1932-02-24

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 20, to amend the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall the hon. member
have leave to introduce this bill?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.

Questions


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: The proposed bill is so
simple and short that I am surprised my hon. friends raise any objection to it. It deals with amendments to the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act, and it also deals with a 100 per cent Canadian product. The act as it stands at present provides that:
Petroleum shall not be sold or offered for sale for use in Canada, for illuminating purposes-
Among other things.
- (b) if it weighs more than eight pounds and seventeen-hundredths of a pound per gallon.
I want to change that seventeen-hundredths of a pound to four-tenths of a pound. The reason is this, that the consistency of the petroleum in the red sand district of Alberta does not happen to fall within the act, but it would so fall if this paragraph read "four-tenths" instead of "seventeen-hundredths." There is no objection raised by anyone and this amendment would allow a market for this petroleum without the necessity of gasoline being added to it in order to bring it within the requirements of the act as it now stands.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Has the minister received from the Vancouver harbour commissioners, safety regulations (for safety in loading and unloading ships), with the recommendation that same be established, as a harbour by-law?
2.	If so, has the Department of Marine approved said regulations, or is the matter under consideration?
3.	If the Department of Marine has not approved such safety regulations, is it the intention of the minister to bring before parliament at this session a bill to ratify the draft convention of the International Labour conference, at its twelfth session, for the protection against accident of workers engaged in loading or unloading ships?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No. In the opinion of the Department of Justice it is not competent to the Vancouver harbour commission to enact such a by-law.
3.	Not at this session. A partial revision of the "convention concerning the protection against accidents of workers employed in loading or unloading ships" is on the agenda for consideration at the 16th session of the International Labour Conference to be held at Geneva, April 12, 1932.
41761-31J


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, GLOUCESTER, N. B.
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Did the government of the province of New Brunswick recommend to the federal government the granting of direct relief to the municipality of Gloucester and the council of the town of Bathurst?
2.	If so, what was the amount of direct relief so recommended, and did the federal government accept the recommendation of the government of New Brunswick?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	The agreement between the Dominion government and the province of New Brunswick under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, provides that the Dominion shall pay to the province for remittance to any municipality 33^% of the expenditures of the municipality for direct relief where suitable work cannot be provided for the unemployed. No recommendations have been made by the province of New Brunswick in regard to the granting of direct relief to any municipalities in the province of New Brunswick, but the federal government is paying one-third of accounts for municipal direct relief as certified by the province in accordance with the agreement.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. VENIOT:: How much is due to the province of New Brunswick, to date, for work carried out under Unemployment Relief Act: (a) for work performed in the calendar year-1930; (b) for work performed in the calendar year 1931?


Mr. GORDON:: (a)	All accounts for work performed in the calendar year of 1930 have been paid.
(b)	Under the Unemployment
Relief Act, 1930	 $ 5,410 97
Under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931	 240,529 80


$245,940 77 COKING PLANTS
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: 1.	How many agreements have been made by the government for the construction of coking plants under the provisions of the Domestic Fuel Act?
2.	With what persons or companies were such agreements made?
3.	How much money has been paid under such agreements to date, and to whom were such payments made?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Two.
2.	(a) The Nova Scotia Light and Power Company, Limited, Halifax, N.S.; (b) Quebec Power Company, Quebec.
Motions for Papers

3.	(a) The total amount of money paid to date under the agreements listed in the answer to question 2 is 821,795.17; (b) To the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company, $11,252.61; To the Quebec Power Company, $10,542.56.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Pierre Édouard Blondin: As agreed at the last sitting, notices of motion numbers 1, 2 and 3 (Mr. Ralston) will stand, and numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7 (Mr. Casgrain) will stand in the absence of the hon. member.
Motions stand.


STEAMSHIP ALETTE
Peter John Veniot: For a copy of all correspondence, papers or other documents, relating to application of the Timber Transport Company. Limited, for a petition of right relative to the ss. Alette.


Mr. MANION:: In the public interest I
must regretfully oppose the carrying of this motion?


Peter John Veniot: Why? I know this motion is not debatable, but the minister says it is not in the public interest that this motion should be passed. He should have better grounds than that. What interests are involved?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The motion is not debatable. If it is not agreed to by the government, my hon. friend can put it under notices of motion that are debatable and the matter can be discussed.


Peter John Veniot: It would save the time
of the house if the hon. member gave the reasons now.


Robert James Manion: With the consent of the
house, while I am not entirely familiar with the matter at the moment, not having looked it up for some time, I shall explain it very briefly according to my recollection. In 1913 a steamer was engaged to take lumber from Texas to Nelson in Hudson bay. The steamer went up to Nelson with the lumber or timber or a mixture of both and for some reason the cargo was not delivered there. The ship departed but later returned and was beached. The opinion of my departmental engineers was that it was beached intentionally. At any rate, in 1916, after a great deal of investigation, correspondence and negotiation, the matter was settled, and according to the department's memorandum, the department was given a complete release of claims arising out of the chartering of this steamship in 1916.


Peter John Veniot: By whom?


Robert James Manion: By the agent of the owners.


Peter John Veniot: Who was the agent?


Robert James Manion: I think Powell was the
name. Mr. Powell settled on behalf of the owners of the ship as their representative and as the matter is closed and it is fifteen years old, we take the attitude that the opening up of this case can have no possible advantage to anybody and is not justified.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall I say "dropped"?


Peter John Veniot: No, I cannot consider it
dropped.
Motion negatived on division.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. EULER (for Mr. Ralston):: For a return showing the pay sheets of men employed on the breakwater on the south side of Cape Sable island, in connection with the expenditure of moneys during the last six months under the Unemployment Relief Act of last session.


William Daum Euler: For a return showing the pay sheets and vouchers in connection with moneys spent in the last six months on the wharf on the west side of Port Dufferin, Halifax county.


William Daum Euler: For a return showing the pay sheets in connection with the repairs of the breakwater at West Baccaro carried on during the year 1931.


George Gordon: With reapect to Nos. 9 and 11, I diou'bt seriously whether the business of the house will be 'advanced by carrying these motions because tihese matters are now (being incorporated in a report relating to legislation on unemployment relief. It would mean a great duplication of work, although if it seems desirable to anticipate the report, we will try to meet the wishes of the mover, but certainly it would add to the expense and probably would not avail much because the report, I trust, will be ready and tabled within a very few days.


William Daum Euler: Might I suggest that in the absence of the mover the motion stand?


George Gordon: Might I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to allow motions Nos. 10 and 11, which are in the same position, also to stand with the consent of the house?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Only on the understanding that there is not going to be undue delay. Very frequently these returns are delayed and are not brought down until

Beet Sugar Industry
nearly the close of the session. If the motions are to stand it is understood there will be only a reasonable delay.


George Gordon: The act itself provides that this return dhall be made within fifteen days of the act becoming operative. That would mean the 15th day of March. I can assure hon. members that we are doing our utmost to have this return ready long before the time contemplated by tlhe statute. I will table the return just as soon as it is prepared.


William Daum Euler: In the meantime the motions stand?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11 stand.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. ILSLEY:: For a copy of all correspondence, including letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between any person or persons and the government of Canada, or any minister of department thereof, or any of the officials thereof, relating to the establishment of a distillery at Berwick, Kings county, Nova Scotia, or the granting of a permit or licence for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor at Berwick, Nova Scotia, or relating to one Richard Steppanski in reference to such matter or matters since the 22nd day of April, 1931.


CAPE DES ROSIERS LIGHT KEEPER-DISMISSAL
Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, sworn statements, and other documents, including all evidence taken at_ the inquiry; also the report of the commissioner who held the inquiry in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Joseph Ferguson, as lighthouse keeper at Cape des Rosiers, county of Gaspe.


BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY
Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should in cooperation with the sugar factories encourage in every reasonable way the use of sugar made from home grown raw material.
He said: In briefly introducing this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the house the conditions in a new industry, an industry that merits the attention of the members of this house and of the people of Canada on account of its great potential importance.
According to the Bureau of Statistics, in Canada we consume-I am using round figures
-971,000,000 pounds of sugar annually. Of that amount about 847,000,000 pounds are manufactured from material which is grown outside of Canada. Some 25,000,000 pounds are exported, chiefly to Newfoundland.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. I would ask hon. members to desist from loud conversation. It is against the rules, and it makes it impossible for a speaker to be heard in the chamber.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frederick William Gershaw: Some 50,000,000 pounds of pure sugar are imported. It can be said fairly, however, that of the amount of sugar consumed in Canada only about 10 per cent is manufactured from raw material grown in Canada. In the United States they grow the raw material for 20 per cent of the sugar which they consume, and even in Great Britain, a country with a large population and a limited agricultural area, we find that one-fifth of the sugar which they use is manufactured from material grown at home.
The relatively large importation of raw material into Canada for the making of sugar is not due to any lack of fertility in our soil. It is not because our climate is not suited to the growing of this material, because we find that in 1929 the sugar beet grown in Alberta had a larger sugar content than the beet grown in any other part of North America.
The sugar beet was originally a small root vegetable, but by cultivation, and as a result of experiments in plant breeding, the present article has been developed so that when it is grown in the sunny regions of our country it contains eighteen and even up to twenty-two per cent of sugar content.
We need have no fear about the quality of the sugar made from the sugar beet, because we find that manufacturers of sugar, with the assistance of specially skilled chemists, can produce a chemically pure product, a product that is just as pure and just as wholesome as the product of cane sugar. We find also that it conforms to the chemical formula of sugar and that it can be used for any household purpose whatsoever. Those manufacturing sugar from the cane had difficulty in removing the molasses. Those manufacturing sugar from beets had, for a time, difficulty in removing certain of the bitter acids, but these difficulties have been overcome and sugar can now be manufactured from sugar beets that will give satisfaction for every purpose.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that my words would reach the ears of the housewives of Canada, and that I had the eloquence to persuade
Beet Sugar Industry

them to insist on using sugar manufactured from beets rather than sugar manufactured from cane, because I believe that if they would do that they would be doing a great patriotic sendee to a struggling industry in this country. If we used more beet sugar we would, of course, import less of the cane sugar, and it would be interesting to see how this would affect our trade and commerce. We are told that if we are going to sell to other countries we must buy from them, that exports must be paid for by imports. It is interesting to note from what countries we get nine-tenths of the sugar that we use. In 1930, we imported sugar, in the usual classification not above No. 16 of the Dutch standard, as follows:
Pounds
imported
Australia	 894,000
British East Africa..	..	26,000.000British South Africa..	..	78,000,000British Guiana	
174,000,000Barbados	
108,000,000Jamaica	
97,000,000Trinidad and Tobago..	..	77,000,000Other British West Indies.	77,000,000Cuba	
33,000,000Fiji Islands	
92,000,000Peru	
15,000,000San Domingo	
27,000,000Other countries	
994,000
From those countries we imported that great quantity of raw material for the manufacture of sugar. At this particular time there is a very good reason why the people of Canada should use sugar made from Canadian material. That urgency consists in the saving of the many irrigation projects that are now on the verge of ruin. In Alberta alone provision has been made to place a million acres of land under irrigation, and about half that amount is actually under irrigation at the present time. During the last thirty years millions of dollars have been spent on irrigation schemes. Some of this money was secured from the provincial governments, some from the transportation companies and some from the long-suffering British investors. Those investors and the men who actually carried out the earth-moving developments hoped for profits. On the other hand however they must be credited with vision. They had a picture of those dried'-out areas being turned into fertile gardens capable of producing bountiful crops to feed our great population. They had a vision of neatly painted cottages housing a contented people. They felt they were making a contribution towards the building of empire, and money was not spared for supervision, for colonization schemes, for demonstration plots and things of that nature. Years have passed and their hopes have not

been realized. Investors and operators alike have ibeem deplorably disappointed by the limited success and the many disasters encountered in connection with these irrigation projects. The land cost the settlers some $50 to $70 per acre; the water cost $1.50 per acre, or $2 per acre per season. Owing to the collapse in prices of farm produce in the last few years Wheat-growing is a dead loss. The farmers cannot grow fodder crops to feed live stock because the price of stock has depreciated accordingly. The irrigation farmer must work long hours during the day and often long hours of the night in the mud and water to look after his fields, and he has come to the place where he finds that in spite of his original investment, and in spite of the years of hard work, he has no equity in the land, he does not own his home and has no hope for the future.
In reviewing the situation, may I say it seems clear that part of the failure in these irrigation districts is due to the fact that they have not been able to grow crops of a high acre value. In the western states beet-growing is the very basis and foundation of irrigation farming. In the state of Montana which, in area, is somewhat similar to that of Alberta, we find that they have 55,000 acres under beets whereas we in Alberta have only about
12,000	We find that they have three sugar factories and we have only one. Growing a crop such as sugar 'beets would to a great extent save the irrigation farmers and, to at least some degree reclaim or regain some of the investments Which outside interests have made. Sugar beets would provide a cash crop for irrigation farmers. The present price of $5.50 per ton is too low to allow a profit, and too low to make feasible the beginning of operations by new factories. True, the growers receive a bonus on aocount of high sugar content, and if they grow ten tons per acre, which is a usual crop, they receive a cash price of from S60 to $65 per acre. Then, again, the growing of sugar beets would constitute a great link in crop rotation and would help to make possible the proper balancing of farm operations. Growing this crop would provide a system of cultivation which would help to keep down the weeds, wild oats and all foreign growth, and would increase by 50 per cent the productivity of other crops, such as alfalfa and sweet clover, which would be grown in rotation with the sugar beets.
Perhaps the most important effect of the growing of sugar beets would be the advantages derived from the by-products such as the beet pulp, beet tops, molasses and so on.

Beet Sugar Industry
The production of these by-products would encourage the live stock industry, the development of secondary industries, and would necessitate the use of, and demand for, fuel, lumber and lime. Work would be provided for thousands of Canadians, our railroads would reap some benefit, and undoubtedly the stabilization and development of the farming industry, to a very great exent, would be the result. I have tried to show that we need have no fears about the quality of sugar we can produce from our beets, that preparation has been made to grow large quantities of sugar beets, that we have a market in Canada for nine times as much of this product as we are growing at the present time, and that great advantages would accrue to people in the irrigated districts if the sugar market could 'be secured.
At this point I wish briefly to mention some of the ways this government could assist the industry. I realize fully that immediate assistance must be given because the people on those farms are about discouraged and cannot longer continue under their present system of farming. The collapse in prices during the past few years has brought them to that condition. I do not think the question of tariffs enter largely into the matter. Canada has entered into a treaty with the West Indies in which the duty on sugar has been definitely stated and, for that reason, it is not likely that tariffs could be used to relieve the present situation. However, there are other methods which could be used to assist this 'industry., Loans might be made to responsible individuals sufficient to give them an opportunity to start a factory and thus create a market for the farmers in the immediate district. This government has on other occasions loaned money for various purposes. I may point out that in the district of which I am speaking the farm loan board has practically excluded the local farmers from the benefit of the act, so probably assistance along the lines which I have indicated would in a measure compensate them for that exclusion. It may be said at once: Why not let joint stock companies be formed and have them apply to the government for the assistance required? We must remember that those who have capital are extremely cautious these days and will not enter into a new business enterprise unless they know there is a reasonable chance of success.
Another method of assistance is by subsidy. I find in Great Britain this industry is so encouraged. Under the British Sugar Beet Subsidy Act, passed in 1924, a subsidy is granted to home-grown beet sugar for ten
years, at the rate of 19 shillings and 6 pence per hundredweight for the first four years, 13 shillings per hundredweight for the next three years, and 6 shillings and 6 pence per hundredweight for the remaining three years. In 1924, the number of sugar beet growers was 4,039, and the total acreage 22,637. Six years later, in 1930, the number of growers had increased to 40,415, and the acreage to 348,920; that is, the growers had increased tenfold in number, the acreage fifteenfold. It is interesting to find that the factories had increased from three to eighteen, the labour employed from 1,435 to 9,900 persons. It is significant, too, that Great Britain has captured the confectionery trade of a large part of the world.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for excellent reasons this government gave a bonus of 5 cents per bushel to the growers of wheat. This assistance, I may say, was much appreciated, and I believe if the government could see its way clear to grant a bonus of $1 or $1.50 per ton to the growers of sugar beets they would bring hope and encouragement to many homes in the irrigated districts. Those people who are now on the verge of despair would be encouraged by such a move.
There is one other method I might suggest by which the government could help and encourage the growers of sugar beets and promote the development of this industry. That is by a system of advertising. It is not a new form of assistance. We have spent money on advertising to encourage the use of Canadian hemp, and the consumption of Canadian grapes and Canadian apples.	It
would seem to me, therefore, that some of the money that has been voted to the Department of Trade and Commerce for advertising purposes might well be used to encourage our people to use sugar made from the raw materials grown right within our country. Whatever methods may be adopted to this end, I hope they will be sufficient and effective; and I also hope that they will be applied immediately, because the very low price of farm products during the last year or two has made this a very urgent and a very important question.
The great national value of a sugar beet factory as compared with a cane sugar refinery can be easily shown by roughly contrasting the two operations. Cane sugar is grown in tropical countries and imported as a raw product, to be melted, filtered and purified in the refineries. On the other hand, Canadian labour is required in the production of beet sugar, and it starts from the seeding -in fact it starts before the seeding, because the land must be prepared; then we go
4S8
Beet Sugar Industry

through all the processes of seeding, weeding, thinning and cultivating the crop during the growing season, followed by the harvesting operations and the transportation of the crop to the factory. Much Canadian labour is required for all these operations. At the factory the beets must be sliced and steeped and the resultant juice dealt with. In fact 60 per cent of the factory investment is used before the beet sugar reaches the stage at which the refinery first gets the cane sugar, so that twice as many men, twice as much fuel, and double the quantity of supplies are required in the production of beet sugar.
Beet sugar factories are needed in the irrigated district at Brooks and Vauxhall, and probably at Medicine Hat and Lethbridge, or wherever they can be most economically operated. In many cases local capital is not available, but if some assistance could be given along the lines I have suggested I believe more factories would be established, and thus a great service would be done to those Canadians who have invested their all and devoted years of their lives to the growing of sugar beets, only to find themselves now in a very unfortunate position.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, with all deference, if the government can see its way clear to give some assistance to this industry, that it be given in such a way that it will reach the sugar beet growers, because they are the ones who most need assistance and encouragement. By so doing I believe the government would, in a limited way, help to solve the unemployment problem, which is the greatest problem confronting the dominion at the present time.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Before the hon. gentleman takes his seat, would he say if he has some direct proposition to make in the way of subsidy or bonus?


Frederick William Gershaw: A dollar and a half a
ton.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in supporting the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), let me say that Canada has been known as a country suited to agriculture. Many agricultural products have been produced of late, however, for which the farmer cannot find a market, though agriculture in this country is still the primary industry, from the point of view not only of the number of persons engaged in it, but also of the capital invested. I believe I am safe in saying that at the present time agriculture is in distress, and that when agriculture is in distress practically the whole country is in distress.

As everyone knows, sugar is a staple product. According to the returns issued by the Bureau of Statistics, last year our importations of sugar were valued at about $21,000,000. In many parts of Canada to-day we have farmers who cannot find a market for their products, but here is an article which, if manufactured in Canada, would provide a market for at least one product of the soil and would give encouragement to the agricultural industry which is badly needed at the present time.
In British Columbia we have the Fraser valley, which is admirably adapted to the growing of sugar beets. Two or three years ago a United States concern came into the Fraser valley and encouraged the farmers to grow beets, which were shipped to the state of Washington and manufactured into sugar. If we are to depend upon a concern which is not within the control of this country, the growing of sugar beets will not be encouraged at all, and I think it should be fostered on this side of the line. The growing of sugar beets and the manufacture of sugar should be encouraged by the province of British Columbia; it would not only provide a market for a product of the soil but would also provide work for a great many people who to-day are seeking employment.
We import sugar, but there is another product of the sugar beet of which up to the present we have imported a great deal. I refer to beet pulp, which is used in the dairying industry. If we could grow enough sugar beets and establish factories in British Columbia I think a good market could be developed for that product also. I believe this resolution merits the attention of every hon. member of this house, especially those who represent agricultural constituencies. So I have great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in seconding the resolution.


Mr. J. S. STEWART (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable diffidence that I rise to speak to this resolution, because the mover has so clearly placed before the house the facts with regard to the use of sugar throughout Canada. In fact I find myself limited in my remarks to rather a parochial statement, in that I must confine myself to the constituency I represent, which is very much interested in the growing of sugar beets and also in the other subject dealt with by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), that of irrigation.
I appreciated the very clear manner in which the hon. member placed before the house the needs of the people in southern Alberta, and I should like to endorse many

Beet Sugar Industry
of his statements. The growing of sugar beets in western Canada, especially in southern Alberta, is not possible except in connection with irrigated lands. Therefore irrigation and sugar beets go hand in hand; they are interlocked, and they are questions which must be decided in conjunction with each other.
I should like to digress for a few moments and speak of irrigation, because in a large measure agriculture in southern Alberta cannot be carried on without irrigation, at least as far as the semi-arid region is concerned. In a large part of that area there is an average annual rainfall of from 13 to 16 inches, and this must be supplemented by irrigation if crops are to be raised. The Rocky mountains to the west supply us with great quantities of water, enabling the irriga-tionist on the prairie to produce his crops, but even without this irrigation I should tell the house that with a normal rainfall these semiarid regions have produced many millions of bushels of the very finest wheat in the world. But, owing to the fact that for a number of years in succession we have had a very limited rainfall, the question of irrigation has been brought very much to the fore, and as a result I think in that respect we have expanded and gone ahead far too rapidly and to a much greater extent than we should have.
As the hon. member for Medicine Hat said, the total irrigated acreage of southern Alberta is over one million acres, of which hardly one-half is under cultivation. Of course, the most extensively irrigated areas in Canada are to be found in southern Alberta; other irrigated areas such as the fruit areas in British Columbia and the ranching areas in southeastern Saskatchewan are very small in comparison, and I venture to say that few members of this house and very few people who reside in Alberta have any idea of the size of the irrigated areas in that province and the vast amount of capital invested. The records show that in Alberta we have four corporations that have installed works for irrigation; we have seven irrigation districts and 332 privately owned schemes. Of the four corporate projects, three are under the control of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and I should like to tell the house the size of those districts and the area that can be irrigated in each. The Canadian Pacific Railway area at Lethbridge gets its water from the St. Mary river, and contains
99,000	acres. The Canadian Pacific Railway west area contains 300,000 acres, the eastern area 400.000 acres and the area supplied by the Canada Land and Irrigation
Company 130,000 acres. Then there are the irrigation districts, the Taber, with 21,661 acres, the Lethbridge northern with 100 000 the New West with 4,501, the Little Bow with 3,090, the Magrath with 6,975, the Raymond with 15,129, and the United with 34,235. In all, with the 332-privately owned schemes, we have 1,090,806
acres available.	. ,
Many of these irrigation works were carried on with money raised through the sale of bonds issued by the various districts, and in some cases those bonds were endorsed by the Alberta government. The people who resided in the districts were not able to meet the annual interest charges, and as a result the districts have been taken over by the provincial government and to-day are being operated under government supervision. The money tied up in these irrigation districts amounts to a tremendous sum. When I say that the initial investment in the province of Alberta is over 835,000,000 and that we have spent many millions more in betterment and upkeep, the house will realize just what liability the people of this country have in these irrigation schemes. It is true we have a great asset in these irrigable lands, and this asset runs far beyond the canal that carries the water or the ditches that bring it to the several farms. I also want to point out that there are very few of us who realize the immense liabilities that face those who have to meet the bonded indebtedness thereon. If we are to avoid any danger in regard to the security that is invested, the people who live on these lands must be enabled to grow specialized crops which will bring more in return than the ordinary wheat farmer could get if he were to put all of his land under wheat. These irrigated lands are adapted to the growing of specialized crops that cannot be produced on dry land, and the mistake that the irrigation farmer has made in the past has been that he has confined his efforts to a single crop that would bring in the most return with the least effort, and that is wheat. The last returns we have from the irrigation projects show that in the year 1928-that was the last return we were able to get-more than 66 per cent of the land under irrigation was devoted to wheat. That is a great mistake. The years that have followed have shown that we must find some other crop to supplement that wheat crop. The farmers have recognized that and they are now going in for specialized crops.
Among specialized crops I might mention alfalfa, because we can produce annually from four to five tons per acre of luscious alfalfa
Beet Sugar Industry

hay from these irrigated lands; and we can also raise alfalfa seed, for in 1931 we took first and second prizes at the Chicago and Toronto fairs for alfalfa seed grown east of Calgary. The first prize for potatoes was captured by a farmer living in the immediate vicinity of Lethbridge; and so far as the sugar beet is concerned I shall show what has been produced within the last year, and what that country is capable of producing in that direction. When we come to specialized crops there are two points to be taken into consideration-first of all agricultural suitability, and secondly the economic value that can be obtained from the growth and harvesting of the crop. As regards agricultural suitability, as the hon. member for Medicine Hat has pointed out, there is no crop that is more suitable for irrigated areas than sugar beets; and so far as economic value is concerned, it is still the best crop, because we find that there is a greater return from its production than from any other crop grown on these lands in the west. And the large acreage that is kept under sugar beet production in the western states, where they have conditions similar to our own, goes to prove that this is the best-paying crop to be found on the North American continent, so far as irrigation is concerned.
I will not go on to tell the house anything about the agricultural suitability of the sugar beet as a crop for the irrigation farmer, but I would place before the house some facts with regard to two farmers living on one of these irrigation tracts, side by side, one on a northwest and the other on the northeast quarter sections north of Lethbridge. The first farmer had this last year 33 acres of sugar beet, which produced 330 tons, giving a return of SI,715; 12 acres of alfalfa, 48 tons, S384; 30 acres of wheat, from land which the previous year had grown sugar beets and from which he secured 46 bushels per acre, giving a return of $438; 24 acres of wheat following wheat, 25 bushels per acre, with a return of S210; 20 acres of oats following wheat, the return being $270 ; 8 acres of barley following wheat, giving $96, making a total of $3,113, from a farm of 160 acres. Besides this he had 28 acres of sweet clover for pasture purposes. This man keeps from eight to ten milch cows besides pigs, chickens and ducks, and he has a wonderful garden producing all kinds of vegetables. He had an income of over $3,000. Now listen to what his neighbour had. He was a wheat farmer, leaving some of his land for fallowing in the summer; he would alternate, putting in half his land this year and the other half next year. 
He had 100 acres of wheat and he received $700. Compare the two: One man with an income of $3,113 and the other with $700.
The sugar beet crop has meant very much to the farmers in the irrigated areas of southern Alberta during the past year. Seven hundred farmers in 1931 on 12,000 acres of sugar beet land produced 105,000 tons and received from the company $630,000. In other words, those 700 farmers received an average of $900 each; or, for each acre they had under cultivation, they received $52.50. The highest previous yield was in 1927 when the farmers produced 7.72 tons per acre. This year, through better cultivation and a wiser use of fertilizer, which we find practically at our doors, being able to secure it from the Consolidated Smelters of Trail, we have increased the tonnage to 8.75 tons per acre, which is an increase of over one ton per acre. We have around Lethbridge what is known as the 15 Ton Beet Club. Membership in this club is limited to those who have grown sugar beets and have produced more than 15 tons per acre on a 5 acre plot. This year we find that the gentleman who secured first prize produced 21.797 tons per acre on his 5 acres, receiving $595 cash; the second prize went to the farmer who produced 19-36 tons per acre, receiving $480 for his plot; the third prize to the farmer who produced 17-641 tons per acre, receiving $440; and the fourth prize to the farmer who produced 17-227, for which he got $430.
The money spent in connection with these sugar beets is vast, and it goes to a great number of people. The sugar company paid $630,000 to these farmers who raised the sugar beets; but these farmers in turn had to pay in wages to the 1,500 men who hoed the crop, the sum of $250,000. That was what was paid out in labour. And coming to the expenses in connection with running the factory, we find that last year the sugar factory paid 335 men $165,000. Their supplies were:
Coal	 $45,000
Lime rock	 10,000
Bags	 75,000
Coke	 6,000
Boxes, oils and other supplies. 73,500
The amount of freight paid to the railways was made up as follows:
Beet haulage	$105,000
To secure their beets they must haul them over a stretch of territory 120 miles from the centre of operations.
Coal	$ 16,000
Lime rock	 6,500
Bags	 1,000
Coke	 1,000
Sugar distribution	 160,000
Boxes, oils, etc	 1,500

Beet Sugar Industry
This makes a total of $665,500 for factory labour, supplies and freight. The grand total distributed through that one sugar plant in the immediate vicinity of Lethbridge was therefore, in the last year, SI,295,500. The year before it was over $1,400,000. The result has been of great benefit to those who grow sugar beets. I am informed by an official of one of the irrigation companies that 80 per cent of the beet growers paid all or part of their irrigation rates during 1931, whereas only 40 per cent of the non-beet growers paid any rates at all, and that the beet growers paid back 98 per cent of the loans they had secured in 1931 from the credit societies, whereas only 40 per cent of the non-beet growers paid back any of those loans.
The manager of the beet factory, in speaking at a meeting a few days ago, had this to say:
The beet growers here had received $5.50 per ton for last year's beets due to the high sugar content in spite of the low prices of sugar. Mr. Wood here stated that the beets grown in this factory district last year were the best beets grown on the American continent, being the highest in sugar content.
Therefore I can endorse the statement made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), but I should like to elaborate further on it. The sugar content of the beets grown in southern Alberta this year was as high as 18.34 per cent; that of beets grown in the United States was 17 per cent, and that of beets grown in Great Britain was 15 per cent, so that in all probability the sugar beets raised in southern Alberta have the highest sugar content of any beets grown in the world. I see an hon. member from Quebec shaking his head. He will be at liberty, when the opportunity arises, to give his views to the house.
For some seven years we have had one sugar beet factory operating in western Canada at the town of Raymond in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. It is needless for me to inform the house that for some years previous we had a factory there, but it did not prosper very well and had to be removed to the United States. This last factory was established there in 1925 and for six years operated as a straight beet sugar concern. But last April, or to be accurate, on April 23, 1931, this sugar beet factory was purchased by the Cane Sugar Refineries of British Columbia, and it is now operated as part of their plant. This sugar beet concern, having been placed with the cane sugar interests, is hardly seeking expansion. I think the management are not very anxious to expand. But the sugar beet growers of
southern Alberta are most anxious that we shall have another factory and they are asking for an expansion. The present management limited the sugar beet acreage from 14,000 to
12,000	acres last year, and it may be they will be able to take a few more acres next year because I believe they are about to spend some $300,000 in betterments in their factory.
So far as this question is concerned, I have from the very first avoided interjecting politics into it. It is too large a question to permit of the introduction of politics; it means too much to the people of southern Alberta and also to that very much greater question, irrigation in southern Alberta. But when one finds some officials of a local beet growers' association, who have always taken a great interest in politics, and quite rightly so, using their official position to advance the interests of the Liberal party, either on their own account or by guidance or assistance from the heads of the party in the city of Lethbridge, and seeming to be more anxious to advance the interests of the Liberal party than to secure an expansion of the industry, I think the time has arrived when the member who represents that constituency should stand in his place and inform the house as to the particular situation of this industry. Last session the hon. member for Medicine Hat quite rightly questioned the government regarding their attitude as to assisting the industry. I sat silent, thinking it would be in the best interests of the community that they should hear the definite reply from the minister in charge, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who was then Minister of Finance. But when politicians who belong to the beet growers and officials of some of the local organizations take an opportunity to publish certain statements in a paper that is not friendly to the government, that is not friendly to the gentleman who leads the party, a gentleman of whom I am extremely proud and to whom I hope to be most loyal, it makes me feel it is time for me to explain some of the details regarding this matter. In that paper they state they are disappointed at and dissatisfied with the attitude of the present government as regards expansion of the sugar beet industry. The first statement which, in all courtesy, I should like to make to hon. members opposite is that if in southern Alberta we have only one sugar beet factory instead of two, it is due to the tariff policy of our hon. friends opposite and to the lack of assistance and support by the former administration to this industry when it was in its infancy. I informed the house that this industry operated for six years as a straight
Beet Sugar Industry

sugar beet factory. It could have been assisted by the then Liberal government as a straight sugar beet cooperative association, but things were allowed to continue until the project had almost reached the point where it could not operate any longer. I should like to refer the house to Hansard of September 19, 1930, where we have a statement by the ex-Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), who was the Alberta representative in the former Liberal cabinet. This is what he says, as reported at page 418, in regard to the sugar beet factory at Raymond:.
I know of the establishment of this industry and the success it has been in the locality, and I know how valuable it is to the farmers there. I know also that they have for a year or two been asking that some consideration be given them in the way of more protection. Their machinery, which was secondhand in the first place, was brought into Canada free of duty, and we did lend them some assistance in that regard. I may say to my hon. friend that any information I could obtain with respect to their ability to carry on and to make reasonable profits under the existing duties seemed to be well borne out, and I do know that they intended to expand. I think that perhaps, even without further assistance in the way of a duty, they will expand.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that they applied, not for one year, but for two years to the former government when this was a straight sugar beet corporation. Let me repeat the hon. member's words:
I know also that they have for a year or two been asking that some consideration be given them in the way of more protection.
They were long-suffering; they were patient, because they kept at it for a year or two. They applied for assistance, but all the assistance they got was permission to bring in second-hand machinery free. No doubt they also got something else that was free, and that would be God's blessing and the word, pass on, my brother. The former Minister of the Interior goes on to say:
I may say to my hon. friend that any information I could obtain with respect to their ability to carry on and to make reasonable profits under the existing duties seemed to be well borne out, and I do know that they intended to expand.
That statement was made in this house on September 19, 1930. The intelligence branch of the former Liberal administration was not working up to the proper pitch if that is all the information which the former administration had on the subject. Surely it must have been known to the then minister that a delegation was sent to the United States, to Salt Lake city, for the purpose of trying 
to induce the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company to establish another plant near the city of Lethbridge. That delegation consisted of farmers from the Lethbridge northern and from some other irrigation districts, as well as members of the board of trade. The delegation brought back a report which was published in the Lethbridge Herald and was given to the board of trade. I find that this report was signed by the vice-president and general manager of the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company, who made the following statement to the delegation:
As you are aware, the price of sugar both in the United States and Canada has had a fairly steady decline during the past few years due to the world's increase in the supply of sugar, over which we have no control. In addition to this, our Raymond factory has not thus far been able to secure sufficient beets to run to capacity. although the present outlook for the coming year indicates that this condition will be corrected during 1930.
Then listen to this:
. s a result of these conditions, our operations in Alberta have shown thus far a very considerable loss.
That statement was made in January, and less than eight months after, the former Minister of the Interior stated that the sugar beet industry of southern Alberta was getting along very well and could expand without any assistance.
I find that my time is growing short. In conclusion, I wish to repeat my statement regarding the lack of assistance by the former administration to this project. Due to that lack of assistance the industry wras prevented from expanding. The second reason lies with the tariff. The former administration gave no assistance except that they allowed this company to bring in secondhand machinery free. But let me tell the members of this house that a delegation met the present Prime Minister of this country within ten days of the time he took the oath of office, about August 15th, 1930, the first delegation from Alberta, so far as I am aware, to meet the Prime Minister. It was composed of representatives of the beet growers and of the manufacturers. These two men, one representing the company, and the other the beet growers, placed their representations before the Prime Minister, and the manager of that factory had the following statement to make to the Prime Minister within ten days of the time the Conservative party came into power:
The instability of Canadian tariff policy as affecting sugar has been the factor which very largely has prevented progress in the establishment of a domestic sugar beet industry.

Beet Sugar Industry
If I had time I should like to read that again. He states that the reason the industry was not able to go ahead and expand was that they could not get any assistance from the former government.


Mr. YOUNG:: No stability of tariff?


Mr. GOTT:: You would not second the resolution. Keep quiet.


John Smith Stewart: These representatives who came to see the Prime Minister told him of the economic conditions and of the financial loss which they had sustained, as well as of the desire of the beet growers to have the industry expand. But they told the Prime Minister something more than that. They told him about a condition that was allowed to go on during six years of the regime of the former administration. The Prime Minister on September 19, 1930, speaking in this house, said, as will be found at page 455 of Hansard:
And they were asking, not so much for protection, as for some assurance that they would not be destroyed by unfair competition, which they regarded as possible under the circumstances that prevailed. They were perfectly frank about the matter.
What was that unfair competition? It was competition coming from a great cane sugai concern, competition which was very real indeed, and in regard to which competition our hon. friends took no action during six years ihat they were in power. Let me tell the former Minister of the Interior that during the early months of the year 1931 cane sugar refined in Vancouver was selling at a lower price in Calgary, because it had to meet the competition of the sugar beet product manufactured in the town of Raymond, than it was selling at points on the main line of the Canadian Pacific within half the distance from Vancouver to Calgary.


Edward James Young: Was that unfair competition?


John Smith Stewart: By all
means. It was competition that was meant to put that industry out of business.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: May I
ask a question?


John Smith Stewart: My time is very limited, but if my hon. friend will ask his question after I get through I shall be glad to answer him. The irony of the situation will be seen when I state that on that delegation that went to the United States to ask the Utah Idaho Sugar Company to erect another factory, there happened to be one of the very men who are to-day dissatisfied with this government and with its attitude towards the expansion of the sugar industry, one of the very men of that sugar beet local. He was one of the delegates to the United States, and he knew-he must have known-the dire situation in which that industry was at that time. I wonder if he ever said anything to the former administration about being dissatisfied because they woidd not come to the help of that infant industry. I wonder if the hon. member for Medicine Hat ever rose in his place in this house in those days and asked the former Minister of the Interior to do
something	to help that industry that	wasabout to	pass	out. I	wonder if	thepaper published	in our	territory,	andwhich is	very	unfriendly	to this	government so far as its tariff policies are concerned, ever printed an editorial urging that assistance be given to an industry which was then in its death throes. No. They waited until it was just about to pass out, and then they had to go and get another doctor. An hon. gentleman asks, what did we do? We had less than six months to attend to this matter when the industry passed into the hands of another concern. I am sure that my hon. friend from West Edmonton will not rise in his place and ask that we give any assistance to the sugar cane industry of Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: Why wouldn't
he?


John Smith Stewart: Because the people of Canada have been very generous to that industry, and if any assistance is given to the sugar industry at the present time it would be given indirectly to the cane sugar refineries of Canada.
Lack of time prevents me from stating what action the Prime Minister took. He promised the delegation that met him that he would meet their wishes if he could, and not only did my hon. friend from Weytoum believe that, but he questioned the Prime Minister about it. There are also some very astute business men in this dominion who believed it, and as a consequence we find that the sugar beet projects in Canada have now gone out of business. In order that we may have a thorough inquiry into the sugar beet industry might I suggest that the house invite representatives of the sugar beet growers to come to Ottawa to meet with representatives of the cane sugar refineries at Vancouver, British Columbia, as well as representatives from the Consumers' League of Canada, because they are all interested in this question.
Beet Sugar Industry


Edward James Young: We will be there.


John Smith Stewart: Let them
come here, sit around a table and see if we cannot work out some plan whereby we will be able to do something to assist in carrying that tremendous irrigation load in the province of Alberta.
I have therefore an amendment to move, seconded by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley). The resolution of the hon. member for Medicine Hat is as follows:
That in the opinion of this house the government should in cooperation with the sugar factories encourage in every reasonable way the use of sugar made from home grown raw material.
My amendment is as follows:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted:
All questions affecting the beet sugar industry in Canada be referred to the select standing committee on agriculture with instructions to inquire into the action which may be taken by the government by way of customs duties, subsidies, bonuses or otherwise, either in or without cooperation with the provincial governments for promoting the prosperity of the said industry and developing the production of Canadian grown sugar, and report to this house.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I would not infringe upon the time of the house had it not been for the interjection of my name into this debate by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart). He and I bear the same name and have been in various parliaments for a goodly number of years. I think he will agree that when I had some authority with respect to matters of this kind, not only in the federal but in the provincial arena, the good people who live in the constituency of Lethbridge received considerable attention at my hands. The irrigation project in which my hon. friend is now so much interested was launched at a time when I happened to be premier of the province; I was premier when the bonds were guaranteed, consequently I had a good deal of interest in the constituency and in the project to which my hon. friend has referred.
Unfortunately that project has not been as successful as its promoters had hoped. May I say to my hon. friend from Lethbridge however, and to this house, that so far as the industries in this country are concerned, my position is only too well known. I never encouraged an industry to come into Canada by any promise that it would be bonused or helped-never on any occasion. My hon. friend will not be traducing my position if he states that I held out any hope that if that industry came to Canada I would at 
any time as a representative of the province of Alberta be willing to pledge myself that the duties on an import of such magnitude would be increased in order to encourage that industry, or the industry in which my good friend from Essex, who is so voluble, is interested. I wish to make my position clear in that respect. After the failure of the first company which operated at Raymond, the company to which my hon. friend from Lethbridge referred proposed to come to Canada and to move in machinery which already had been in operation in the United States. We were very glad to say to them that by order in council we would relieve them from the necessity of paying duty upon the machinery so brought in. At no time, however, did they receive any encouragement or promise from the then government that they would be given a bonus, or that the tariff duties on sugar would be affected or changed to suit their interests. So much for that.
My hon. friend has said that from the very inception they experienced difficulty. I ask him, Mr. Speaker, why it was that a delegation of farmers went to interview that company and ask them to expand their business? The business, as I stated in the speech from which my hon. friend has quoted, was in a fairly prosperous condition. True, the price oi sugar was higher in those days. It is quite possible that if sugar had been at its present price that industry would not have been established in Lethbridge. The fact is, however, that sugar prices were then higher; the prices of farm produce were higher, and I was perfectly correct, from the information I possessed, in my statement in this house that the company did intend to expand.
May I say further that I have never known a manufacturing industry in Canada or anywhere else which was not at all times willing to accept something at the hands of the government by way of greater protection or increased bounty. I have not known one of them to refuse help of that type; the fact is that they are usually around looking for protection. I am one who believes-and we might as well settle this question once and for all, so far as I am concerned-that secondary industries established in Canada which cannot exist through their own efforts had better not come here. They generally cost us more than they are worth, from the point of view of either of creating employment or of creating advantages for the individuals who have to be the purchasers of the goods they manufacture. I make no apology for making that statement at any time, and I will make it in Lethbridge or anywhere else.

Beet Sugar Industry
If my hon. friend opposite thinks he can make political capital out of what I have said in his constituency of Lethbridge, he-is perfectly welcome to do so.
May I say something further to my hon. friend-and this is something which arose from his statement to-day: How does it come about that the company to which he referred was able to operate under a Liberal government, and although they were so generously treated by the present Prime Minister of this dominion ten days after he took office, within two years they are forced to sell out to the sugar trusts? That was the very interesting statement to-day on the floor of this house by my hon. friend. Why was it that for six years that company was able to operate under the beneficent influence of a Liberal government, but within eighteen months after a Conservative government took office, a government pledged to relieve entirely their difficulties, they had to succumb to the great trusts and sell out?
My hon. friend is here to-day pleading that this house should do something because of the unfortunate position in which that industry has found itself, owing to the lack of action on the part of the federal government. That is the situation in a nutshell, and I believe in making that statement I have held strictly to my hon. friend's description of the eon-'ditions. I will be interested to know what the government purposes to do to relieve the situation my hon. friend has described; probably they intend to increase the tariff on sugar. If they do I shall vote against such a measure. I am content to take the consequences of what may happen to me. If it is proven that in other ways the industry requires assistance, and such assistance can be given in a manner similar to that in which it was given to the coal industry of Alberta, I will reserve my judgment until I know exactly what such assistance should be. So far as tariffs are concerned I state clearly that I am opposed to the increase of tariff on any commodity. Surely to goodness we have before us to-day an example of the effects of increasing tariffs. If increasing tariffs is helping Canada to-day -then, God help Canada; that is all I have to say. If increasing tariffs is bringing prosperity to any industry, I want to know it, because I have not been able to find it for myself. I learn only that the silk industry, one entirely foreign to Canada-


An hon. MEMBER:: And the button industry.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, true;
we on the farms will not have to use nails any more. So far as I am able to discover,
the system of protection is not the proper method to assist any industry; certainly every attempt of the present government to assist industry in that way has proved a dismal failure.


Hon. R. D. MORAND (East Essex):: Mr. Speaker, after listening ito the acting leader of the party opposite who, with considerable heat, has been worrying as to why these particular sugar industries were forced to sell out their interests, I can readily understand why the mover of the resolution (Mr. Gershaw) did not get very far during the years his government was in power. First of all I should like to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) upon the recruits that his creed has made on the other side of the house. This afternoon I have heard from the member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) quite a good confession of his creed. However, -the hon. member is somewhat timid yet in his new faith. Probably lie is influenced a little by his desk mate. The pious wish that he expressed was a gesture to his constituents.
I may tell my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) that there is not the least doubt that when the concerns who have the sugar business in Canada absolutely within their hands saw the new party in power and realized the danger of a great increase in the beet sugar industry, they made it their business to secure the sugar beet factories and so control their operation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: My hon. friend laughs. Permit me to tell him that this year that has happened to two sugar beet factories next to my constituency-one in Chatham, the other in Wallaceburg; they have been purchased by the cane sugar manufacturers, and to-day the farmers are being told that there will be fewer sugar 'beets grown in that country. It is quite easy to understand that those who are interested in the importation of cane sugar and its refining are not interested in the development of a rival industry that interferes with their prices.
I do not propose to take very much time in discussing the sugar beet industry in my part of the country. We have had two factories there, and they have been a wonderful assistance to the local farmers. Anything more that I might say would simply be a repetition of what has been said about the conditions of the industry in the west, and about the kind and quality of sugar beets-and superlatives usually fail after the westerners are through talking.
Beet Sugar Industry

The sugar industry started in Canada nearly fifty years ago with bounties from the Dominion government. It was developed in Ontario by the Ontario Agricultural college. It was subsidized to the extent of half a cent a pound in this province, until to-day we have a type of sugar beet which contains more than double the sugar content of the beets grown at the inception of the industry. In my part of the country thousands of people depend on the sugar beet industry; the growing of sugar beets gives a tremendous amount of work to the farmers, and the conveyance of the crop to the factories is a source of income not only to the trucking concerns but also to the manufacturers and distributors of trucks. The land for the growing of sugar beets is either irrigated, as in the west, or, as in our part of the country, land which has been improved by very expensive drainage.
For a number of years in my county we were able to send sugar beets into the United States, and quite a large industry was developed along that line; to-day our sugar beets can no longer be exported to that market. As a result of this and other causes the curtailment of sugar beet growing in my part of the country is a real hardship on those engaged in the industry. The farmers have prepared their land for this crop and it is highly taxed, they have secured the machinery necessary for their farming operations, and the trucks for hauling their crops to the factories, and any measure which will in any way not only ensure a continuance of the beet growing industry but also increase the acreage under cultivation would certainly be of real value to our fanners.
I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the amendment to the resolution, because I believe that if this whole matter is thoroughly threshed out before the agriculture committee much information will be elicited that will be of service to the farmers and others, even including my good friend from West Edmonton. The amendment proposes that the committee study the question of helping the beet sugar industry by way of customs duty, bonus or otherwise. I would suggest that under the "otherwise" the question of quotas be studied. This system may be new in Canada, but it is frequently discussed in Europe. In a study of the quota system made at the last Imperial conference it was particularly stressed that articles to be usefully treated under the system must go through some one definite avenue of distribution. Surely the sugar industry of Canada presents a bottle neck that would very well lend itself to at least a study of the 
question of establishing a quota for beet sugar grown in Canada. I am told that in France and in Italy from time to time they definitely set the quota of home-grown wheat which must enter into their domestic flour production. When the committee meets I hope they will consider the question whether it would be possible to establish a quota for Canadian grown sugar that our sugar interests would be forced to apply in the sugar they produce and distribute throughout the dominion. The quota possibly could be based at the beginning on the average acreage over a period of five years, to be gradually increased year by year until the percentage of home grown sugar to the imported had reached a certain level. I am not sure whether this is possible, but I think it is worth while studying. It may appeal to our friends on the other side inasmuch as its adoption would not be raising the customs duties. It has the further value that despite the fact that the sugar industry of Canada may be in the hands of a very few persons, they will be forced gradually to increase the number of acres under cultivation and so assure for the farmers of Canada a fair distribution of their own production throughout the dominion. With that addition to the amendment I have much pleasure in supporting the resolution.


Edward James Young: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Morand) gave us a very interesting and a very brief history of the sugar industry in Canada. He tells us that it was established many years ago by a bonus, it was encouraged by the technical skill and research work of experts of the Department of Agriculture, it was maintained by bounties received from the provinces, it was sheltered by a protective tariff. Now, we are told that after all this it has become a part of the sugar trust, and is coming before this parliament asking for what? Asking the government to help pay for beets it requires in its business. The resolution of my hon. friend from Medicine Hat is a much more serious matter than would appear on the surface. It aims to have all our refined sugar made from Canadian grown sugar beets, rather than from imported raw sugar, and the hon. member suggests a bonus of $1.50 a ton. A bonus of $1.50 a ton on the sugar we consumed in this country last year would amount to $600,000, while a bonus of that amount on sugar beets would cost us, according to the figures my hon. friend gave, about five times as much, or 13.000,000. But that is not the entire cost. If this resolution

Beet Sugar Industry
should succeed in its purpose and raw sugar should be shut out, requiring our manufacturers to use Canadian sugar beets, it would cost the treasury of this country in loss of revenue $3,271,000 yearly.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Edward James Young: My hon. friend laughs; let
me prove that statement. Last year we imported 8,301,000 hundredweight of sugar, on which the duty amounted to $3,271,000. If that sugar had been imported under the general tariff, from Cuba or some other country outside the empire, it would have yielded a revenue of $9,625,000. but because we bought it within the empire or from those countries enjoying a preferential rate, we received only $3,271,000. In other words, for the privilege of buying our raw sugar within the empire we paid last year the neat little sum of $6,154,000. I hope my hon. friends opposite will remember that this year when they attend the Imperial conference to encourage trade within the empire.


Mr. STEVENS:: Does my hon. friend disapprove of that?


Edward James Young: Does not my hon. friend
think it would have been better to leave that $6,000,000 in the pockets of the Canadian people instead of in the pockets of people in other parts of the empire?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am asking my hon.
friend if he disapproves.


Edward James Young: Yes, I do, if that helps
you any.	*


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend wants the general rate to apply throughout?


Edward James Young: No; I want the tariff removed all along the line instead of in spots. If you are going to apply a tariff I want it applied equally to everyone.


John Smith Stewart: The tariff
on sugar was reduced during the regime of the Liberal party.


Edward James Young: So much the better. As I
said, this raw sugar coming into the country brought in revenue to the extent of $3,271,000. If you shut out that raw sugar and supply our refineries with Canadian grown raw sugar you will lose every dollar of that revenue. We will not get our sugar any cheaper; that money will go into the pockets of the industry, and that loss of revenue will have to be made up in some other way. Again the government would have to resort to new methods of taxation in order to make up the revenue which by this resolution would be diverted into the pockets of private individuals.
My hon. friend from Medicine Hat says that this assistance to the industry is necessary in order to save a tremendous investment in irrigation work in Alberta. He says a million acres can be irrigated there, and that investments have been made with a view to irrigating that area of land, but the trouble is that the land was bought at from $50 to $70 an acre, and the cost of the irrigation work has been so high that the only way they can hope to make the project successful is to grow something that will yield a very high acreage return.
Let us suppose the project is successful; let us suppose we put a tariff on sugar that would enable those gentlemen to put the million acres under sugar beets. What would happen then? Last year we had 40,000 acres in Canada under sugar beets, and my hon. friend says that this acreage produced 10 per cent of our sugar requirements. That being the case, all our requirements could be met by 400.000 acres, but here is a proposal that would have the effect of putting one million acres under sugar beets in Alberta alone, to say nothing of what might be done in British Columbia, Ontario and the other provinces. What would be the result. If this scheme were successful it would result in more sugar being produced than we could possibly consume; we would be forced into the export market, and the sugar beet grower would find himself in the position the dairy farmer is in to-day.


Eccles James Gott: They are exporting now, instead of importing 44,000,000 pounds a year.


Edward James Young: Yes, and we know what
they are getting for the butter exported. Our sugar producers would bh exporting, and the world price which would be much lower than the domestic price would fix the amount the grower would get.


Eccles James Gott: What would be the price of
butter if we had imported 44,000,000 pounds in the last twelve months?


Edward James Young: Reference has been made
to the attempt of the British government to assist the sugar industry in England by means of bonuses. I think it was Sir Herbert Samuel who wrote an article a short time ago analysing those sugar bonuses and their effect on trade. I have not the article or the figures before me, but the cost to the treasury was appalling and the benefit to industry was practically nil. It was one of the most colossal blunders the British government ever committed, and the same thing would happen if we resorted to that practice here.

Beet Sugar Industry

My hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart) said that the sugar industry needed stability of tariff. I am sure the tariff was more stable under the previous government than is the ease now. What about the new valuation for duty put on sugar a short time ago? This power which has been placed in the hands of the minister to put a valuation for duty on any commodity at any time is the most unsettling influence we have had for many years in the commercial world. When a man undertakes to bring in a shipment of goods he does not know what the duty will be, even when the ship lands. So unstable is our tariff to-day, with this provision, that from day to day no man knows what he may have to pay in the way of duty. No man can make contracts for the shipment of goods into this country because he has not even a remote idea of what duty the government will make him pay when the goods arrive.
I agree with the statement of the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) that we should not support any industry here that cannot stand on its own feet. We should not encourage industries to come to this country simply because somebody says it would be a fine thing to have them here. Any industry that is leaning on its neighbours is not a source of wealth to this country; it is a handicap to other industries which otherwise might be self-supporting.


George Gordon: I should like to ask the
hon. member a question before he concludes. He says he is behind the statement of the hon. member for West Edmonton with regard to the denying of bonuses to industry. How then does he justify the bonuses to the coal industry by way of subventions, which were introduced when my hon. friend was a member of the former government and which were started by the hon. member for West Edmonton?


Edward James Young: I never was a member of
the government.


George Gordon: A member of the governing party, then.


Edward James Young: As regards bonuses to
industry, will any man here say that he ever heard me speak a word in support of them?


Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the remarks made in this house this afternoon by the mover of the resolution, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), and I regret very much that he did not see fit to draft the resolution in such a way as
[Mr. Young.l
to cover the oldest sugar industry in Canada -the maple sugar industry. As hon. members know, this industry was flourishing in Canada even before the arrival of the French, during the time of the Indians. I have consulted a very interesting book published in Ottawa by Mr. J. B. Spencer, The Maple Sugar Industry in Canada. In this work a careful study is made of the progress of the maple sugar industry in Canada. With the indulgence of the house I should like to quote rather extensively from it. The writer says:
The making of maple sugar, which is confined entirely to the American continent, had a very early beginning, as before the advent of the white man, the Indian had learned to extract and concentrate the sap of the maple tree. On the approach of spring, the trees were gashed with a tomahawk, in a slanting direction, and beneath the opening was inserted a wooden chip or spout to direct the fluid, drop by drop, into receptacle resting on the ground. The sap was caught in a birch bark dish and boiled in earthen kettles. The small quantity of dark, thick syrup thus made was the only sugar available to the Indians, and is stated by early writers to have been highly prized. The first settlers learned from the Indians the art of maple sugar making and followed for perhaps a century their crude methods of manufacture, except for the substitution of iron or copper kettles for vessels of clay or bark. In the early days, before the timber acquired much value, the axe continued to be used for tapping the trees, and the sap was caught in wooden troughs and conveyed in buckets to a central point to be boiled. The boiling was done in large iron kettles suspended from a pole in the open woods, in a sheltered location but with no protection from the sun, rain, snow or the ashes, falling leaves, moss and bits or bark that were driven about by the wind. The products made by this crude method were strong in flavour, dark in colour and variable in quality. In the past 50 years, however, maple sugar making has become a rather highly organized commercial industry. An early improvement was the substitution of the auger for the axe in tapping, coopered buckets taking the place of the birch bark "caso" or hewn sap trough, while the kettle gave way to the evaporating pan which has in late years developed into the modern evaporator with corrugated bottom and separate compartments. Not alone for the conservation of the life of the tree but also for cleanliness in sugar making, the wooden spout has almost disappeared in the most advanced sections; in fact, the present tendency is toward the use of metal in every article of equipment with which the sap, syrup or sugar comes in contact.
I apologize for having quoted at such length from this book, but I wished to impress upon the house the fact that this particular branch of the sugar industry flourished centuries ago. 1 am surprised, considering that the sugar beet industry has been in existence in Canada for only thirty-five years, that no hon. member, either opposite or on this side, has given any thought to the maple sugar industry.

Beet Sugir Industry


Mr. MARCIL:: Will the hon. gentleman
inform the house how many countries compete with Canada in the manufacture of maple sugar?


Onésime Gagnon: From the statistics which
1 find in The Canada Year Book 1931, it appears that no country in the world is competing with us. I was just going to give a few statistics, however, to show the progress of the industry since 1926. In 1926 the production of maple sugar in Canada was 7,137,303 pounds, and the production of maple syrup 1,765,570 gallons, the total value being $4,896,375. In 1927 the production of maple sugar was 9,831,697 pounds and the production of syrup 2,154,705 gallons, the total value being $4,934,801. In 1928 the money value of both products was $5,584,588; in 1929, $6,118,656; and in 1930, 85,252,620.
Now, taking the production of maple sugar province by province, I find that in Nova Scotia the industry has been making progress, and the same is true of the provinces of New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. In other words, the whole of eastern Canada is deeply interested in seeing that the government take proper steps to encourage the expansion of the maple sugar industry of the dominion. Turning to beet sugar production, I find that the Ontario government has given a bonus to the industry, but I would point out that at no time has the federal government extended any subsidy or bonus to the maple sugar industry of Canada. I find also that the tobacco industry has received subsidies, and the same remark applies to the live stock industry. The federal department of agriculture grants certain amounts to live stock cooperative societies, and recently the federal government has allowed the sum of $50,000 for the purpose of promoting the sale of salmon from British Columbia. I submit, therefore, that the maple sugar industry being a national industry, in which thousands of farmers throughout eastern Canada are interested, ought to receive a special protection from the federal government. I recognize that such help ought to come first from the provincial government, but in order to stimulate the trade in maple sugar and maple syrup, this government ought to cooperate with the provincial governments. In the province of Quebec the maple sugar producers have organized a cooperative society which is known as Les Producteurs de Sucre d'Erable de Quebec. This organization has established a refinery plant at Plessisville in the county of Megantic and has recently begun the construction of another refinery plant at Beauce
Junction, in the county of Beauce represented in the house by my hon. friend Mr. Lacroix. A great number of the maple sugar and maple syrup producers from the county of Dorchester are interested in that society and I have no doubt that what I say in this regard will meet with their approval. The maple syrup industry yields to the farmers of Dorchester a revenue equal in one month to that derived from the milk industry over a period of twelve months.
As I said a moment ago in view of the fact that the federal government has already subsidized the tobacco producers as well as those engaged in live stock and other forms of agriculture, it ought to help the maple sugar and maple syrup manufacturers of our country. May I also point out that, according to the information I have, the National Research Council a few months ago was able to send a specialist to England to study the wool industry. Wool is produced in every country in the world and is subject to universal competition. On the other hand, maple sugar and syrup are produced only in Canada and are under no competition from other countries. The miaple sugar industry, this old agricultural industry is now in need of subsidies or grants in order to extend its production and the sale of its products in the open market. Therefore a few days ago I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) asking for some help in order to encourage the production and extension of the maple sugar industry in this country. In that regard may I suggest to the government that the Department of Trade and Commerce together with the Department of Agriculture should grant a subsidy, say of $10,000 each year for five years. In that way, the cooperative societies at least in our province, not to speak for the other provinces which may take such steps as they deem best, would be in a position to begin researches and experiments towards finding new ways of utilizing this product as well as launching a publicity campaign for the extension of the maple sugar and' maple syrup market. Last year, may I repeat it, the federal government gave a subsidy to encourage the salmon industry in British Columbia and I respectfully submit that the same consideration ought to be given to the maple sugar industry in Canada.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am rather astonished that the mover has not seen * fit to broaden out the scope of his resolution sufficiently to cover the maple sugar industry of Canada. I do not say that by
Beet Sugar Industry

way of reproach or criticism, because I understand in Alberta whence he comes, there is no production of maple sugar. But may I suggest to the mover of the resolution that he add to it the following words:
And encourage the production and extension of the maple sugar industry in Canada.
If this resolution is sent to the agriculture committee, I think it would be proper that experts be called upon to give their views as regards the maple sugar industry in eastern Canada and also as to the advisability of asking for a bonus from this government to stimulate the production, perfect the methods of production and undertake a campaign of publicity to increase the sale of maple sugar and maple syrup amongst the Canadian consumers and those from abroad.


Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, before this resolution passes, I should like to say a word or two in respect to the motion itself and the amendment thereto. I deprecate to the fullest extent the fact that this motion has emanated from this side of the house.


Eccles James Gott: On a question of privilege,
before the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) proceeds with his remarks, I want to draw to the attention of the house some observations that he made in a speech recently. This is a question of personal privilege. According to the Border Cities Star of February 23, the hon. member said:
Mr. Hepburn also expressed his regret that Eccles J. Gott, M.P. for Essex South, was not in his seat.
At another place in the same issue of the Border Cities Star there is in glaring headlines :
Hepburn Regrets Gott's Absence from criticism


Edward James Young: We always regret that.


Eccles James Gott: I am not speaking to the
seconder of the resolution. The hon. member for West Elgin sought to impress upon the people of southern Ontario that Gott was continually absent from his seat in the house. That is my question of privilege. During my six years in the House of Commons, this is the first time I have ever been privileged to see the hon. member for West Elgin arise to address the house. I may have been absent when he has spoken, but on a question of privilege I want to say that I am a constant at tender in the house. I believe in the last five years I have been in my seat in the house twice the time that the hon. member for West Elgin has.


Mr. POULIOT:: I rise to a point of order.
As soon as the hon. member has stated his question of privilege, he cannot stress it further.


Eccles James Gott: I have not stated my full
question of privilege. The Border Cities Star goes on to say:
"I am sorry," said Mr. Hepburn, "that my friend from South Essex is not here."


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Was the hon. member
here at the time?


Eccles James Gott: I was not. As I say, I never
was present in the house when the hon. member for West Elgin was speaking. Is he afraid to speak when I am in the house? That is what I should like to ask him? He goes on to make the most rambling statements.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
gentleman is in order in stating his question of privilege, but he is hardly entitled to make a speech.


Eccles James Gott: I have not yet stated one
portion of my question of privilege. As reported in the Border Cities Star, he goes on to say:
It is the same with tobacco, we produce more than we can possibly consume, and now the growers are asking for a greater duty.


Charles A. Stewart: Order.


Eccles James Gott: I am not going to develop
that further. I have stated my question of privilege and I am going to resume my seat.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I suppose it would be in order to congratulate the hon. member on his admirable address. He usually sits in the house listening to the wind whistling through the great open spaces in his head. As to his statement that he has never been in the house when I have been speaking, I believe he has heckled me on many addresses I have made and, indeed, that is his greatest contribution to any debate. He usually gives a grunt; in fact he has been called in this house the "alarm clock from South Essex," and properly so.
I want to deal with the question before the house, that is the matter of a sugar tariff or subsidy or whatever you like to term it. As I said before, I am sorry that it emanated from this side of the house. I can understand the feeling of the hon. member; he is probably trying to represent the interests of his riding. But this brings to my mind a statement by Philip Snowden who said: "One of the evils of a protective tariff is that once the system is introduced, the members are no

Beet Sugar Industry
longer representatives of their parliament or their country, they just represent the selfish interests within their own ridings." I believe every hon. member will agree to that. I naturally expected that the baby would be adopted and fostered on the other side of the house. It is in line with true Tory uneconomic policy. Before we undertake to stimulate the sugar industry and to bring into the country more sugar industries, it might be well to survey the general situation throughout the world with regard to sugar, because conditions are so internationalized at the present time that we cannot detach ourselves entirely from what is going on in other parts of this great universe. If the production of wheat in the Argentine Republic is high this year, that increased production there is felt immediately and we see a lowering of price in Canada. So it is with sugar.
What is wrong with the sugar industry? This year we have the prospect of the greatest production of sugar ever known in the history of the world, a production of 31,500,000 tons, a quantity far beyond the capacity of the world to consume. Let me touch on the history of sugar during the past few years and if some hon. members can take that breadth of vision, if they are capable of it, one can see at a glance from the figures I give, just what is wrong. In 1910 the world produced a little over 17 million tons of sugar. In 1920 that production had increased to 20 million tons, or an increase of about 2J million tons. During that period world consumption increased about 20 per cent, and took care of the increased production. But from 1921 on, almost every country increased its tariffs to stimulate production of some product or another, without regard to the law of supply and demand. See how that affected the sugar industry. Between 1920 and 1930 the world production of sugar increased from 19 million tons to 31J million tons, an increase of 55 per cent in world production. The unfortunate part of it was that, not having any regard to the law of supply and demand, cognizance was not taken of the fact that somebody had to consume that sugar, and during that period world consumption increased only 7 per cent. There is the situation in a nutshell:	Production increased 55 per cent and consumption increased only 7 per cent. The world was faced with the greatest over-production in the history of the sugar trade. The price of raw sugar dropped to 98 cents per 100 pounds. We have never had such a low price for sugar, and we have never had such over production, yet our hon. friends opposite say that the cure is to produce more sugar, and
that we ought to be generous with the beet growers. There are lots of them in my own riding. I am not catering to any selfish interests in making these remarks; I am speaking from a national standpoint.
First, our hon. friends opposite advocate putting a tariff cn sugar, or in lieu of a tariff a bonus of SI.50 a ton on sugar beets. We produce 400,000 tons of sugar beets, and to pay that bonus we would have to take $600,000 from the treasury. Follow that to its logical conclusion. In order to produce in this country our sugar requirements by such uneconomic means, we would have to increase that subsidy by 100 per cent or dip into the treasury to the amount of $6,000,000.
Assuming that this principle is sound, and hon. gentlemen opposite think it is, because they have endorsed it on every occasion, what is it going to cost the country ultimately if we apply the same principle to all lines of production? With a production of 400 million bushels of wheat we would have to dip into the treasury to the amount of $20,000,000 at the present rate of bonus. We had a debate on the wool tariff the other day. If we increased the tariff on wool sufficiently high, it would probably cost the people of this country another $20,000,000. I was not surprised to get requests this morning from the organized dairy interests asking for a subsidy on cheese and butter. Assume we pay a subsidy on cheese and butter. That may cost another $25,000,000.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Might I suggest that
the hon. gentleman's figures as to the wheat bonus are not quite right? He is figuring on the basis of a bonus of 50 cents a bushel, instead of 5 cents, when he says that the bonus on 400 million bushels would amount to $200,000,000.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I said $20,000,000. Here
we have this principle involved. We have over-production of wheat, and the cure of hon. gentlemen opposite is more production. We have over-production of cheese and butter and their cure is more production of cheese and butter with every dairying country in the world increasing its production of those products. We have the same condition in sugar.
Let us look at this question from another angle. We dip into the treasury to the amount of $76,000,000, assuming, of course, that we can make ourselves rich by dipping into the treasury. The Finance minister will then have to increase taxation, because governments have no money except what they raise from the people through taxation. Increased taxation will increase our cost of
Beet Sugar Industry

production. I hold no brief for our manufacturers, but I know that they are having a hard time in having to compete in an export market with the manufacturers of other countries which are not subject to the heavy taxation which we have in this country. This world-wide over-production, this struggle for world markets, will become more fierce, and the country to lose out will be the country that adopts just such policies as the one that is being advocated here to-day, which will increase the cost of production and impose a further handicap on our producers when they come to sell in the export market. There are, of course, precedents for such a policy as is now being advocated. Some years ago in Australia they were seized with the bright idea that what they had to do to protect their producers was to increase the tariff, and they increased it up to a 40 per cent level. That increased the cost of production to the basic producers who had to sell their wheat, and their wool and their cheese on the world market. They got no more for their products, but their cost of production was increased by the increase in the tariff. The result was that in Australia the producers got in a bad way and they appealed to the government for a subsidy. The government bowed to the popular will and dipped into the treasury, and the result has been that Australia to-day is in a state of financial chaos, just the same as we shall be in if we adopt policies such as this. In the United States, notwithstanding such an example before them, Mr. Hoover endorsed the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill, despite the fact that it was opposed by every economist of note in the United States. He put that tariff into effect. Did the increased tariff help the basic producers in the United States? No, certainly not. They came right back to the position that we are in to-day. The clamour from the basic producers grew louder and louder, and in order to satisfy them the government of the United States evolved a scheme which meant dipping into the treasury and taking out $500,000,000, which was given to a farm relief board to administer.	It
attempted to administer that fund honestly, I suppose, and tried to keep up and maintain farm prices at an unnatural level. Did it succeed? Certainly not. While this huge sum of $500,000,000 was being dissipated, the unfortunate farmer in the United States, the dupe of the same kind of propaganda as emanates from our friends across the way, saw all their farm prices go to the lowest levels in this century at least, and now they have to stand taxation to take care of this

expensive experiment put into effect by Toryism across the line. In view of two such glaring examples as I have pointed out, is this chamber prepared to endorse and reendorse such a policy in Canada?


Eccles James Gott: Will the perforated member
permit me to ask him a question?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Had I an extended
waistline like the hon. gentleman I would want to be perforated even more.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member spoke of
the Hawley-Smoot tariff and its application. Will he tell us how many Canadian cattle and how much Canadian butter it kept out of the United States?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The hon. gentleman
needs a lot of enlightenment, but I am not going to tiy to enlighten him because to do so I would have to stay here for the rest of my life, and even then I might not get very far. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are just two facts that I would point out: First, that the cure for over-production is not more production, and secondly, that you cannot get rich in any country by taking money out of the public treasury.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: After listening to the hon. gentleman's speech I would ask him: Is he in favour of helping the sugar industry?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I am opposing the motion and the amendment thereto, absolutely.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I have just a word to say on this resolution before the question is put. I am afraid that the house has not received all the facts in connection with this industry. I' congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Gershaw) who introduced the resolution, because I feel that he was absolutely sincere in his effort to further a certain agitation which has arisen in his constituency, and I congratulate the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart) on having so successfully and completely kept politics out of the discussion. It was a worthy effort on his part, and I am sure that his name will go down in history as one of the rare non-partisan debaters on the question of the tariff.
The history of sugar beet growing in Alberta is exceedingly interesting, and has been roughly but accurately sketched so far. The industry established from the Utah sugar fields by the establishment of a plant at Raymond some time ago appeared to be able to operate for about six years. The production of beets during that period did not reach the capacity of the factory, and about the time

Beet Sugar Industry
that capacity was being reached the British Columbia refineries stepped into the picture and purchased the plant.
This is the picture I wish to place before the house. This country, wisely or unwisely, has decided upon a policy of protecting the refineries in Canada. The sugar refineries, importing raw sugar from outside and finishing it in Canada, are protected because it was alleged that they were not able to compete against the imported refined sugar from outside. Well and good. Hon. members opposite protest that they did that in the interests of both the refineries and the people. The proposal now comes however to set up competing interests within the boundaries of one country, and to bonus them so as to enable them to compete with protected industries. That is the absurd position into which protection inevitably leads when carried to the extremes now proposed. I would not object if there was any logical reason to believe that the producers of sugar beets would be helped. It cannot be shown however that the growing of sugar beets has, either on the whole or on any average, been a profitable occupation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, it has not. That fact cannot be shown in the Lethbridge district. I have before me the report of a meeting held at Strathmore by sugar beet growers of the district to secure the establishment of a plant in that place. Similar agitations were carried on at Bassano and Brooks to secure the establishment of a plant, presumably to be operated for the benefit of the growers. Actually it would have been for the benefit of one or two persons who hoped to become officials in the newly established company. The only beet sugar company established in the country was bought by the British Columbia refineries. What was the effect of the purchase? To answer that question I quote from a letter dated April 29, 1931, from the Bow Valley Sugar Beet Association:
The purchase by the B.C. people of the Raymond factory is a severe blow to our hopes and I, personally, am not for one moment deceived by their intentions, as announced in the press, of continuing to operate the factory at Raymond.
The secretary of tihe Bow Valley Sugar Beet Association, under date of April 29, 1931, wrote the Prime Minister of Canada as follows:
I am convinced that the purchasers will close the Raymond factory at the earliest possible moment and on the slightest of pretext and that the purchase was put through for the purpose of killing competition from the beet sugar factory at Raymond.
I have no hesitation in saying that the
sugar combine, of which the British Columbia refineries are a part, will destroy all other separate industries which may be created either on a bonus or on any other basis. That is not the way to deal with the problem.
Now I come to the producers' point of view. The same gentleman, the secretary of the Bow Valley Sugar Beet Association, wrote from Bassano on May 16, 1931, as follows:
I enclose herewith sample crop share contract used by the growers and tenants on the Raymond project in 1929, from which you will gather that the total cost per acre, divided as therein set out, amounted to $54.30 on an average yield of eight tons to the acre, which was about the average, and at $7 to the ton the average farmer just about broke even.
And no more. At S7 a ton they broke even, and no more. Since that letter was written however the factory has reduced its price to the farmers from $7 or $7.50 to $5.50 per ton. I have no hesitation in saying that since that time the average beet grower has not made money, and has been very lucky if he broke even. Undoubtedly there have been one or two outstanding illustrations where some money has been made. In almost every industry or occupation in Canada there could be found one or two growers who, through fortunate circumstances, climatic or soil conditions, made a profit. The propounders of bonus policies always pick those few out as striking illustrations. They do not however represent the true state of affairs. The representative from Lethbridge who addressed the sugar beet association of Strathmore, was a gentleman named Robertson whom possibly my hon. friend from Lethbridge may know. Mr. Robertson is alleged to be a practical man who has carried on farming operations in southern Alberta for sixteen years, and last year successfully harvested 75 acres of sugar beets. What did he tell that meeting? Did he give them hope or enthusiasm? Listen to what he says:
.... in 1930, 14,000 acres in the Raymond area produced 128,000 tons, distributing to the farmers over $800,000. . . .
Those figures indicate that there was a production of $} tons to the acre, which was worth about $800,000 to the farmers. Of course that sounds very splendid in the aggregate. In answer to a question he said:
Costs would run from $45 to $50 per acre.
There is the statement of a practical farmer engaged in the production of sugar beets who says that costs will run from $45 to $50 per acre, and the farmer receives only about $55 when it is marketed. There would not seem to be much hope there.
Beet Sugar Industry

There is one further point I wish to impress upon hon. members, namely that the growing of sugar beets is a peculiarly difficult farm operation. The quality of the beet depends upon large quantities of water in the month of September to promote proper pollenization because the beet receives most of the sugar content in that month. For that reason sugar beets cannot be grown in western Canada, except under irrigation, so that water m'ay be put on at proper times. That is probably one reason why costs are so high in the production of sugar beets. The labour entailed throughout the year in their production is of such a character that the average Canadian or American will not participate in it. The result is that during the last several years in the province of Alberta growers have imported oriental and central European labourers to attend to their crops.


John Smith Stewart: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon.
friend says "no"; I say to him that I saw it myself. More than that, I saw moving pictures produced by the province of Alberta showing workers in the field.


John Smith Stewart: Where did my hon. friend see the orientals? Were they not raising beets for themselves?


Edward Joseph Garland: They were
employed as labourers to thin and hoe the crop. Will my hon. friend deny that labourers from central Europe are brought in to do the work of cultivating the sugar beets? It cannot be denied.
Hon. members should very seriously consider the bonusing of an industry which will have as part of its purpose the employment of a class of labour we cannot find within this country. I am opposed to the motion. If, however, I can find a seconder I have before me an amendment to the amendment which I will move, as follows:
That the words "select standing committee on agriculture" in the amendment be stricken out and that there be substituted therefor the words "advisory tariff board."


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the amendment to the amendment prepared?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, it is
prepared, but I do not suppose anybody would second it because this diligent and active government has so far failed to appoint a tariff board.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Then the hon. member
does not propose an amendment to the amendment.
[Mr. 3fi. J. Garland, j


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, before a vote is taken on this motion, as a representative from the maritimes, I wish to make a few observations. As the hon. member who moved the resolution is one of the most genial and likable members in the house I am sure it is not easy for hon. members on this side to oppose anything he would wish to introduce, especially when it would benefit the people of his own constituency. The argument he put forward is largely that it would help out the irrigation system and possibly give a return to the men who have invested their money in the sugar beet industry.
As has been pointed out by the member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn), the largest sugar production perhaps in the history of the world is in sight at the present time, and the difficulty for the sugar producing countries is to find a market for their product. There was a time in the maritime provinces when Cuban sugar was imported, and in exchange we were able to send large quantities of our potatoes and other agricultural products. Under the present practice of applying dumping duties we find sugar is being shut out of almost every market in the world. Cuban sugar has been excluded from our market. Naturally the Cuban government have practically refused to accept any of our maritime province products. As you know, Mr. Speaker, last year a representative from this government was sent down to Cuba to see if an arrangement could be made to find a market for our potatoes. The Cuban paper Mundo carried the following item:
Commercial relations between Cuba and Canada, after expiration of the existing modus vivendi in December, were discussed at a conference between Canadian minister Macdonald, Canadian commercial attache Marmaek, officials of the Departments of State, and of Agriculture, Commerce and Labour, and members of the tariff commission. The state department is said to have indicated that Cuba will not change her tariff policy, but will consider modifications in favour of Canada provided that country makes special concessions as to Cuban sugar, rum and tobacco, and the Canadian representatives agreed to study the question.
If the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) were in his seat I would ask him to tell the house whether, as has been asserted several times this afternoon, and as I have good reason to believe, the dumping duty has been applied in a good many cases. I would also ask if any effort has been made by the government to find a market in Cuba or in other parts of the world for our potatoes, and especially if they have endeavoured to raise the British embargo. We hear our friends

Charges by Hon. G. N. Gordon
from the west talking about the desperate straits of the farmers in the prairie provinces.
I doubt if any farmers are in a more desperate condition than the farmers in the maritime provinces who have been engaged in the production of potatoes on a large scale.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Are they not the
most prosperous farmers in Canada?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Not at all. To-day the
farmers of Prince Edward Island have millions of bushels of potatoes on their hands, for which they cannot get over 8 or 10 cents a bushel at the very most; the farmers of New Brunswick are in an even worse position, having to sell their crop at 20 to 25 cents a barrel; Quebec is in a similar position.
The Cuban government put before our representative a definite proposition; they asked him if the Canadian government was willing to consider some arrangement whereby a treaty could be worked out. Mr. Macdonald replied:	I will present these facts to
my government, and they will take them under consideration.
The time has arrived when, if we are going to bonus one branch of industry, we have got to bonus every branch, else we must stop this bonusing system. You cannot bring in discriminatory measures such as are being advocated in this house in favour of one branch of industry and leave other farmers to shift for themselves. You cannot build up their industry and make them prosperous by means of bonuses. Everyone knows the system has failed; it has failed across the line, it has failed in Canada. The only thing we have to do is to face the situation and endeavour to get our products into all the countries of the world, and so give our farmers a chance to compete on fair and equal terms. I believe the time has come when we in Prince Edward Island might very well ask that the local starch industry be bonused. Our farmers are compelled to turn their potatoes over to the starch factory at 5 or 6 cents a bushel delivered; they practically have to give them away. How in the world can farmers exist under such conditions? If any body of men in Canada should ask for a bonus after two or three years of the conditions I have described it is the farmers of the maritime provinces.
I am sorry to be compelled to oppose the resolution and also to vote against the amendment.


Frederick William Gershaw: Mr. Speaker, I must
thank hon. members for the way in which they have received this resolution. A considerable number of people have given a good
deal of thought to the question of assistance to industry; and the individual who is struggling along and trying to get a new industry established cannot understand why old and well-established industries can get assistance while he is denied help.
I have read the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart), and with the consent of my seconder I will withdraw the motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the amendment?
Amendment Mr. Stewart (Lethbridge), agreed to on division.
Motion (Mr. Gershaw) as amended agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 25, 1932