1931-05-29

Mr. J. E. LAWSON (West York):: On Wednesday there was laid upon the table of the house a petition praying for the passing of an act to incorporate the Morris Finance Corporation. I now beg to move:
That the petition of Gerald Murphy and others of Toronto, Ontario, praying for the passing of an act to incorporate the Morris Finance Corporation, which was presented to the house on the 27th day of May, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Gordon Aaron.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Rita Margaret Mary Longmore.-Mr. Heaps.
On Division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: The committee will resume consideration of the following item:
Dairying, including grant of $5,000 to National Dairy Council, $295,000.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Young.


Mr. POULIOT:: Would the minister be kind enough to give me the information referred to yesterday afternoon about the rock bottom price reached by butter when the Australian butter was released?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: The date when it was mutually agreed to release the Australian butter was April 21. The price of butter on that date was 22 cents a pound.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Did the Australian butter sell at the same price, 22 cents a pound, then?


Robert Weir: I do not think I have under my hand any information as to what Australian butter was sold for on that date.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It would be interesting to know at what price the Australian butter was sold when it was released. I understand from the minister that the price cutting warfare took place in Vancouver. I should like to know the price of Australian butter in Vancouver on that date, and also the price of butter in London, England, on the same date.


Robert Weir: We have no information as to what Australian butter sold at or as to the price' of butter in London, England on that date.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the minister endeavour to get that information?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: What quantity of Australian butter was released on April 21?


Robert Weir: All the Australian butter that was in Canada. On April 21 it was mutually agreed that the Australian butter could be released at less than 32 cents a pound. It was not all put on the market in one day; it was put on the market, I believe, over a period of days. I do not know whether it is all sold yet or not.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister does not
know the quantity of butter which was released on that date? That is what I should like to know.	[DOT]


Robert Weir: Does the hon. member mean how many pounds of Australian butter were in Canada on that date?


Jean-François Pouliot: How much was released?


Robert Weir: It was all released.


Jean-François Pouliot: What quantity was in storage at that time?


Robert Weir: Approximately 15,000 boxes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How many pounds in a box?
Svpply-Agriculture*-Dairying


Robert Weir: Around fifty pounds.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did the release apply also to 'butter that was coming to Vancouver and that was not in storage at that moment?


Robert Weir: I do not .think there was any butter coming from Australia at that time. By the way, a question came up yesterday and I promised to get information with regard to it. That information I received today from the Department of National Revenue. As regards butter imported from Australia during .the month of April, the information given to me is that no butter from Australia was imported through any port of Canada during April and May of this year.


Jean-François Pouliot: So what was released was only what arrived in Canada prior to that date?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not hear all the speech delivered yesterday .by my eloquent and genial friend, the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), but I read it carefully in Hansard. At page 2069 of Hansard he gave figures as to the export of butter by pounds, and said:
We were exporting .twenty-five times less butter at the end of five years than when the treaty became effective.
The figures he gave covered the years from 1925 to 1930, and his statement in that regard might be accurate, but I notice, Mr. Chairman, that he gave other figures as to the imports of butter in pounds for the same years, and in 1929 the amount of butter imported was 35,928,240 pounds, and the price of butter in that year was 38-60, according to the figures which the hon. member himself gave. The amount of butter imported in 1930, according to the hon. member's own figures again, was 38,606,055 pounds, and the price dropped, according to his own figures, to 31 cents a pound. Thus the relationship between the importation in pounds, and the price per pound, was not maintained as compared with the previous year. My hon. friend the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) intervened in the debate at a very appropriate moment with this question:
Mr. Veniot:	Has the hon. member also the
figures of the production and consumption in Canada?
Mr. Hackett:	No.
Mr. Veniot:	Then his argument falls to
the ground. We produced over forty million pounds less than we were able to consume.
Some hon. Members:	Why?
Mr. Hackett: I would point out to the committee that there was every reason for our production of butter to increase during that period because in those years, by reason of legislation hostile to the export of milk and

cream-this is particularly true of the eastern townships, and truer still of the border counties of the eastern townships from which such large quantities of milk and cream were exported to the large centres of New England -exports were greatly curtailed.
Here are the figures of the production and consumption of butter in 1929. I have not the figures for 1930, but I would request the minister to supply them to the committee to-night if possible. The production of butter in 1929, according to a leter written by the chief of the agricultural branch of the bureau of statistics, was 174,724,465 pounds of creamery butter and 90,000,000 pounds of homemade butter; so the total production of creamery and homemade butter in 1929 was 264,724,465 pounds, and the consumption was 299,348,271 pounds. Therefore, butter consumption was that year 34,623,806 pounds more than production. That point is most important. On May 26, at page 2166 of Hansard I asked the Minister of Agriculture this question, and I must congratulate him upon his answer being in accordance with the facts:
Mr. Pouliot: So long as the production of butter in this country is less than the consumption, is it necessary, in order to supply the trade and the public in general, to import butter?
Mr. Weir (Melfort):	Do I understand the
hon. member's question to be this: If the production of butter in Canada is less than the consumption, should we allow the importation of butter ?
Mr. Pouliot: No; is it necessary to import butter from outside?
Mr. Weir (Melfort):	Yes.
There the minister himself admitted that when the consumption was in excess of production, importations had to be made in order to meet the requirements of the public. It is sad that production for any reason should fall below consumption in this country, but one reason for that has already been given, namely, the considerable increase in the tourist traffic during the last few years.
During the last campaign we were told by the Conservative speakers from almost every platform that with a high tariff on butter the price would rise considerably. I was speaking the other day of a minimum of 40 cents a pound. During the campaign the price of butter was 32 cents a pound, and the Conservative speakers said that it should be at least 40 cents a pound. They said that in order to bring butter up to that point, the leader of the Conservative party, if returned to power, would put a tariff of eight cents a pound on butter, which with the 32 cents, which was then the prevailing price, would bring butter up to 40 cents a pound. But in spite of that duty which has been

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
imposed on butter, the price has fallen, to about 20 cents. Practically every Conservative speaker in the rural ridings concluded his speech by saying, "Now, gentlemen," and ladies also, because the ladies were interested in milking the cows, "go home and think of the price you now receive for your butter from the factories." People were reminded in every country place of the prices they were then receiving for butter and were told that when they reached their homes they should by calculation see if the Liberal government had not betrayed their interests. What has happened? The present condition is much worse. What about the betrayal? They were to change the tariff in order to adjust the price of butter but their promise proved to be a myth.
During tlie present debate the production of butter has received considerable attention. At this time I quote in rough figures the report of the bureau of statistics concerning butter production in Canada from the years 1922 until 1929 inclusive.
	Creamery	Homemade
	production	production
Year	in pounds	in pounds1922 .. .	. .. 152,500,000	100.000,0001923 . . .	. . . 162.834.000	100.000.0001924 .. .	. . . 178,893,000	100.000,0001925 .. .	. . . 179.932,000	100.000.0001928 .. .	. .. 179.209.000	95,000.0001927 .. .	. .. 176,978,000	95.000,000192S .. .	90,000,0001929 .. .	. .. 174,724.000	90.000,000
Those figures also appear in the agricultural statistics for December, 1930. The production of butter remained about the same, but the difficulty arose from the increase in the consumption.
Hon. members have heard a great deal about the Australian treaty. I have in my hand an excerpt from L'Evenement of November 30, 1928. From the first page of this publication I read the following:
The Tories support Mr. Robb, in 1924
The Australian treaty seemed to be doomed when L. J. Ladner rallied a group of Conservatives.
An interesting incident.
The member for Vancouver South reveals the fact at a meeting held in the interest of D. B. Plunkett.
By-election.	*
(Canadian Press Service)
Vancouver, 30.-A summary of the part played by the Conservative party in the House of Commons in connection with the enactment of the Australian treaty by parliament was revealed to us last night by Mr. Leon J. Ladner, federal member for Vancouver South, at a meeting held in the interest of the Conservative candidate for the dominion by-election which was to take place on December 6.
I make this statement, he said, to counteract the false impressions left by government mem-22110-133
bers and other Liberals in their speeches with reference to the stand taken by the Conservative party, in the House of Commons, in connection with this treaty. The treaty at present, in force had its inception in 1924 when a provisional understanding was concluded between the two countries.
The Conservative party held solidly together on its tariff policy. On the night of June 22, four days previous to the prorogation of parliament, the hon. Mr. J. A. Robb presented his Australian treaty. He was greatly criticized. especially by the progressive party led by Mr. Forke. The duties on raisins were the principal pretext involved in their criticism, however the treaty itself was not made a party affair. Each member was free to express his own opinion, whether he considered this measure from the viewpoint of Canada or from that of a particular province.
Just before nine o'clock, in the evening, on June 24, the news, emanating from the government benches, spread in the house that Mr Robb would withdraw the treaty and no further consideration would be given to it at that session. Four minutes later Mr. Robb moved that the committee rise and report progress, which automatically meant the killing of the treaty. Mr. Robb then left the house.
Realizing the importance of the treaty from the viewpoint of British Columbia, I followed Mr. Robb out of the chamber and met him in the lobby. I asked him the reason for such action. He frankly admitted to me that he feared an adverse vote, especially after the stand taken by the Progressives. I replied that it was not a question of party and that a number of Conservatives would support his measure. I then interviewed a number of members and further assured Mr. Robb that, if he would reintroduce his measure, the members that I had just mentioned to him, including myself, would strongly speak in its favour and support it by their votes.
On my suggestion other influential Conservatives, such as Dr. Manion (now Minister of Railways and Canals), spoke to Mr. Robb and confirmed what I had told him. Mr. Robb then assured me that he would again introduce the measure, which he did the following day. The hill was strongly supported by the Conservative party.
I have before me the Gazette, Montreal, of December 3, 1928, corroborating the article I read in French about the declaration made by Mr. L. J. Ladner, a former member from the province of British Columbia. The article is as follows:
Stevens would aid Australian trade.
I would commend this particular article to the attention of my hon. friend from Stan-stead. If he is not in the house undoubtedly he will see my remarks in Hansard. The article continues:
Suggests cancellation of pact with France, if necessary, to help antipodes (by Canadian Press).
Victoria, B.C., December 1.-"The trouble with Canada and Canada's side of the Australian treaty is that the present government has never shown a friendly spirit toward Australia." The Hon. H. H. Stevens, M.P. for



Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
Vancouver Centre, declared here last night in addressing a meeting in support of D. B. Plunkett, Conservative candidate in the approaching Victoria by-election.
Hon. Mr. Stevens went so far as to suggest the cancellation of the French treaty in order to aid Australia.
Canada imports large quantities of wine.
Are not French wines much better than Australian wines?
Let Mr. Robb give to Australia at least the same treatment accorded to France, or, better still, denounce the French treaty, which has been altogether unfavourable to us, or else enlarge the Australian treaty by giving a preference to her in wine.
At that time my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who, I am pleased to say is in his seat to-day was not satisfied with the Australian treaty, not because it gave too much to Australia but because it did not give enough to Australia.


Mr. STEVENS:: That is right.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have another matter to
bring before the committee. I find in La Presse, Montreal, on May 18, 1931, tire statement that the price of butter is so low that butter is used to make soap. After reading this statement I can readily understand how easily my hon. friends to your right, Mr. Chairman, washed their hands of the responsibility for the low price of butter, which is rather easy on account of the fact that butter is used in the manufacture of soap.
What quantity of butter was in storage last year when the high duty was imposed? There was quite a large quantity. On August 1, 1930, there were 32,643,390 pounds of creamery butter in storage, and 944,539 pounds of dairy butter. On September the first, after the Prime Minister had been in power for a few weeks and had repeated that he was going to make good his policy of increasing the tariff on farm commodities, the amount of creamery butter in cold storage was 39,572,168 pounds; about 7,000,000 pounds more than the previous month. I am under the impression, Mr. Chairman, that your constituency is partly a rural constituency surrounding the beautiful city of Fredericton, and consequently you must be familiar with the prices of farm products. No doubt you recall that as soon as the tariff was put on butter the price rose 2 cents a pound-it was the same story as in regard to glass- at that time there was over 40,000,000 pounds of butter in cold storage, so that those who had hoarded that butter made an excess profit in the aggregate of 1800,000. The huge sum 
came out of the pockets of the people for the benefit of the owners of cold storage plants. It is a most serious condition of affairs, because the farmers were deprived of that $800,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who paid that $800,000?


Jean-François Pouliot: The consumer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Certainly.


Mr. PICKET:: What was the price paid
for the butter that was put into cold storage? I may tell my hon. friend that the cold storage man paid more than 32 cents a pound for that butter, so he did not make anything on the transaction; he lost.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How do you know?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not remember the
price of butter at that time, but I do remember very well, and this may be confirmed by looking up the market quotations, that the moment the high tariff of 8 cents a pound became operative the price of cold storage butter went up 2 cents a pound. My hon. friend from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) will not deny the fact that not a single farmer got the slightest share of that 8800,000; it all went into the pockets of the shareholders of those cold storage plants. I have been frequently told that our High Commissioner in London was interested in a dairy syndicate while he was living in this beloved country.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sun-bury):: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let me go further. On
referring to the Parliamentary Guide of this year, I find at page 494 that the Hon. George Stewart Henry, the present premier of Ontario, is president of the Farmers' Dairy Company, Limited, of Toronto. Toronto is not like Fredericton or Riviere du Loup, it is a bigger city, and although there are beautiful parks they have no pastures. It reminds me of something that will please my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins); a great painter frequently expressed the opinion that no landscape could be perfect without cows appearing in it. Unfortunately in the numerous beautiful parks of the city of Toronto there are no cowrs, there are only policemen-and I don't know how the people could get milk from the batons of those guardians of the peace. But certain gentlemen in Toronto control a very large quantity of the butter that comes from the country. Dairy companies such as the Farmers' Dairy

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
Company, Limited, of Toronto, buy milk from the farmers at a poor price and when through the tariff they get any pecuniary advantage they keep the money in their pockets; the farmers see nothing of it. I think this is a shame, because the tariff was made, not to help the rich people who control the sale of milk, butter, cheese and other dairy products, but to help the farmers themselves. I remember distinctly at the special session last September the Prime Minister said that the tariff amendments he was then putting through were intended to help the producer. Well, the farmer is the producer. The man who lives in a big mansion in Toronto is not a producer; it is the poor man who lives in the country and milks his cows-he furnishes the supply of milk out of which those city magnates get richer and richer and benefit by the tariff and the producer gets no advantage from it.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Last night the hon. Minister of Agriculture asked me where I got the figures I then quoted, and I told him that I would let him have the source of my authority this afternoon, that I was speaking from memory at the moment. I have in my hands a statement from the bureau of statistics, internal trade branch, from which it appears that for the first five months 'of 1930 the average wholesale price of creamery No. 1 butter at Montreal was 37 cents, while the average wholesale price for the same month of creamery extra at New York was 36.3 cents a pound.


Robert Weir: That is the average for the five months?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. I can give it month by
month:
Cents
Month-*	per pound
January, Montreal	41-0
January, New York	 36 T
February, Montreal	 39-0
February, New York	 35-5
March, Montreal	 37-3
March, New York	 37-1
April, Montreal	 34-9
April, New York	 38-2
May, Montreal	 33 T
May, New York	 34'8
That was the basis of the statement I made last night to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) and to the hon, minister. Its accuracy, was challenged by the former, and, as I understood, doubted at least by the minister. The point perhaps is not of very great importance, but, as I said last night I would produce my authority this afternoon, I have now done so.


Robert Weir: I was not doubting the hon. gentleman's statement at all, I was just comparing it with the information we have on the average monthly wholesale jobbing prices of creamery butter for Montreal and New York. The Department of Agriculture, dairy and cold storage branch, Ottawa, gives the prices of Canadian butter for January and February higher than for the New York market, but not for the next three months.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have
just one observation to make. I recall very definitely and distinctly that the right hon. Prime Minister and hon. gentlemen opposite during the recent campaign guaranteed the people of Canada that the imposition of tariffs would protect the consumer as well as the producer. I also recall, sir, that during the special session, when the special legislation was brought down in this parliament, that pledge was repeated by the right hon. Prime Minister and by the members of his administration. Last night we had produced in the committee a most singular document, a very much lauded letter from the president of the National Dairy Council of Canada, the production of which seemed to move my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to a state of frothy indignation. I desire again to place on Hansard one paragraph from that letter, which appeals at page 2089 of Hansard:
All of this production received the full benefit of the artificial price level which thus resulted in an extra return to the producers of about $7,000,000. This, of course, came from the consumer's pocket direct, and the consumer in addition paid the extra ten cents on the relatively small amount of Australian butter which entered the country during the period in question.
I wish to repeat that I am in favour of every possible assistance that can be rendered to the dairy industry throughout the Dominion of Canada, but I say that when you try to assist the producing dairy industry at the expense of the consuming Canadian public, it is a false assistance and a breach of the pledges made by hon. gentlemen opposite during the special session of parliament.


Mr. MORAND:: Could the hon. gentleman tell us how we could help them without raising the price of butter?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
was your problem. My point is that the pledges made by the hon. gentleman, and the policies he supported during the special
Supply-A gricullure-Dairying

session, have been falsified by the letter produced last evening by the Minister of Agriculture and lauded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Does the hon. gentleman
think the people in this country would swallow any such stuff as that? Surely they must have some sense.


Mr. MYERS:: Let me say that as a farmer I have listened with more than the usual amount of amusement to the debate which has been going on for about three days on the one question of whether or not we shall vote the sum of S5.00Q to the National Dairy Council of Canada, so that they may carry on during the coming year the wonderful work they have done in years gone by.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I do not think that is the issue; the whole vote is in question.


John Howard Myers: If the ex-Minister of Agriculture will just keep quiet for a few moments, I should like to continue my remarks. I am very glad he is the ex-Minister of Agriculture. Any man whose policy during the last nine years did for the dairy industry of Canada what his policy has done might well keep quiet. For nine years the hon. member for Melville, the ex-Minister of Agriculture, was like the proverbial ostrich, with his head buried in the sand and his wrong end sticking up. That end was never meant to think with.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why do you compare him with an ostrich? He has no plumage.


John Howard Myers: I am coming to you next, and I may as well check you up right now. When this debate opened the hon. member for-Pouliot, is it, or the hon. member for Temiseouata, which sounds about the same- was the one man who seemed to have more to say about the dairy industry, and with regard to butter, cream and agriculture, than anyone else. At once I came to the conclusion that the hon. member was an honest-to-goodness farmer; he looked like one, anyway. Imagine my surprise, Mr. Chairman, when yesterday I turned up the Parliamentary Guide and found that the hon. member for Temiseouata was nothing more or less than a lawyer. Not only that, but he writes books on law, according to the Parliamentary Guide. I tried my best and racked my brain to find out where I would place 'him on a farm, especially a dairy farm, and after a good deal of thought and study I found a place for him; I found something on a dairy farm which the hon. gentleman resembles very much in one respect at least. I refer to the horn flies on the cows. Any farmer as well 
acquainted with cows and agriculture as I am, knows that about six o'clock in the evening, when you bring the cows into the barn to milk them, they are infested with swarms of horn flies. The hon. member for Temiseouata resembles them in this respect, in that the more you try to shoo them off the thicker they seem to get. The more you try to shoo him off from making a speech on something about which he knows nothing, the more speeches he makes. During this debate he has given us figures by the mile and speeches .by the acre, but they have led us nowhere.
Now let me say, Mr. Chairman, that some years ago Canada enjoyed a very enviable position indeed as far as dairying was concerned. There was a time in the history of Canada when every year we were supplying the British market with creamery butter, of wonderful quality, in immense quantities. We were going along very nicely indeed, and there was nothing to interrupt our progress except the former Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Melville. He interrupted it very violently indeed. The government of which he was a member brought in the Australian treaty, the terms of which were extended to New Zealand, and thereby hangs a tale. That was the beginning of all our trouble. The farmers of Canada saw that a neighbouring country was getting the benefit of the Canadian market, and dairying in Canada declined to such an extent that we lost out on our export trade. We lost the footing we had already gained on the British market, and let me tell the hon. member that it is very much easier to lose trade of this kind than to build it up.-
We are endeavouring to build up that export trade again. When this government came into power we saw to it that the farmers of Canada were given a fair deal as far as dairying was concerned. We shut out, to a great extent at least, the products of our -competitors, and if nothing unforeseen had occurred to-day we would be getting back on our feet by degrees, building up our export trade together with our production in Canada, but what has happened? Production has come along faster than either consumption or the export trade. That was very well pointed out last evening by the hon. member for Red Deer, and let me say that I always like to hear the hon. member for Red Deer speak, because he has something sane and sensible to tell us when he does speak. Now we have turned our attention to dairying more quickly than we should have done under normal conditions by reason of the fact that

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
wheat prices in western Canada were extremely low. And the farmers of western Canada turned their attention to this industry too quickly. There is another thing which is to a great extent responsible for the increased production of the present time and that is the mild winter we have had throughout Canada and the exceptionally cheap feed which we have had to feed to the dairy cow.
Let me say this-and this is in connection with the dairy council, because it is a part of their work; I might as well point out right here that you cannot build up an export trade in butter, you cannot build up an export trade in any other farm commodity, unless you have the very best that you can possibly produce along these lines. We in eastern Canada have, I believe, done very well in this direction through the action and the encouragement, the knowledge and information which we have had on the part of the National Dairy Council. Through these means we have been attending to the quality and grade of our dairy products. But I find that this has not been the case in western Canada. The hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly), whether we realized it or not, whether the hon. gentleman himself was aware of the fact or not, really gave us more information along this line last night than anyone else whom I, at least, have heard speak. I wish to quote just a word or two from Hansard of yesterday reporting what the hon. member for Willow Bunch said:
111 western Canada to-day it is not the creamery butter, but the dairy butter that counts. Many of our farmers are so far away from the market they are not in a position to have their cream shipped to the creamery. As a result they are concerned only with dairy butter.
Do hon. members stop to think just what that means to the section of country concerned? Let us imagine now a township or a country district. The people have round about them a number of farms,-fifty, seventy-five or a hundred. In the village they have a store or perhaps two. Heretofore these farmers have been wheat growers. They despised the look of a cow, let alone the trouble of milking it. But when their wheat business was shot to pieces, as it has been, unfortunately, during the last year-though I believe it will come back again-they immediately turned their attention to milking cows. They thought they were engaging in dairying, but. they were not. For let me tell you that milking cows and making butter at home and then taking it to the village grocer is about as far removed from intelligent dairying as the sun is from the earth; and never in
any way can you build up an export trade with such a line of farming as that-nor will anything destroy the domestic market more readily. What would you expect the storekeeper to say when a hundred different people, who heretofore have not been making butter at all, flock in with a hundred different samples of butter of various makes, different in grade, different in flavour and different in every other respect? What would you expect a country grocer to say to those people? What would he do with the butter? He could not eat it nor could he ship it to the towns, because it is not of uniform grade. And so far as export is concerned, it is worse than useless.
Our Minister of Agriculture has been asked for an agricultural policy. Let me say to some agricultural sections of Canada that the first thing they need to get is intelligent agriculture. Then the Minister of Agriculture will give them a policy. But a system of agriculture that puts you into wheat to-day, into butter to-morrow and into hogs the next day is a pretty hard line of agriculture for any Minister of Agriculture to keep pace with. It is pretty hard to evolve any policy that will be of any assistance to people engaged in such work.
I would say, with respect to the Minister of Agriculture, that he occupies possibly the most important portfolio after that of Finance, and at the same time one which it is hardest to administer. I have heard an old fanner down homo say that he was durned if he would keep a hired man around the place except to blame things on if things went wrong. That is about the position the Minister of Agriculture occupies in relation to hon. gentlemen opposite. If it does not rain, it is his fault; if it rains too much, he is to blame. If you are short of butter, that is his fault, and if you have too much, he did not regulate things properly. That is the whole story. In eastern Canada, I believe, we are giving the Minister of Agriculture very little trouble indeed, and if he were to tell his experience I believe he would say the same; because for generations we have been following one steady policy, one line of agriculture. We are easy to deal with. When the price of butter is low, we pocket our loss, and when it is high we take our profits and say nothing about it. It is easy to handle such a situation.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question?


John Howard Myers: You may, and if I can answer it I will; if not, I will tell you so.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will the hon. gentleman explain why, during the last ten years, since I have been in this house, all the members from the maritime provinces have been always complaining about conditions in that part of the country?


John Howard Myers: Were they?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Yes.


John Howard Myers: Well, I was not here to hear them.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: You are here as a result of those complaints.


John Howard Myers: I can assure the hon. gentleman that we hear very few complaints in the maritime provinces.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: What about the Duncan commission?


John Howard Myers: Well, the Duncan commission was all right. But I am not going to be sidetracked by my hon. friend. I may tell him, however, so far as the maritime provinces are concerned, that they cannot register as many complaints to the square inch as I have heard from western members this winter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Some of them.


John Howard Myers: Well, yes; there are some
good fellows among them. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are here to-day not to play to the gallery nor to make long speeches. Such speeches are utterly useless to those who are looking for an improved quality of butter and better prices. What we are here for now is to decide whether we will or will not vote the sum of $5,000 for the National Dairy Council to carry on their work. In eastern Canada we regard the National Dairy Council as a very important body, and I should not for one moment have the bravery to go on any platform in that part of the dominion, whether at an agricultural or at a political meeting, or a meeting of any other kind in which farmers were concerned, and advocate doing away with the National Dairy Council.


Mr. YOUNG:: Who is advocating it?


John Howard Myers: I believe the hon. member
for Weyburn himself moved a resolution to the effect that the money which will enable the council to carry on their work for the coming year be not voted. If that is not doing away with the National Dairy Council, I should like to know what it means. And let me tell the hon. member for Weyburn here and now that his resolution will make very good reading for Tory politicians when the next federal election comes round. Let us act sensibly. Let us get on with our work.

Let us have done with this foolishness and pass the estimate as it has been passed every year for possibly the last twenty years. It is not different this year from what it was before. The items that the Minister of Agriculture has under his hand follow very closely the items that were voted in the house for the ex-Minister of Agriculture during the last nine years.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall not say very much, but may I be permitted to read the autobiography of my hon. friend as it appears in the Canadian Parliamentary Guide?


Olof Hanson: No; the hon. member would be
out of order. The item under discussion is dairying. The hon. member will confine himself to this item. He has already taken up a great deal of time on this item and I would ask him to confine his remarks strictly to the item under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your guiding decision. I shall give to the house the reasons why I am interested in the butter question, and I believe that, doing so, I shall be quite in order. The main reason why I come to the house to study these questions is that I represent many farmers. When an hon. member makes a statement in the house to a certain effect, it must be true or not; it must be exact or not; it must be accurate or not. When it is accurate, when it is exact, when it is true, the hon. member must be given credit for it, and whenever it is inexact, whenever it is untrue, then the other party must prove that it is so. Unless that is done, the truth remains in the statement that has already been made. I believe I am quite clear.


Olof Hanson: So far the hon. gentleman is not in
order; he has not been discussing the item before the chair, and I ask him to confine his remarks to the item under discussion or else resume his seat.


Robert Weir: Before the item passes, I should like to put on record information that I promised to produce to-day. The apparent difference between the information produced by the former Minister of Agriculture and that produced by the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon) was due to the fact that it was obtained from two different sources. There are two different organizations: one known as the agricultural branch of the bureau of statistics, and the other the dairy branch of the Department of Agriculture. Each of these issues estimates as to the production of milk
Supply-Agriculture-Dairying

year by year, on a different basis. The discrepancy betwen the estimates- became so marked about the year 1928 that the agricultural branch of the bureau of statistics revised their method of making their estimates. This revision was published in the December bulletin of 1929 and it was due to that report that the hon. member for South Hastings made the statement that the agricultural branch of the bureau of statistics had gone back over the preceding years to 1925 and increased the record of the number of pounds of milk produced during those years. I have the information under my hand, as follows:
Year
1925
1927
First
estimate
pounds
Revised
estimate
pounds
12,318,537,907
12,651,388,490
13,407.340,257
13.060,242,293
14,386,103,567
14,591,873,188
14,825,821,086
14,512,897,961


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Is the hon. member not making a mistake in the year?


Robert Weir: I hesitated about that, but that is the information I have.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I obtained the figures from the bureau of statistics, and the revised figures as they were given to me are as follows:
Revised figures
Year	pounds
1925		 14,380,000,000
1926		 14,591.000,000
1927		 14.825,000,000
1928.. ..[DOT]	 14,512,000,000
1929	 14,349,000,000


Robert Weir: I stand corrected. The mistake is due to the manner in which the figures appear with relation to the lines on this paper, but the figures were so evidently opposite 1924 that I gave them as of that year. In the figures I gave, for 1924 it should read 1925; for 1925 it should read 1926 and so on.
The information received by the former Minister of Agriculture from the dairy branch is as follows:
Pounds of milk
Year	produced in Canada
1921		 9,863,324,358
1922		 9,847,932,218
1923		 11,765,564,229
1924		 12,045,078,272
1925		 12,539,076,384
1926		 13,434,655,909
1927		 14,112,064,240
1928		 14,512,897,961
1929		 14,349,023,000
There was another piece of information that I was asked to obtain, and that was the year in which butter had reached a price as low as it is at the present time. There are no
records in the department as to that, but we were able to get the information from publications that we believe to be reliable. In 1906 the price of butter was 18-25, and in 1904, 14-75.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Are the revised figures
which the minister has just given the actual figures? .


Robert Weir: They are just an
estimate.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But so far as an estimate can go, they are correct?


Robert Weir: No one claims that they are accurate. For instance, the dairy branch gives the number of pounds of milk consumed in the country. That is only an estimate. I think perhaps the best answer I can give to the hon. gentleman's question is that the bureau of agricultural statistics have brought their estimates into line with the estimates of the dairymen.


William Richard Motherwell: Are there in the
minister's possession any estimates more accurate than those placed on Hansard last Tuesday and which the Minister has now confirmed.


Robert Weir: No.


William Richard Motherwell: They are the
most accurate obtainable?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: I thank my hon.
friend very much. I think we shall get along more pleasantly now that we have that understanding.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The revised figures are
approximately the same or higher than the figures that I quoted last night, according to what I have been able to gather from the minister and my hon. friend from Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). Suppose a member asks for certain figures from the dairy commissioner or from any officials of the Department of Agriculture, and some other member gets figures from the bureau of statistics, and the different sets of figures are disputed in the house. What I want to understand is whether the revised figures that have just been given by the minister are close approximations as can possibly be made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I say a word as to
the figures compiled by the bureau of statistics with reference to the production of milk? It is obvious I think to all of us that there is no body of statisticians who could possibly compile precise figures as to the production of milk, when you take into consideration the hundreds of thousands of cows

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
in this country owned individually and by families, and so forth. The ' production of that class can only be estimated. But once in every ten years, when the census is taken, a fairly complete compilation can be made. The practice of statisticians is to get the official figures from business sources, like creameries, dairies and so forth, and then they compile an estimate based, first, upon their own information, and secondly, by reference to the statisticians of the provincial governments. All these figures are brought together and very carefully analyzed and compiled, and then the figures are placed before the public as the bureau's own. But it is only an estimate. When the census is taken a check is made. This autumn, for instance, when the compilation of farm statistics has been completed, the bureau will be able to estimate how nearly they come to the correct figure. I think in all fairness to the officials it ought to be said that there is no human method known whereby these figures could be accurately and completely compiled.	[DOT]


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am glad to get that
explanation from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The figures that we get from the departments at Ottawa in regard to the production of milk are as accurate as we can possibly get?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: They might not represent the exact amount of production, but they are as close as we can get?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Minister of Agriculture said that according to the revised figures, after the system was changed, from 1925 to 1930 the annual production of milk was approximately 14,000,000,000 pounds, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce now tells me that those figures are as accurate as can possibly be got. I accept his statement. So far as the figures are concerned, we now know where we are. We know that the figures which were quoted by the hon. member for Melville to this house were as accurate as could possibly be got. We know that the figures I quoted were as accurate as could possibly be got. We know that the figures quoted by the hon. member for South Hastings were not as accurate as our figures. That has been established beyond a question of doubt by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am glad to have that point made clear.

Mr. WEIR (Melfort)r So far as I understand the figures given by the hon. member for South Hastings, they were as accurate as he could get because he was quoting from the bureau of agricultural statistics, and he quoted those statistics accurately. He may not have known of this other source of information at all.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The minister will not
deny that the hon. member for South Hastings made an accusation in this house against the former Minister of Agriculture and the preceding government, that they cooked the figures in order to make it appear to the public, just before an election, that the production of milk was higher than it actually was.


Robert Weir: I did not understand that any charge was made. Will the hon. member read the charge?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member for
South Hastings is not in his seat, and I think in fairness to him it ought to be said that his statement was this:	At that time, in
1925, these officers to whom I referred a moment ago made a change in their method of compilation. I think the officers of the Department of Agriculture drew to their attention that this miscellaneous group of producers were really producing more than at the time the original form of estimate was made, and consequently they changed their method of compilation; not that there was anything wrong about it, but just to get a little nearer to an exact estimate. That was really the point which the hon. member for South Hastings desired to make.


Mr. DUFF:: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce be good enough to explain how the statistics are made up in his department? Will he not agree with me that it is rather strange that his officials and the officials of the Agriculture department on an important matter of this kind concerning agriculture should not get together and put before the public the same figures, instead of the Department of Agriculture issuing one set of figures and the Department of Trade and Commerce a different set of figures? I do not think that is right, and it ought to be corrected.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite agree in so far as that is the case.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: To clear up the point I was discussing a moment ago, may I quote to the Minister of Agriculture what the hon.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
member for South Hastings said? At page 2050 of Hansard I find this:
Mr. Tummon:	I made the statement that
the figures were changed in the year 1929 just previous to the elections, and I am prepared to substantiate that statement.
If that is not a direct charge, it certainly implies that the former Minister of Agriculture changed the figures in 1929, just previous to the elections, to derive some party advantage from it.


Robert Weir: He did not state that.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Let me repeat his
words:
I made the statement that the figures were changed in the year 1929 just previous to the elections, and I am prepared to substantiate that statement.


Robert Weir: He did not say that the minister changed the system.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Never mind the statement; the inference is just as bad as the statement. Beyond a question of a doubt, there is an insinuation. I ask hon. members why the election was mentioned; why did the hon. member for South Hastings mention the election? He has inferred that, in 1929, a few months before the election, the exMinister of Agriculture changed these figures. Why would he mention the election if he had not been trying to get votes by saying to the public that the production of milk was greater than it actually was. No other inference can be drawn from the remarks of the hon. member.


William Richard Motherwell: And it was not the Department of Agriculture which changed the figures; it was another department.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Further on the hon. member for South Hastings makes the following statement:
In 1929, a year before the last federal election a new method of reckoning the production ol milk was instituted.


Mr. COTNAM:: Well, what is the matter with that statement?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Nothing that I know of; I think the statement is as plain as anybody could make it.


William Richard Motherwell: Except that it did not refer to the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Agriculture did not make the change. As I understand the situation the Department of Trade and Commerce made it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: My contention is that the inference from the statement is as bad as the statement itself; I do not like the impression it leaves.
Some hon. A1EMBERS: Oh, oh.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Minister of Agriculture has admitted that the figures produced by the hon. member for Melville, the former Minister of Agriculture, are correct. He admits also that the figures I quoted are correct. If he admits these two statements he can do nothing else but say that the figures quoted by the hon. member for South Hastings were not according to the facts.


William Richard Motherwell: Hear, hear.


Robert Weir: Absolutely not, he was quoting from the bureau of agricultural statistics, and I believe he quoted accurately.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am not trying to draw a red herring across the trail, but I want to get from the minister-and he has admitted it-


Robert Weir: Admitted what?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Admitted that the figures hon. members on this side of the house quoted are correct.


Robert Weir: I will also say that the figures quoted on this side of the house are correct.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: So far as the bureau of statistics can gather them they are correct. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Myers). I made the statement last night and repeat it today-


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Why does not the hon. member proceed further with the matter. He has read very emphatically the statement contained at page 2050 of Hansard where the hon. member for South Hastings said:
I made the statement that the figures were changed in the year 1929 just previous to the elections and I am prepared to substantiate that statement.
Aly hon. friends have forgotten that at page 2066 of Hansard, the hon. member for South Hastings said:
The hon. ex-Alinister of Agriculture seems to think that I did not substantiate my figures. I hold in my hand the monthly bulletin of agricultural statistics for the Dominion of Canada as issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and this is the source of my information. Let me say to the hon. gentleman, if he is not aware of it, that the dairy and
Supply-Agriculture-Dairying

cold storage branch depend on the bureau of statistics for figures of the total production of milk in Canada. I repeat, the figure based on the records of the total production of milk changed in 1929, and if he will go back over the reports he will find that to be the case.
Now, what does he say? He says, "I am not blaming him or the department of which he was the head. Not at all." Everybody heard that.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: He is not blaming whom?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yet the inference is
thrown out that the statement was made that the former Minister of Agriculture sat down and deliberately falsified figures.


Edward James Young: Why did he mention the
election at all?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If the hon. Minister
of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) wishes to read the whole of Hansard I have no objection. The Minister of Agriculture has admitted in this committee to-day, however, that the figures quoted by hon. members on this side of the house are correct. His statement is substantiated by that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), so that if we are right certainly we are not all wrong.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Yes you are.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If we are right the hon. member for South Hastings is wrong. Even if his figures are not wrong he is wrong when he tries to infer or create the impression the former Minister of Agriculture changed the figures in 1929.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He did not say that; he said exactly the opposite to that.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Yes, after he had been talked to for a long time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh no.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I could take the time
.of the committee to quote the whole of Hansard, but I do not wish to do so. I have made my point clear to the Minister of Agriculture and he has cleared the matter to my satisfaction. That is all I am concerned about.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Drop it then. Why waste more time.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I know my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) does not like to hear anything which does not suit him. May I tell him, however, that when he sat on this side of the house I never bothered him and never asked him to keep quiet. When he was speaking I considered he had a right to speak.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I never wasted the time
of the committee.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I say to the hon.
member for North Renfrew and many more hon. members opposite that as members of the opposition they took more time and tried to create more false impressions throughout the country than has any hon. member on this side of the house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not think that
statement should have been made. To accuse *an hon. member of making false statements or creating false impressions is not parliamentary.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I said that they created false impressions.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, let us get on with the debate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
the inevitable conclusion to which hon. members on this side would come.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Mr. Chairman. I am sorry you have had to call me to order; your action has made me very sad. May I say to you, sir, that there is no man who is more willing than I to cooperate in preserving the order and dignity of the committee. I made a statement last night and repeat it to-day that when hon. members on this side of the committee try to get information they meet with a scolding or a lecture either by the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Spence) or some other hon. member opposite. Last night we received a scolding from the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) and to-day from the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Myers).


Mr. CHAPLIN:: How about Temiseouata?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am not responsible for
Temiseouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Temiseouata cannot speak.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Con:ceming Temiseouata, may I say that if the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) does not soon give him a station I shall take up a collection to build it for him.


Mr. MANION:: I wish my hon. friend
would hurry up.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Mr. Chairman, we were confirmed in our figures, but when we tried to get further accurate information we received nothing but lessons and scoldings. May I say to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that if he wants-	.


Mr. TURNBULL:: Order.

S uppl y-A griculture-Dairying


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I beg my hon. friend's pardon?


Franklin White Turnbull: I rise to a point of
order. The remarks of my hon. friend have gone far afield.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am preparing my remarks so that I may come to the point at
issue.


William Richard Motherwell: What is the point
of order?


William Duff: Yes, what is the point of order?


Franklin White Turnbull: The point is that we are not speaking to the item; we are off the item altogether.


William Duff: Under the estimates we have a right to discuss any item or to bring up any matter with reference thereto. I submit the point taken by the hon. member for Regina is not well taken.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are on the amendment.


Franklin White Turnbull: We are not on the
amendment; we are on both the amendment and the resolution.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I think my hon. friend from Regina should study the rules; if he did he would not raise so many points of order.


Franklin White Turnbull: Is it not a fact that that the accuracy of either of these sets of figures depends upon whether the bases upon which the figures are compiled are or are not correct? Both these bases concern estimates with regard to which no one has any accurate knowledge.	.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am concerned only
with the answer I received from the Minister of Agriculture to the effect that the figures I quoted last night were correct, and also that the figures quoted by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) were correct. I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture concerning the National Dairy Council, in the following words:	Is
he aware that during the campaign of last summer when a farmer took his cream to a creamery and complained that his cheque was so small he was handed a paper which to my mind had a great resemblance to the propaganda which was franked out of this house last session and sent to every man throughout the country who produced a pound of milk or butter? If this statement to the effect that the government of that day was responsible for the low price of butter was
not handed to him he was told so verbally. Now, does the minister think it is right or proper that we should vote a grant to any organization which, it seems to me, is simply a political organization working on behalf of my hon. friends opposite.


Robert Weir: Is the hon. member stating it was the National Dairy Council that circulated the literature?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: All that literature was
got out by the National Dairy Council or their agents, the creameries that are members of the council. I do not think that we should vote money to an organization that will use the money in order to carry on propaganda for any political party. They have done that in my district and in all other districts.


Mr. MULLINS:: If I may interject, that
is not a fact. My hon. friend is at one end of Manitoba and I am at the other. It never occurred in my district. Does the hon. member mean to say that the T. Eaton Company would send out political propaganda? They are not that type of people.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I suggest that one of the friends of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) raise a point of order on the remark that he has just made. I repeat, is it right or proper that we should vote money to a political organization that is using its funds for political purposes, whether it be for one party or for both parties?


Mr. GOBEIL:: You will have to prove
that it was a political organization.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am saying that the
propaganda was political.


Samuel Gobeil: You have to prove that.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It is very easy to prove it if my hon. friend will open his eyes.


Samuel Gobeil: Prove it now.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Has the minister made
any investigation to find out whether it is a monopoly of the creameries or some other organization which is depressing the price of butter in Canada at the present time? My hon.' friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) mentioned the cold storage plants that made money when the increased tariff on butter came into force. When the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) was speaking on his bill to increase the penalty for adulteration he stated that there was a monopoly in Montreal in regard to butter, and that that monopoly was really hurting the farmers.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Samuel Gobeil: I did not say so in speaking on my bill.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: When speaking in the
house anyway. May I ask the minister if he has made any investigation to find out whether there is any organization in Canada depressing the price of butter?


John Howard Myers: I may have got a wrong
impression of the hon. gentleman's remarks, but did he state that at any time during last summer when a farmer got his settlement cheque from the butter or cheese factory it was accompanied by a pamphlet signed by the officials of the National Dairy Council?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: No, no.


John Howard Myers: Then I am wrong. I took it that that was what he was saying.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: No. I said this propaganda was handed to the farmers, and that I am fairly convinced in my own mind that the National Dairy Council was behind it.


John Howard Myers: Being convinced in your own mind is a different proposition altogether from being able to prove that the National Dairy Council was behind the propaganda.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am as clear in my mind as is my hon. friend at any time.


John Howard Myers: Perhaps so, and perhaps not; that is a matter of opinion.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yesterday when this item was under discussion there seemed to be a difference of opinion as to the production of butter and other milk products in Canada in recent years, and some of the figures then quoted would lead one to believe that our production had considerably fallen off. Owing to this difference of opinion yesterday I have since taken occasion to get certain figures from the bureau of statistics, which I think might be of sufficient interest to put on Hansard. The minister quoted figures of milk production in Canada from 1922, I think, up to 1929. In the report of the annual meeting of the National Dairy Council of Canada there appear on page 10 figures of the increased consumption of certain dairy products in Canada as between 1921 and 1928; for butter the figures are 25.79 pounds in 1921 and 29.31 in 1928. I thought it might be well to get figures from 1925 up to the present time to show the per capita domestic consumption of various dairy products, and these figures will explain to a large extent the difference between the importations of 
butter and other dairy products in 1925 and in 1930. These are the figures given me by the bureau of statistics:
Butter
Year	Pounds
1925		 27-36
1926		 28-44
1927		 28-72
1928		 29-06
1929.-	 29-95
Figures for 1980 are not available.
Cheese	
Year	Pounds
1925		. .. 3-13
1926		. .. 4-04
1927		. .. 3-38
192S		. .. 3-63
1929		. .. 3'55
The domestic consumption	of milk, that is,
other than milk used for	the making of
either dairy or creamery butter, home made or factory -cheese and other miscellaneous factory products, what I might term the home	
consumption of milk itself, figures as follows:	was in round
Milk	
Year	Pounds
1925		5,844,000,000
1926		6.036,000,000
1927	-		6.620.000.000
1928		6.552,000,000
1929		6,647,000,000
The growing consumption	of ice cream in
Canada is shown by the following figures:	
Ice Cream	
Year	Gallons
1925		
1926		
1927		. .. -78
1928		
1929		. .. -99
We all realize, as explained by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that the bureau of statistics endeavours to get its figures as nearly correct as possible. But if these figures are approximately correct, it shows that between 1925 and 1929 there has been an increased consumption in Canada of milk and its products to a tremendous extent. If you figure that out, it amounts to quite a number of millions of pounds. That will account largely for the increased importation into this country, and while some may say there is very little cream used in ice cream, I understand from the Department of Agriculture that ice cream manufacturers are compelled to have -at least ten per cent of butter fat in their products, so no matter what other components enter into that article, there will be at least ten per cent of butter fat.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Edward James Young: I will not take much of the time of the committee, but I should like to correct a statement made by the hon. menfber for Queens (Mr. Myers) a few moments ago. He said I was aiming to destroy the National Dairy Council. I have no such desire. The National Dairy Council, in my opinion, has as much right to exist as any other legitimate organization. This morning I received a letter from the secretary of that organization stating that they are not and never will be in politics. That may be a matter of opinion. We all know that for some years past the National Dairy Council have been carrying on a national propaganda for the purpose of influencing the fiscal policy of this country. We know that because of that propaganda a great many farmers in this country were induced to change their votes at the last election, and we know that one of the reasons why the government has changed and why the fiscal policy of this country has changed in the last year was the activities of the National Dairy Council.
I say they have a right to do that. The National Dairy Council has as much right to hold political views and to propagate those views as any other organization, providing they do it with their own money. I have no objection to their doing it, but I say any organization that undertakes to influence the fiscal policy of this country to .assist one party or another in polities has no right to come to the federal treasury seeking a grant. They have a right to do it at their own expense, and the National Dairy Council has no more right to ask this government to finance it in its campaign than the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or the Consumers' League, or any other organization which seeks to influence the fiscal policy of this country.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: The National Dairy
Council was not distributing propaganda intended for the good of anyone but the dairy farmers of this country.


Edward James Young: It is propaganda, just the
same.


Victor Clarence Porteous: Propaganda was distributed and advertised all over Canada by Liberals and Conservatives alike in the creamery business.


Edward James Young: At their own expense.


Victor Clarence Porteous: One of the staunchest
Liberals in Owen Sound, operating a creamery business there, advertised during the campaign
that due to the enormous importations of New Zealand butter, cream prices were lower. You cannot blame that on the National Dairy Council.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Does the name of that
firm appear in the estimates as asking for any assistance to carry on that propaganda?


Victor Clarence Porteous: I am not saying the
name appears in the estimates, but I say the National Dairy Council were working for no other interests than those of the dairymen of this country. Throughout Canada the creameries were advertising that due to the enormous importations of New Zealand butter the price of cream was down.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Will the hon. gentleman
tell us what excuse they give the dairymen now, when the price is so much lower than it ever has been?


Victor Clarence Porteous: We are not talking
about that now.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The hon. gentleman has
no answer. The Conservatives started this propaganda and won the election on it and now, when we tell them they fooled the people, they try to hide behind a smoke screen and will not come out into the open and confess they fooled the people on that occasion.
Last night hon. gentlemen opposite were putting figures on record to show that from the eastern townships of Quebec large quantities of fresh milk and cream had been shipped to the United States. Then they went on to show how these exports decreased in 1928 and 1929, and endeavoured to leave the impression with the committee that because of the importations of New Zealand butter the production of milk and fresh cream was falling off. My good friend the ex-Postmaster General came along and disproved that theory; he put figures on record to show that milk production had increased every year. The fact is that in the province of Quebec, and especially in the eastern townships, the dairymen were shipping their products to the United States. They all admit it. They were stopped from shipping their products to that country, not by the New Zealand treaty and not by any action of the Liberal government, but by an increase in the American tariff. That increase became effective first in 1928, when the falling off of exports started. The tariff put into effect at that time did not altogether prohibit Canadian milk and cream from entering that country, but later on, in 1929, the
210G

Supply-A griculture-Dairying
duty was increased to 60 cents per gallon on fresh cream and milk, which made it absolutely impossible to export milk and cream from Canada to the United States. The result was that the farmers of Stanstead and other constituencies along the border were thrown on their own resources and found themselves in an awkward position.
The hon. member said the policy of the Liberal government had closed the cheese factories in that constituency. That is not the case. These dairymen were shipping their cream to the United States, and as a result they did not need cheese factories, so the factories closed of their own volition. For a number of years they remained closed, and they were practically out of commission when our products were shut out of the United States market. Then what did our good Conservative friends do? They turned around and said, "Your factories are closed; you are shut out of the United States market, and look what the King government has done to the dairy industry through the New Zealand treaty." The farmers of those constituencies believed that story, and voted Conservative. That is the reason why we have some hon. members opposite representing those constituencies to-day. That could not be attributed to the importations of butter from New Zealand; it was due altogether to the United States tariff against our exports of fresh milk and cream.
That disposes of the theory which my hon. friend from Stanstead advanced last night. Then another hon. gentleman said that our cattle population had fallen off, and he stated this was due to the Liberal policy. I want to say that the moment the American tariff went up and American farmers and dairymen saw prospects of our milk and cream being shut out, they came to Canada and began to buy up some of our stock. It was the best thing in the world for the dairymen of this Dominion that they were able to sell their cattle to those American farmers at that time at a good price. Since this government came into power a cow is not worth milking, and if our farmers had not been able to ship these cattle to the United States, at a good price, they would have had them on their hands to-day and would have received no benefit from them. Another point brought up by the ex-Minister of Agriculture was that the tuberculin test took a very heavy toll of the cattle all over this dominion.
Some hon. members have siuggested that immediately the farmers saw something looming up which promised a profit, they switched to dairying over night. No reasonable or intel-
ligent person will accept that theory. You cannot switch to dairying over night. If dairying is coming back, and if to-day we are producing more butter than we need in Canada, that improvement must have been in progress for the last three or four years. You cannot produce over night a dairy herd from which you can obtain milk that will give cream and butter of exportable quality. Such a herd must be built up over a number of years. And the reason we are producing milk to-day and exporting butter .to the United Kingdom is that during the last few years of Liberal regime, under the capable Minister of Agriculture who was in office in that period, the dairy herds of Canada were steadily built up. The result is that to-day we are producing all the butter we need for our own uses and are also in a position to export a surplus to the United Kingdom.
The serious feature of this policy which our hon. friends opposite have introduced is this: it is a double-edged sword; it cuts both ways. Our friends have stated that they were going to build up the dairy industry of Canada and put our dairy farmers on easy street, and the moment the people took them at their word and accepted that policy, the government and the manufacturers association had the dairy farmers in their hands. They were able to squeeze them like a sponge, because they said to the dairy farmers, "You cannot expect a policy of protection for your dairy products and at the same time refuse protection for manufactured articles ".
Now, the moment this 8 cents a pound duty is imposed on New Zealand1 butter we find that our export trade with that country drops off by almost one-half. This morning I obtained from the bureau of statistics the figures for the last three years, from April 1, 1928, to April 30, 1931. Under our agreement with New Zealand, our trade with that country progressed by leaps and bounds. In April of the fiscal year 1928-29 our exports to New Zealand amounted to $704,871, and at the end of March of that same year they had increased to $2,182,788.


Victor Clarence Porteous: I wish to ask the hon. gentleman a question. Is he or is he not in favour of the New Zealand and Australian trade agreements?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: It is for the hon. gentleman to draw his own conclusions from my remarks. The treaty built up a wonderful trade between this country and New Zealand, and I am sure that the manufacturers of Canada must have appreciated that fact. The automobile business made rapid strides, as hon. members know. But everyone knew that

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
the imposition of that 8 cent duty would not help Canadian farmers. Perhaps the hon. gentleman who asked me that question will answer one which I will put to him: Of what benefit has that duty of 8 cents been to the dairymen of Canada?


Victor Clarence Porteous: Statements were made
during the election campaign-I do not wish to refer to this, but the hon. member brought it up-that when we got into power the price of butter would be higher than the price that then prevailed; and it would be to-day if we were not producing so much butter.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I have my hon. ifriend
where I want him. He admits that they did promise the people of the country that they would increase the price of butter.


Victor Clarence Porteous: I did not. I said that what we said was that the price of butter, if we were returned to power, would be higher than the price would be under Liberal administration.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The hon. member's party said it would, and now they are in power I would ask the hon. gentleman that question again: Is the price higher now than when they were making those speeches?


Victor Clarence Porteous: That is a different question.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Oh, it is a different question; I knew the hon. gentleman would not like to answer that question, because we find that the price of butter is 10 cents lower than it was then. Now let me go on with the figures I was quoting. In the year 192930 our exports to New Zealand had increased to the sum of 119,166,488, and that most gratifying state of affairs prevailed until last October. In the month of October of the fiscal year 1930-31 our exports amounted to SI,340,998; that was for the month of October alone. But what happened the moment the duty was put on butter? Immediately upon the imposition of the duty on New Zealand butter our exports to New Zealand fell off, for in the month of November of last year -the very next month after we had shipped over $1,340,000-we find that our exports amounted to just $846,728. In other words, there was a loss of almost $1,000,000 per month to the export trade of this country, while there was absolutely no corresponding benefit to Canadian dairymen. And I will defy any hon. gentleman opposite to stand up in this house at this moment and declare that that 8 cents per pound duty is of any benefit to our dairy farmers to-day. I will give them a chance and will take my seat
till they reply. I do not see any hon. gentleman get up to contradict me, and I will proceed. So that you have proof there that our policy was right and that of hon gentlemen opposite wrong. The fact is that our export business to New Zealand has been very nearly wiped out. In April, 1929-30, we exported to that country produce to the value of $1,105,220, while in April of 1931-32 our exports amounted to only $355,756-that is, for that month alone. That represent a loss of almost $1,000,000 a month.


Mr. SHAVER:: What government was it that cancelled the agreement with New Zealand?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: It was not the cancellation of the agreement but the imposition of the duty that had the effect of wiping out that business. It was during the short session that the 8 cents duty was put on, and the moment this was done New Zealand retaliated by discontinuing all trade with us except such as they were bound to carry on.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister overlooked the figures from the statistical branch with respect to the years 1922 and 1923. While he is hunting up those figures I wish to make a few remarks with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Queens. I would not for the world say an angry word to anyone coming from Prince Edward Island, for it is such a delightful part of Canada; but I am bound to say that the hon. gentleman made some foolish and nonsensical remarks in the light of what the minister has stated. The minister has admitted that my figures were correct and that milk production increased 45 per cent during the Liberal administration. The hon. gentleman has therefore no ground whatever for the assertion that the industry was in the deplorable condition which he suggested when we left office. If our hon. friends opposite can show as good a record they will have nothing to be ashamed of.
I want to congratulate the minister on his good temper and endurance. I recall myself the first time I faced the crucifixion of defending estimates. It was in Regina, and on the opposite side we had such critics as Judge Brown, Mr. Justice Haultain, Senator Gillis-who may be in the gallery now, and who therefore can testify to the accuracy of what I am about to say-Dr. Elliott, Joe Wiley, and a number of others. I had then to stand the gaff.
I cannot help having some sympathy for my hon. friend and I will tell him now-of course I do not want to have it all sympathy



Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
-that this afternoon, we deliberately avoided anything like pressing him. I told our whip that I thought we should not press the Minister of Agriculture until he was given an opportunity of his own accord to supply the figures and information we wanted yesterday. This worked. In the meantime an hon. member on this side sent a hurry-up call asking whether I was going to let this item pass without getting the milk production figures. I said:	Just bide-a-wee and
dinna wearie; I think we are going to get the information. So I congratulate my hon. friend upon having given it to us. I do not want to say anything about having won out or anything like that. When an hon. member throws up his hands, I am not going to press the advantage. But if our hon. friends across the way are sincerely going to back up the statements we made and they confirmed, they will refrain from this vilification about what the former ministry was said to have done in regard to the alleged emasculation of the dairy industry in Canada during the Liberal regime. If this is raised again throughout the country, we shall be here on the spot to unsheath our swords again to vindicate the record of the Liberal government during the last nine years. This is not a threat or anything like one. Just so long as they are good, we shall be good. Those are the conditions with respect to the closing of this three-day incident. When I was minister in Regina I made many mistakes; I fought rings all around me when my estimates were on. My hon. friend did have more sense than to do that. In 1905 in Regina no member of the legislature had been in the house before except the Speaker. We soon found out that we did not get through our estimates by fighting the opposition or withholding information.
To my hon. friends on this side I have an even more painful duty to perform, because I find several hon. members on this side still think the National Dairy Council is a political organization. The National Dairy Council asked simply that the old duty on butter of 4 cents per pound be restored, and Mr. Dunning restored it. What have they got against the National Dairy Council when they asked simply that the original duty be restored and Mr. Dunning restored it and introduced it in his budget? W7e fought the election on it. It came too late, though, and was grossly misrepresented by our opponents. But we should not blame the National Daily Council for that.
I think we should be quite candid with each other and be fair to all parties. I know 
the National Dairy Council. The first time I ever raised my voice in this house was on the question of oleomargarine, which is quite a proper subject to discuss under this appropriation. I got a really good spanking from my own side that night and I felt it too. But the National Dairy Council got into the fight. Without it we would not have won, and even at that it took us two years to abolish this abomination, this unfair competition with the dairymen of Canada, a product that is now being fought by the dairy industry in the United States. I refer to oleomargarine. Therefore I shall never forget the good work of the National Dairy Council from that date to this, and all their boards of directors, none of which had a more capable head than the present one, Mr. Robinson, an exceptionally efficient gentleman. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien), who was so successful in casting his net for ministerial information the other night and helping to vindicate the accuracy of the figures I gave, is the last man against whom I should wish to differ on the merits or demerits of the National Dairy Council; nevertheless my duty compels me to point this out. May I say first I felt just as the hon. member for Provencher did last summer during the election, when every newspaper advertisement, every radio message was full of all kinds of butter accusations. Oh, we do not forget them! This is one advertisement taken from the Grain Growers' Guide. It is a notice to farmers from the Brandon Creamery and Supply Company, and I interpreted it as coming from some unfriendly source or another. I did not know where it was coming from until I had read it the second or third time. It reads:
This notice to farmers from the Brandon creamery, June 2, 1930, tells its own story of conditions.
This would go out with the cheques.
Dear Sir or Madam: On the first of May, stocks of butter on hand in Canada were three and one-quarter times- greater than same date one year ago, and it is estimated that over 30,000,000 pounds of New Zealand butter had been purchased to arrive before the additional duty takes effect on October 12 next. Last year, from the first of June till the end of December, only 15.000,000 pounds of New Zealand butter was brought into Canada, so it is quite apparent that New Zealand has already settled our butter prices for this year and for some months of next ....
In view of the above conditions it is necessary to reduce cream prices-
That is a very effective kind of campaigning. There is no doubt about that.
In view of the above conditions it is necessary to reduce cream prices, which are as follows: Table, 27 cents; Special, 25 cents.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
Those prices look pretty good to-day, and yet that is what they were yowling about then.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Is that signed by the
National Dairy Council?


William Richard Motherwell: No; this is the
Brandon Creamery and Supply Company. There is no connection between the National Dairy Council and this company. When I saw those going out with the cream cheques, I was looking around everywhere for the villain in the play. They were coming to my house and I did not feel very kindly towards anybody so treating a patron, because during that summer we were having one irritation piled on top of another-the hot weather, cut-worms, rust, and other provocations. I do not know any body of men that are doing more faithful and effective service for the dairy industry or any other industry than the'National Dairy Council, and I say that without reservation, knowing all the facts from its inception down to the present day. There is no body of directors more capable, more energetic, regardless of what political party is hurt, than that of the National Dairy Council. I know my hon. friends here will not care for this, bult like the hon. member for Labelle, I am getting old enough now to have the right to speak a little for myself. I am free now for the first time, I may say, in twenty-seven years. What is the use of being in opposition if you cannot have a little freedom of speech? I am going to take the ground now that if the .minister cares in the supplementary estimates to put this grant to the National Dairy Council on a parity with that of the Canadian Horticultural Council, I shall be glad to give it my support. The position taken by a number of hon. gentlemen is that the question that has been before the chair for the last few days is whether we shall vote this sum of $5,000 for the National Dairy Council or not. That is not the question; the question before the chair is the whole appropriation of $295,000. The hon. member for Queens suggested that the way in which we were blocking this vote *would make nice campaign reading for the Tories. If so, I shall risk it.
The hon. member for Red Deer was supersensitive yesterday about the bear garden event. Apparently we had to have the bear garden in order that the drawing room which we are now enjoying might follow. You have to have the storm before you can have the calm, the calm which we are now enjoying. Bult the bear garden was all right in its place, and later on we can stage a couple more if necessary, but I hope it will not be necessary.
There was a kind of bear garden yesterday, and while I do not like them, if they are necessary, all right, let them come. I feel sorry that I have to differ from three or four of my colleagues on this side, but it is the privilege of us all to differ with each other in details. After a man has been corked up for twenty-five years it is a delightful sensation to be able to speak freely. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not know what it is to be corked up, nobody does except the Prime Minister, and he is uncorked all the time. I think we might shake hands across the aisle, just as the pugilists do before they start another round.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Might I suggest to my
hon. friend, now that he is in such a genial mood, that this amendment might be withdrawn and we might pass the item.


William Richard Motherwell: No. We are just
clearing the decks for action. We could not get down to wiork until this was out of the way. We could not have this good fellowship until the matter was squared up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I thought my hon. friend favoured the vote.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, and I will support it when the proper time comes. I am not in favour of the amendment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is what I suggested, that my hon. friend might possibly have it withdrawn.


William Richard Motherwell: I should like to
continue if I may, because I have been very quiet all afternoon. Has the Minister of Agriculture the figures for 1922 and 1923 that were asked for?


Robert Weir: I think I have given them already but I shall do so again: In 1922, 9,847,932,218; 1923, 11,765,534,229.


William Richard Motherwell: I surely shall not be accused of any immodesty when I point out that it was not the agricultural statistics that had to be changed at all. I was aware of the difference between the two sets of figures ever since I came down here, and on many occasions I spoke to my then deputy about it and took the ground, as he did, that some reconciliation should be made between the two sets of figures by the respective departments, Agriculture and Trade and Commerce, instead of having two even slightly conflicting sets going out to the country. There was not very much difference between them, but the difference that did exist just gave the opportunity to such hon. gentlemen as the hon. member for South Hastings .to get up and say what he did



Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
and possibly keep within the truth, because he did not say it was the Department of Agriculture that did it; he simply said that it was done. I may say quite frankly that I did not know that the matter had been adjusted. It was done in 1929, at which time it looked to me as if I might then kick off altogether, but the good Lord apparently thought I had some service in life yet to perform and so I am permitted to continue for a while longer.
With regard to these milk production figures, they correspond with the ones that I gave three or four days ago, and as the minister has intimated, they are as correct as any figures can possibly be; they are just as correct as any other figures the minister knows of, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce acquiesces in that. I want to congratulate the Department of Trade and Commerce. I do not know of any better statistical branch in the world than the one headed by Doctor Coats. So we will all kind of lack thumbs on that point. There is no use in all this talk if we do not get somewhere by way of suggestions for betterment. Perhaps I cannot do better than repeat what I said on the 5th of May. I took the ground then, and I take it now, that our dairymen are absolutely up against it producing cheese and butter in these small factories throughout Canada at the present ruinous prices. The minister himself has pointed out the advantage of larger manufacturing units. He pointed to the men in Saskatchewan who started larger units there, and perhaps unintentionally he paid a compliment to the first government in that province. They have one of these larger units in Regina, one in Saskatoon, one in my hon. friends own constituency, possibly two, and the people there all know the advantages of these larger units. I know it too, because for ten years the Saskatchewan government operated a cooperative creamery which came under my personal observation, and although all my life I have been a farmer I have been incidentally an overseer of such a creamery, and in that way I happen to have a knowledge of the business which has been most invaluable to me all through my life. We all know theoretically that volume means a iower cost of production, but when you learn it in actual experience you know it in an altogether different way. Our dairymen are to-day at a great disadvantage in having the small manufacturing units for butter and cheese. Speaking on the 5th of May on the advantage of having a system of standardized creameries and dual purpose factories for butter and cheese, I said:
Our opponents, rivals, competitors, all over the world for the last twenty-five years have 
been gradually developing and enlarging the manufacturing units of their dairy products and increasing the production of the production unit, the cow, increasing the flow of her milk and increasing the size of the dairy buildings until they are eight or ten times as large as they were fifty or sixty years ago when dairy and cheese factories were started in Ontario. That has been going on for twenty-five years in the United States, New Zealand, Denmark and Russia. Our present dairy commissioner was the chief resident factor and adviser in starting up the present dairy industry in New Zealand. Doctor Ruddick knows all about these plants, and of what advantage it is to have a large production in each one, which tends not only to quality and cheapness of production but to uniformity of product, which is so acceptable on the markets of any country. In our own country, through the effluxion of time, the old junk factories, which were all right at the beginning, are disappearing, and better ones are taking their place; but if we leave it to the process of evolution I am afraid it will take us about a hundred years before we can compete successfully in dairy products with our competitors throughout the world. We can compete now% yes, but it is a competition that leaves our dairyman skinned right dowrn to the heels; there is nothing left for him at all, with cheese at nine cents and butter at twenty and twenty-two cents a pound. They need government help; and let the government take action now. The thought I have in mind now' is what I had in mind when I w'as minister and when $25,000 was put in the estimates of 1930 for a live stock inquiry; and it looks even better now than it did then, because this government is committed as no previous government ever was to putting the whole weight and pow-er of this dominion behind agriculture, as was promised at the last election.
This is the time to strike. The only thing the minister had to say in reply was that this was not the time to make a move in that direction. May I be excused for differing? I believe that this surely is the very time to make the move. There is an old saying that we should strike when the iron is hot, and I think the iron is pretty hot now all over Canada with respect to the dairy industry, and now would be a splended time to strike. The government I know can only go as far as public opinion will permit, and I believe that the public would be wholly behind the government in taking any move along the line I suggested. I went on to say:
My good friend the Minister of Agriculture can ask for almost anything from this government for agriculture, and if he secures it I can assure him that he will have a solid phalanx of this side of the house behind him too. It is said that w'e sometimes play politics, but in view of the present distressing conditions in the w'est, the member of parliament who plays politics alone will not last very long. They want us to be big enough to stand up and help the government in anything that will be of benefit to agriculture, even though we oppose the general policies of the government.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
We do strongly oppose the general policies of this government. Nevertheless, if we are going to do anything for dairying this is the only medium through which we can do it, for the next four years, I was going to say, but if the government keep on the way they are going they will not last four years, and I feel sure you agree with that yourself, Mr. Chairman. To my mind the action of the government in the last two or three days will not add to its term of office. However I am not yet ready for another election; I may say I had a hard enough racket to gain reelection during the last campaign. I want to get on my pins before we have another one. Undoubtedly we are all a little selfish in matters of the time for elections to parliament. On a former occasion I pointed out what the Hon. Martin Burrell had done in connection with operating the large Finch creamery. It was carried on long before my hon. friend the minister and myself were in Ottawa in our present capacities. In 1912 the Hon. Martin Burrell established a large creamery at Finch, Ontario. The operations were so successful in lessening the cost of production that it became inconvenient to continue operations further because the farmers for miles around wanted to be customers. We could not take care of the cream, and milk supplied by all of them. When we got all the information required the creamery was sold at cost price and no deficit resulted so far as the government was concerned. The information concerning the operations of that creamery is available.
Then, further, Doctor Ruddiclc is well aware of the system in New Zealand; and some of us know something about the system in Denmark. My hon. friend the minister has a competent staff around him who are able best to develop the services under his charge. I shall not at this time go further into the matter of a new enlarged system of creameries because I did so on a former occasion. On that glorious night when he scored such a great victory the minister lived up to my predictions that if he was only let off the leash he would make good, and he did make good. His success was attained at a fearful cost to himself, however, but the fact remains that for the occasion he made good. His action was that of a man who risks everything on one shot and afterwards loses everything.
I have before me the report of the president's address at the annual meeting of the National Dairy Council of Canada. I quoted from this address last night just as the clock was striking eleven. I know my hon. friend 22110-1341
the Minister of Trade and Commerce thought he would close-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, no.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
had a pretty good stunt in mind, and I congratulate him. Just at the last minute he pushed up to the front line with his letter from Mr. Robinson-it was well done;
I know the game.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is toe
suspicious.


William Richard Motherwell: I know the game.
I was suspicious enough to keep a good trump card in reserve for just such a stunt as that of my hon. friend. May I say that the report I now have before me is most timely. I like that sort of action. Hon. members know that I do not indulge in gambling or drinking whisky-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not much.


William Richard Motherwell: But the matching
of wits is my delight. I like to match brains with the best or the worst on the other side of the house. If I happen to be the weaker, let the better man and the better cause win.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is what happens.


William Richard Motherwell: May I say that
hon. members will have to speak out louder. I miss a great many remarks I certainly should like to hear For exanjple, I did not hear the question asked by the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam). I thought when he spoke he was just following up the remarks of the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon). I thought he was just talking through his hat, and I answered in an improper fashion, considering the very decent nature of the question he had asked. I believe I asked him, quite politely of course, if he would kindly close his face. If the hon. member is not in the house I wish some other hon. members would convey to him the fact that I wash I had not made that statement. I have always been friendly with the hon. member for North .Renfrew. Possibly the hon. gentleman who asked the question was not the hon. member for North Renfrew because there were so many shouting at that time that hearing was difficult. I would ask whoever asked the question, however, not to heed my answer; I regret having made it. I am sorry also I did not hear the question because I would have been delighted to have replied to it. I learned afterwards I had been asked about the Australian treaty, and had I known that at the time I should have been pleased to answer.
Supply-Agriculture-Dairying

In the address before me I find that Mr. Robinson referred to a national dairy policy. Hon. members must know that at the present time it is quite popular to talk about vague policies, but Mr. Robinson's was apparently a reality, though not yet available. We hear of policies which are floating around in newspapers, published here and there. However, we have not had any agricultural policies delivered by the minister in this parliament, the greatest forum of the nation and the proper place in which to discuss them. I find in the document before me there is reference to a national dairy policy for Canada. This policy appears in an agenda published in Winnipeg in the month of March, 1931, by the National Dairy Council. My hon. friends are in favour of the National Dairy Council, hands and feet, and I am with them in that regard. I do not wish anybody to think I am joining forces with the Tories. I regret having to join with them even on this occasion, but duty prompts me. I told my constituents that the only way to get anything worth while was to get it through the government. No m'atter what the result may be that is the action I am going to take. Hon. members cannot afford to refuse anything worth while for the relief of agriculture, even if it be suggested and given by the present government. To my mind the best plan of action in the meantime would be to put up with the government and get all we can from it -for distressed agriculture. Mr. Robinson is quoted as follows:
The Hon. Robert Weir is aware of all these things.
Having read that statement I believe I should have begun reading further back. However I shall continue from this point.
He believes as I do that we must have planned production of goods to sell from the farms of this country.
That is the statement of Mr. Robinson, whose opinion carries great weight with most hon. members, with the possible exception of two or three hon. members on this side. The address continue^:
In dairying he believed it to be of prime necessity that we first fully supply our own home market.
That has been done. In that belief he is right.
Knowing that many unusual difficulties must be faced by the dairy industry, he asked a few of us to prepare an outline of what we thought should be done.
In that sentence Mr. Robinson refers to the Hon. Robert Weir, the present minister. With that statement I am in accord.

The address continues:
Knowing that many unusual difficulties must be faced by the dairy industry, he asked a few of us to prepare an outline of what we thought should be done. It was my privilege to join with Dean Barton of Macdonald College and Doctor Archibald of the Dominion Experimental Farms, in the preparation of this report to the Minister of Agriculture. It was our hope that the report would at least provide a larger conference with something to shoot at, and it is the minister's wish that the National Dairy Council discuss it fully at this meeting.
May I say that Dean Barton is a capital man. Had I had occasion to hunt for another live stock commissioner I would have approached him. However I never had to do so. He is a very efficient man, and I believe I have already expressed an opinion in regard to Doctor Archibald and Mr. Robinson. They are the trio who have been asked by the minister to make a reiport on dairying at the present time and to suggest a remedy for present conditions. The report continues:
It was our hope that the report would at least provide a larger conference with something to shoot at, and it is the minister's wish that the National Dairy Council discuss it fully at this meeting, and that modified or enlarged as you may see fit, it then go to him as a recommendation from the council.
I am sorry the dairy commissioner was not included with the other men I have mentioned. My only comment would be that I think Doctor Ruddick would have been a great help. However I concede to my hon. friend the right to pick his own advisers. Probably Doctor Ruddick will be called in at a later time. The report referred to has not yet been presented. Then the address continues:
The report will be presented to you in due course and I hope that you will see in the action of the minister how great an opportunity and responsibility is ours.
In that connection Mr. Robinson refers to the council. I do not expect that the report will be changed because of what I have said, but I shall feel highly flattered if it contains some of my proposals. I do not know whether the minister is ready to present the report, but undoubtedly all hon. members will be greatly interested when it is presented. I do not wish to press the minister because I know the difficulty he will experience when he attempts to get money for its establishment, financial conditions are very hard just now, and I know what the minister's colleagues and his leader will say if there are any more drains on the treasury. But what did they promise? They promised to put the whole weight and power of the Dominion of Canada

Supply-A griculture-Dairying
behind agriculture. Here is a great opportunity for the minister. The other day a bill was introduced to provide $750,000 annually for technical education. Is technical education any more important than the dairy industry? I wonder how many hon. gentlemen ever got up at half past four in the morning to milk cows.


Mr. ROSS:: I have.


William Richard Motherwell: Then the hon.
member ought to be sympathetic. But he did not do so when cheese was at 8 cents a pound; that is lower than the price when he was a boy. Well, there will now be a little bond of friendship between the two of us. Dairying is a very arduous branch of agriculture, as everybody knows, I think. It is weakening right now at the knees, it is being hard-pressed, although it is the only source from which there is any available money just now. Wheat has gone up the flue for a while, and I do not know how long it will stay up there, but every old cow that can be milked at all, her udder has to be stripped so as to secure the very last squirt of milk in order that we may scrape along.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I am not joking.
We farmer members know that. It is what we are living on to-day. The only trouble is that we have not enough of those life saving cows. I have heard it said that the Prime Minister has no heart; or if he has, he has not been able to diagnose the ills of the west, and therefore cannot prescribe a remedy. My hon. friend is a western man. We are proud to know that the ministers of agriculture are coming from the west, whether from the far west or from the middle west. The present minister knows conditions, he knows what dairying is. Would it be so very difficult for him to put up a scrap for the same grant that technical education got? It would not take that much for the first year. Suppose only $100,000 was put in the supplementaries to have an inquiry. I asked for only $25,000 last year. Quadruple that and see if something cannot be done. [DOT] The minister has a very good committee here. I think that that is not an unreasonable request, and I say with all sincerity that this is the time to strike. There is not a man in this house who would dare to object to a policy to be enunciated for the purpose of rehabilitating our dairy industry and establishing a standardized system of combined creameries and dairies, especially in the two
older provinces of Ontario and Quebec as a start-up. With that will go the two packing plants that were suggested. If ever I spoke a sincere word in my life I am speaking it now. It is not usual for the opposition to advocate a policy so transparently necessary that scarcely any government could resist it, and then give them the opportunity to run away with it. I do not care if you run from here to you-know-where with it, so long as we get a rejuvenated dairy industry. I am willing to give credit for it to the Hon. Martin Burrell who preceded me, or to any of my other predecessors, so long as something is done to revivify agriculture, especially on the prairies.
Some unkind things have been said about the prairies. Yes, we are making quite a noise. You will never get anything in this world without you do make a certain amount of noise; but we have not got much out there yet this session. What we have got you could pretty well put in your eye and not interfere with your vision. But it will come, and it has to come from this government. Could not the minister take advantage of the opportunity, and come out with a flourish as the great emancipator of agrioulture in the west-instead of blaming me for weeds that grew thirteen years ago when I was not there. What was done at that time at Waterhen Lake was done by the Tory government that preceded us. Oh, the need must have been great for my hon. friend to seek to blame me, and I am sure he regrets it now. How much better would this proposition be than that which he advocated in his recent speech- a speech which reechoed throughout Canada as a victorious vindication of the minister for twenty-three minutes, and then collapsed. Maybe I am saying these things unkindly, but I do not mean them unkindly; it is just my way of expressing myself. I am willing that my hon. friend should have the credit for these proposals when they are worked out through the National Dairy Council. Will not my hon. friend tell us about this National Dairy Council report and how far he has advanced with the committee, consisting of the three gentlemen referred to-Messrs. Robinson, Archibald and Barton?


Mr. DONNELLY:: The other day I asked the Minister of Agriculture concerning our butter, and he said at that time that we were nearly on an export basis. He also said that the export of our butter was interfered with to a great extent by lack of uniformity of grade, which was due to the fact that our creameries were not of sufficient size to enable

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
our butter to be uniformly graded. I asked him at that time what was being done in order that butter might be exported mo-re efficiently, and he said our inspectors were trying to get the creameries to turn out a more and more uniform grade. Now, I propose to quote from this report which has been referred to by the ex-minister, the report of the annual meeting of the National Dairy Council of Canada. I find on page 2 that the president said:
I have given notice that at this meeting the chief item on the agenda will be a national dairy policy for Canada.
I ask hon. members to pay attention to those words, "a national dairy policy for Canada." He continued:
Gentlemen, our task to-day is that we must come to a vital and united decision as to whether we intend to export some or all of the various dairy products produced here. If we want to export them they must be produced in steady and dependable supply of high and uniform quality, and above all at prices low enough to enable us to compete with other countries.
In other words, he says that we are assembled here to-day at this convention in order to work out a policy; we are on an export basis for butter, or soon will be; we must have a steady supply of uniform quality, and it is up to us and the government to work out such a policy. Now, what has the government done toward working out a policy along that line? Are -they doing anything in order -that we may have a steady supply of butter of uniform quality? Are they doing anything in order to reduce the cost of producing butter? These small creameries, we have been told, produce butter at a high cost, and, as has just been pointed out, we should have larger units. What are the government doing to increase the size of these creameries?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


James J. Donnelly: I should like the minister to give us the answer, if he can.


Olof Hanson: Shall the amendment carry?


James J. Donnelly: I want the minister to xll me, if he knows, what their policy is. Have they done anything to decrease the cost of producing butter in our creameries, or are they doing anything to get a uniform supply for export? This is the policy advocated by the National Dairy Council which hon. gentlemen opposite have lauded to the skies; they say this is what should be done, and we are asking the minister what has been done in that direction. I think that is a proper question. We have not been on an export basis for years; the minister says we are

coming to an export basis or that we are on that basis, and I want to know what we are doing in order to reduce the cost of production and to get a uniform supply. I think that is a legitimate question and we should have a statement of the policy of the government in that respect. Has the minister nothing whatever to say? Have the government no policy? Have they not decided on anything or do they think everything is perfectly satisfactory as it is?


Olof Hanson: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. SANDERSON:: I should like to ask the minister a question, to get back to the National Dairy Council. Would be explain to the committee just how that body functions? What do they do? In what way do they assist, if they do assist, the dairy industry of this country? And when I say "industry" I mean the whole industry. Would the minister also tell the committee if the different creameries throughout the Dominion belong to this National Dairy Council? Is it a cooperative company, or what kind of body is it? I think the committee would like to get this information from the minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Frederick George Sanderson: Hon. members should not be so impatient.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am asking the minister for information.


Robert Weir: 
Frederick George Sanderson: I thank the minister for the information. Now would he tell the committee, if he has the information, if the different creameries throughout the country are connected in any way with this dairy council. Are they members of it?


Robert Weir: They elect representatives, I understand, as they are members of dairy associations.


Frederick George Sanderson: There is another matter I want to bring to the attention of the minister, in connection with the whole dairy industry. Apparently there is a move to consolidate into a very few hands, and under the control of wealthy interests, the dairy industry of this country. For instance, companies financed by large capitalists in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver are slowly but surely gathering the creameries together under their wings. Is the minister aware of that fact? Is he watching that situation in the interests not only of the consumer but also of the producer of milk? It appears to me that if this organization, which is now stretching out all over this country, gets control of the dairy industry, it will be very disastrous for most of the people of Canada, except those who have stock in the company. If it is not stopped, or if there is not some legislation to prevent it from going on, of which
we have heard nothing-and we have heard a good deal about the milking of the cow in the last two or three days-it will mean that all the farmer will do will be to milk the cow, and this company or these companies-because I understand they are more or less affiliated- will milk the farmer first and then milk the consumer. [DOT]
If there is anything that should be safeguarded by legislation from a monopoly, or from getting under the control of a few, it is the great dairy industry of Canada. To my mind this is a very serious matter. Farmers in this country are having a hard struggle, not only in the dairy branch of their business but in every other 'branch. This matter of getting control of the dairy business is a vital one and should be discussed in parliament. Some move should be made to head it off. Is the minister aware of the fact that one or two large companies are endeavouring to get control of that business, and to a certain extent have succeeded in doing so?
Mr. WEIR (Melfort); No, I am not aware of that.


Mr. HAY:: Mr. Chairman-


Frederick George Sanderson: I am not finished yet; I just sat down so that the minister could answer the question if he desired to do so.
Some hon. MEMBERS; He answered.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then it is up to you, Mr. Chairman, to say whether or not I have the floor, I will go on if you say so; if not I will sit down.


Olof Hanson: The hon. member had sat down,
and to be strictly in order, discussion should alternate.


Frederick George Sanderson: If that is your ruling, Mr. Chairman-


Mr.   Hanson. York-Sunbury@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon. member for Springfield has the floor.
Mr. McMILLAN (Huron); I rise to a point of order. It is within the knowledge of every hon. member present, as well as of the chairman, that the hon. member for South Perth simply sat down in order to receive a reply from the Minister of Agriculture. He has the floor, and surely the rules of this house will support him.


Olof Hanson: I rule that the hon. member for
Springfield has the floor.
Private Bills


John Vallance: Yesterday I was not
allowed to speak when I found myself in a situation similar to that of the hon. member for Springfield. I was told that the hon. gentleman opposite had not sat down. In this case the hon. member for South Perth sat down merely to allow the minister to answer a question, and I maintain that he still has the floor.


Olof Hanson: I have given my ruling; the hon. member can appeal if he wishes to do so.


Thomas Hay: It is not my intention to make a speech on the item before the committee; I would rather make a suggestion.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



VANCOUVER-SECOND NARROWS BRIDGE

Mr. DURANLEAU:: With the consent of the house I move that we revert to motions in order to allow me to lay a report on the table.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alfred Duranleau: I desire to lay on the table of the house the report of the commission appointed to inquire into the matter of the second narrows bridge, Burrard inlet, British Columbia.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 48, respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company-Mr. Simpson (Algoma)-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1-scheme of arrangement and schedule confirmed.
Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: There is rather a long preamble attached to this bill, and possibly a short explanation would facilitate its passing. The purpose of the bill is to confirm a certain "scheme of arrangement" that has been agreed to between the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company, the Algoma Central Terminals Limited, the bondholders of both these companies and the Lake Superior Corporation which guarantees the bonds. It is, in short, a reorganization
[The Chairman.]
of the financial structure of these companies. The companies are part of the industrial institutions that were established by Mr. F. H. Clergue some years ago at Sault Ste. Marie. The Lake Superior Corporation is not an operating company; it might be termed a holding company. The Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company, the Algoma Central Terminals Limited and the Algoma Steel Corporation, the subsidiary companies, are the operating companies.
The railway has been built for a distance of some 296 miles north from Sault Ste. Marie, with a branch running from a place called Hawk junction to Michipicoten harbour. It taps the main line of the Canadian Pacific at Franz, the Canadian National, formerly the Canadian Northern, at a place called Oba, and the Grand Trunk Pacific at Hearst, and it really forms the only means whereby the Canadian National can connect with the industries at Sault Ste. Marie.
For the purpose of raising money for the construction of the railway, it was necessary to issue first mortgage bonds. These bonds were guaranteed by the parent company, the Lake Superior Corporation, and the purpose in mind in the construction of the railway was not only to freight pulpwood down to the pulp and paper mill which was at that time a subsidiary of this company known as the Lake Superior Pulp and Paper Company and now owned by the Abitibi people, but to move iron ore from the then Helen mine to the blast furnaces to be constructed at Sault Ste. Marie. Unfortunately the railway was not able to earn sufficient money to pay the interest on the bonds. Much of the pulpwood was of course floated down by water, and the old Helen mine, from which they mined merchantable ore, petered out, with the result that in 1916 the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway passed into the hands of a receiver. At that time an arrangement was arrived at, satisfactory to the Lake Superior Corporation and to the shareholders and bondholders of the railway company, whereby the road was returned to the original owners and an act of this parliament was passed approving the arrangement then made. It was thought that the prospects for the future were better. It was known there were large deposits of low grade iron ore, and it was hoped they would be able to treat this ore and use it in their blast furnaces. This would have provided considerable traffic for the railway. The Algoma Steel Corporation spent some $2,500,000 in erecting a plant at what was known as the Magpie mine for treating or beneficiating this low

Private Bills
grade ore. They proved that this ore could be successfully treated and made fit for blast furnace use, but the methods then known for treating this ore were not as advanced as they are to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was it magnetite
or hematite?


Thomas Edward Simpson: It was magnetite ore they were treating at that time. They have hematite, magnetite and siderite. But the cost of the treatment of the ore was such that they were not able to treat it and lay it down at the blast furnaces as cheaply as they could purchase iron ore elsewhere. The result has been that the railway company has not been able so far to earn sufficient money to pay more than the operating expenses and a very small amount on the interest on the bonds. By the way, since 1916 the railway companies have paid out about $15,000,000 in wages. It is realized that the only hope lies in the successful operation of the steel industry at Sault Ste. Marie. Consequently they agreed to enter into an arrangement whereby the Lake Superior Corporation would be relieved of their guarantee of the bonds, which would enable them to go on to the market and more successfully finance the extensions to the steel industry which are absolutely necessary in order to enable that industry more successfully to meet the demands for steel in the Dominion of Canada. This arrangement has been approved by the bondholders, by the shareholders of the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company, the Algoma Central Terminals Limited and the shareholders of the Lake Superior Corporation. It is practically a family affair, to which all the members have given their assent, and all these industries being situated in the province of Ontario approval has been given by a bill passed by the legislature of that province at its recent session. The bill before us, as hon. members will observe has also been considered and passed by the upper chamber of this parliament.


Mr. HEENAN:: Has the bill been approved by the private bills committee?


Thomas Edward Simpson: It has been before the railway committee of this house and has been passed by that committee without amendment. I might add that during the last thirty years these industries located at Sault Ste. Marie have been the mainstay of Sault Ste. Marie and the immediately surrounding sections, with a population of about 35,000 people. They are particularly interested in
seeing this bill go through so that the company will have the opportunity of setting up this new financial structure and be able to extend its operations as they have found it necessary to do in order to meet the demands of to-day.


Mr. NEILL:: Did I understand my hon.
friend to say that all the various companies concerned have been consulted and have more or less unanimously voted their approval? There is no minority interest objecting?


Thomas Edward Simpson: There is no one objecting at all. The shareholders of the parent company, the Lake Superior Corporation, have given their approval by turning in their shares. Perhaps I should have explained in my earlier remarks that the parent company, the Lake Superior Corporation, was originally incorporated under the laws of the state of New Jersey. Under the proposed arrangement a new holding company is to be set up to be known as the Algoma Consolidated Corporation Limited, a Canadian company. The American trustees have been changed to Canadian trustees, and the shareholders of the former company have to the extent of over 90 per cent given their approval by turning in their shares to be exchanged for shares in this new holding company. The question may be asked, what about the remaining ten per cent? Some of this stock was held in the old land and in other parts of Europe, and as no dividends have been paid on the stock since it was first issued over thirty years ago, it is possible that some of these shares have been misplaced or lost. I doubt if there are very many members of this house who, holding stock on which they have received no dividends for a period of fifteen or twenty years, have been very much interested in taking care of the certificates. That is the explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton, for Mr. Bell, St. Antoine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 65, for the relief of Carl V ohwimkel.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I understand
that in this particular case there was considerable divergence of opinion in the Senate committee, that the evidence was by no means
Private Bills

conclusive, and that the opinion of the committee was not unanimous. It seems to me under these circumstances the special attention of the committee on private bills should be called to this particular case, and it should not be passed over in a perfunctory manner. I shall not object to the second reading if it is understood that when the bill reaches the committee it will definitely be considered.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



GUTTMAN DIVORCE BILL

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton, for Mr. Factor) moved the second reading of Bill No. 71, for the relief of Lillian Freedman Guttman.
James Shaver Woodsworth: This bill is in a position
similar to Bill No. 65. The evidence is neither as clear nor as conclusive as in other oases. I would ask that it be given special review by the private bills committee before it is passed on to the house for further consideration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 50, respecting The Canadian Woodmen of the World.-Mr. Fraser (Northumberland).
Bill No. 51, to incorporate Acme Assurance Company.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Agnes Sarah Evelyn Ballard McNaught.-Mr. McKenzie (Assiniboia).
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Dorothy Helen Marie Debnam Almon.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Rosa Maud Thomson Checketts.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Mary Ellen Margeret Montague Burrows.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Olive Hamley Fraser Mann.-Mr. Willis.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Eleanor Fritz Lawson.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Ellen Jane Easton Graham.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Joseph Norman Berger.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Joan Marguerite Loggie.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Alice Boyne Ostiguy.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 69. for the relief of Eileen Sybil Wolfe.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 70. for the relief of Helen Borland Beattie MacNicol- Mr. Bell (St. Antoine). On division:
i Mr. Woodswort h. ]


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 13, respecting Grain Insurance and Guarantee Company.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. \\ILLIAM DUFF (Antigoniish-Guys-borough, for Mr. Chevrier) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 27, respecting The Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 8, to amend the Armistice Day Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the amendment
proposed by the Senate is a comparatively unimportant one. It consists in deleting the word "legal" before the word "holiday," so that the sentence now reads: "shall be a holiday." I find that this is in accordance with the interpretation act to be found in the revised statutes, as the definition of the word "holiday" found there covers Sundays, New Year's day and other holidays. Therefore the amendment is perfectly in order.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Heenan for the second reading of Bill No. 2 to amend the Representation Act and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Stevens.
Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the
amendment moved on behalf of the government by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), I think it well

Representation Act
Srst to read the explanatory note to this bill:
The purpose of this amendment is to provide representation for electors resident in the district of Patricia north of the electoral district of Kenora-Rainy River.
In view of the fact that this bill is for the purpose of enfranchising about six hundred people, it comes as a surprise to me that the government has introduced this amendment to deprive them of their franchise. Therefore I think it would be well for me briefly to review the history of this territory to show whether or not the government of the day are taking this position designedly. At the last redistribution in 1924 the territory was not included in any electoral district. Consequently in 1925 the residents had no opportunity of voting. Then came another election in 1926. This time our friends being in power, and having control of the election machinery, sent enumerators into that territory. We found that they had got in there by aeroplane and other methods, and were promising the people that a poll would be established if they signified their willingness to vote for the Conservative candidate.


Robert James Manion: Is my hon. friend speaking from the dominion or the provincial standpoint?


Peter Heenan: The dominion. In 1926
this district was not incorporated in any electoral riding. We sent detectives in there and they found that enumerators-


Robert James Manion: Before my hon. friend
leaves that point, I should like him to give some evidence in support of his bald statement. We know nothing of the kind, and as a matter of fact I do not believe it happened.


Peter Heenan: I know the Minister of Railways does not, but I will give 'him the evidence and then he may believe it. In 1926 we found enumerators appointed by the Conservative government were in that district promising the people that a poll would be established on condition that they promised to vote "right." The evidence is that a poll was establshed, and when the chief electoral officer found what was going on he cancelled the poll. I wonder if that is evidence enough for my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not evidence at all. That is just gossip on the hon. gentleman's part.


Peter Heenan: It is not gossip at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is not a particle of evidence in support of what my hon. friend says.


Peter Heenan: There is evidence on the files that the chief electoral officer cancelled the poll.


Robert James Manion: The chief electoral officer establishes the polls, not the government. If a mistake was made, it was made by the chief electoral officer.


Peter Heenan: Then again in 1929 the provincial government of Ontario, realizing that it was only fair to give those people an opportunity to vote, amended their election act and extended the territory to take in the Patricia district. But evidently the people there did not vote right, because in the election of that year the Labour candidate secured a majority of forty or fifty, I cannot remember the exact figures. It was a surprise to the Conservatives because their candidate made it quite clear that the manager and the superintendent of a certain mine had advised him that he would secure practically all the votes there. In 1930 the government of the day introduced a measure to give those 600 people, com,posed of surveyors, miners and others engaged in the mining industry, an opportunity to vote in the election of that year. Then it was that those people realized that they were to be punished because of the manner in which they had cast their votes in the 1929 election.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What nonsense!


Peter Heenan: What nonsense?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. Who was in office, and who had control at that time? The hon. member standing in his place.


Peter Heenan: I am telling you that the government of the day introduced a measure to enfranchise those people, and I am going to give the house the words of the present Prime Minister in criticism of the proposal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He was not the government.


Peter Heenan: After it had been agreed by the government of the day and the official opposition that any measures of a controversial nature should be withdrawn so that parliament could be prorogued, Mr. Bennett, in opposing the measure, said:
Mr. Speaker, a more barefaced, iniquitous piece of political legislation has never been placed before this House of Commons in the dying hours of a session; never.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Therefore you withdrew it.
Representation Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: In shame you withdrew it.


Peter Heenan: Let me continue the quotation:
No part of the province of Ontario exists which is not within an electoral district at this moment. The object of this legislation is to take from one electoral district a small area and give it to another for the benefit of the Minister of Labour, because there were a few votes given in favour of a candidate whom he supported at the last provincial election.
Showing quite conclusively that the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, had been advised by the defeated candidate and a few of his friends to oppose the measure because of the way the electors had voted in the 1929 election. Well, in 1930 we had another election, and it was not until election day that we really saw-I give them credit for it-the manoeuvre that was to be made, because my hon. friends-and I am not speaking about the government particularly-


Henry Herbert Stevens: What page of Hansard was my hon. friend reading from?


Peter Heenan: You will read it to-morrow in Hansard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But my hon. friend quoted Hansard. Surely he will do me the courtesy of giving me the page he quoted from?


Peter Heenan: But this is taking up my time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will only take a minute.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I remember the speech distinctly.


Peter Heenan: It will be found at page 2818 of Hansard of-1930. I will hand it over to my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will you kindly send it over?


Peter Heenan: Yes-it is good reading. But on election day we found the real reason for the whole thing. I say I am not blaming the government of the day; I am blaming the political manoeuverers in that part of the country, for what did they do? They learned a lesson in 1917, they learned how to distribute votes and how to win that war time election, so all these people were not allowed to vote. There were Ontario government aeroplanes to bring out those who they knew would vote right, and they voted by perjury and fraud in the rural polls. Over one hundred voters were brought out I am advised by the campaign managers and they voted in the rural polls, under section 232 of the Dominion Elections Act, under which a person has only to vouch that the person is a 
resident of the district. They are permitted to vote, notwithstanding the fact that they are not on the voters' list. That was the real reasdn, and now the government introduces an amendment, after I introduced this bill to enfranchise these people, and if that amendment is adopted it will practically keep those people disfranchised.
I am sorry the Minister of Justice was not leading the house on that occasion, because I believe his fairness would have made this further debate unnecessary. I am satisfied that the real Conservatives did not wish these six hundred miners, pioneers of this country, and especially in Ontario, disfranchised, and I am satisfied that the Minister of Justice would not be a party to such political manoeuvering. He would not have agreed to the sending in of aeroplanes in order to bring out these people to vote at rural polls by fraud and perjury. Through this amendment, however, that is what the government is subscribing to at the present time.
I do not wish to labour this question. Had the Minister of Justice been in his seat I am satisfied he would have spoken a little differently than the way the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke. I think probably he would have said this was a proper bill to be introduced, but that inasmuch as a redistribution may take place before the next election, the government would give the assurance that before any election took place they would see to it that these people were given the franchise. I am certain of that, but instead the Minister of Trade and Commerce rises in his seat and calls the measure everything but its right name. He has indicated by his language that it is silly, that a person could not be sincere in introducing it at this time. He has talked about rumours and all that sort of thing, which have nothing to do with the bill. He has moved an amendment Which, if carried, will have the effect of keeping the franchise from these people until some other step may be taken.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to dwell upon the quertion further. I am satisfied that the house will not accept the amendment of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I certainly hope that will not be the case because we will be simply giving an impetus and an encouragement to a few-I will say not more than six-political manipulators, who never did anything for the district or for the Conservative party. They will be able to work in conjunction with a few politicians in the city of Toronto in order to keep these six hundred people as a reserve upon which

Representation Act
they may draw in the event of being hard pressed during an election.
Talking about political manoeuvering, these people were actually encouraged by some of the ministers of the provincial government to do these things. By the way, I see questions on the order paper indicating that people were dismissed because of partisanship in provincial and federal elections. We had the spectacle in our constituency of the defeated candidate working in conjunction with the officers of the Ontario government, road foremen and engineers, on election day, bring in the voters on government trucks, off the highways. They stood one on each side of the sidewalk with the pay list, calling these people by numbers. The candidate would say, "number so-and-so, you are working for us out at camp so-and-so, and it is your duty to vote, step in this way." These people were used for the purpose of winning one seat, but notwithstanding all that, the Conservative did not make the grade. In fact, if it had not been for the Ontario government and their methods of bribeiy, corruption, intimidation and persecution of the settlers, they would not have reached first base during the last election. All that I am asking to do by this bill is to enfranchise these six hundred people and let them vote as they will at the next election.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, as my name has been
brought into this discussion, and since, a direct appeal has been made to me, I think I should say a word or two. No one on this side of the house objects to the enfranchisement of these six hundred voters who, it is said, are disfranchised owing to some act or some omission on the part of some government. I think we all agree that those men should be entitled to vote; the theory of our election act is that every man who is qualified is entitled to vote in some constituency.
I have listened for the first time to the statement of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) in regard to this proposal. I weis not in the house when the proposal came up for discussion last year, so this is the first occasion on which the facts have been brought to my notice. If I were to criticize the speech to which I have just listened, and the attempt which has been just made to apportion the blame in this matter and place it upon the shoulders of this government, I would characterize that speech as a tissue of nonsense. A more nonsensical statement or a more groundless appeal I never heard made in this house. The hon.
member says this party was in power in 1926.


Peter Heenan: I did not say anything of the sort.


Hugh Guthrie: I understood that my
hon. friend said the Conservative party was in power for a few months in 1926, and certainly it was.


Peter Heenan: And had charge of the
election machinery.


Hugh Guthrie: We had not charge of
the election machinery. The election machinery was entrusted, under an act of this parliament, to the man who was selected by the leader of my hon. friend and myself in 1921, namely, Colonel Oliver Mowat Biggar. He was the chief electoral officer in 1926 and had been since 1921.


Peter Heenan: If there is any nonsense
in the house, that is the most nonsensical thing I have heard.


Hugh Guthrie: Colonel Biggar was in
charge of the election in this country in 1926. He appointed the enumerators-


Peter Heenan: Upon whose recommendation?


Hugh Guthrie: -and took charge of the election in the district of which my hon. friend has been speaking.


Peter Heenan: Upon whose recommendation?


Hugh Guthrie: I assume on the recommendation of Colonel Biggar. He had charge of the whole election.


Peter Heenan: On the recommendation
of the Conservative candidate.


Hugh Guthrie: Does my hon. friend
desire to cast any reflection on Colonel Biggar?


Peter Heenan: Certainly not.


Hugh Guthrie: Colonel Biggar, as chief
electoral officer, was the only man who could settle such a difficulty, if a difficulty did exist. The only man in Canada who could do anything in such a case was Colonel Biggar, who used his own judgment in carrying out the election law of Canada.
This is the first charge made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River against this government. A greater sham was never laid before the House of Commons. Now he says that last year the government of which he was a member brought in a bill-and they were in power by a very substantial majority
Representation Act

in this house. They brought in a bill to remedy this wrong, this injustice, to these six hundred voters. Why did his government not carry it through? They were in power, the hon. gentleman himself was a member -of the government and intimately concerned with this particular affair. But he sat supinely in his place and allowed the house to prorogue without remedying the wrong, passing the bill without providing that these six hundred persons should have the right to vote. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River sat placidly in his seat and did not press his bill. Yet he comes forward this session and complains of the wrongs done to the people in his own riding, when the whole blame in the matter rests on his own shoulders and on the shoulders of the government of which he was a member which failed to pass the bill. He says that the government was not in power during the election in 1926. I agree. But it was in power in 1927, and he was a member of it. It was in power in 1928 and he was a member of it. It was in power in 1929 and again in 1930, and he was a member of that government. For four long years this crying outrage which he has pictured to-night continued in his own territory and he did not raise a hand to redress it. In 1930 he did take some steps in the matter, but some influence was brought to bear upon him, because he allowed the government of which he was a member, to abandon bis bill. He allowed the house to adjourn without passing the measure. He apparently thinks that the minority of the House of Commons should have put the bill through. He was in the government until election day, 1930, and failed to afford the right to vote to these good people.
Such is the ridiculous position in which the hon. member finds himself to-night. And this is the sort of proposal he submits to the House of Commons. What is the answer? It is a simple one. This is the first session of a new parliament. Under the constitution of the country, the census must be taken this year. As soon as the census is taken the constitution prescribes that a redistribution of the ridings shall take place. Surely this matter can wait one year. This government will be in power another year; we can guarantee the hon. gentleman that. When the redistribution bill comes down the matter will be righted. But why interject a measure of this kind at this session? There is nothing to be gained thereby. The hon. gentleman did not do it when he had power, but now he projects this bill as a grievance to parade in the north country to induce the people to believe that he has been working to get them votes now that he
I Mr. Guthrie.]
is out of power, forgetting to tell them that during the four years he was in power he did not raise his hand to help them.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: Under whose instructions was the then returning officer of South Huron dismissed from his position and his successor appointed just prior to the federal election of the fall of 1926?


Hugh Guthrie: I have no knowledge of the subject. The hon. gentleman will have to speak to Colonel Oliver Mowat Biggar if he wishes to get that information. Colonel Biggar was in charge at that time.


Thomas McMillan: I thought the minister might be able to tell me.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the only information I can give.


James Earl Lawson: It had not been my intention to participate in the debate on this bill, but when the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) rises in his place and makes the allegations which he does as allegations of fact as to what occurred in the district of Patricia in 1926, I wish, in the strongest terms of which I am capable, to deny these allegations; because in 1926 I was the magistrate of the district of Patricia. As that district was at that time, and still is, an unorganized territory, I had charge of the administration of justice, including the direction of the provincial police officers in the district of Patricia. When the proclamation was issued for the election of 1926, there was not a parliament in session and consequently the question as to whether or not the people then resident in that district should have a vote was a matter dependent upon the statutes. Some of the permanent residents, few in number as they still are, desired to have a poll established in that district and application was made therefor to the returning officer for >the adjoining district of Kenora-Rainy River. Apparently for a short period of time the local returning officer for that district was under the impression thet. he would be able to grant a poll in the district of Patricia. But the chief electoral officer for Canada, or his legal adviser, I am not sure which, overruled the decision of the local returning officer. Hence a poll was not established in the district.
Before hon. members vote on this measure I should like to place before them another little picture so that it will not appear that vast numbers of the permanent residents of this country are being disfranchised. The district of Patricia is a vast, unsettled, un-

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
organized area. In order to proceed from Hudson on the national railway to the first settlement-that is, apart from Indians-at the Hudson bay post at lac Seul, you have to journey 127 miles by canoe at most times of the year and, sometimes when the Manitou rapids are high, you can go in a launch. It takes two mighty good paddlers three days to make the trip. At Gold Pines, which is a local centre, there were in 1926 fourteen permanent residents, and in the summer of 1930 there were not more than forty-two. That, I believe, was my count when I journeyed there at that time. To the next settlement in that country, which is the Howie mine, where a number of men are working-that is, at Red lake-it is seventy miles by water, with six portages. That was the number originally, but at the present time, I believe, by the flooding of the upper and lower Ear falls by the provincial hydro development two of the short portages have been eliminated. You cannot travel by launch because you cannot take a launch over the portages; so that, again, it takes twTo very good paddlers, as I know very wrell, to paddle a canoe and make the partages from Howie mines at Red lake, a matter of three days, to get to the town-site of Gold Pines. The very best you can do it in is two days. There is a small settlement consisting of about four permanent residents at Jackson-Manion mines, and to get there you have to go ninety miles by canoe, with eleven portages, two of them a mile and a quarter long. There are few facilities for transportation in that country, so that you. are not disfranchising any enormous number of people when you fail to pass this bill at this session.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hour for private
bills having expired, the house will revert to committee of supply. I will ask the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) to take the chair in the absence of the Deputy Speaker.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Stirling in the chair.


Frederick George Sanderson: A few minutes before six o'clock I had asked the Minister of Agriculture a question with regard to the National Dairy Council, when the hon. member who at that moment was acting as chairman ruled me out of order. I want to revert to that question. I asked the minister also if >he had any knowledge of the movement on foot to merge all the small creameries of this country into a gigantic monopoly whereby the farmer would lose a large amount of
his revenue and the consumer would be forced to pay an exorbitant price for butter, cheese, cream, milk and all other produce allied to the dairy industry. The minister replied that he had no knowledge of such a merger. I want to ask him a further question and I think the committee and the country are entitled to the information before this item passes, because in my judgment this is a vital matter. Will he take steps to investigate and find out whether there is anything in the rumour that this merger is under way? While he is doing that, I should like him to find out, because I think it is his duty to do so, whether or not any of the officials of the National Dairy Council are interested in the merger of these creameries, whether they are soliciting stock subscriptions from the farmers and the people generally for this merger in order that they may wipe out the individual and cooperative creameries and get the whole dairy industry under their own control. Will the minister give his assurance to the committee that he will investigate and find out whether there is anything to this rumour, and also whether some of the officers of the National Dairy Council are interested in the merger? I shall ask the minister for his reply and I want to tell the chairman that if the minister answers my question now, I intend to continue my remarks.


Robert Weir: I shall answer the hon. member's
question before I conclude the remarks which I am about to make. The hon. member for Willow Bunch, before the six o'clock recess of the committee, asked me to make a statement in connection with the dairy policy that I am endeavouring to formulate for the benefit of the dairy industry. I think that was a very fair question and quite in order at this particular time. As regards the reference he made, requesting that I make a statement in reference to the national dairy policy as discussed by the National Dairy Council at their conference in Winnipeg, I may say that the details of that entire policy are not yet worked out. There was a misunderstanding regarding the request that I made of the president of the National Dairy Council before he proceeded to the Winnipeg conference. I asked him to bring up unofficially before this conference, certain points in connection with an advocated daily policy, but not to bring the matter up as part of a dairy policy. What I wanted was to get the opinion or the reaction, with as little prejudice as possible, of those people who were-

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
there, representative as they were of various phases of the dairy industry. The president of the National Dairy Council evidently misunderstood me. He understood me to ask him to bring up this dairy policy of which we had the skeleton and which we had not had time to submit to a number of people to whom I had hoped to submit it before that time. I think it is only fair to him to say that due to the pressure of work to which I have had to give attention, the misunderstanding is more likely to have been on my part than on his. It was not intended by me that that should be presented to the conference as the skeleton of a national dairy policy, although I do not claim that anything he said was not correct. What he did say was quite correct.
As I said at the outset, the policy is not worked out in detail. I think it is only fair that, as has been requested, I should outline to the committee as much of the dairy policy as we have in view and some of which we have already put into practice. I think we can agree that in any dairy policy which we formulate the ideal that any dairyman would have in mind is something of this nature: to produce dairy products,-let us take for illustration butter-to produce dairy butter of such a quality that it will compete, favourably with butter put on the world market from any other dairy farmer in the world; not only that, but to produce it at the lowest possible cost and to have it marketed in such a way that thea-e will be returned to the dairyman the highest possible portion of what the consumer pays for it.


James J. Donnelly: Does the minister mean creamery butter or dairy butter? [DOT]


Robert Weir: Creamery butter on the world market. The work of the government and of this department in particular, I take it, in connection with the dairy policy, is to assist the farmer in every way we can to produce at the lowest cost and to market the product so that it will return to him the greatest percentage of the price that the consumer pays. In the commencement, then, we placed a duty against New Zealand butter, the idea in my mind being to set up a protection for the. daily farmer in Canada so that behind that protection we could assist him in readjusting the dairy industry, especially in places where it had not been carried on to the extent it might have, for reasons for which no one is to blame, because the farmers felt they could make more money, as they doubtless could, in other commodities.
I do not think many people believed we 
would be on the export market so soon, so that the length of time we had to assist the farmer to adjust himself behind this protection is not what we had estimated.
What is my policy to assist the farmer to produce at as low a cost of production as possible? First, we believe that as one of the necessary, basic principles of agriculture, we must get into the farmer's herd the best blood possible, which will, through inheritance, make the best possible use of the feed that the farmer puts into his herd and also the labour that he bestows upon it. In that connection we have instituted a policy and have already sent out to many of the farmers throughout the dominion, many of whom would find it almost impossible otherwise to get them, sires that I know will fulfil the statement that I have made with respect to improving the blood of the herd; and secondly, by making it easier for farmers to get the sires and female, foundation stock that they want, we hope to encourage the farmers in western Canada in particular, who I feel sure wish it, to go into more diversified, mixed or balanced farming in certain localities that are adapted to it.
In addition to taking very definite steps to improve the blood in the herds of the farmers throughout the country for the reasons I have indicated, we have conducted experiments with feeds in local districts, to show the farmer the best balanced ration, making use of his own locally produced feeds, for dairy stock. One of the cheapest feeds we all realize for the dairy industry is that of pasture. The question of pasture in both eastern and western Canada has been very much neglected. An acre of native pasturage cannot begin to carry now the number of head that it carried some years ago. In this connection, in order to assist the farmer in producing cheaper feed as pasturage, thus reducing the production cost of his butter, we are endeavouring to get the services of one or two of the best qualified men in the Dominion to 'work especially on this problem of pasturage. I think that those of you who have not looked carefully into this one phase of the production costs of dairy products do not realize that it is perhaps one of the most important factors in reducing the cost of production.
We also hope in the winter months to establish short courses in dairying, in conjunction with the provinces, in connection with our experimental farms. There will also be lectures to groups of farmers, as well as to these students taking the short courses, in the different phases of marketing, and we hope to be able to obtain the services of people with expert experience in marketing, because I feel

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
that we are all at least in accord on this, that marketing is perhaps the most important problem that faces us at the present time. When speaking of marketing I do not mean the problem of finding new markets, but the problem of marketing the goods to the markets we already have with a minimum of wastage in the return to the farmer. In this connection I moved yesterday a resolution giving authority to the agriculture committee to make a thorough investigation and review of the problem of marketing agricultural products, including, of course, dairy products. I know of no better place to investigate the question of a merger in the dairy industry or an attempt toy any one concern to get control of the butter industry than the agriculture committee, and I am sure that the members of that committee will welcome any information that the hon. gentleman who has just asked me the question regarding a monopoly has to offer.
I am also asking the committee to make a report on cooperative marketing versus the marketing by private interests; both of them, but especially the private interests, under some sort of control which I shall suggest to the committee.
When the price of butter dropped, as it did drop this spring, much faster than I think the dairymen themselves or the distributors thought possible a week or two before, personally I felt that it was not warranted, so I asked the distributors from Montreal to meet me in Ottawa in order to get their viewpoint as to whether or not they were warranted in dropping the price in butter. They gave me information which left no doubt in my mind that the drop was warranted. due in particular to the greatly increased production of fodder butter, which we all know is of a quality and character that will nolt keep properly and is of very little use for export shipment. I have instructed the officials of my department in this connection to do two things: first, go gather accurate data on the price paid for butter fat to the farmer, and the price paid for butter by the consumer, so that then we will be in a position to carry on an investigation and see wherein it might be possible to reduce that spread. We all realize that the man who handles this butter is entitled to a fair profit, but I think we also realize that he is not entitled to a greater share of the profit, in proportion, than the man who does the actual laborious work on the farm in producing this commodity. I have also asked them to gather the most accurate information available on the amount of butter stored month 22110-135
by month, the average price of butter during that period, and also the price charged by the distributors for that butter when it is released in the winter months. Any problem in connection with the marketing of dairy products I feel will receive every consideration by 'the agriculture committee. I know of no body, especially with the authority which has been given to it by this house, which is in a better position to give us full information in this connection.
Before resuming my seat, I would say this.
I have not-at least if I have done so, I have not wittingly done so-refused in any way to provide this committee with any information that it has asked for. Wittingly I have not even delayed in producing the information. I refer in particular to the information regarding the number of pounds of milk produced month by month. I thought from the beginning of this whole discussion that it was not so much a matter of one man doubting the word of another, but rather that the majority of us understood that the information had been obtained from two completely different sources.


Frederick George Sanderson: I want to thank the minister for at least giving my question a partial answer. I understood him to say that the committee on agriculture would endeavour to investigate and find out if there was any truth in the rumour that a merger was being formed to control the dairy interests of this country. May I point out to the minister that surely there is a better way than that to go about it. Parliament will not be sitting here all summer.


An hon. MEMBER:: If wTe keep on it will.


Frederick George Sanderson: Let me tell my hon. friend I have not taken up as much time of the house this session as he has.


Robert James Manion: Oh, yes.


Franklin White Turnbull: We do not mind listening to the hon. member for a while.


Frederick George Sanderson: For a new member the hon. member for Regina has had a good deal to say in his first session.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake) :: He has had a good deal of experience, just the same.


Frederick George Sanderson: If my hon. friends opposite wish to continue interrupting I promise them that I shall keep them here a long time. I believe the minister suggested that as his officials went around the

2.126
SuppI ij-A griculi ure-Dairying

country he would instruct them to make some investigations regarding the merger. Am I wrong?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: May I humbly suggest to the minister that if he took that stand he would gather far more information than through the committee on agriculture. He has officials going up and down the country in every province who are in a position to get first-hand information. The minister should instruct them to gather information for his future use. If there is nothing in the rumour, well and good; if there is any truth in the rumour he as Minister of Agriculture should take steps as soon as possible to stop the merger.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not his business at all.


Frederick George Sanderson: For the last two or
three days I have listened to the discussion about butter. During the election campaign in July of last year, butter was a live issue. It was featured by the Conservative party not only during the election campaign but during the special session of parliament. Speaking only of the province of Ontario I should like to say that there are perhaps eight, nine or ten hon. members sitting on the government benches opposite who owe their election to butter. I w-ant to say that their campaigns were unfair. Camouflage and distortion of figures were practised to an extent which does not reflect credit on the gov-jrnment of the day. I know at least some of my hon. friends opposite do not like a prolongation of the discussion on butter; they would rather forget about it. They know that to a certain extent they are holding their seats under false pretences so far as their promises in regard to butter are concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend from North Huron says "order." If he thinks I am out of order he should rise to a point of order.


George Spotton: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I am not particularly well versed in parliamentary rules, but surely it is distinctly out of order for a member to state that other hon. members of the committee are occupying seats under false pretences.


An hon. MEMBER:: It hurts, doesn't it?


George Spotton: I thought the election
was over. I came through a by-election in 1927 with which my hon. friend had a great deal to do, if there could be any more false pretences than he-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What?


George Spotton: If there could be any more promises made since Adam was a boy-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Spotton: -I should like to hear them.


Frederick George Sanderson: I did not wish to get into any controversy with my hon. friend from North Huron, but he started the present discussion. When my hon. friend from North Huron is not in the House of Commons or is in his own riding during a campaign he poses as a low tariff man. According to his statements on such occasions he is opposed to protection.


George Spotton: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have heard that
during the last election campaign he made statements on the public platform and during his canvassing that if the Conservative party wTerc returned to power-


Some hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: -and Mr. Bennett became Prime Minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are discussing the daily industry.


Frederick George Sanderson: I shall come to butter in a minute.


George Spotton: My hon. friend is a poor
loser.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for North Huron said he would be one of the first to rise in his seat and vote against any increase in tariff. However I never heard him protest last September. Never once on the floor of the house have I heard him raise his voice against an increase in tariff. I noticed in the press the other day a report of a meeting-


Mr. ARTHURS:: This discussion is wholly out of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: There was a Liberal
meeting in which the opponent of the hon. member for North Huron-


James Arthurs: The hon. member is not
speaking to the subject before the chair.


William Duff: He is quite in order.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: I would
ask the hon. member to refer to the matter before the house.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would like to do so and I shall do so in a minute.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, now.


Frederick George Sanderson: The press report of
this meeting contained the statement that the hon. member's opponent-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: -the hon. member's
opponent-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: -stated he wished that there could be an election held in the next, week or two-[DOT]


James Arthurs: I rise to a point of
order.


Frederick George Sanderson: -and that at such time friends of my hon. friend from North Huron would see whether or not he was a low or high tariff man.


Grote Stirling: I must
ask the hon. member to speak to the matter before the committee.


Frederick George Sanderson: I shall be very glad to do that. I stated that a good many of the hon. members on the other side of the house from the province of Ontario were elected on their policy in regard to the importation of butter. The promises, propaganda and statements made by Conservative candidates and their friends in regard to New Zealand butter were surprising. This afternoon we were told that some of the creameries sent out notices with the pay cheques of their patrons stating that if there had been no New Zealand butter imported into this country their cheques would have been greater than the amounts they were actually receiving. In the constituency I have the honour to represent the propaganda was somewhat different. By some means or other access was obtained to the books of at least some of the creameries in South Perth and .information was obtained as to the amounts the farmers were receiving from month to month over the period of a year. With this information in hand statements were made out which I shall describe. For example, if a farmer received $10 for one month there was a notation in the next column stating that as soon as the Bennett government came into power he would receive S60 or perhaps S70. What was the result? The whole propaganda of the Conservative party in regard to this butter question was that if 22110-135i
that party came into power-and it did come into power-immediately the price of butter would go up.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: During .the election
campaign the price of butter went down lower than it had been for some months previously. The promise made by the Conservative party to the farmers was, "If you vote for the Conservative candidate and if the Conservative candidate wins the election and the party gains power, immediately the imports of butter into this country will be stopped." When asked about the New Zealand agreement, they said, "Why, Mr. Bennett does not care for the New Zealand agreement; he will wipe that out immediately he comes into office." When asked about the Australian treaty they said, "Mr. Bennett will just ignore the Australian treaty and there will be no more butter coming in." What has been the result? In the last few months butter has reached the lowest point in thirty-five years, and instead of the patrons of our creameries receiving cheques for larger amounts as promised by my friends opposite, they are receiving the smallest amounts that they have ever received in the history of the industry.
Now I come to another matter, Mr. Chairman, and I do not know that I would have referred to it if some of my hon. friends opposite did not seem to think that when I get up to speak they must interrupt me. During June and July last year large quantities of New Zealand butter were imported. Who was buying that butter? It was evidently coming in for storage and was very much in excess of the amount that has come in for the same months in any previous year. Rumour had it that the Conservative party, financed as it was by millionaires and multimillionaires, went into the butter market.


Robert James Manion: Nonsense!


Frederick George Sanderson: The Minister of Railways says "nonsense." I do not know that is is nonsense; I think there is a good deal of truth in the assertion. What would be their object in doing that? To bear the market, to reduce the price of butter so they could point out to the farmers of Ontario and the other provinces that the King government was responsible for the low price of butter. There was very little our Conservative friends overlooked in the last election, and I give them credit for it. They capitalized the unemployment situation, and I have my own idea whether or no't they capitalized the butter situation. I believe that part of that propaganda was the im-

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
portation of butter to bear the market. I have under my hand some of the campaign literature used by the Conservative party during the last election, I propose to quote from the Speakers' Guide, issued for the Liberal-Conservative party by the Confederation Publishing Company, Limited, Ottawa, Canada. At the bottom of the front cover is the slogan:
One country-one policy!
In this guide five pages are devoted to the dairy industry. Unless my friends opposite interrupt me too much I will not take up the time of the committee by reading it at length, but I should like to quote at least a part of it. This may be familiar to some of my Conservative friends:
The Throttling of the Dairy Industry in Canada
The tragedy of the dairy industry in Canada is a matter of most serious concern to the great majority of farmers of the dominion and to that vast body of Canadians whose welfare depends upon the prosperity of the farmer.
The facts of the situation are as simple as they are disastrous and form perhaps the most costly chapter in nine years of government during which change has ever been mistaken for progress by Mr. King and his ministry.
The next heading is:
The Germ That Brought Decay
Then quotations are given from speeches by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Semi) and by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe)-


William Duff: Read it all.


Frederick George Sanderson: -in regard to the
dairy industry. Those two hon. gentlemen were the leaders in the propaganda with respect to New Zealand butter. They were, as illy friend says, the bell-wethers. They went all through Ontario and they also campaigned in Quebec and in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They pointed out to the farmers why the King government had ruined the dairy industry, and advised them to put out the Liberal administration and put in the Conservative, when they would be hundreds and hundreds of dollars ahead every year in the dairy industry. I know that my friends opposite will say, "We have been in power only a few months; give us time." But the result since they have come into power has been disastrous, not only to the dairy industry but to every other industry in this country. I know, too, that they propose a higher tariff as the panacea for all these troubles. Well, they increased the tariff on butter to 8 cents a pound, thinking of course that butter locally would go up in price; but [Mr. Sanderscm.1
the reverse has happened, the price has gone down. Speaking of the province of Ontario, I tell my hon. friends opposite that if it were possible for the farmers to register their votes within the immediate future there would be a different result from what we had last July 

largely due to this butter question. The whole question has been permeated with humbug if I may say so, simply for the purpose of catching votes. The responsibility for remedying the present depressed condition of the dairy industry is on the government, and particularly on the Minister of Agriculture. I do not want to embarrass him, I understand he has many difficulties, but I warn him that as he goes on he will find that not the least of these difficulties is the condition of the dairy industry, for on him will rest largely the responsibility of at least endeavouring to do something to redeem the promises so lavishly made by the Conservative party last July that the price of butter would go up. So I say that this is a very vital question, more vital than my hon. friends across the way regard it. They are treating it largely as a joke, but they will find that their constituents are not treating it as a joke. The milk producers, the patrons of the creameries, are not treating the butter situation as a joke.


James Dew Chaplin: Tfou treated it as a joke when you made the Australian treaty in the first place, and you were so told.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have heard my hon. friend from Lincoln make a joke out of himself pretty often in this house, and I do not want to get into any controversy with him to-night.


James Dew Chaplin: Don't do it.


Frederick George Sanderson: But I am endeavouring to point out to the committee that this is an item that should be held up until the fullest possible information has been given by the minister and by the government. My hon. friends opposite say that the opposition are wasting the time of the house, that this item should be passed without further discussion.
I have a distinct recollection two years ago, when most of my hon. friends across the way were sitting here, of their holding up the estimates of one minister for nineteen days. A dose of their own medicine is due to them now.


William Duff: They are getting it, too.


Frederick George Sanderson: The more they endeavour to obstruct the more we will keep this thing going.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead.
Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Frederick George Sanderson: A reference to Hansard will show that about as many hon. members from the government benches as from this side have taken part in the discussion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And said nothing.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend says
they said nothing. They endeavoured to come to the assistance of the Minister of Agriculture, but in the judgment of those of us who sit here, and I think in the judgment of the people, instead of helping the minister they retarded progress. I see that my hon. friend from North Huron is getting sleepy. I should not like to interfere with any rest he may need. If he wants to go to sleep, well and good, but in conclusion I would like to say that hon. gentlemen opposite, and members of the government, may think that after this item passes-and doubtless it will pass some time-the butter question will be over and forgotten. I do not think it will make any difference whether an election comes in one year, two years, three or four years; the butter question will not be forgotten by the people of Canada, along with all the other broken promises made by hon. members who now occupy the government benches.


John Vallance: Mr. Chairman, I was
pleased when the Minister of Agriculture rose in his place as soon as he possibly could after the dinner hour and announced what was to be the policy of this government in connection with dairying. I am not holding the minister responsible for all that happened during the election; I do not wish to hash over all that was said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, but one thing is quite apparent to this house and to the country. It is this: One of the outstanding issues during the election was the dairy industry, and I was pleased'-and I may say quite frankly I am somewhat sympathetic to the Minister of Agriculture in the policy he has announced-to hear the statement by the minister. However, I think we should investigate this matter and see just how far it will be possible for the minister to carry out the policy he has enunciated.
First of all, the minister says we must make it possible for the farmer to produce his dairy products as cheaply as possible. Let us see, Mr. Chairman, what happened at the special session of parliament last year. The budget was brought down on September 17, and I should like to refer to some of the tariff provisions of that budget, from which hon. members will be able to judge
whether it is possible for the dairy industry to operate more cheaply to-day than it could before that budget was brought down. There are several things which enter into the manufacture of butter. First of all, you must have the implements of cultivation in order to grow your feed, and the more cheaply you can buy these implements the more cheaply you will be able to produce butter. So I should like to draw the attention of the committee to some changes made in the tariff during that special session. In order to grow feed you must cultivate your soil; those of us who have any knowledge of farming will agree with that statement, so that more cheaply we can buy these implements of cultivation, the more cheaply we will be able to produce butter.
I refer first to item 409b, which covers such implements as cultivators, harrows, seed drills, horse rakes and so on. Under the old tariff the British preference was free, the intermediate tariff was 10 per cent, and the general tariff 10 per cent. What happened when this budget was brought down on the 17th of September of last year? True, the British preference is still free, but the intermediate tariff is 15 per cent, an increase of 100 per cent, and the general tariff, which under the old schedule was 10 per cent, went up to 25 per cent. So the farmers and dairymen now must pay more for those implements I have mentioned. Then we come to ploughs.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Will the hon. member
mention-


John Vallance: I will mention all I want to mention, and after that my' hon. friend can mention what he wishes.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: You do not know.


John Vallance: I do not know what? If the hon. member has anything to ask me about .this subject I shall be glad to answer him.


Robert King Anderson: What about the duties previously?


John Vallance: We will go on to item 409c, which has to do with ploughs, and so on. The British preference was free, the intermediate tariff 10 per cent and the general tariff 10 per cent. What do we find to-day? We find that the British Preference is still free but that the intermediate tariff has gone up to 15 per cent, an increase of 50 per cent, while the general tariff has been raised to 25 per cent. This must mean an increased cost of production; there is no getting away
Supply-Agriculture-Dairying

from it. It must be so, and I wish I had on my desk now a comparison showing the retail prices to the farmer from the catalogues of 1930, and the prices of 1931. I believe they would show, in spite of .the statement made by the Prime Minister that there would be no increase in prices, that those increased prices .prevail to-day.
Now let us take the next item, which includes other articles of farm machinery such as harvesters, combinations, threshing machines and so on, including the motive power incorporated therein. The British preference was free, the intermediate tariff 6 per cent and the general tariff 6 per cent. Now we find that while the British preference is still free the intermediate tariff has jumped to 15 per cent, and the general tariff to 25 per cent. I would say to the Minister of Agriculture that before the budget comes down on Monday, if he wants to make it possible for the farmer or the dairyman to produce his butter more cheaply, he had better see the Minister of Finance and make sure that some of these items are changed.
Then the minister goes on to say that he is going to send this question ,to the agriculture committee, in order that the committee may investigate and recommend to the house- and to the government, I suppose-just how they propose to deal with this matter. This question was an issue during the last election. Every candidate of whom I knew anything at all, and all the pamphlets I read emanating from the Conservative parly, said they would solve this problem over night. As I said before, I am not blaming the Minister of Agriculture, because I suppose when the election started he had no more notion of becoming Minister of Agriculture than any other candidate, but to-day his party are sitting on the treasury benches just because of these promises. Now they propose to throw the responsibility on the agriculture committee, and I do rot think the responsibility belongs there. It should rest with the government.
I said at the beginning that I was in sympathy with the policy outlined by the minister, and I believe he is trying to do the best he can.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Vallance: Yes, I think he is trying to do the best he can, but still the responsibility does not belong to the agriculture committee; it belongs to the government. The minister also says we should deal with marketing. I do not think marketing is much of a problem to-day; it is markets we need, and we do not require to go into the methods of
[Mr. Vallance.l
marketing. I gay again that the responsibility should not rest on the agriculture committee, but on the government.


Victor Clarence Porteous: Mr. Chairman, hon. members sitting to your left have made reflections on the intelligence of the rural electorate in regard to the last election, inasmuch as they have stated .that the rural people were stampeded or herded into voting for the Conservative candidate. I very much resent those reflections, and I am sure hon. members opposite do not wish to have those statements go back to the people in their constituencies. The people in the rural districts are intelligent; they vote as intelligently as any other class of people. They weighed the issues at stake during the last election, and they decided very strongly in favour of the Conservative policy.
For two days we have been listening to figures quoted in this house in connection with this item. We know that many newspapers contained figures, during the last election campaign, carried in display advertisements, in an endeavour to make the farmers believe the dairy industry was on a profitable basis, but the farmers did not believe it. The policy of the last administration was responsible for some 50,000,000 pounds of butter coming into the country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Fortyone.


Victor Clarence Porteous: Yell, we will say 41,000.000. But it was the last administration that brought about the Australian trade treaty, and it was that administration that passed the order in council with reference to New Zealand. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the farmers of this country did not know what the policy of the Liberal party was in this respect, and to-day the people know just as little about that policy. The Liberal members of this house are afraid to say that they are in favour of the Australian trade treaty and the New Zealand order in council, and they are equally afraid to express any disapproval of those trade agreements.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has
either my hon. friend or the present government any definite policy in regard to Australian trade?


Victor Clarence Porteous: We certainly have.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is it?


Victor Clarence Porteous: We are not in favour of any undue competition in agriculture.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the government's policy?


Victor Clarence Porteous: Wait until I get through, if you wish to speak.


James Dew Chaplin: Criticize it when it comes down.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In five years' time?


Victor Clarence Porteous: It was not so much that lion, gentlemen opposite had a bad policy as that they had no policy at all. And they have none to-day. We have heard a good deal about election promises, and I will agree with lion, members opposite, that election promises had much to do with the defeat of the last administration. But it was election promises that were made to the farmers of this country prior to the election of 1926, and which were never fulfilled.


James J. Donnelly: What were they?


Victor Clarence Porteous: I could name them.


James J. Donnelly: Do.


Victor Clarence Porteous: Some are in connection with the tariff.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What,
for instance?


Victor Clarence Porteous: They promised to reduce the tariff on farm implements and they never did it. The price of farm implements went up.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When?


Victor Clarence Porteous: The hon. member for South Battleford, I believe, has made the statement that the tariff which wras put on in the emergency session has increased the cost of production. How did it increase that cost? It never increased the cost of farm implements; how, therefore, could it increase the cost of production?


John Vallance: Wait until the budget comes down and we will produce evidence from catalogues.


Arthur Edward Ross: Wait and see.


Mr. BROWN:: We are ready for the budget.


Victor Clarence Porteous: Notwithstanding what the ex-Minister of Agriculture has said, I have had as much to do with the dairy industry and have milked as many cows for my age as any man in this house, and I have also been engaged to some extent in the retailing of milk. I think, therefore, that I know as "much about the subject as any hon. member opposite. Now, I should like to test the sincerity of the hon. member for Weyburn,
who moved the amendment. I do not believe he is sincere, nor do I think hon. gentlemen to the left of the Chairman are sincere enough to support that amendment. This matter has been under discussion two days. Surely it is time the committee decided it. If the hon. member for Weyburn is sincere, let him persuade his party to permit the amendment to be voted upon; if not, let him withdraw it.


Mr. GRAY:: On Tuesday last, as reported at page 1997 of Hansard, the self-styled onion king of this house, the hon. member for South Essex, who, I regret to say, is not in his place, said:
Mr. Gott:	I would like to say to the Minister of Agriculture that one recommendation made by the National Dairy Council of Canada has meant thousands upon thousands of dollars to the onion growers of Essex county.
A little further on he said:
A year ago, through the recommendation of the National Dairy Council of Canada, the Minister of National Revenue took occasion to protect onions.
In the county I have the honour to represent, as well as in the county of Essex, there are a large number of onion growers. Now I would ask, seeing that we are discussing an item of S5,000 for the National Dairy Council: What possible connection is there between the National Dairy Council and the onion industry of southwestern Ontario? At the same time I should be glad if the minister would inform the committee whether the National Dairy Council did make such a recommendation as indicated by the hon. member for South Essex.


Robert Weir: No recommendation was made that I am aware of.


Mr. McPHEE:: I think I should put myself on record in connection with this matter. I am glad that the minister has intimated that no one and no government was to blame for the condition of the butter business when he took office. This is somewhat different from what we heard during the last political campaign. I speak with a certain amount of interest with reference to this item of $5,000 for the National Dairy Council, inasmuch as my opponent in the last election was a representative from Saskatchewan of the National Dairy Council, and he is to-day one of the beneficiaries of this vote. He was the candidate opposing me in the last election and he was heralded by the Conservative party and the Conservative press in the district as the representative of the National Dairy Council of Canada, a man who had considerable knowledge of the dairy business. During the election he spread the propaganda that the

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
only salvation of the dairy business in Canada was the return to power of the present government. He talked about New Zealand butter and he spread it half a foot thick over the whole district, over every platform in the district, so that it was almost impossible for one even to stand, to say nothing of sitting on the platform. He made the statement that if the present government got into office, immediately -it was not a question of days or weeks but immediately-the price of butter would go up in this country without any reference of the matter to a committee on agriculture to devise ways and means of obtaining a market. Not only that, but he told the farmers of the district, on the platform and through the press and in canvassing, that if the present government were returned to power the farmers would immediately get more for their butter fat. And he was manager of a creamery company which is one of the beneficiaries of this vote. In the cream cans returned to the farmers of the district would be the Conservative propaganda and the National Dairy Council propaganda in connection with this matter of butter.
What has been the result of all this election talk about New Zealand butter? Fortunately for me the farmers of my constituency were possibly somewhat more alert than those in other districts, because my vote was increased instead of being decreased. But what are the facts? Never before in the history of western Canada have the farmers received less for their butter fat than they are doing to-day. The price is from 10 to 12 cents a pound less than it was previous to July 28th last. In my district I saw butter sold at two pounds for 25 cents not more than a month ago.


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: Dairy
butter?


George Washington McPhee: Yes, dairy butter; I did
not say creamery butter. But the facts, are that in the last election in western Canada the only platform of the Conservative party was the slippery one of New Zealand butter, and to-day they must suffer the consequences. Never before in the history of the western provinces has butter sold for less, and never before have the farmers of western Canada received less for their butter fat than they are doing to-day.


Mr. GORDON:: What is the reason for
that?


George Washington McPhee: That is for the government to find out. The fact is that my hon. friends obtained power because they spread 
the propaganda that if the Conservative party were returned to office they would immediately increase the price of butter and the price paid to the farmer for butter fat.


George Gordon: Oh, no.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I had not
intended to take part in this discussion, had it not been for one or two statements made by the Minister of Agriculture with reference to the prices of butter. Let me refer to page 2001 of Hansard of May 26, where the minister is reported as saying:
When the present government came into power the price in Canada was 28 to 28-5 cents per pound. At the same time the price of butter in the United States was 35-25 to 35-50 cents per pound-
And so on. Then he went on to say:
On March 17, 1931, the price of butter in Canada was 31 cents a pound, and in the United States, 29-75.
He was evidently endeavouring to show that the tariff increase imposed was responsible for the price of butter. I do not know where he got his figures with regard to butter being 28 to 28.5 cents per pound, or a spread of 7 cents per pound between Canada and the United States, when the present government came into power. During the election campaign the butter question was a live one in my constituency, as apparently it was in every part of Canada. I had occasion to be right at the border about the latter part of June or the first part of July of last year, and I took occasion to ascertain the price of butter on each side of the line, at North Portal, Saskatchewan, and at Portal, North Dakota. I was amazed to find that the price xn Canada was about one cent higher than it was in Portal, North Dakota. There was a tariff of 12 cents per pound on butter coming from New Zealand or any other country into the United States. Therefore in June and July of last year the price in western Canada was as high as if not a little higher than it was across the line in the United States. Possibly in the eastern part of Canada conditions were somewhat different; there was probably more of a spread . between the prices on both sides of the line. But that was the condition of things that existed in the west just at that particular time.
In connection with the statement that was made with regard to the prices of butter on March 17, 1931, when the spread, as stated by the minister, became narrower, being only two cents, the minister later admitted that it was butter selected by the inspectors in Montreal and shipped to the old country market

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
that obtained that price. If that be true- and1 that is what the minister said yesterday -it is of little or no consequence to our farmers in western Canada and, I presume, in other parts of Canada as well. As the hon. member for Willow Bunch said yesterday, our people who are a long distance from the railway stations, from creameries, are making dairy butter, and last winter- and from letters I have received, the same condition applies to-day-they were very fortunate if they got rid of their dairy butter at all. If they did get rid of it, it was only at a price of about 12 cents a pound. They have been told on more than one occasion by the merchants in the town they cannot handle the dairy butter and to take it home.
Another rather remarkable statement made by the minister was to the effect that the increase in the tariff imposed by the present government put $2,000,000 into the pockets of the Canadian butter producers. Would the minister care to go out into the constituency which he represents-because I think conditions there are very much the same as they are in mine:-and inform the farmers who have been told to take their butter home because of there being no market for it, that the policy of the government has put $2,000,000 into the pockets of the dairymen of this country? I wonder if the minister would go to his constituency and tell the people out there that such is the case. He said it yesterday, and I should like. *to know whether he really meant it.
I should like to ask the minister one or two other questions. What are the qualifications of the officers he has appointed for the inspection of dairy products? He said that two or three officials of the. department had been discharged since he took office. I should like to know who those officials are and why they were discharged.
Another question that has aroused a good deal of comment among the people generally is the release of Australian butter last April. I am rather curious to know what representations were made to the government in that connection by any person, firm or corporation. Were representations made by firms which were exporting their manufactured products to Australia, asking the government to release this butter coming from that country in order , to help trade between this country and that?
The hon, member for Saskatoon spoke about Mr. W. A. Wilson, the dairy commissioner in England, and said that the government had discharged him. Will the minister tell us whether Mr. Wilson has been discharged or not?


Robert Weir: I am not certain that I can remember all the questions my hon. friend has put, but I shall answer the ones I can recall and ask him to repeat any which I have overlooked. I am informed that no official has been discharged from the dairy branch. I do not know the exact qualifications for an inspector of this branch, but there are printed application forms setting them out, I believe, which I shall be glad to submit to the hon. member. As far as Mr. Wilson is concerned, he is still in the employ of the government.


Robert McKenzie: Were representations made to the government regarding the release of Australian butter?


Robert Weir: No representations
were made.


Robert McKenzie: Not of any kind?


Robert Weir: Not that I am
aware of.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This
afternoon I asked the minister a question. He stated yesterday in the bouse that the Australian butter was released as a result of a price-cutting war in the city of Vancouver. He said this afternoon that it was released in April. He had stated two days previously that there was an understanding that Australia would not release butter on the Canadian market under 32 cents a pound. I asked the minister this afternoon if he could inform the committee as to what price the Australian butter was sold on the Canadian market. I should also like to know if that butter Was disposed of in the city of Vancouver alone, or was retailed through other industrial centres in the dominion.


Robert Weir: In reply to the first question, I do not .think I made the statement that the butter was released as a result of a price-cutting war.	[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understood so.


Robert Weir: I have not the
information as .to where the butter was sold or at what price it sold, but I shall be very glad to get that information if I can.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank
you.


Mr. BOULANGER:: I am not going to
talk about butter, although a great deal was said about it in my county during the last election. My opponent, being a druggist from the city of Quebec, was, of course, well quali-

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
fied to speak on butter, farm implements and agriculture generally, and lie took full advantage of his opportunity. I Want to speak with respect to a matter which was brought up, I think, by my hon. friend from Assini-boia, and I want to refer to the answer given to his question by the minister. The minister said, if I understood him aright, that nobody connected with the dairy inspection branch of his department was dismissed for political partisanship. I am sure that the minister answered in good faith, and that he must have overlooked the case of a dismissal in my constituency. I think the minister will recall that case because I made as strong representations as I could to him in order 'to induce him to keep that man in the service. I refer to Mr. Caius Lacroix, of St. Michel, Bellechasse county, whose official position was that of supervisor of dairy products for the federal Department of Agriculture. He was dismissed on a complaint of political partisanship, laid by my defeated opponent, and after an inquiry had been made.
Mr. Lacroix is one of our best farmers, and was one of the most advanced and progressive agriculturists in our section of the country. I do not think it is fair for the minister to select that type of man, a well-qualified educated farmer, as the victim of a charge of political partisanship. To penalize farmers who have taken special pains to fit themselves for positions in which they can help their colleagues is not the way to encourage the farmers on the development of agriculture. Mr.' Lacroix has been prominent in farming organizations in our section of the country for years. He is a pioneer in the raising of pure bred stock, having established fine herds of Ayrshire cows, Oxford Down sheep, Yorkshire pigs and Percheron horses. In 1024 he organized the Dairy Syndicate of St. Michel, of which he was secretary for four years. In 1922 he helped to reorganize the Agricultural and Horticultural Society of Bellechasse county, of which he is still secretary. In I960 he organized the Cooperative Syndicate of Bellechasse for the production and sale of the best grade of potatoes, and he is the manager of that syndicate. He is also the manager of the Mutual Fire Insurance Society of St. Michel. For years he has been the correspondent, without remuneration, of the Department of Trade and Commerce and of the Department of Agriculture, furnishing free of charge statistics concerning agriculture and the trade in farm produce. This is the man who is selected as a victim in my county of the present government. This is how the government show

their appreciation of the farmers and how they help the farmers in my section of the country.
This man was dismissed principally because he was poll clerk in one of the polls of St. Michel during the last election. That was the main accusation against him. Of course, the commissioner who held the inquiry heard a lot of witnesses who came and gave, not as a matter of evidence on specific facts, but as a matter of opinion, certain evidence. They gave their opinion that Mr. Lacroix was said to be the chief Liberal organizer in Bellechasse, and that he passed for such-all matters of opinion, nothing specific about it, no evidence. These people simply came before the commissioner and stated as their opinion that this man was a Liberal and therefore should be dismissed. But the only specific acc'usation against him, and the only evidence, was that he acted as poll clerk.


James Dew Chaplin: Is not that enough?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: No, sir. The man who acts as poll clerk in a poll renders services to both parties. He is an election official. Some time ago I heard the Minister of Justice state in this house, in connection with a bill of the former Minister of Labour, that election officers were all appointed by the chief electoral officer, and that there was no politics at all in their appointment, and no political recommendation. If this is true there was no politics at all in the appointment of Mr. Lacroix as poll clerk in the parish of St. Michel in the last election. This man kept the books of the poll, and filled in the forms, and did nothing else. He did not influence anybody at the time of the election. I would ask the Minister of Justice or some other member of the cabinet to state whether it is a political offence, by which a man lays himself open to a charge of political partisanship, to be an election officer and try to conduct an election regularly. I should like to have the minister's opinion, and I should like also the protest against the dismissal of this progressive and educated farmer, who has rendered good service to the farmers of my county and of that section of the country, on such flimsy charges as were made against him.


Hugh Guthrie: In answer to the last part of my hon. friend's remarks I believe it has been ruled by officials of the Department of Justice that it is not an act of political partisanship for a civil servant to act as a returning officer, but that it is an act of political partisanship to act as scrutineer or agent for either of the candidates.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: He was poll clerk.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know whether or not the poll clerk question has been decided.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the same as a returning officer.


William Duff: A poll clerk is sworn to his
duty. Would not the poll clerk be in the same position as the returning officer? Will the Minister of Justice give his opinion with regard to the poll clerk?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, later on.


William Duff: No, now.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that I
am called upon at this particular instant to make a statement, unless I wish to.


William Duff: Oh, the minister does not
have to. I suggest, however, that he started this discussion in the answer he gave to the hon. member for Bellechasse. The minister went out of his way to say that as far as the returning officer was concerned there was no political appointment. Certainly as Minister of Justice he should be in a position to say what position the poll clerk occupies. Of course, he does not have to do it. Like a number of other ministers of the government his mouth has been closed all session. In fact I think the Minister of Justice is in agreement with the hon. member who has just spoken.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I have not agreed.


Robert Weir: Did the hon. member say that the person who was dismissed was in the dairy branch?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Yes, he was supervisor of dairy products.


Robert Weir: My information is
that he was in the live stock branch, not in the dairy branch.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: According to the hon. member for Marquette there is no difference.


Mr. VENIOT:: Last night I spoke about
the butter question. I would not rise now to address the committee were it not for a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture about the policy of his department concerning the dairy industry in Canada. The minister has said that the policy of the government will be to endeavour to make production of the dairy industry as cheap as possible so that the producer may receive all possible benefit. I know I am not strictly in order when I touch upon the subject to which I am about to refer, but as the budget
will be brought down on Monday next I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the tariff placed in September last on fertilizers. Under the present tariff, fertilizer ingredients brought into this country to be mixed for use as fertilizer are duty free, but if they are imported to be used separately in the dairy industry a duty of 2 or 2^ cents per pound is imposed. The dairy associations of the maritime provinces have petitioned the government to look further into this matter and to place those ingredients on the basis they occupied before the introduction of the tariff item in September, 1930. I have before me a letter from the president of the Nova Scotia Dairymen's Association. That association passed ' a resolution last January protesting against the increased duty, and arising out of that resolution I received this letter, the latter part of which I shall read:
The tendency of the tariff will be to kill cooperation in buying by giving the commercial company the advantage of us. You cannot call them a manufacturing company, because they do not manufacture, they only blend. By cooperation for ten years we vrere able last year to purchase two tons of fertilizer for less money than one ton cost us ten years ago.
The letter goes on to say that if this duty obtains, certain companies will be established in Canada whose only object will be to import the ingredients separately and blend them in Canada. In the province of New Brunswick the farmers' cooperative associations, especially in the counties along the river St. John, have been in the habit of importing these ingredients and blending them to suit themselves. To-day, because of the increased tariff, there is a company established in St. John in the blending business. The establishment of this company will interfere with the cooperative activities of the dairy farmers in New Brunswick as well as with the operations of the potato growers. The dairymen import acid phosphate separate from all other ingredients. Acid phosphate is used as a top dressing after the seed has been sown and the plant has grown about five or six inches. When acid phosphate is imported separately a duty of 2 or 2| cents per pound is imposed. Because of that duty the cost of production is increased to the dairy industry, and I now ask the minister to look into the matter. Fertilizer comes under the control of his department and if there is some way of amending the tariff item so that the farmers who import acid phosphate separate from other ingredients will not have to pay the duty of 2 or 21 cents per pound their difficulties will be greatly relieved.
Supply-Agriculture-Dairying

Before taking my seat I should like to put a couple of questions to the minister. I do not expect answers to-night, but I would ask him to prepare the information to be supplied after the budget is brought down on Monday. How many fertilizer ingredients are manufactured in Canada, and what quantities of ingredients for mixing purposes as fertilizers are imported? My second question is: How many mixing plants are there in Canada?


Robert Weir: Could the hon. member let me have those questions?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I shall.


James J. Donnelly: I wish to thank the
Minister of Agriculture for having answered the questions I asked him before six o'clock. I wish further to thank him for having enunciated his policy in regard to the dairy producer, and especially for his remarks regarding the reduction of the costs of production. I wonder, however, how he intends to reduce the cost of production when he knows that in many parts of western Canada where mixed farming is practised the farms require fencing. I understand the government of which he is a member has placed a dumping duty on barbed wire so that we are paying a higher price for it than we did before. In western Canada the fencing problem is vital because in many parts of the west there is no lumber and the farmers find it necessary to buy barbed wire. When the price of barbed wire is raised the costs of dairy farming are raised. Since the government wishes to reduce the cost of production to western farmers I think they should not have been instrumental iD raising the price of fencing.
Speaking this afternoon the former Minister of Agriculture referred to a report of the National Dairy Council. He referred especially to this part where Mr. Robinson said:
It was my privilege to join with Dean Barton of Macdonald college and Doctor Archibald of the Dominion experimental farms in the preparation of this report to the Minister of Agriculture.
Will the minister kindly tell the committee what this ctommititee is doing. Is it dtill functioning?


Robert Weir: I asked the committee to prepare a skeleton report that I might present it to a larger committee for a free discussion in connection with the whole matteT.


James J. Donnelly: It has not reported yet?


Robert Weir: No.


Charles Edward Bothwell: We have had considerable discussion over the National Dairy 
Council grant which is included an this vote of $295,000. Last session a similar vote was passed without any information as to what other items were included in it. It is said that last year's vote included new buildings. What new buildings were built last year, and what does the vote cover this year?


Robert Weir: No buildings were
erected last year.


Charles Edward Bothwell: What is included in
the vote of 8295,000 in addition to the $5,000 we have heard so much about?


Robert Weir: This is an estimate only. ;It is impossible to give details of the expenditure until the end of the year. Some of the expenses are as follows:
1.	Headquarters-$17,800.
This includes printing and stationery and supplies for offices outside Ottawa. Contingencies of various kinds and the $5,000 grant to the dairy council.
2.	Grading of Dairy Produce-$162,300.
This includes salaries and travelling expenses of dairy produce graders at Charlottetown, Halifax, Quebec, Montreal, Belleville, Toronto, Stratford. Ottawa, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver.
In addition to these technical men there are a number of labourers employed and a clerical staff as well as some expenses in connection with the laboratory work needed to be done to help in the grading.
3.	Cargo Inspection-$28,842.
This sum includes salaries and travelling expenses of 8 cargo inspectors, Montreal, and 5 in the United Kingdom, also cost and upkeep of thermographs and some incidental expenses. The work of these cargo inspectors is to see to it that proper care is taken in shipping our dairy produce under good conditions on steamers and to check up on the steamship companies both at shipping points and landing points.
4.	Investigator-Weighing.
Butter and cheese-$2,800.
Salary and expenses.
5.	Supervision of Condenseries-$3,860.
6.	Dairy Market Reports-$4,785.
One inspector and expenses.
7.	Refrigerator.
DeffiHm^cars-$20,000.
Refrigerator ear services for butter and cheese are operated by Canadian National Railways and Caandian Pacific Railway companies in Ontario and eastern provinces on condition that the department make up any deficits due to lack of sufficient business.
These deficits for this year are estimated at: Butter-$11,500.
Cheese-$8,500.
8.	Creamery Cold Storage Bonus-$4,500.
On condition that cold storage facilities acceptable to the department are provided in connection with creameries a grant of $100 is given to any creamery.
9.	Plans-$200.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
10.	Dairy Research-$4,500.
This includes, laboratory supplies, raw material (butter, cheese, milk) and contingencies in connection with this work. Two technical men are employed.
11.	Administration of Dairy Laws-$39,000.
This includes salaries of 10 inspectors and
their travelling expenses as well as analysts' fees and counsel fees when prosecutions are necessary.
12.	Milk Utilization Service-$6,200.
This amount includes costs of exhibits, express and freight charges to exhibitions, and costs in connection with special exhibits loaned to public health, nurses' and women's institutes.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Is the 8100 granted to creameries to establish refrigeration facilities a continuation of an old policy or is it an innovation?


Robert Weir: The policy has been in effect, about twenty-five years.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How soon can the minister supply me with the information I desire with regard to the price at which Australian butter was released on the markets of Canada after the 21st of April? Can he furnish that information next week, because I want to know the price at which Australian butter was dumped on the Canadian market when the agreement was released or relaxed.
Mr. !\ EIR (Melfort): I will get the information as quickly as I can.


Thomas McMillan: When was the grant of 85,000 first made to the National Dairy Council?


Robert Weir: In 1923. It was
S3,000	first and was later increased to 85,000.


Mr. McINTOSH:: What is the approximate amount for printing included in the 85,000, and what is it for?


Robert Weir: That was under the heading "headquarters-817,800." It includes printing, stationery and supplies for offices outside Ottawa, contingencies of various kinds, and the 85,000 grant to the dairy council.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When the Australian butter was released on the Canadian markets, did the department take steps to ensure that any special marks or brands were attached to the butter to differentiate it from Canadian butter?


Robert Weir: We did not take any action different from that taken with respect to any other Australian butter brought into the country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The consumer did not know what grade of butter he was buying?


Robert Weir: Not as far as I knorv.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In connection with the
grant of $5,000 to the daily council, it was stated from this side of the house this afternoon more than once that some of the money was being used for propaganda purposes.
I think those statements are very important, and will command a great deal of interest throughout the country. It would seem to me that before we vote this $5,000 to the dairy council for the furtherance of its work during the ensuing year, it should be definitely understood that none of this money is to be used in any part of Canada in the distribution of political propaganda. There seems to be an impression abroad throughout Canada-I know this to be the case in Saskatchewan and western Canada-that the dairy council carried on a political campaign in 1930. I am not saying whether or not that was so, but my point is that now it is up to the dairy council, if it is to work for the good of the dairy industry; if it is to get the cooperation it should get; if it is to carry on the organization work it should carry on and help build up this very important industry, definitely to clear its skirts with regard to thp statements made from this side of the house this afternoon. Either the dairy council has used some of this money for political purposes or it has not. If it has not done so it will be good news to the farmers and the dairy interests of Canada, generally speaking, and that question should be cleared up.
I should like to impress upon the minister the importance of taking up this question personally with the dairy council. I am under the impression that this council has an executive, on which are representatives of all the provinces of Canada. Am I correct?


Robert Weir: There are thirtythree members, from whom the executive is selected.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Then it is a typical national organization, and I should like to see the minister take up personally with the executive this question which has been raised, placing before the executive the debate which has taken place in parliament. I think the minister should impress upon the executive the significance of these remarks, and ask them to make the necessary explanation, not only to parliament but to the country as a whole, as to their position in this regard. I am sure if that question is cleared up, in future this vote will not have to undergo the gruelling fire it has been subjected to
213S
Supply-Agriculture-Dairying

during the last two or three days. While the charge is hanging over the National Dairy Council that they have been implicated in political work and linked up with one political party as opposed to the other political party in Canada, I believe the first duty of the minister is forthwith to place before that council this whole debate and ask them to make the necessary explanation to parliament and to the country.


Thomas McMillan: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important question, but before dealing with it I should like to say a word in regard to a question of very serious moment to the dairy industry of the province of Ontario and of the dominion as a whole. I refer to the question raised by the hon. member for South Perth as to the mergers being formed in connection with this industry. Let me read an associated press report, as follows:
Huge Milk Merger Involving Millions Finally Completed Tillsonburg, January 23, 1930.
The amalgamation of several of the world's largest milk products firms was officially announced here to-night by A. H. Terk, General Superintendent of the Canadian Milk Products Company. Limited. Included in the combine are the Borden Milk Company of Canada, and the United States; the Merrill-Soule Company of England, and the United States and the subsidiary companies of both firms in the United States and Canada.
Although full details in connection with the merger, the largest of its kind to be consummated, were not available to-night, the amalgamation is understood to involve millions of dollars.
The Canadian Milk Products Company, of which Mr. Terk is head, is one of the subsidiary units of the Merrill-Soule Company. In an interview the official said that the Canadian company will continue as a separate unit, and will be, as in the past, a subsidiary of the major company.
Confirmed in Toronto
Benjamin J. Gould of Toronto. President of the Canadian Milk Products Co., Vice-President of the Merrill-Soule Company, confirmed the report when questioned by The Globe last night.
He intimated that while the final official completion of the merger had not been brought about that the amalgamation of the various milk products companies was really settled some days ago.
Mr. Gould was unwilling to go into the details of the merger or divulge the amount of money involved. "It simply means," said he of the despatch, "that we have sold our business."
I should like to quote another extract from the Toronto Globe of March 29, 1930:
The Borden Company has completed negotiations for acquiring seven additional companies, according to the application for listing 44,955

additional shares of its common stock on the New York stock exchange, approved.
The companies include Walkerside Dairy, Limited; Windsor City Dairy Limited; Ballantyne Dairies, Limited, and the assets of W. T. Westgate, all of Canada; the Hilde-brecht Ice Cream Company of Trenton, N.J.; the Dairy Products Company of Dayton, Ohio, and Curran and Fox of Oak Park, 111.
Walkerside Dairy, Limited, operates thirty-two milk routes in Windsor, Ont., and the Borden Company is paying 14,000 shares for its entire issued stock. The business of the other companies and the shares to be paid for them are: Windsor City Dairy, Limited, milk, butter and eggs, Windsor, Ont., 7,250 shares; Ballantyne Dairies, Limited, 20 routes for distributing milk, butter and eggs, in East Windsor, Ontario, 2,745 shares; W. T. West-gate, wholesale ice cream manufacturer and distributor in Windsor and East Windsor, 3,250 shares; Hildebrecht Ice Cream Company, wholesale ice cream manufacturer and distributor, 7,000 shares; the Dairy Products Company, general dairy business in and around Dayton, 8,000 shares, and Curran and Fox, retail milk business in Oak Park, 111., 2,350 shares.
The remaining 360 shares in the listing application are for brokerage commissions in connection with certain acquisitions.
From information I have received from one source and another during the last eighteen months I feel this to 'be a question of extreme importance to the dairy interests of this country. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon th^t since we are on an export basis, many of these units may not be producing that quality of product which is necessary if we are to ship our goods to the British market, and he suggested that possibly it would be an advantage to the dairy industry if our units were larger than they are at the present time. However, with respect to 'these mergers I think the government, and particularly the Department of Agriculture, should gather all the information available before anything is done along the lines suggested by the ex-Minister of Agriculture.
With respect to the grant to the National Dairy Council, I would not think of saying anything at all against the officials of that organization. I have known the secretary of the council for at least thirty-five years. I believe it is at least that long since he and I went around the province of Ontario together attending meetings of farmers' institutes, and T have always found him to be a gentleman of honour and ability. I have discussed this matter with him time after time, and always I have taken the stand which I have taken also in my discussions with the ex-Minister of Agriculture. . When he said this afternoon that he would not be bottled up any longer, I thought the time had come

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
for someone to remove the cork from his opinions. A year ago there was considerable divergence of opinion on the part of hon. members opposite when they occupied this side of the house during the debate on the grant. I had discussed the matter with the then Minister of Agriculture in his own office, and I even came forward and sat beside him and asked him for God's sake to withdraw the vote when he had an opportunity to do so. But he is like some of the rest of us: when he gets an opinion into his head it is pretty hard to move him.
With respect to this grant, it is my opinion that no money should be given from the treasury of this country to any institution of this kind. Besides the National Dairy Council of Canada, I believe there is only one other organization in this country which has shown its hand before the tariff board, and we might with the same degree of freedom suggest that similar grants be made from the treasury of Canada to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or the consumers league. In my view, no institution which is receiving government money should be given the opportunity to spend it in that way. I discussed the matter with the officials and they told me that they woidd be unable to carry on their work if it were not for the grant. At that time, according to my information, they were working in the manner outlined by the ex-Minister of Agriculture, in an effort to abolish the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. And they were not getting a grant from the government.
The statement has been made that no hon. member on this side of the house will dare to rise in his place and express himself as favourable to the late Australian agreement. That agreement, I may say, was in force when I came to this house as the member for South Huron, and I came here with a feeling of prejudice against the agreement in its effect upon the dairy industry of Canada. It was only after my coming here, and when the discussion became heated, that I decided to study the whole question for myself; and when it was known that I was engaged in that study no one was more interested than the Minister of Finance of that day, the late Hon. J. A. Robb. At the first opportunity he had of meeting me after that he asked my opinion about the treaty. It happened to be the day I had completed my study of the situation. Of course, his first question was, "What is your opinion?" I had been able to get all the information that was available from any source and I told him that up to that time the Australian agreement,
in my opinion, had not been injurious to the dairy industry of Canada. And I stand here to-night and say the same thing. Repeatedly I have placed on Hansard the figures for each year, showing the effects of that agreement. Those figures I believe to be authentic. After my study of the matter had been completed I received a letter from the dairy commissioner, congratulating me upon the result of my investigation. He said that no one needed to go behind the facts which were disclosed ini the speech I made as reported in Hansard on the 7th of June,
1928.	And up to the opening of this house on March 12, neither the information contained in that address nor the information contained in the speech I delivered, as reported in Hansard of March 18, 1930, has ever been questioned on the floor of the house. No one can study the markets oi Great Britain and question the facts as 1 have outlined them. Great Britain is the world market; it has always been the great world market; and before the introduction of the Australian agreement it was the great price-regulating market of the world. Watch the British market from that day to this; watch it during the year 1931; consult the reports contained in the commercial intelligence pamphlets; take all these facts into consideration and you will find that during the year 1930 the dairy industry in Great Britain was in anything but a satisfactory condition. And the only reason why Australian and New Zealand butter has been coming into this country is that those dominions realized that it was the best market they could find. They could take their butter cheaper to Great Britain than they could bring it here, and it would certainly go there if the price were better than in Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: When the committee resumed at eight o'clock we were in hopes that we should be able to get this vote through and possibly the next one. But the minister has made a statement" this evening which makes it impossible for the item to go through. He said that he did not wittingly withhold any information from the committee. The whole difficulty consisted in the different parties securing their figures from different sources. Well, for four days we have been endeavouring to get certain information, and the hon. gentleman is not conscious of having wittingly withheld it. Has he been in a trance all these four days, that he did not know what he wanted?
Tobacco Imports and Exports


Robert Weir: It is nearly eleven o'clock. I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


William Richard Motherwell: Very good; that will suit me.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, June 1, 1931