make the next move.
[Mr. Sutherland.!
I have been wondering since who the other fellow was. I remember about a year ago the Minister of Agriculture frantically waving above his head a bill he was moving the House to adopt and characterizing it as "this rotten old bill." The "rotten old bill" is evidently going to be revived again because the government have not enough courage- or shall I say backbone?-to take a decided stand on this matter. They are fooling away the time-perhaps that is too strong a term to use; the time of parliament is being taken up day after day and year after year when everyone knows that there was in the order in council passed in 1918 an implied promise that the measure then passed was to be a war measure and a war measure only. The order in council said:
-to be in force 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.
Yes, His Excellency the Governor in Council can decide this matter at any time; why has it not been done? Why all this subterfuge? Why all these attempts to make it appear that this is democracy, that the government are placing the responsibility upon parliament? When I saw the bill which appeared in the name of the Minister of Agriculture about a week ago, providing for the reinsertion of the suspended clause of the act of 1914, I thought the government were going to have the courage to deal with this matter, but when it came up in the House, the minister, to my amazement, asked leave to withdraw the bill. The hon. member for Cape Breton South, a private member (Mr. Carroll) has had this motion on the order paper since the second of March. Now, that is surely not democracy. It is certainly not responsible government but an evasion of responsibility.
Just a word in regard to what has been said about this being a protective measure. People are inclined to think that anything that savours of protection is not to be encouraged in this country. We have from the Atlantic to the Pacific a staff of officers who are preserving order, who are protecting the people; and the farmers are entitled to protection just as well as any other class. They contribute their quota toward the government of the country; I venture to say that no other class contributes as much as they do to the prosperity of Canada. When you look through the list of bills that has been introduced this session and last session you can come to no other conclusion than that the government are making it as difficult as they can for the farmers to carry on and do business. Is any attempt being made to

Oleomargarine-Mr. Sutherland
see that the farmers are enabled to manufacture dairy products profitably? We have a protective tariff of three cents a pound on butter

why do they not put on a specific ad valorem duty as in the case of agricultural implements and other manufactured articles. When it comes to agricultural implements the duty on these implements is doubled, when the price is doubled; consequently, the protection on them is doubled. But in the case of butter when it is at 25 cents a pound the duty is 3 cents a pound under the British preference if it comes from the British Empire as it does, and if it goes up to 50 cents a pound the duty remains at 3 cents a pound but the protection is reduced by one half with an ad valorem duty such as the manufacturers of agricultural implements enjoy, their duty is doubled, but in the case of the other product it is decreased. This is the opportune time for the manufacturer of oleomargarine to get in his work. The cost of peanut oil, cocoanut oil, cottonseed oil and all these other things does not fluctuate as does the price of butter, and he takes advantage of the opportunity and comes in as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) has pointed out, and he quoted figures here tonight from year to year showing that sometimes the cost of oleomargarine in this country was up to 40 and 45 cents a pound. What is the price of butter to-day? It is quoted in Montreal at 34 and 35 cents a pound. So is there any injustice being suffered by the people of this country?
Take the price of cheese, 18 cents per lb. If the same price was obtained for butter to-day on a butter fat basis, it would be selling at 39 cents a pound when you compare the values of the two commodities. The manufacturer of cheese to-day has a great advantage over the manufacturer of butter, and this is why there is no progress being made in the manufacture of butter in this country. I know that in western Ontario 'many of the creameries have been closed up, and let me point out there is nothing so important and so essential to carrying on successful agriculture in this country as the butter-making industry. There you have the very fundamentals which are necessary in order to carry on agriculture successfully. We have seen in old Ontario, farms that have been cropped for many years and finally practically abandoned, and there has been a great effort and an immense amount of labour has been applied and money spent in trying to bring them back to a successful state of agriculture. The same thing applies to western Canada at the present time, where in many sections they have cropped and
cropped year after year and now the farms are congested with weeds, the fibre of the soil has been exhausted, and it is drifting everywhere to-day. You cannot bring this land back to a copdition where you can operate it successfully without going back to the primary agricultural industry, that of butter-making. In that case you raise the young stock on the farm. You engage in the raising of cattle, hogs and all these other things, and the product of the farm is converted into a product that is easily exported and that is much cheaper to export than is grain. In that way and that way only can this be brought about. But what do you find? You find during the past few years that the very things that are so essential to carrying on agriculture in this way have been lost sight of.
I hope I have done my utmost to see that parliament would put into effect some regulations whiph would protect the farmer with regard to the thing which is so necessary for feeding the young animals he is endeavouring to raise on the farm. The pollution of the mill feeds of this country as they have been and as they are being polluted to-day is a crime against the farmers of Canada and is responsible for driving thousands of them from the farm. The farmers of this country are entitled to protection and to something different from what they have been receiving from this government and from preceding governments. You may talk about the importance of having the farmer stay on the land, but how can you expect the farmer to stay on the land? They go in the mills and feed stores and purchase a load or a carload of mill feed so polluted with poisonous seeds- yes, and this information is all in the Department of Agriculture, that thousands of animals have died from the effect of the poisonous seeds found in these mill feeds, and no steps being taken to remedy this condition of affairs. Now we are asked to permit the continuance of a condition with regard to something that is going to be used as the Minister of Labour has pointed out to regulate the price of butter in this country. Yes, it is going to be a very convenient thing. It is a matter of small importance to him in view of present conditions, although nearly $400,000 has been handed back to the two manufacturers of this article during the past four years in a rebate on the customs duties collected upon the ingredients which go into the manufacture of this article, and some years there has been a great deal more imported for which rebates have been granted than there have been pounds of oleomargarine manufactured in this country, notwithstanding the fact

Oleomargarine-Mr. Sutherland
that from 15 to 20 per cent of the article manufactured is made of skimmed milk. It is a very clever scheme that has been devised of recent years, particularly in the United States, where the chemists now extract the butter fat from milk and put back into it cocoanut oil, peanut oil and other extracts of that kind and then put the product on the market in competition with its genuine article.
Much has been said and particularly by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding)-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Donald Sutherland: I know hon. members are getting anxious, but there is no particular hurry. The Minister of Finance a year ago in reply to the speech made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture, said:
So it is that we are setting ourselves up against the civilised world if we adopt this resolution.
A little further on he says:
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 pawned off on them as butter, that I am going to oppose the motion made by my hon. friend from Comox-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 to-night 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 condition that at any moment they may be destroyed by the butter which is being brought up from the Argentine.


William Stevens Fielding: It sounds a pretty good speech.


Donald Sutherland: A pretty good speech. He talks about the civilized world and Canada being the only country where the farmers are afraid to come into competition with conditions as they find them here.
I have here some of the regulations which are in effect in some of the states of the union where dairying is carried on even more successfully and scientifically than we are doing it in Canada. For instance, in the state of Minnesota the regulations provide:
The use of milk and milk products are forbidden in the manufacture of oleomargarine; the manufacture of oleomargarine in imitation of, or in semblance of butter of any shade of yellow, even by the selection or proportion of any fat or other ingredient which

may color the product, shall be taken as an intent to deceive or defraud the consumer or purchaser thereof; labelling of receptacles and packages is very strict, and package must show, with substantial accuracy, percentage of each ingredient and the name of each animal or vegetable from which the fats or oils are derived.
Why is it that the government has absolutely refused to specify on the containers the ingredients of the oleomargarine sold in this country? Yet that requirement is insisted on in the case of many other articles. The ingredients are supposed to be placed on containers of mill feed. Even in the case of the mill feed to which I have been referring you will find printed in small letters on the bottom of the container "screenings not exceeding mill run." In the case of fertilizers it is necessary to enumerate the articles and percentage of which they are constituted. But when it comes to an article of food consumed by the people the manufacturers are given the absolute right to put into it anything they see fit providing it is something that is not absolutely putrid. So far as the actual ingredients of oleomargarine are concerned the consumer knows nothing about them. In regard to the splendid speech delivered by the Minister of Finance, who dilated upon the conditions prevailing throughout the world, let me say that the value of dairy products in the state of Wisconsin in the year 1919 was $144,655,000 and they have this provision in their regulations:
Any person manufacturing, selling, offering or exposing for sale any commodity or substance in imitation or semblance of butter, the product of the dairy, shall be deemed guilty of a violation of this section-
And so on. Note this also:
Under this section if, in the manufacture of any oleomargarine, fats, oils, or other ingredients are selected and used in such proportions as to cause the oleomargarine so manufactured to resemble butter of any shade of yellow, such fats, shall be prima facie evidence in any prosecution under this section that such oleomargarine was manufactured with an intent to deceive or defraud the. consumer or purchaser thereof.
What do we provide? We permit manufacturers to colour their oleomargarine and to put it in pound prints the exact size of butter prints, and we allow that product to be sold in the retail stores by the retail merchants of this country. On the other hand in many other countries it is not permitted to be sold in the same retail stores where butter is sold. In France, for instance, the retailing of oleomargarine is not permitted on the same premises in which butter is being sold; and in Wisconsin the name of each ingredient in the oleomargarine must be printed on the container, also each animal or vegetable from

Oleomargarine-Mr. Sutherland
which the fats or oils are derived. Many-other states of the American Union have recently passed very stringent regulations with regard to oleomargarine. There is no article of food in which such a great amount of fraud has been perpetrated, and is still being perpetrated as in the case of filled milk and oleomargarine. Consequently I think it would be much more satisfactory and in keeping with good administration in this country if a proper stand had been taken by the Minister of Agriculture and the government on this question. I am satisfied that the Minister of Agriculture realizes the seriousness of the situation, he has given evidence of that, but it appears that his influence with the government has not been sufficient to enable him to get their consent to refusing to take any action and allowing the law to revert to the condition in which it was prior to 1917. We export butter, at an enormous expenditure, to about seventeen different countries to-day. We are in a position to manufacture much more butter than we are manufacturing at present, and it is idle for anyone to argue that what is proposed in regard to oleomargarine is a measure of protection for the consumer, or for the poor of this country. I venture to state that in nine cases out of ten those that are asking for the continuance of the oleomargarine regulations are not those who intend to use the commodity, or have any desire to do so. We have had requests from Lumbermen's Associations and from retail merchants' who are anxious to retail oleomargarine at a profit. We have had requests from women's organizations-some of them even in this city-the members of which would not touch oleomargarine if they knew it for anything. These are the people who are. so solicitous about the poor of Canada. Nevertheless they are not taking any steps to see that the poor are not being imposed upon, or to put them in a position where they can purchase an article of food and know what they are paying for. It is a deceptive counterfeit which is being placed on the market. If this article is good and wholesome why not come out and let the people know what it contains. Strict regulations are enforced with regard to the manufacture of butter. Is there not a necessity for still more rigid regulations with respect to oleomargarine. I almost feel impelled to speak at length owing to the attitude of the government on this question. I cannot conceive of any government pursuing such a policy as the present government is adopting with regard to oleomargarine. We have had differing statements from various members of the cabinet. They have no mind on the question; they say it is
one for parliament to decide. That is something new in the way of parliamentary government in this country. If the government are going to shirk all responsibility for the measures they originate that may possibly account for the length of the session, and for the numerous special committees that are sitting and which have not yet reported. The fact that these committees have not reported precludes the possibility of dealing with many questions which ought to be dealt with, some of them having a direct bearing on this matter. It is all very well to be ruled out of order on the ground that committees have been sitting and hearing evidence but have not yet reported. I venture to state that there are committees which have dealt with every possible thing that will come before parliament during the present session. One committee in particular has taken a stack of evidence, and it will be the end of the session before the report is brought in. In the meantime we cannot do anything until the report is presented. Yet the government continues to sit here day after day refusing to accept the responsibility which belongs to them, and to take a definite stand on this question.	.


Harold Putnam: Would my hon. friend be in favour of putting into force in Canada regulations corresponding to the Wisconsin regulations?


Donald Sutherland: I would be heartily in favour of it. I have advocated that for years back. Do not permit any milk or milk products to be mixed with other ingredients in view of the strict regulations which are in effect respecting dairy products. Why should it be possible, when dairy products are subject to such strict regulations,
2 a.m. to take those products into some packing houses, manufacture them into an article and place it on the market? Moreover the country to the south of us has placed a tariff barrier of 8 cents a pound on butter. We have also a similar duty on oleomargarine, which is absolutely prohibitive. If this is a good thing for the country and if the people want to use it, let them use it by all means, but let them know what they are doing. Let us put a proper protective tariff on it. It is all very well to talk about protection and free trade. That is a beautiful theory; but it is not a theory with which we are faced in this country, it is an actual condition, and this condition prevails to-day by reason of the tariff which has been erected against us by the United States. We must take action according to conditions with which we are confronted and deal with them
35SO

Oleomargarine-Mr. Sutherland
in that way. I am not going to impose on the good nature of the House. There are two amendments. After one is disposed of there will be ample opportunity to speak later.


Hewitt Bostock: It is moved by Mr. Carroll:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Oleomargarine Act, chapter twenty-four of the statutes of 1919 (second session), and the amending acts, by providing that notwithstanding anything contained in The Dairy Industry Act, 1914-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Hewitt Bostock: I cannot dispense.
-or in any other statute or law, the manufacture in, and importation of oleomargarine into Canada, and the offering for sale, the sale and the having in possession for sale, of oleomargarine, shall henceforth be permitted, subject to the provisions of the said Oleomargarine Act and to such regulations as are now or may hereafter be established by the Governor in Council.
It is moved in amendment by Mr. Kay:
That all the words after the word "that" in the first line thereof be struck out and the following substituted therefor,-
"In view of distinct assurances given at the time the prohibition of the importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine was suspended by order in council in 1917 under the War Measures Act of 1914, that as such suspension was but temporary and a war measure only it should now be removed and the question left, without prejudice as to its merits, in the same position as before the enactment of the said temporary suspension."
It is moved in amendment to the amendment by Mr. Good:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following words:
"And that the government do before the end of the present session submit to parliament such legislation in the premise as may be deemed advisable."
I do not wish to contravene the wishes of the House when I insist upon putting the question, but the putting of the question is probably the most important function of the Speaker. Of course, at the beginning of the proceedings, when the Speaker orders that the members be called in, the formal reading of a motion may be dispensed with. But when the vote is being taken the Speaker is bound by the rules of the House to put the question.


William Stevens Fielding: The Prime Minister stated
that he would lay	on the table of the House
the representations	of the Grand Trunk debenture holders. I	now submit the document.
On motion of Mr. Fielding the House ad-	
journed at 2.50 a.m	. (Thursday).
Thursday, June 7, 1923