1934-03-16

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hanson (York^Sunbury) presented the third report of select standing committee on banking and commerce and, moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
First report of special committee to inquire into operations of radio commission under the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932. -Mr. Morand.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 36, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company.-Mr. Fraser (Cariboo).


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday, the 21st of March, 1934, and every Wednesday thereafter, until
Tariff Board

the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other matters except questions by members, introduction of bills, and notices of motions for the production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister
whether, in connection with the reference which I understand is being made to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the jurisdiction of the tariff board, the government will consider referring the question as to the validity of orders fixing values for duty purposes of commodities covered by the British preference since the statute of 1932 was passed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As far as I know that question
has not been raised. The questions raised were: First, has the board any jurisdiction to settle or determine questions of law; second, was the judgment of the board in connection with the matter of the refund of duty in connection with twine under a valuation fixed by the minister under the authority of an order in council passed prior to the enactment of the statute providing that section 43 did not apply to British Empire countries valid or invalid? The third question, which has just been mentioned by the hon. gentleman, has not arisen so far as I know. It has not been determined that the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada; the law officers are endeavouring to ascertain just what would be the appropriate method, apart altogether from resorting to the rather cumbersome proceeding provided by the Customs Act, to have the matter speedily disposed of. That matter will be settled by to-morrow.


James Layton Ralston: In that connection might I just remind the Prime Minister that there would seem to be two more questions. One is allied to the second question he mentioned; that is, whether or not orders made by the minister after the passing of the statute of 1932 are valid. The second question is as to whether the privy council have any power to entertain an appeal under section 54 in respect of questions such as were raised in the twine case. I just wanted to ask if the government will consider putting those questions in the reference, if such a reference is proposed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With your consent, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that the government is not in a position to make a reference other than with respect to the matters that were raised on the appeal, and when the appeal was presented it was admitted that, for the purpose of discussion, there was an appeal under the section to which reference has been made.


James Layton Ralston: The governor in council
has power to make a reference of any question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to a
statute.


James Layton Ralston: This is a statute; it is
as to the effect of the 1932 statute.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois):: I should like to remind the Prime Minister that yesterday I was given to understand that some papers would be laid on the table to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to ask the hon.
gentleman if he would be good enough to wait another day. The letter to which I referred is not on file; this subject matter was dealt with in a verbal statement, and I have asked that a letter be sent to show that the moneys received have been used for the purpose of liquidating the obligations mentioned in the order in council. That letter has not arrived as yet, but if the hon. gentleman will accept my word for it I shall be glad to hand the papers to him in the meantime ; otherwise they will be filed in the house on Monday. I have telephoned again to have the letter sent. There are no communications between the railway company and the government.



SALE OF FISH IN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I
should like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) and also to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren), because both departments are involved. My question is in connection with an article which appeared in L'Aetion Catholique, of Quebec, on Tuesday, March 6, 1934, as follows:
(Translation)
Inedible fish. We have been informed that, recently, fish practically rotten has been sold in Quebec. Is it necessary to condemn such a practice? WTe trust that the authorities will take the matter up with the owners of cold storage warehouses as soon as they learn the facts.

Supply-Defence-Naval Services
Then an advertisement:
Eels for sale at the cold storage warehouse of the Quebec commission.
I am informed that the fish referred to are a consignment of eels which are being sold for 3 cents a pound either by or from the Quebec cold storage warehouse. The question I should like to ask the acting Minister of Fisheries is whether he will inquire as to whether or not these inedible fish are being sold from this warehouse, and the question I should like to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health is whether he will take steps to see that fish unfit for food are not sold in Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Eels are a great delicacy in Holland.


Charles Gavan Power: That may be so; I did not want to detain the house at any length, but the house will remember what was contained in the advertisement.
Eels, not graded, at $3 per hundredweight, with a reduction of 10 per cent in quantities of five boxes or more. A box contains from 100 to 150 pounds.
The article I read is to the effect that fish unfit for human consumption are being sold in the city of Quebec. I do not place eels in the category of unfit food, but bad eels or, as it is expressed here, rotten eels certainly are not in the category of food fit for consumption, even in the city of Quebec.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: This is the first time I have heard of these facts. I shall be pleased to inquire into the matter as far as it comes under the jurisdiction of my department, but I think these questions should be addressed to the provincial and municipal authorities.


Charles Gavan Power: In all probability they
should be, but we will start here.


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: I should be glad if my hon. friend would hand me the statements to which he has referred, and I shall have inquiries made at once in reference thereto.



SEED ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) if it is intended to bring in any amendments to the Seed Act this session.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Not in connection with the administration of the Seed Act, so far as I am aware.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
Militia services: permanent force, $4,910,034.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I should like to ask the minister a question, though I am not sure whether or not this is the proper item. It is in connection with the sale of the rifle range on Lulu island in British Columbia. Has the range been sold and, if so, was it sold by tender?
Hon. DONALD M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):	No, it has not
been sold.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Have
tenders been called for the sale of the range?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naval services-to provide for the maintenance of the ships and establishments of the naval service, including the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, $2,222,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
ask where the saving of $200,000 has been effected under this item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The savings have
been effected entirely with regard to supplies. We will not buy as many supplies as heretofore.


James Layton Ralston: On this item I should like to join with the remarks of the minister last night concerning Commodore Hose. In view of the long connection of that officer with the naval service I believe it is fitting that those of us who knew something about his good qualities should record our appreciation of the service he rendered to this country. I must say that during my term in office I found him to be a most efficient, loyal and capable officer, and one whose services bore out in an extremely fine manner the best traditions of the British naval service.
Would the minister tell me the names of the members of the defence council?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The minister, of
course, is president, and the deputy minister vice-president. Then there is General Mc-Naughton chief of general staff; Brigadier Constantine, adjutant general, and Brigadier Caldwell, quartermaster general. In the meantime the associate members are the acting chief of the naval service, Captain Nelles, and Group Captain Croil of the air force.

Supply-Defence-Naval Services


James Layton Ralston: Could the minister give
me the salaries and allowances of these members of the defence council?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I presume you want to know my salary?


James Layton Ralston: No, we do not want that.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The chief of general staff receives $10,000; Brigadier Constantine, $7,500; Brigadier Caldwell, $7,500; Captain Nelles, $7,250 and Group Captain Croil, $5,800.


James Layton Ralston: Do any of these officers
get any other allowances from the public service, in addition to these amounts?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No; allowances are included in every case.


James Layton Ralston: Following the question
asked by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, may I ask as to whether or not the chief of general staff has any Jurisdiction over the acting chief of the naval staff?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: None whatever. Of course I have to amplify that statement a little bit. As the hon. gentleman did, we are endeavouring to correlate activities and to have all people working together. The situation as regards the naval service is exactly the same in every particular as it was when the hon. member was in office.


James Layton Ralston: While we are on this subject would the minister permit me to ask if his statement holds true with respect to the air force, also?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, it is not exactly the same as obtains in the air force. When the hon. gentleman was in office the civil government air operations reported through the deputy minister. At the present time they report through the general staff. The chief of civil aviation, Mr. Wilson, reports through the deputy minister.


James Layton Ralston: Does the chief of the
Royal Canadian Air Force report direct to the deputy minister?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, he reports
through the chief of the general staff.


James Layton Ralston: How long has the system mentioned by the minister been in operation, first as to the chief of the civil aviation branch reporting to the chief of general staff and secondly the chief of the Royal Canadian Air Force reporting to the chief of general staff?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Formerly there were, more or less, two departments, namely the Royal Canadian Air Force and civil government operations. For some time past they have been run as one. In other times the

air force reported through the chief of general staff.


James Layton Ralston: If the minister carries out what I hope he proposes to do, and what I believe he proposes to do, namely, to increase activities of civil government operations, does he not think it would be better to have civil government operations reporting directly to the deputy minister?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That will have to be considered. I would not be in a position, really, to answer that question.


James Layton Ralston: When was the change
made? '


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I think the change was made in the estimates two years ago. At that time both operations were in one estimate.


James Layton Ralston: No, they are still under separate votes.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They are at this
time; they were brought in in that way for purposes of clarification. But last year and the year before I think the hon. member will find that they appeared as one vote.


James Layton Ralston: I would hope that the line of communication and the chain of responsibility would follow the votes as indicated in numbers 82 and 83 of the estimates we are now discussing, and that at least civil aviation should report directly to the deputy minister. It seems to me it is a distinct branch.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Civil aviation does that.


James Layton Ralston: I must have misunderstood the minister. I understood him to say that they reported to the chief of general staff.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No; Mr. Wilson reports directly to the deputy minister.


James Layton Ralston: I misunderstood the minister. The position is that the chief of the Royal Canadian Air Force reports to the chief of the general staff but the head of the civil aviation branch, Mr. Wilson, reports to the deputy minister?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I should -like to have some information in regard to item 79, naval, services. This vote is "to provide for the maintenance of the ships and establishments of the naval service, including the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and the Royal Canadian Naval

Supply-Defence-Naval Services
Volunteer Reserve." I wonder if the minister would be good enough to tell the committee how many ships there are, and something about them. This is a large vote of over $2,000,000.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We have the
Saguenay, which is a destroyer on the eastern coast, and the Skeena, another destroyer on the western coast. These two boats are new, and were bought only recently.


Frederick George Sanderson: At what cost?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: About $3,000,000 for the two of them.


Frederick George Sanderson: From whom were they purchased?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They were purchased in England, from Thornycroft's. Then, we have the Champlain and the Vancouver, which although older destroyers are in very good condition. Then there are two mine layers, the Festubert and the Armentieres. The first is at Halifax and the second at Esquimalt.


Mr. GIROUARD:: What is the tonnage of those destroyers and their operation costs per day?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The expenses for the year are:	Saguenay, $256,000, Champlain,
$190,000, Festubert, $41,000, Skeena, $252,000, Vancouver, $183,000, Armentieres, $41,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the total personnel of the naval forces?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The total is 864.


Wilfrid Girouard: The figures the minister has just given as the expenses in connection with the boats represent the cost for the year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Wilfrid Girouard: The minister was kind enough to inform me last year that the expenses per day for the Saguenay were $645, and that the Saguenay is in operation all the year around; and that the maintenance and service of the Champlain cost per day $485. I understand that the cost would be approximately the same for the Vancouver and the Skeena. Would the minister state if the amounts I have just mentioned are correct?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: If they were the amounts I gave the hon. gentleman last year I have no doubt at all that they are correct.


Mr. POULIOT:: Would the minister be kind enough to inform the committee how many Canadians have attended the lectures at the Empire State college in England?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: As the hon. gentleman knows, by agreement we send officers every year to take advanced training courses in naval matters in England. During the present year there will be one officer taking the staff course at Greenwich, two officers taking the technical course on naval matters, and two officers taking another course on technical matters. In addition the young cadets who enter the navy get their training in England. There will be six cadets going over.
Mr. POTJiLIOT: But I am asking how many Canadians have attended the lectures at that college.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Ever since the institution of our navy, following the war.


Jean-François Pouliot: Ever since the war.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Oh, yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does Canada pay their expenses over there?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the Empire State college a kind of English West Point? Is it England's equivalent to West Point in the United States?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No. West Point, of course, is for the military service only and corresponds more to our Royal Military college. The institution in England to which the hon. gentleman refers, and to which we send cadets, is the training ship Frobisher. That is where our midshipmen go.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I understand the minister correctly, it is a naval school.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Besides that are there lectures given on air force matters and airways?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Not at that particular school. But there is in the old country what is called the Imperial Defence college to which officers from all over the empire go to discuss and be instructed in the higher elements of military, naval and aerial affairs. The senior officers in Great Britain from all the great services come and address and instruct and give lectures to those who are attending those courses.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the minister be
kind enough to tell the committee the name of that school or college and where it is located?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is called the
Imperial Defence college and is located in London.
1552	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Naval Services
Mr. PO'ULIOT:	How long has it been in
existence?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is an old-established institution, not a recent thing at all. I am not aware of the exact year in which it was established.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the minister be
kind enough to tell the house for how long Canadians have been attending that school?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am not in a position to say just how long, but I believe they have been attending it for a great many years.


Jean-François Pouliot: More than three or four
years?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Oh, yes, more than that.


Jean-François Pouliot: How old are the boys or the men who attend that college?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Of course, the ones
who go from Canada are senior officers who have gone as far as they could in this country. There are no boys or junior officers attending that school.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for
his very valuable information. My own idea is that when a man is a pupil after twenty-five years of age he will remain in infancy all his life. Of course, a man must study all his life, but there is a great difference between a pupil and a man who studies. I do not see why Canadians should go to that pompously named institution in London in order to be taught imperialism. I believe in Canadianism. We have strong ties with the British Empire but we have no lessons to receive in love of our country. All Canadians love their country and they must love it before any other. I admit that our ties with Great Britain are strong and that our king is the king of Great Britain, but on the other hand Canadians should be taught first to be good, real Canadians, and Canadians before anything else. I protest strongly against sending Canadians to be taught imperialism in London or anywhere else. I regret that these peregrinations take place, and I hope that the minister will see to it that if these men go there in order to receive technical training they will be taught nothing else but technical matters about the naval service, the air service and so on. They should not be taught that they must love England before Canada.


Frederick George Sanderson: A few moments ago
the minister, replying to a question of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, gave the total personnel of the naval forces as 800 odd. Does that include the personnel of the naval reserve and of the naval volunteer reserve?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I may have inadvertently misled the committee. That was the number of the permanent force, men on the strength all the time.


Frederick George Sanderson: What is the strength
of the naval reserve and of the naval volunteer reserve?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The personnel of
the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve is 1,028. That corresponds in the naval service with our non-permanent militia coming under the militia vote. Then we have 200 in the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve.


Frederick George Sanderson: Could the minister give me the strength of the naval volunteer reserve and where they are trained?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: As I indicated
before, this body corresponds to the nonpermanent militia. They are situated at Calgary, Charlottetown, Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Prince Rupert, Quebec, Regina, Saint John, Saskatoon, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg.


Frederick George Sanderson: Do they draw pay and allowances?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They draw pay and allowances. From time to time certain complements go to the coast for actual training on board one of the destroyers.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Has the efficiency of the service been affected by the reduction of $200,000 in the vote?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There has been no reduction in personnel.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Any reduction in the service?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No reduction in the service.


Wilfrid Girouard: I wonder if the minister read the dispatch which appeared in the Citizen of Monday. This reads:
Port of Spain, Trinidad, March 11.- Canada's naval squadron has gained another victory.
In the famous Chaguaramus bay where fleeing Spaniards fired their fleet and sank their treasure cargoes in 60 fathoms of water to save them from their British pursuers, the four Canadian destroyers put to rout the British cruiser H.M.S. Dragon in mimic warfare.
The Dragon knifed its way through the water at 30 knots an hour in an effort to evade the deadly markmanship displayed during the Canadian torpedo attack.
In another manoeuvre when darkness fell across the bay, the Canadian destroyer Vancouver with all lights out, played hide-and-seek with the Saguenay, Skeena and

Supply-Defence-Air Force
Champlain as the offensive ships. The three destroyers combed the darkness and suddenly "star shells" turned night into day, revealing the Vancouver vainly pretending to be a rocky headland of the wooded island. Crew of the Vancouver were eating supper in darkness when the shells from the other destroyers disclosed their position.
Later the Canadian tars showed their prowess as "excellent" gunners, submerging every floating target with a barrage that reechoed from the mountains and cliffs of the historic Spanish Main.
I read this article simply as a protest against the manner in which public money is being wasted. The minister has told me that it costs this country something like $2,200 per day to keep these four destroyers in operation. In times of prosperity perhaps these games of hide-and-seek might be tolerated but during a time of crisis when the people are suffering hardships I think such games should cease altogether. I am speaking only for myself when I say that I believe the country could be saved a vast amount of money if the department would sell these four destroyers for whatever they would bring. I believe to spend $2,200 per day in order to allow these gentlemen to cruise in the West Indies is a waste of public money which should not be tolerated any further.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I should like to say a word or two to correct an impression which seems to exist in connection with the cruises in the south during the winter. It would be impossible for these ships to go to sea in our northern waters and it is almost imperative to follow the practice which has been followed for some time and send these ships to warmer waters during the cold months. They are able to take advantage of the fact that the northern Atlantic squadron is there also. They have an opportunity of perfecting themselves in naval manoeuvres and execution. It was decided some time ago that we should have some naval strength in this country and as long as we have that strength, these vessels must carry on training manoeuvres.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Air Force-expenses in connection with the general maintenance and training of the permanent and non-permanent active air force, and provision of facilities therefor, $1,805,000.
James Layton Ralston: Could the minister tell us if any new aircraft have been purchased?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


James Layton Ralston: Are the Siskins still in
operation?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Is all the training being
carried on at Trenton or is there some still being carried on at Camp Borden?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is some at
Camp Borden.


James Layton Ralston: Could the minister give
me the division of activities between the two places?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We are moving from Camp Borden to Trenton as fast as conditions warrant. Last year facilities were provided at Camp Borden for aib initio flying, defence flying, specialized training of the Royal Canadian Air Force personnel and training of civil pilots. Last year at Trenton there was the nucleus of one fighter and one army cooperation squadron. There is no training carried on there except the training of these squadrons.


Frederick George Sanderson: 'Could the minister explain the increase of $400,000?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It will be necessary to say a general word about that. I think most hon. members will agree that the air force estimates have -been reduced most drastically during the last three or four years since I have been head of the department. Two years ago we had to let out quite a large number of the personnel to make the vote possible. Since then the vote was reduced again and everyone concerned was of the opinion that it would be a very false move to let out any further personnel. Consequently there was not really enough money in the last vote to get the full benefit of the air force as we had it. We had too much personnel for the amount of money-that is, to allow them to fly. As a matter of fact they were grounded too much, as the expression is, and it must be realized that, granted that we are to have an air force, we must have more money for them to operate. There will be some new planes purchased, and everything that goes with them in the way of apparatus and equipment to assist in the training.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to the purchase of new equipment, can the minister tell me what he has in mind? Is it something in the way of light training craft?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No. The present
idea is to buy six aircraft of a type suitable for advanced training, and they will probably be bought in England.


James Layton Ralston: What type?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am told that it
is the type under consideration.
Supply-Defence-Air Force


James Layton Ralston: I do not want the minister to give away the order, because I suppose he expects some competition.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There cannot really
be very much competition in a matter of this kind, because the specifications for one aircraft are different from those of another, but the officials have been going into the matter with the idea of getting an airplane which will be most suitable to our needs from every standpoint for training purposes, bombing, photography, machine gun work and so on, to enable instruction to be given along these lines to the best advantage.


James Layton Ralston: Does the minister think he will find any combination which will serve for bombing, photography and fighting as well?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The hon. gentleman is probably more expert than I am; I have to depend on the officials, and it is along that line that they are working, to secure a plane which can be put to the most advantageous use.


James Layton Ralston: Will six be the limit he expects to buy?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That is what we have in mind at the present time.


James Layton Ralston: What is the estimate?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The amount for the new aircraft item is $80,000.


James Layton Ralston: Can the minister give me a summary of the usable aircraft now on hand in the R.C.A.F.?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are now
ninety-nine in active use and in immediate reserve there are thirty-four, in reserve fifty-eight, or one hundred and ninety-one altogether.


James Layton Ralston: The minister said something about ninety-nine being in active use.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Can he give me some particulars, dividing them into training aircraft and fighting craft, bombers?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: In what is called the fighter flight there are five Siskins active and two in reserve, and in the cooperation flight there are two active. In No. 4 squadron there are seven active and four in immediate reserve, and in No. 5 squadron there are eight active and one in reserve.


James Layton Ralston: Are those all cooperation
planes?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Cooperation planes?


James Layton Ralston: I thought the minister referred to them as army cooperation planes?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes; they are in the army cooperation flight.


James Layton Ralston: As regards the two squadrons the minister has mentioned, do they come within the classification he has just read?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is No. 4 squadron.


James Layton Ralston: What about the ninetynine in active use?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: At the Royal Canadian Air Force station in Ottawa there are fourteen active and ten in reserve.


James Layton Ralston: Are there many Fairchilds in that?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are one Fairchild 51 and five Fairchilds 71.
Mr. RALSTON. How are the ninety-nine made up?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: At the Royal Canadian Air Force station in Winnipeg there are one Fairchild 51; one Moth 60; one Moth 80; two Fairchilds 71 and one in immediate reserve. At Borden there are eleven in active use and three A flight, seven B flight and seven in active reserve.


James Layton Ralston: What about Trenton?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: What I read last
refers to what is called the training group; I am told by my officials that it includes Borden and Trenton.


James Layton Ralston: What make of planes does B flight include?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: B flight includes two Avros, three Fairchilds F.C.W.W.; two Fairchilds 71.


James Layton Ralston: How old are the Avros?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: None has been
bought since I have been in the department.


James Layton Ralston: They are vary old?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The ex-air force men in
Toronto have been trying to form a volunteer squadron. Has any progress been made in aiding them?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes. There is a
squadron authorized and formed now in Toronto. The squadron leader is G. S. O'Brien and we hope this year to be able to give them some training.
Item agreed to-

Supply-Defence-Civil Aviation
Civil aviation-expenses in connection with the control of civil aviation, airways and airports, government and public airports and grants to airplane clubs, $187,000.


James Layton Ralston: Will the minister tell us generally how that vote is made up? I notice the airplane clubs still get a grant.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is as follows:
Controllers of civil aviation	$ 60,851
St. Hubert airdrome	 27,790
Airplane clubs and aviation schools.. 24,000 Airways and airports	 74,359
Total	$ 187,000


James Layton Ralston: Are there any grants at all from the department for mail services?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, they are altogether under the Post Office Department.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps the minister as a member of council will tell me if they are in the Post Office vote?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, they are.


James Layton Ralston: I suppose this is where the minister would hope to make the increase when the time comes to add to civil aviation activities; and here it seems to me is where a lot of useful service might be done. I again urge on the minister, because I think this is the appropriate place, that favourable consideration be given to an increase of activities in connection with civil aviation. I think Canadian citizens generally have shown remarkable interest in aviation matters. Years ago cities and municipalities did a lot towards constructing airports, giving us the nucleus for the chain of landing fields which are now being constructed. As I said last night, we already had a mail service established across the easier part of Canada, that is across the western prairies, and service had been given over the route now being covered by the construction of the air fields through northern Ontario. Aviation has entered largely into the development of our north country. I feel that aviation is still in the experimental stage to a degree that makes it necessary for the government to take considerable interest in civil aviation activities. I presume the minister's policy is the same as that of those who preceded him, that is not to carry on commercial aviation beyond the point of exploration and experimentation in order to furnish information to those engaged in civil aviation, and to provide at least some personnel able to take the initiative and form the nucleus of a group engaged in civil aviation in Canada. I hope that will continue to be the policy; I am not one of those
who believe in government going wholesale into civil aviation or other commercial activities, but I want to impress upon the minister and the government the great desirability of encouraging aviation in Canada by increasing as far as possible air mail services and giving contracts directly to the organizations that are in a position to carry out air mail services; also in order to provide employment for civil aviators and to encourage the whole field of aeronautical development. I think the government can do a great deal in that respect, and I would hope that some air mail services which have been abandoned may be reinstated, not only for the purposes of air mail, but for the purpose of developing aviation generally in view of what it means to the future of Canada.


Mr. LUCAS:: What air mail services are being carried on at the present time in Canada?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: These are the services: Montreal-Albany; Narrow Lake-Sioux Lookout; Winnipeg-Pembina; McMurray-Aklavik; Bissett-Lac du Bonnet; Peace River-North Vermilion; Big River-Ile a la Crosse; Resolution-Great Bear Lake; Prince Albert-Lac la Ronge; Amos to Siscoe, and summer services: Rimouski-Montreal and Vancouver-Victoria.
Winter services only:	Leamington-Pelee
island; Quebec-Seven Islands; Seven Islands-Anticosti; Moncton-Charlottetown; Charlotte-town-Magdalen islands.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will the minister inform the committee how many air mail routes were cancelled at the time reductions were made?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I cannot tell that, because it is not under this department, but under the Post Office Department. The route from Winnipeg to Lethbridge and up to Edmonton and Calgary was the major cancellation.


Mr. COOTE:: Are government airplanes
used in transporting geological survey parties in the northern part of Canada, when parties are sent out by the department?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, they would be our planes.


George Gibson Coote: If the Department of Mines should be persuaded to do some more geological work would the air mail force now existing be quite sufficient for any work of that nature?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The services needing the help of aviation operations have a com-

Supply-Defence-Civil Aviation
mittee that try to work together and select the services which are the most important and pressing, and we try to do their work.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: 
Donald Matheson Sutherland: The government
never has assumed the responsibility of building aerodromes for municipalities. From the beginning we have regarded that as entirely a municipal duty. But we have always been ready to assist with engineering and expert knowledge. If it is an important aerodrome that will probably be used at night we would assist them to a certain extent in the ground lighting facilities.


Mr. VENIOT:: A few minutes ago the minister gave a list of air mail services. Are there any government airplanes engaged in those services or are they all under contract with companies?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They would all be under contract with the exception of the Montreal-Rimouski service, which in the last year or so has been flown by our planes.


Peter John Veniot: In view of further development of air mail services from coast to coast are any negotiations going on between the Department of National Defence and the Post Office Department as to how this scheme should be carried out? Is a policy being considered of having that service carried out by the Department of National Defence or entirely by contract with private companies?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That question has
received a great deal of close attention by a committee on which the Post Office Department has been represented. They have gone a long way, in fact as far as they can without some money to spend; they have not made any definite recommendation as to whether the larger services, when inaugurated, should be flown by the government or by a private company. There has been no decision arrived at in that regard.


Peter John Veniot: Can the minister tell us the cost of the summer service between Rimouski and Montreal, undertaken by the Department of National Defence? How much per mile?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I doubt very much if I am in a position to tell that, because it was our own machines that were engaged in that service and I do not think it has been figured in that way, so far as I have it here.


Peter John Veniot: Can the minister say why
the change was made from a private company to the Department of National Defence?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The contract was
cancelled purely for financial reasons; the Post Office Department did not have the money with which to carry it on. Then on more mature consideration being given, this was regarded as a very important link in the air mail service, bringing the mail from the ships at Rimouski up to Montreal and vice versa, and it was then considered that we had plenty of airplanes and plenty of pilots and that they could do that work.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I congratulate the
minister on the action he has taken. The service is carried on better, the pilots are better qualified and the air mail service is better looked after.


Peter John Veniot: Since I was at the head of the Post Office Department when that service was inaugurated, I think in 1928, I was glad to learn that it is the intention of the government to maintain that service. In the initial stages it was somewhat difficult to give the service that we desired, but as years rolled by and improvements took place in air transportation we were able to give a veiy efficient service between Rimouski and Montreal by 1930.
I have yet to be convinced that the service can be more efficiently operated by the Department of National Defence than by a private company. As I understood the minister a few moments ago the change to the Department of National Defence was not made on grounds of efficiency but on grounds of economy. When it was initiated the service cost about $1.25 per mile under contract with a private company. No doubt air mail service which in 1928 or 1930 cost all the way from 90 cents to $1.25 a mile according to the district covered could be furnished to-day for a great deal less, and with all the red tape that surrounds matters pertaining to national defence I doubt whether the department can do that work at a lower cost than would be charged by private companies. I regret that the minister is not in a position

Supply-Defence-Civil Aviation
to give me the cost per mile and the poundage of mail matter carried since the Department of National Defence took over the service from Rimouski to Montreal. I am sure that if those figures could be obtained it would be found that the work could be done more cheaply under private contract than it is being done by the department. I have no fault to find with any of the services being carried on by the department, because I know nothing about them, but I do know something about the mail service.
I must say here, Mr. Chairman, that I very much regret that the government has seen fit to do away with many of the air mail services which were established during my time as Postmaster General. Economy was given as the reason why certain services were abandoned, but I think if care had been taken in the carrying on of those services, with the yearly increases in poundage and in revenue which were then taking place, and especially with the revenue from first class matter increased through an increase in postage from 2 cents to 3 cents per ounce in certain districts and from 5 to 6 cents in others, if those services had been continued, it would have been discovered that they would have been brought up almost to a paying basis. In 1931 the 2 cent air mail service which was given to districts inaccessible by any other means, such as newly developed mining districts, the Mackenzie river district up to Aklavik, the Anticosti island district and the Magdalen island district in winter time, showed a surplus of revenue over expenditure of $169,000. The five cent service from Saint John to Montreal, it is true, was not paying; there was a deficit. The service from Montreal to New York was almost at the point where it was paying expenses. The service from Toronto to certain sections of the United States was bringing in more revenue each year, and there was a clause in the contracts with these private companies providing that on one month's notice the contracts could be changed and new arrangements entered into. It was contemplated that the rate, which varied from 90 cents to $1.20 a mile, could be reduced somewhat due to lower costs of operation, and at that time the department was about to open negotiations looking to better arrangements under these contracts. The total deficit, including that for the services in the western provinces, was in the vicinity of $750,000 annually, less the surplus of $169,000 which I have mentioned. With increased revenues resulting from greater development in the western provinces and with increased revenues on the services between Halifax and Montreal, Montreal and New
York and Montreal and Toronto, that deficit would have been reduced by something like $250,000 to $300,000 by 1932.
So I say it is a pity, Mr. Chairman, especially now that there is talk of trans-Atlantic and even trans-Pacific air mail services, that these links which were giving satisfaction and which it was intended to extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific, have been discontinued. Had these been in operation to-day Canada would have been placed in a premier position in connection with air mail transportation, since we would have had a service by means of which mail could be transported from the Atlantic to the Pacific in some eighty to ninety hours instead of taking from five to six days. I regret very much that the government has cut the principal services to such an extent; I do hope that in the negotiations which I understand have been undertaken recently the government will see its way clear to the establishment of a trans-continental service from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that that service will not be combined with the railway service of Canada, and that the air mail service shall be distinct and apart from the Canadian railway system. We have companies in Canada big enough and financially strong enough to undertake that service, without the necessity of combining with the railway services. The railway mail service is costing Canada between $7,000,000 and $8,000,000 yearly, and while it is efficient, I believe the mail service could be made more efficient by the addition of air mail facilities. That addition should not in any respect interfere with the railway mail service operating to-day. I hope that when the government reach the point where they are in a position to decide as to the reestablishment of these routes, they will do so. I am speaking from the viewpoint of encouraging civil air service in Canada. As the exMinister of National Defence said a while ago we would not have our present air service in Canada had it not been for the fact that the Post Office Department stepped into the breach in 1927 and 1928 and inaugurated a system of air mails. At that time the air mail service formed the nucleus for commercial air services carried on in Canada.
I hope that in the very near future the government will make up its mind that the day has come when Canada should have an air mail service stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: As one who is not air minded may I ask if the minister has any figures to show the ratio of casualties per mile travelled in air, on land and on sea. I refer to the number of casualties through travel

Supply-Defence-Civil Aviation
by motor car and by sea transportation. Further, has he a comparison of our figures with those of our neighbour, the United States?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am unable to give the hon. member all the information, although I have some with regard to accidents. I am very glad indeed to be able to say that in the air force during the past year we have not had a fatal accident, and not one person has been lost. In civil flying there were twenty-two accidents, involving injuries. Eleven pilots were killed and seven injured; thirteen passengers were killed and six injured.


Peter John Veniot: Was that in Canada?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.
Mr. BO'UCHARD: Has the minister any comparative figures as to casualties in different types of conveyances, because some people are prejudiced against travelling by air. Has the minister any figures to show the number of casualties by air travel as compared with casualties on land, through the use of motor cars and railways and travel by sea.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have not those figures.


Mr. GBRSHAW:: A great many young men in Canada, who have had experience in mechanical work are anxious to join the aviation service. I should like to ask the minister what openings or opportunities there are at the present time or are likely to be in the near future, and what training is necessary to qualify?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The hon. member has raised a point which is brought home to me very often, due to the fact that there are a great 'many applications from young men wishing to enter the service either as fliers or as mechanics. At the present time, owing to reduced votes, it has been obviously impossible to take on any new men. However as things open up we hope gradually to be able to take on a few more.


Mr. MacLEAN:: If I understand the minister correctly, his department does not contribute anything to the establishment of air ports. For the last few years in the town of Summer-side we have been endeavouring to get an air port, and different representations have been made to several departments of government. A field can be procured in a most suitable locality near the town, but the town does not feel it can afford the expense of providing and paying for an air port to be used by the whole of the province, and for interprovincial service. I understand only a very small outlay would be necessary to put the field

in splendid condition, and I should like to know from the minister or from hon. members in charge of any other governmental department if any assistance could be given in a matter of that kind.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We have considered the proposition outlined by the hon. member. The one he has described is exactly the same as that described only a few moments ago by another hon. member. The government has never followed the policy of providing municipal air ports. If the town would buy the air port we would give every possible assistance,-that is, short of financial assistance -such as engineering help, advice or anything of that nature.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Do I understand the minister to say that his department keeps a waiting list of trained would-be pilots, and that it is of very little use for any new men to apply because of that waiting list?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Well, to a certain extent that is undoubtedly correct. At the present time we have a large waiting list.


Peter John Veniot: Has not the government given assistance to air ports under the unemployment relief measures? I understand it is extending the air port at Saint John, New Brunswick, and that it has laid out other air ports or landing ports in that province. I know that only a few years ago two were supposed to have been laid out; I do not know, whether or not those plans have been carried out. It would seem however that the government has given some aid towards the opening of air ports in different parts of Canada.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I believe the ones in the province of New Brunswick to which the hon. member has referred are the intermediate landing fields. Those fields may be situated in the middle of the province. Of course the field at Saint John was supplied by the municipality, and it was only because we could help the unemployed that work was done at that point.


Peter John Veniot: Would that not apply to Summerside?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, it could not, because the government has never been convinced that there was an unemployment problem at that point which would warrant such action.


Mr. MARCIL:: I should like to know from the minister if there is any landing field or air port in the Gaspe peninsula?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.

Supply-Defence-Civil Aviation


Charles Marcil: Is the air mail service given to the Magdalen islands the same as was given last year and the year before; is it weekly, fortnightly, or how often is it operated?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is a weekly service, given only in the winter.


Charles Marcil: Apart from the Anticosti service, what other service is given to the north shore of the St. Lawrence?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The Seven Islands to
Anticosti service is a winter service given semi-monthly. The service from Quebec to Seven Islands is semi-weekly in the winter.


Charles Marcil: The service does not go beyond Seven Islands and Blanc Sablon?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


Charles Marcil: There is a mail service there in the winter time which, I understand, is operated by dog sleighs, or some such means. Would it not be better to have an air mail service on the north shore of the St. Lawrence? Has that matter been considered at all?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That would be a matter for the consideration of the Post Office Department. They look after the data necessary for the establishment of a service.


Charles Marcil: I suppose the minister is aware of the strategic situation of the Gaspe peninsula? At the outbreak of the war the whole fleet mustered in the Gaspe basin before sailing for the other side. Would it not be desirable to have a landing place where such fine pioneering work was done by Count de Lesseps, the first aviator who came to Canada and who perished on the Gaspe peninsula? I think that immense territory covering ten thousand square miles should have an airport.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That will undoubedly come in time, but at present an airship using floats or a flying boat could easily land in one of the many harbours around that coast.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I understand that through the Department of Labour a lot of development work in connection with airports has been done in other parts of Canada. I should like to ask if the sites for these airports in other municipalities and towns throughout the country have been purchased by the municipalities, and whether the Labour department simply expends money on their development in connection with unemployment relief. Are the sites for the air ports purchased by the government or by the municipality?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: If a municipality
had an airport on which some work could just as well be done, and unemployment was a pressing problem at that place, the work could be done under the unemployment relief scheme. Cases such as the hon. gentleman outlines on the island, of the government buying an airport and proceeding to develop it, are not in existence.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: In none of these other
cases has the government purchased the site?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I must make it
clear that no city sites at all have been purchased. Along an airway carrying mail the landing fields under ordinary circumstances would be from four to five hundred miles apart, depending on the ship. That certainly would be the case on a transcontinental airway, but every twenty-five miles there would be intermediate aerodromes which could be used in cases of emergency. These aerodromes might be located in a small village or out in a field, with nothing around, which could be developed for the purpose. The government would arrange for the acquisition of a site such as that, but not in a town.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The situation with us
on Prince Edward Island at the present time is that we have an air mail service, and just to-day I took the matter up with the Post Office Department, with a view to getting a little better service and having the mail picked up at Moncton from both the ocean limited and the maritime express and taken over to the island, but I was told by the Post Office Department that as we had no landing field at Summerside they did not think they could continue the service. At the present time the aeroplane is landing on the ice in the harbour. However, we were able to secure the assurance from the department that they would order the mail to be carried by the plane until such time as the harbour becomes unsafe for landing. I just wanted to know whether it was the practice for the municipality or the government to purchase a site for an airport in a town. I think that the municipality has been assured by the department of substantial assistance from an engineering point of view. It would not take very much to put the field in shape.
I just wanted to know whether in other sections of the country towns and cities have been given assistance in the purchase of sites for airports.



J560 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-D ejence-C ivil A via lion
Donald Matheson Sutherland: None whatever in
cases such as my hon. .friend mentions.


Charles Marcil: This may not be altogether regular, Mr. Chairman, but I might as well put the question and get an answer. There is going to be a big celebration in Gaspe in the month of August to celebrate the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of Canada. I would ask if it is the intention of the department to take any part in that celebration with aeroplanes or an aviation display. France has formed a committee with the president of the republic at its head, and committees have also been formed in Montreal, Toronto, Gaspe and other parts of Canada. I know that the minister as a good Canadian would like to honour the discoverer of this country. Are any plans under study at the present time to participate in that celebration? France, I understand, intends sending over a warship and a delegation of distinguished men to commemorate the landing of Jacques 'Cartier at Gaspe. Has the minister given this matter any consideration at all?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, it has received
some attention, and our district officer commanding at Quebec is acting as one of a committee to find out in what way cooperation is desired and can best be given. I can assure my hon. friend that in any way we possibly can we shall be only too glad to cooperate in the celebration of this great event.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should also like to mention the great celebration that is to take place this year in the city of Toronto, on the occasion of the one hundredth anniversary of the founding of our city. Will there be any aviation or aerial display by the department in connection with that celebration.?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No details have been settled yet, but as the hon. gentleman knows the city has made representations respecting a trans-Atlantic flight of British aeroplanes during the celebration. No definite reply has been received as yet, and at the moment I can only say that if there is anything we can do we shall be glad to do it. 0i course, our military forces in Toronto will be cooperating to a very large extent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Thank you.


Mr.   YENOT@: Perhaps this matter does not come under the minister's department, and if so I shall drop the question, but I should like to ask why a change was made in the service between Moncton and Shediac and the Magdalen islands and from there io Charlottetown.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I do not know.


Peter John Veniot: While I am on my feet,
without wishing to take away any of the glory that might come to Gaspe from the discovery by Jacques Cartier of Canada and the celebration that is going to take place this summer, I note that the minister has said that the dominion government mav play some part in it, but I should like to point out to the minister and the committee that Jacques Cartier did not first land at Gaspe but at Father Point, at the entrance to Bathurst harbour, and from Bathurst harbour he crossed to Gaspe and placed a cross on the shores of the Gaspe basin. When the government is debating what part they shall play in this celebration, I hope they will give consideration to the fact that there are only a few miles between Gaspe and Bathurst across the Baie des Chaleurs, and I trust that they will not forget to give us a call at Bathurst, where we shall try to receive them as best we can.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio services-for maintenance and operation of the Northwest Territories radio system, $199,425.
Mr. REID:: Many departments have an
item for radio service. We passed one last night for $590,000. Would the minister please explain this item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This radio service is carried on in the north country from Edmonton right up to the mouth of the Mackenzie river and Herschell island. It has been in use for a number of years and is manned by the Royal Signal Corps.


Charles Marcil: How far north does it
extend?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Right to the Arctic, to Herschell island at the mouth of the Mackenzie river.
' Mr. MARCIL: Is there apparatus up there for sending as well as receiving messages?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, they send and receive messages.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Battlefields memorials, $90,000.
Charles Marcil: Has this work been completed?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The only work remaining to be done is the completion of the memorial at Vimy which it is expected will be completed towards the end of 1935.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
To provide for the book of remembrance of members of the Canadian forces, and Canadians in the forces of the British Empire who lost their lives in the great war, $7,500.
Thomas Reid: Canada is justly proud of the peace memorial which we have here in Ottawa but I do not believe it has received sufficient publicity. I suggest to the minister the getting out of a little booklet giving a full description of the peace tower and the book of remembrance, for which perhaps a small charge could be made. If that were done the people of Canada would know what a fine memorial we have.


William Thomas Lucas: When will this book be
completed?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We expect in three years. The names are being written in by hand but good progress is being made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Adjustment of war claims-national defence -militia services, $59,500; naval services, $500.
George Gibson Coote: Could the minister tell us when the history of the war will be completed and how much has been completed to date?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The first volume is practically completed, being ready for final proof reading. It will include the history up to the battle of Festubert. There will be a number of appendices in connection with the activities of the Canadian forces before the war. It will deal with the formation and dispatch of the first contingent and the activities of the Canadian forces in the field up to the battle of Ypres.


Charles Marcil: Will that be published in French as well as in English?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, arrangements
are being made to have it published in French.


Thomas Reid: Do these war claims arise out of lost property and so on?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They arise as an aftermath of the war. We might have a case where a soldier was entitled to a separation allowance or gratuity for which he had not claimed. He puts in a claim later on and if he is found to be entitled to it after careful examination, it is paid from this vote.


Thomas Reid: An appeal was made to me by a man who claimed to have been torpedoed and mined. He did not put in a claim to the reparations commission and I should like to know if he could put in a claim under this vote.
74726-99|


Donald Matheson Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman would let us have the details of the case, we could look it up and give him an answer.


Peter John Veniot: That would come under the Secretary of State.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Dairying, $234,000.
Wilfrid Girouard: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned on Friday last, I was drawing the attention of hon. members to the supineness of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) in connection with the agricultural interests of Ontario and Quebec. I also deplored the large reductions made each year by the hon. minister in the agricultural budget. I was commenting on the item referring to cheese which the committee is at present considering. When the Imperial Economic agreements were discussed and approved in Ottawa in 1932, the government considered that they had made a great advance towards improving the situation of our farmers. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) took the pains in his speech to refer especially to cheese, pointing out the importance he attached to these so-called concessions from the United Kingdom in connection with our cheese exports. On October 10, 1932, he expressed himself in the house as follows:
Canada will enjoy in the British market free entry for three years, with preference margin of 15 per cent which will be maintained during the currency of the agreement.
Not only, sir, did this treaty not attain the object sought, but we note that cheese exports are yearly decreasing and that instead of occupying the first place, Canada has dropped to-day to the fourth place in this respect. That is why the bulletin of the bureau of statistics on October 17, 1933, published the following statement:
Within the last twelve months cheese exports have been much less than those of the previous year.
The Trade Information Bulletin dated February 10, 1934, has the following:
The decrease of Canadian cheese exports and the latest increase in New Zealand products, have been noted with disappointment. Canada which, previously, was the principal cheese supplier of this market has seen its quota drop more than 10,000,000 pounds.
The bulletin issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, dated February 10, 1934,
states:
The Canadian Trade Commissioner to the LTnited Kingdom writes as follows: The reduction in the Canadian cheese exports and the

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
further increases^ in the imports of the commodity from New Zealand are disappointing, to say the least. Canada was, previously, the principal cheese supplier of the United Kingdom, and now, in the course of last year, its cheese exports have decreased 100,000 hundredweight, namely, they have been dropped to 629,000 hundredweight.
Moreover, the bulletin issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, dated March 9, 1934, states:
The following is Canada's relative position among Great Britain's suppliers, in January of the current year:	cheese-fourth instead ot
second, in January, 1933, and first a few years ago.
Another bulletin, dated March 12, 1934, mentions that the production of fermented cream cheese, in Canada, has considerably decreased and that our exports which had reached, a few years ago, 32.000,000 pounds had dwindled down to 940,000 pounds.
The following are our cheese exports to Great Britain, from 1929 to date: In 1929, we exported 1,126,092 cwts.; in 1930, 922,937 cwts., in 1931, 795,904 cwts.; in 1932, 854,247 cwts., and in'1933, 629,000 cwts. That is, between 1930 and the present day, our cheese exports to Great Britain have decreased by 497,092 cwts., or 49,709,200 pounds.
While we were losing the British market, we were importing, in 1931, 1,685,045 pounds of cheese; in 1932, 1,377,344 pounds and, m 1933, 1,103,395 pounds.
Before proceeding with my remarks on the subject, may I, sir, remind the house of a statement made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. On May 10, 1932, referring to the dairy industry he expressed himself as follows:
So I think if we were to concentrate on dairy products we should concentrate on cheese. . . .
It is unfortunate that the hon. Minister of Agriculture limited his effort to this suggestion. His inertia has caused our exports to considerably decrease and, as I stated a moment ago, instead of occupying the first place on the British market, as a cheese exporting country, we have dropped, to-day, to the fourth place. That is an unfortunate result of the Imperial Economic Conference agreements, at Ottawa, in 1932.
During the last election campaign in the constituency which I have the honour of representing, I well remember that it was difficult, if not impossible, to force the Conservative candidate to discuss any other subject but butter. Although the fanners were obtaining a profitable price for that commodity, from 1922 to 1930, the Conservative candidate promised that, should the Con-[Mr. G'rouardJ
servative party assume power, butter imports would be entirely shut out and predicted very profitable prices.
Previous to quoting figures on butter imports, sir, may I point out that it is very difficult to obtain information in this respect. Ever since the Bureau of Statistics has become a kind of advertising agency for the government's policy-and this, I am quite sure contrary to the wishes of Mr. Coats, who is an expert in this connection-it is difficult to obtain reliable statistics. Those that are at our disposal are incomplete and, at times, contradictory. However, I have done my best to gather statistics which seem to 'be most reliable and reveal the true situation. From October 1, 1930 to April 30, 1931, the government has permitted the importation of 5,031,419 pounds of butter; out of this quantity,
2 147.494 pounds were imported from February 1, 1931, to April 30, 1931. In 1032, our butter imports amounted to 879,670 pounds; in 1933, 1,377,137 pounds. I was almost forgetting 1931. It was the year which immediately followed the election, in the course of which my opponent had promised the farmers that butter imports would absolutely cease, that butter would not be allowed to enter Canada, that the government would raise the tariff sufficiently so as to bring about higher prices than those prevailing in August, 1930. Would you be amazed, sir, if I informed you that, for 1931, we imported into this country 16,500,801 pounds of butter? These figures are not included in the statistics which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) or the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) gave to the house; however, I find these figures in the Canada Year Book, 1933, at page 565. The hon. Minister of Agriculture will note that, for the year 1931 alone, we imported 16,500,801 pounds of butter.


Mr. GOBEIL (Translation):: The calendar year or fiscal year?


Eugène Fiset: The university year!


Wilfrid Girouard: The Canada Year Book, 1933, page 565.


Samuel Gobeil: The calendar year?


Eugène Fiset: The
university year!


Wilfrid Girouard: It must be the calendar year. I refer the hon. member to the 'Canada Year Book, 1933, page 565.
I have no information about our butter imports for the year 1934 up to date; however, I note that in February 1934, we im-

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
ported from New Zealand alone, 450,000 pounds. Evidently, we also imported from Australia and other countries, as in previous years.
I do not intend to discuss further this subject; however, I wanted to point out that once more the government had not kept its promises to the farmers of the various provinces. In the constituency which I have the privilege of representing the farmers were greatly amazed to note that we are still importing butter from New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain, Syria, the Fiji Islands and other countries. It is true, that the farmers of Drummond Arthabaska place no faith in those promises; however, I wished to point out, on their behalf, the pledges made in my presence and, to protest against the policy, at present, followed by the department of Agriculture which entirely neglects the interests of the Ontario and Quebec farmers.


Robert Weir: I am sorry I could not follow in detail what the hon. member (Mr. Girouard) said with regard to imports and exports of butter and cheese. There has been a gradual falling-off in our exports of cheese, a continuous decrease over a considerable number of years. The maximum exports of cheese were in the year ending June, 1904. In that year we exported 233,980,716 pounds. In the year ending March, 1908 that had decreased to 189,710,463. Coming down to more recent years, in the year ending March, 1926, our exports of cheese were 148,333,500 pounds, and in the year ending March, 1927, they had dropped to 136,665,400; in the year ending March, 1928, they were 105,212,600; in 1929-30 they were 92,293,700, and in 193031 they were down to 79,590,400-that is, in March, at the end of that fiscal year. In other words, from the year ending March, 1926, to the end of the fiscal year in which the government changed, the reduction in exports was some 47 per cent, from 148,0100,000 pounds to 79,000,000 pounds. In the year ending March, 1932, the exports of cheese had increased to 85,424,700, or about 8 per cent, and in the year ended March 31, 1933, the last year for which we have information, the exports were 85,711,600 pounds.
With regard to the imports of cheese in the corresponding years, in the year ending March, 1926, the imports into Canada were 6,678,757 pounds, and during the year ending March, 1933, the imports of cheese into Canada had dropped to 1,103,391 pounds. This cheese is practically all of a type that is not made in Canada.
Now for the imports and exports of butter. In 1926-27 the imports of butter were 7,029,084; in 1927-28 they were 15,626,007; in 1928-29 they had increased to 25,609 915; and in 1929-30 the figure was 41,919,372. The hon. member quoted the imports of butter for 1931, but that is really for nine months of the year 1930, because the 1931 figure is from March 31, 1930, to March 31, 1931, when we imported 16,500,801 pounds. In 1931-32 the imports were down to 879,670 pounds and in 1932-33 they were 876,894 pounds. This shows that butter from outside the dominion has not been coming in during the past two years to any very considerable extent to interfere with the market for butter in Canada.
'Mr. BEAUBIEN: Can the minister gave any reasons why our exports of cheese have diminished to the extent they have, and why to-day we occupy fourth position instead of first? What is the cause?


Robert Weir: The large decrease was not under the regime of the present government. I thought that was the criticism.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I am not concerned
about the regime under which it occurred, but the reason for it, if there is one.


Robert Weir: The reason for this decrease over a large number of years is the increased consumption of milk per capita, which formerly went into cheese and the production of other commodities, particularly of butter, following the establishment of more modern creameries, and to relatively higher-prices for butter than for cheese.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Am I to take it that the reason our exports of cheese have diminished in the present year, and that we now occupy fourth place instead of first place, is that we are not making enough cheese?


Robert Weir: My information is that we are in second place at the present time. The reason of course is that the cheese is not being made.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: This statistical bulletin of March 9, 1934, says that to-day we occupy fourth place in the export of cheese.
Mr. WEIR (Melfort); In what market?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Total exports of cheese, all markets. Are the Canadian manufacturers of cheese not able to supply the export market, and is that the reason our exports have decreased so that we now occupy fourth place?

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Robert Weir: The information
before me is that the Canadian exports to the United Kingdom for 1933 were 70,528,080 pounds; the New Zealand exports, 230,652,016. New Zealand is the only country that stands ahead of Canada in exports of cheese to the United Kingdom. If we had produced more cheese there would no doubt have been more cheese exported, but the reason we have not produced more, in addition to what I have given, I would say is that the market for the greater part of our cheese is the United Kingdom, therefore the price is the world price, and the world price of cheese has been forced down during the past two or three years particularly. When the farmer has the choice of taking, say, nine to eleven cents per pound for his cheese or getting a fair price for his milk converted into butter, the tendency is for the milk or cream to be diverted to the creameries for the manufacture of butter. That has led to a decrease in our production of cheese, which of course leads to the decrease in our exports.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Did the minister say
11 cents a pound for cheese?


Robert Weir: I took that as an example.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does the minister suggest that taking 17i to 181 cents for butter rather than 11 cents for cheese is sound business?


Robert Weir: To produce an equal return the price of cheese should be 50 per cent of the price of butter or butter fat. But a farmer ha's to take other considerations into account, not only the price he will get for his cheese in comparison with butter, but in connection with butter the value of the by-product, the skim milk for the feeding of pigs and other uses on the farm.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I happen to know a little about cheese. When I was a boy we used to take milk to the cheese factory, and I found that you could make more money by sending it there with cheese at say 9 cents a pound than by turning it into butter at 20 cents, even taking into consideration the by-products. And the farmer who takes his milk to a cheese factory has by-products, though they are probably not of as much value as if he separated his milk and shipped the cream.
It seems to me that there is confusion about these statistics, whether intentional or not I do not know. The minister says that according to his information we occupy second place in the market of Great Britain in regard to cheese exports. When I said a
[Mr. Beaubien.l
moment ago that we had fallen from first to fourth place in regard to all countries I made a mistake, this bulletin says:
Relative position of suppliers or exporters of cheese to Great Britain.
That is for January, 1934; it distinctly says that we occupied fourth position. If the minister's information is correct, that we occupy second place, while these bulletins that are circulated to the members almost every day show that we occupy fourth position, there is something wrong. It is confusing. The other day the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) complained about discrepancies in the statistics, and the same thing is very clearly brought out here.


Robert Weir: If I heard the hon. member correctly, the bulletin which he quotes states that the position of Canada as exporter of cheese to the world market-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: No, I said that at first, but I corrected it-to the British market.


Robert Weir: -was fourth. For what period is that? Is it just for the month of January?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: This bulletin, dated
March 9, 1934, says:
The relative position of Canada among the exporters of cheese to Great Britain in January, 1934. . . .


Robert Weir: There is no contradiction in the two statements. My statement was based on the yearly exports. In Canada very little cheese is made in the winter in comparison with the summer months.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: This bulletin says January, 1934. I suppose the comparison is with January, 1933, or why should they mention January specially?


Robert Weir: It is a monthly bulletin: that would be the relative position during the month of January.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: So you can take January as a basis. You could take March or any month so far as that is concerned, but you compare a month of 1934 with the same month of 1933, I suppose. Taking the government's own bulletin, our position as exporter of cheese to Great Britain in January, 1934, compared to January, 1933, was fourth place.


Robert Weir: In the winter months our production of cheese is much less, therefore we would stand in a lower position in regard to exports. In view of cheese being so much more of a summer product, the only fair

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
comparison is on the yearly basis. The point 1 was making is that the statement there that we were fourth in our exports to the United Kingdom for January is not contradictory in any way to the statement I made as to the yearly exports.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does the minister contend, then, that our exports of cheese in January were small because that is an off season? Does the minister contend that cheese is exported the month it is made? My understanding has been different.


Robert Weir: A great deal of our cheese is exported when it is very green, to a much greater extent than was the case a number of years ago. We feel that this is one of the criticisms we have to make with regard to the cheese industry at the present time. If it were possible to hold the cheese longer and cure it more it perhaps would go on the old country market in better condition, but today cheese is exported to a very great extent when it is green, and the people who purchase it in the United Kingdom cure it there.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: How long after a cheese is made is it fit for the export market?
Mr, WEIR (Melfort): It depends on the export market, and the same applies to the domestic market. Some people will buy cheese when it is green and when other people might consider not cured at all. An average statement is unsatisfactory, but a great deal of our cheese is exported within one to three months after it is made, depending on the locality and on conditions in the locality.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then with regard to the month of January, the basis of production has nothing to do with the low export at all, if the cheese is exported when it is about three months old. Is that right?


Robert Weir: One to three months.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Has the Department of Agriculture any way of ascertaining whether the cheese is properly matured before it is exported? If we are going to keep on in the dairying industry, as I think we will have to because of the prices paid for cereals, has the department any way of inspecting this cheese in order to see that it is in proper condition before it leaves our shores, so that we may be able to hold the market we have to-day and perhaps, in time, regain part of the market we have lost? As the minister knows, dairying is a very hard industry to carry on; it entails a great deal of work and a man is r"allv tied down to the farm.


Robert Weir: With reference to the time of export amy information is that mutch cheese is exported within one to three months after it is manufactured. There is another element that enters here and that would apply particularly in our winter months; Quebec and Ontario, and particularly eastern Ontario, which are the large cheese producing districts in Canada, rush off all the cheese possible before navigation in the St. Lawrence closes, because of freight rates.
All cheese for export is graded. As a result of criticisms received from the United Kingdom to the effect that some of our cheese arrived there not in the best possible condition because it was shipped too green, we have taken steps to stamp the date on the cheese itself. That action has been taken by regulation. We have no power, however, to interfere with the export of the cheese at any time beyond grading it and having it dated so that those who get it will know how long it has been since the cheese was manufactured.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: With reference to the statement made by the minister a few moments ago as to our position in regard to cheese exports I should like to refer to a paragraph in the commercial bulletin which states that during 1033 New Zealand reaffirmed its position on the export market, when she exported 8,743 tons of a total importation by Great Britain of 9,097 tons. Australia exported 217 tons, Ireland 91 tons, and Canada 46 tons.


Robert Weir: What period are
those figures for?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: According to the bulletin they are for the entire year of 1933. The paragraph states that New Zealand reaffirmed its position and in fact, as I interpret it, may gain on the export market. New Zealand and Australia certainly have trimmed us to a frazzle in the export of cheese. I am sorry the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) is not ihere; I remember tlhat he and many other hon. gentlemen now sitting opposite shed crocodile tears because of what the King government did to the dairying industry. In fact I remember how the genial Minister of Railways stated, in and out of this house, how the King government was ruining the agricultural industry, how they were reducing the chances of the farmers to make a living on the land. I never saw such a sympathetic bunch in my life as they were during the session of 1930. They had a bureau in a building across Wellington street, with a staff of I do not know how many-

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
Am hon. MEMBER:	It worked fine.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It certainly did, but it
will not work again. To-day the standing of those people who tried to fool the farmers in those days-I am speaking politically-is not very high. The farmers know they were fooled; that is shown by the figures in these bulletins, and the minister cannot deny it. The farmers have been deceived by this government; they have been induced and in fact almost forced by circumstances to go into the dairying industry. The minister knows that when cereal prices are low and a farmer cannot get enough from the sale of cereals to buy the necessities of life he has to go into the dairying industry even if he only receives a small amount, because he needs ready cash. The minister knows that today no farmer can go to a bank and get a penny, and the minister also knows that a farmer must have some cows in order to get a few pennies together with which to buy tea and sugar, even with a two cent excise tax on sugar. There must be some reason for New Zealand and Australia taking the place of Canada in the export of cheese. If one compared the present price of butter with the price of cheese I think he would find that it would be more profitable to take milk to the cheese factory. Either we are not producing enough cheese, we are not producing the quality of cheese, or there is something wrong with our commercial intelligence or trade agencies in Great Britain. I think that these statistics and the information contained in the commercial bulletin of the government certainly need some explanation. I hope the minister will be able to justify the figures and will be able to give us good and sufficient reasons why we are occupying that position to-day. Especially should he do so in view of the fact that the minister must take the responsibility for the Conservative party in regard to the propaganda which during the last election campaign they spread throughout the country. They promised a higher price for butter, they promised a higher price for cheese, they promised the Mafeking cutoff,-they promised everything. These are the results of the promises made by this government and the candidates representing it in 1030.


Robert Weir: With reference to
the statements of the hon. member to the effect that this government misled the farmers, may I say that no one person can speak for every speech made throughout all parts of the country. So far as my own information goes, however, I say that the promise of this party was that we would endeavour, first of all, to give the Canadian market to Canadian farmers, and I maintain that we have carried

out that promise. The effect of our action, translated into dollars and cents-a process which is more understandable to the farmer than would be a theoretical statement about markets-is this: The right hon. leader of the party, to which the hon. member who has just spoken gives his allegiance, has made the statement that if he were returned to power the duties would be placed where they were when he left office.


Mr. YOUNG:: Hear, hear.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
says "hear, hear." In dollars and cents the right hon. gentleman's statement means only this: Had the policies advocated by him been in force in April, 1933, the export value of our butter at that date would have been 10-94 cents per pound. I have figures here for other months, but I do not wish to bore the committee with them.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Is the figure given by
the minister one which he suggests would have obtained had the present right hon. leader of the opposition been in power?


Robert Weir: Yes, if our tariff
had been put where the right hon. gentleman said he would put it, namely, at the same place it was when he and his party left office. Had that been in effect the value of butter in Montreal would have been 10-94 cents per pound, plus the import duty of one cent.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: This must be a dream
the minister is having. Can he substantiate what he is saying or the figures he is giving?


Robert Weir: Yes, my figures are absolutely correct,. This is based on the export market in London. In the same week the premium on our butter, brought about by the action this government did take, and said during the election campaign it would take- not that the price of butter would be raised but that the market would be given to the Canadian farmer-was 18-06 cents per pound higher. That is, the premium over the export market was 18-06 cents per pound, which is an increase of more than 150 per cent over the price which the farmer would have got for his butter had he been selling it, at that particular time, under the arrangement promised by the right hon. gentleman opposite in the event of his being returned to power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: That is a dream.


Mr. FAFARD:: AVhat would have been the price of butter had the C.C.F. been in power?


Edward James Young: Would the minister tell us the duty?

Supply

Agriculture-Dairying
Mr. WEIR Melfort):	There is nothing
which would give me greater pleasure than to answer all questions at once, but I think the discussion would be of greater value and of more interest to hon. members, and I would be in a better .position to give information, if I were allowed to answer one question at a time. With the exception of the months of September and part of the month of October, in the year 1933, a premium existed over the export market during the months of January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, November and December.


Edward James Young: Will the minister tell us the duty on New Zealand butter?


Robert Weir: I should like to answer the question asked by one hon. member before answering that of another.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I will have a whole lot more to ask.


Robert Weir: That is fine; we welcome the questions. The bulletin to which reference was made appears to contain the information that for the year 1933 Canada was in fourth place, so far as the importation of cheese into the United Kingdom was concerned. I have before me the monthly report of the United Kingdom showing the figures on imports of cheese. The report indicates that in 1933 Canada exported 70,528,080 pounds, New Zealand, 230,652,016 pounds and Australia-and I understood the hon. member to say that Australia had a greater export to the United Kingdom than had Canada-is given the figure of 10,357,000. I do not think there will be very much gained by discussing across the floor of the committee any comparison of statistics the hon. member has in front of him and those I have in front of me unless I am given a copy of his figures and have an opportunity to study them.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I shall be very pleased to give the minister a copy when I am through with them.


Robert Weir: In 1900 the total production of butter in Canada was 30,066,739 pounds; in 1932 the total production of creamery butter was 214,002,127 pounds. At the same time the production of cheese decreased from 220,833.269 pounds in 1900 to 120,524,243 pounds in 1932.


Peter John Veniot: That is not so, according to the information the minister gave a little while ago.


Mr. VALLANCE:: We have three sets of figures now.


Robert Weir: One set gives exports, and the other production. In 1929 the production of cheese was 118,746,286 pounds; less than it was in 1932. In 1930, the production was 119,105,203 pounds.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Mr. Chairman, I must
say I have had dreams similar to the one the minister has been describing to the house when I have dreamed of a comparison between what the farmers would have received had the right hon. leader of the opposition been in power and what they have received since this government has had office. But I must give to the minister and to the committee my reasons for such dreams: I had been out the night before. Let us compare the price of butter between the years 1926 and 1930 with-


Samuel Gobeil: Oh, oh.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The hon. member for
Compton laughs; why is he not fair? Why is not the minister fair in his comparisons?


Samuel Gobeil: Compare with the world
prices.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The minister knows he cannot substantiate what he has just said as to prices the farmer would have received had the right hon. leader of the opposition been in power. He knows that better than anybody.


Samuel Gobeil: London is where we sell our butter.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will you kindly keep
quiet? You have said two or three words too many in this house for your own good. The less you say from now on the better for you.


Samuel Gobeil: That is your point of view.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The minister has not
yet explained to me, and I should like his explanation before this item passes, why Australia and New Zealand occupy the position they do to-day, and not only that but have strengthened their position in the market of Great Britain while Canada has not done so. I will send a copy of this bulletin over to the minister so that he may see the figures for himself. If they are not correct, why are they published?


Robert Weir: Might I ask the hon. member to read from the bulletin the Australian exports to the United Kingdom market for the year to which he refers.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: During 1933?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying '


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am going to read it,
but it is in French, and I will translate it as I go along, and the translation will be just as good as the translating that will be done under the Secretary of State's new bureau.


Mr. QUINN:: Read it in Irish. To-morrow is St. Patrick's day.


Charles Gavan Power: He would sure be right
then.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Here are the exact words:
During 1933 New Zealand reaffirmed its position on the markets when its exportation amounted to 8,743 tons.


Robert Weir: To the United Kingdom market?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Yes. It goes on:
Out of a total importation of 9,098 tons Australia contributed 217 tons, Canada 46 tons and the Irish Free State 91 tons.


Robert Weir: Forty-six tons for Canada?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Yes.


Robert Weir: And Australia two hundred odd?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: That is what it says. I will read it again:
During 1933-


Robert Weir: Is that for the entire year?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It says, "During 1933." That must mean the whole year:
During 1933 New' Zealand reaffirmed its position on the markets when its exportation amounted to 8.743 tons. Out of a total importation of 9.098 tons, Australia contributed 217 tons, Canada 46 tons and the Irish Free State 91 tons.


Peter John Veniot: Even the Irish beat us.


Robert Weir: That is for one year?


Peter John Veniot: He has given you what it
says.


Robert Weir: The hon. member at the outset said something about having dreams, and that what I said was not based on fact. What I stated was based first of all on the statement of the right hon. leader of the opposition that if he was returned to power the duty would be lowered or placed where it was when he went out of power. But we do not need to go back. At the present time the price of butter in Montreal is 29? to 30 cents a pound wholesale. The price of the finest Australian butter in London is 15-7 cents per pound. Now if the duty imposed against importations of butter into

this country was one cent a pound, which was the duty at the time the present opposition went out of power, Australia could pay that cent a pound duty and deliver their butter here at 16-7 cents a pound, which would mean a difference from- the present price of 12 or 13 cents a pound.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I ask the minister a question right at that point? In view of the figures given by the hon. member for Drumm ond-A r tibab a ska (Mr. Girouard) a little while ago of the importations of butter from Australia and New Zealand, will the minister tell the committee how much more the Canadian farmer would be receiving for his butter to-day if this government had prevented the importation of that Australian and New Zealand butter? It is just as logical for me to ask that question as for the minister to make the comparison he does.


Robert Weir: The butter imported into Canada during each of the past two years, as I read earlier, was less than one million pounds.


John Vallance: But suppose it had not been imported, what would have been the difference in the price?


Robert Weir: If it had not been imported the price certainly would not have been lower. Therefore the figures that I quote are at least safe figures. If that butter had not come in we might naturally expect that there might have been some increase in price, but the amount imported was only two-days' supply of butter for the whole dominion. This butter has been let in up to the quantity that I have stated, and in spite of that our butter is at the price it is, but if it were not for the present duty butter would be coming into this country to-day on the same basis as it enters the United Kingdom at the price stated, plus the duty.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: In other words, that means that the importations of butter under the Liberal regime decreased the price of butter to the Canadian farmer, while importations of butter under the Conservative regime increased the price of butter to the Canadian farmer. That is the only conclusion one can draw.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: You let in 35,000,000 pounds under the Liberal government, at a cent a pound duty.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The reason why we imported butter from 1926 to 1930, and no one knows it better than my hon. friend is that we wanted our people to have butter on their bread-that and no other reason.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Richard Burpee Hanson: You let it come in here because you had no weapon to keep it out. Everybody knows that, and that is why the farmers voted against it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Nobody knows better than my hon. friend that any time cereals reach the prices prevailing from 1926 to 1930 the farmers are not going to produce dairy products unless they are crazy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Speak for your farmers.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am speaking for our farmers. You have no farmers in your part of the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have better farmers than you ever dared to be.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The minister knows well that when the farmer can get 60 and 65 cents for his barley, 50 and 60 cents for oats, and $1.25 for wheat, he is not going to milk cows unless he has to. If you compare the prices received for butter in 1926 with those received in 1930 you will find that they were higher then than under this regime.


Peter John Veniot: Ten cents a pound.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: And that in spite of no
duty. The minister seeks to interject a political side to this issue when I am quite serious in my efforts to help the farmers. He stated that if the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King had been Prime Minister such and such a thing would have happened while such and such a thing has happened because he and his colleagues are in power. I think he is going beyond the facts and is giving us just a little dream of his own. The minister has not answered my question as to why Australia increased her importations of cheese into the British market while Canada's imports continued to go down. I should like to know why this has happened in the face of the promises made and the glowing pictures painted during the last elections. I want to get this point clear as it is something the farmers want to know.


Robert Weir: With reference to
the matter of political interjection and the hon. member being so serious for the welfare of the farmer, the committee might note that he started his own statement with the words "speaking from a political standpoint."


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: That was an answer I
gave to some back-bencher who interrupted me.


Felix Patrick Quinn: What are you, a front
bencher?


Robert Weir: The hon. member
quoted from the Commercial Intelligence Journal and sought to show that Canada had taken fourth place in the exports of cheese to the United Kingdom. I shall read from this bulletin for the information of the committee.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Is that the French copy?


Robert Weir: No.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I was reading from the
French copy.


Robert Weir: The statement
which the hon. member read is headed "butter" not "cheese." This reads:
New Zealand imports of butter into Avon-mouth have again moved upward. In 1932 they amounted to 5,908 tons out of a total import of 6,200 tons, and those from Australia amounted to 226 tons compared with 29 tons from Canadian ports.


John Vallance: The hon. minister will
notice the portion marked from which the hon. member quoted.


Robert Weir: I was starting at
the beginning.


John Vallance: Do not mix it up with the cheese.


Felix Patrick Quinn: They do not mix.


Robert Weir: It is all under the
same heading of "butter." It continues:
During 1933 New Zealand strengthened her hold on the market by increasing to 8,743 tons out of a total import of 9,098 tons, Australia contributing 217 tons, Canada 46 tons, and the Irish Free State 91 tons. Danish and Russian butter is sold in quantity but supplies are not imported direct.
Mr. VALLANCE. Would the minister mind sending that over.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the minister mixes
butter and cheese it will be a new mixture.


Robert Weir: I was not mixing
them.


George Gibson Coote: There is a good reason why
New Zealand and Australia have captured a large share of the market in Great Britain. For the last three years the British pound has been worth a considerable premium in Australia and New Zealand. About a year and a half ago the British pound was worth fifty per cent more to the Australian exporter in his own currency than it was to the Canadian. This is the real reason why Australia and New Zealand have taken the butter and cheese market from the Canadian producer.

Criminal Code-Race Meetings


John Vallance: This all goes to prove
that we should have a new translation system. The minister gave me the exports of cheese to Great Britain in 1933, and I should like to have them for 1932.


Robert Weir: The exports of
cheese for the year ended March 31, 1933, amounted to 85,711,600 pounds; for 1932, 85,424,700 pounds, which is less and for 1931, 79,590,400 pounds, still less.


John Vallance: Following up the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), the other night when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) was trying to get some estimates through it was pointed out that we were not holding the trade in wheat and cereals between Great Britain and Canada. I think the whole thing resolves itself into the difference in exchange. Because of the sound money policy of this government we now find ourselves in this position. The minister compared the position of the farmers of Canada between 1926 and 1930 with their position in later years and tried to make out that that position had been improved. He knows just as well as I that that argument cannot stand and will not be accepted by the farmers.


Robert Weir: I was answering a
statement made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien).


John Vallance: The farmer of western
Canada and of eastern Canada as well has never been in the plight in which he finds himself to-day. I do not wish to go over the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and members of his party during the throes of the last general elections, but in February, 1932, the price of wheat was the lowest it had been in four hundred years. In *the face of this fact we have the minister standing up and trying to convince this committee that to-day the farmer is in a more enviable position in connection with butter production than he was from 1926 to 1930.


Robert Weir: I did not state that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Sour
grapes; you do not want to see the price of butter go up.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. RAYMOND D. MORAND (East Essex) moved the second reading of Bill No. 35, to amend the criminal code (race meetings).
Mr. BROWN:: Explain.


Mr. MORAND:: The purpose of the bill is simply to remove the present twenty day period that intervenes between two race meetings of seven days each: it has nothing to do with the principle of racing or with increasing the number of days of racing. Under the criminal code as it stands, a period of twenty days must elapse between one race meeting of seven days and the next meeting of seven days. With conditions as they are now, particularly in our city, in view of the fact that the state of Michigan now has racing one hundred and twenty days in the year, it is difficult for those having investments in race tracks in our city to find ways and means of holding two meetings of seven days each, whereas it would be easier to have a meeting of fourteen consecutive days.


Albert Joseph Brown: This does not increase the total number of days?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: No, nor the total number of races.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: I have no objection to the bill being read the second time, but I would ask that it do not go into committee until we have had an opportunity of communicating with the various provincial governments on the subject. They are entitled to a certain amount of taxation on the pari mutue.1 system, and I should like to ascertain whether they have any objection to the proposed change.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Dairying, $234,000.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Before the house rose at six o'clock we had discussed this item for about an hour, and it was also under consideration on another occasion. I do not wish

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
to prolong the debate to any extent, but there are a number of things that might be discussed here, particularly some of the statements made this afternoon. Those of us who were here in
1925	will recall that butter became a political issue after the enactment of the Australian treaty in 1925-I think it was then. From that day to this it has been more or less a political issue.
Now, while I do not think that we should spend too much time going over ancient history, nevertheless, in order to make the record right, I wish to make a few references to that occasion. The price of butter in 1925 was high, running between 35 and 40 cents per pound wholesale, basis No. 1 pasteurized in the city of Montreal on January 1. At the election of 1925 and also at the election of
1926	it was attempted by the then leader of the Conservative party, now leader of the Senate, to make more or less of a political issue of this subject; but butter being so high, it was difficult to do that and it did not cut very much ice, if at all, in either election. In 1930, however, the same treaty was still in vogue, although there was in it one anticipated change introduced by the Hon. Mr. Dunning in his last budget on May day 1930, in which he intimated to the house that he had given notice to the Australian government, and I 'believe to the government of New Zealand as well, that after October the duty on butter from the antipodes would revert to 4 cents-what it had been for the previous quarter of a century. I would point out that it was really 4 cents, and had the Liberals come into power it would have been 4 cents. The minister's calculation is wrong when it is suggested that it would have been only one cent had the Liberals come into power again in 1930.
We come now to the present day, and before going any further I would direct the attention of the house to the fact that while the Australian treaty was the occasion of a political issue, for four successive years after the enactment of that treaty, butter averaged 40 cents per pound in Montreal on January 1, basis No. 1 pasteurized. It can readily be appreciated therefore that in view of that high price not much of an issue could be made of butter, notwithstanding the fact that the duty had been reduced to one cent a pound; and one of the reasons why we reduced it to one cent per pound was simply that this was in accordance with the general policy of making treaties with any empire or other government on the basis of lower and not of higher tariffs. That might have been a political
mistake but it was not an economic mistake; it was not a mistake so far as the interests of the consumers were concerned, and when the high price to the producers was what it was then. Why, farmers would think they were in clover to-day if butter in Montreal were 40 cents a pound. Last fall it was less than half that amount. During 1929 and particularly during 1930, butter, naturally with other commodities, went down and it was then that the terrific onslaught was made on the Australian treaty, with appreciable results, in the province of Quebec at all events. Probably [DOT]most of the seats lost to the Liberal party in that province were attributed to the Australian treaty; the treaty was blamed for it. *There are a number of other reasons I will not discuss; it is past history. The question [DOT]is, what are we to do now? What are the causes of present butter prices?
Last fall, I remember, some of us were in [DOT]Mackenzie riding doing some big game hunting, and butter fat in the month of October [DOT]was exactly 14 cents per pound, just half [DOT]what it is to-day. I have word from my [DOT]home to-day that the last can of cream we sold fetched 28 cents, on the basis of butter fat for table cream, twice what it was last October. You cannot credit that to the byelection in Mackenzie; there are a number of causes to which it can be attributed. One cause however is that butter is scarcer now, and no doubt scarcer all over the world. I do not know what stocks there are throughout the world or in cold storage here, but this condition cannot be attributed either to the by-election in Mackenzie or to the Ottawa pacts because that was a year and a half ago, and the downward tendency persisted after that. It cannot be attributed to the present duty on Australian butter because that was on last fall also. We shall have therefore to leave it to the minister to explain why the price was only 14 cents last fall whereas to-day it is exactly twice as much. It is difficult to find reasons for this, because we can argue about anything from statistics. You know what is said about statistics-of course I will not repeat it here, but there is more or less truth in it. We are statistically cured now. We are getting such a dose of them we may be spoiled if we get overdosed.
But I am concerned about another matter. I find that according to a bulletin I have here, issued jointly by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce, there is some danger of our being asked to restrict still further our exports to the old country. The hon. member for

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) referred this afternoon to the reduction in exports of cheese. The reports indicate that almost every month these export British quotas are going on for various Canadian commodities; first on wheat, then on cattle, oats and eggs, and now we are told there is going to be a quota on dairy products from the antipodes, and very likely we may be asked to apply it to dairy products from Canada. Before going any further I would like the minister to give us some assurance regarding quotas on our dairy products. These gentleman's agreements with the motherland are very nice, but there is an Empire bargain, and while there was not much in it at any time for us in the matter of dairy products there will be still less if a quota is put on our cheese, still further restricting our exports. I would like to know what the situation is, if there is anything pending as far as the minister knows as to a quota being put on dairy products from Canada, or from the antipodes either, by Great Britain.


Robert Weir: Answering the last
question first, as far as my information goes there is nothing to lead us to believe at present that a quota would be put on against our dairy products. I believe that matter has been under discussion between the Australian and the New Zealand and the United Kingdom officials.
Going back to the statement made by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Val-lance) before the committee rose, I do not think anyone could justly give the interpretation he did to anything I said as to the comparative condition of farmers in Canada in 1929 or 1930 and the present time.


Edward James Young: There is no comparison.


Robert Weir: I realize that the
condition of agriculture in Canada is not what we would like in many respects. The condition of farmers in practically all countries has become very much worse since the beginning of what is called the great depression. The only comparison that could fairly be made would be between normal conditions in various countries and the conditions as they exist at the present time.
With reference to the price of butter fat being 14 cents a pound in the fall and 28 cents at the present time, when butter fat was at 14 cents we had accumulated in Canada a stock of butter greater than was required for our own consumption. The butter in storage in September was about 42,000,000 pounds, which I believe proved a

surprise to most of the trade, and when they realized, upon the report coming out, that storage stocks had reached that amount they became alarmed, seeing that the price they had been paying averaged some four cents per pound more than would have been warranted had they realized that we were going on an export basis. That forced them to export some butter, and therefore the price fell to that of the export market. At that time we called a conference and were able to have some of the different holders of butter-and some who were not holders, as they felt it would be healthy for the trade -export some butter from Canada even at a loss. Therefore the reason for the price of butter being what it was then was that we were forced on the world market. At the present time we are very near a balance of production and consumption. That is why the market is what it is at present.
Mr. MOTHERWEI/L: I think that explanation is quite logical. Canada was aiming not to be obliged to export any butter, just to meet our own requirements, so that we might artificially, by means of a tariff get more than the export price. Whether that is an attainable and ambitious object I leave to the committee to decide. Since then some export has taken place, relieving the pressure on the market, and prices have responded.
My hon. friend indicated that he did not think there was any danger of a quota being imposed on our butter, although there had been some discussion with regard to the antipodes. That is all the information that I have as to the antipodes. But we have here a bulletin called "The Agricultural Situation," and, a significant thing, it is put out by two ministers, so it ought to be doubly right. There are not going to be any mistakes about this bulletin; two ministers will stand behind its accuracy. It states that it is-
Published' by authority of the Hon. R. Weir, Minister of Agriculture, and the Hon. H. H. Stevens, Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I wonder if this is significant in connection with what we hear every day, that these two departments are going to merge, with the Department of Trade and Commerce on the outside. The minister perhaps can give me some particulars about that also. Anyway this is a nicely gotten up bulletin. Here is what it says about the dairy products quota question, on page 28:
The large and increasing volume of butter and cheese imported into the United Kingdom has caused the British government to enter into discussions with New Zealand and

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
Australia with a view to the voluntary restriction of exports of these products to the United Kingdom. If any such agreements are concluded between the United Kingdom and New Zealand and Australia, Canada may be asked to take similar action;
That brings up the whole question of how far Canada is to go to meet Great Britain in the matter of these quotas, and how long it is going to take for us to be squeezed out of the British market with a lot of our farm commodities. That is what we are heading for, as far as I can see. On the next page it says:
The possibility of restrictions on imports of dairy products into the United Kingdom would suggest that it would be advisable for Canadian producers to develop home consumption as much as possible.
I hope that advice will not be given to us in regard to wheat, that we will have to eat all we produce, because that is more than we can do, and feel comfortable. But our butter quality has improved and has been improving for years. Our consumption per capita I think is the highest in the world, and the home market in Canada is a great factor, because even this year we have been coming pretty close to eating all we produce. But if that is to be our aim in all farm products we will be known as a tail-end country, just dragging along. Canada has been known as a great agricultural country, better known for that than possibly anything else; are we to aim to supply only our own requirements in such products as butter, bacon and eggs and other such farm products.
Reverting to this bulletin, I am afraid there is more in this merger proposition than may appear. I can recall that at one time copyrights and patents which now come under the Trade and Commerce, were under the Department of Agriculture. Grain never was under the Department of Agriculture; in the last century it was under the Department of Inland Revenue, among the tobaccos and whiskies, and from there is was transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce. In the past these various services have been in the habit of gravitating from agriculture to trade and commerce to help make that a better and more important department, and I am afraid if the minister is not on his guard they will be swiping something more from agriculture when he is not looking. He had a very excellent official representing the Department of Agriculture in London when this government came into power, but it was not long before the Minister of Trade and Commerce had that most capable gentleman in his own department, bag, boots and body, and I know he got hold of a good man.
Now we have this joint bulletin which I hold in my hand. Is this another step in the direction of absorption of Agriculture by Trade and Commerce? I want to tell the minister that if anything like that is going on he can depend upon at least one individual to back him up in resisting it; I will do all I can in that way. As a matter of fact, if there is to be any swiping or changing it should be in the direction of having agriculture all under one minister, and logically that should be the Minister of Agriculture. I know of no country in the world that has agriculture under two ministers; it only results in more confusion and more mistakes, and I question if either department will be any better off by this sort of interlocking of departments. It is all right to have a companionate marriage which can be dissolved as quickly as possible after disillusionment, but I should not like this merger proposal to go any further. The farmers do not want to be running after two ministers. In connection with the proposed marketing act the general report on the street is that it will be under the Department of Trade and Commerce. Our farmers want to go to the Minister of Agriculture when they want anything; they do not want to be trotting after two ministers, and I repeat the logical, proper and sympathetic place for them to go is to the Minister of Agriculture. I think perhaps if the minister would give us some assurance on that point we would not need to talk any more about this matter. A word from him would be sufficient, and I hope he does not mind the candour with which I have discussed the question. Those are the facts, and we have the evidence here in this merger bulletin.


Robert Weir: In the first place
my information is that the per capita consumption of butter in Canada is 30| pounds, while in New Zealand and Australia it is 35 pounds. If our consumption were to increase to that extent we would wipe out the exports of all dairy products.
With reference to the bulletin, it is the outcome to a large extent of a series of conferences between the various provincial departments of agriculture, those connected with agricultural colleges and with provincial and federal institutions, which culminated in a conference in Toronto in 1932 at which it was agreed that by getting together and discussing the problems of agriculture and the possible means of solving those difficulties a good deal of duplication and wastage would be eliminated. It was felt that in publications alone there was a great deal of wastage and duplica-

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
tion, and sometimes' disagreement, so it was decided to set up a committee representative of these organizations interested in agriculture. The committee named was composed of one member from the federal department, Doctor Booth; Doctor Grindley of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and Professor Lattimer of Macdonald College. Their first publication, I believe, was the Agricultural Situation, which I think hon. gentlemen interested in agriculture will agree was a commendable contribution for a beginning, and which served the purpose of assembling the combined thought of the various interested organizations. This bulletin is sponsored by that committee. I do not think I should be asked to make any prophecy as to what will take place in the future; I do not think I could do so.


William Richard Motherwell: It is quite apparent that the minister is not greatly enamoured of this proposed absorption at all events; I am glad he is not, and I need not discuss it further.
Now I wonder if I dare refer to a matter which has been rather controversial on this side of the house, as well as on the ministerial side. It seems to me that dairying is too closely associated with the national life and national health of Canada to be discriminated against as is the case at present. I am referring to the grant which formerly was made to the National Dairy Council. Two or three members on this side of the house took some objection to the activities of the council prior to the last election; I always said that even if they were indiscreet they were not half as much so as the gentlemen who composed the horticultural council. I do not think either organization should be tied down in connection with public questions; that is my own personal view. That is the ground I have taken, though possibly other hon. gentlemen will differ with me on that point. I do not think they will differ, however, as to the principle that either these grants should remain in all these branches of agriculture or they should be eliminated from all branches. I think that is a fair proposition. I am not suggesting that they should be eliminated in any branch, but I realize how much dairying means not only to the east but also to the west where it is becoming more important all the time, and it does seem too bad that this one branch of agriculture, founded on that old standby the dairy cow, which never fails no matter how much prices may vary, should be discriminated against. The old cow keeps on freshening and producing her milk from which come the many dairy products into which milk is processed. They go on year after year, no matter what happens; they never fail. Yet there is

no government grant for her. When I turn to the estimates of two or three years ago I find a grant of $5,000 for the National Dairy Council. I was not responsible for it; I do not feel sensitive about that grant disappearing because I did not initiate it. It was done before my time, though it is true that on my recommendation the grant was increased. Does not the hon. gentleman think that the National Dairy Council, which is composed of excellent men, has been disciplined enough and without cause through the elimination of the grant for two years? Does he not think the grant should be restored so that all these organizations will be on a parity? Is that not a fair proposal? I am sure the minister would feel inclined that way. I do not think there would be much fuss over here if that were done, and even if there were the minister only has to look at the noses he can count over there in his rear guard. You can do what you like in any case, but if this grant is restored I shall not be tempted to make an issue of the matter in the next election. There are enough public issues without bothering with this matter important as it is. I should like to see this discrimination remedied if possible.


Robert Weir: The position with
reference to the grant to the National Dairy Council is this:	They stated specifically that
they did not desire a grant, and after due consideration they felt that they would like to be free and not subject to the criticism which had been made in the past that their policy was in any way coloured by the acceptance of a grant. They stated they would rather not have it.


William Richard Motherwell: Would that apply
to the other two organizations.


Robert Weir: They have not yet notified us that they do not want it.


William Richard Motherwell: I am afraid these
gentlemen made this statement after their heads were chopped off, and they made a virtue of necessity by making the best of it that they could. I shall draw the attention of the minister to one or two facts concerning that useful body of live stock men known as the livestock pool, just nicely started to export cattle to the old country. They were struck twice, once by adverse exchange and the other time when the minister withdrew the federal grants from them. Between the two misfortunes, they were just about doubled up and put out of business. I am afraid that this body, the National Dairy Council, like everybody in these times, whether it be con-

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
nected with church or state, have found great difficulty in financing, and I aim afraid that the same fate will befall the National Dairy Council that befell the live stock marketing association. It is not the loss of the $5,000 alone that would do it, Mr. Chairman. It is tantamount to saying that the government's countenance, as well as its cash, is withheld from the dairy council and the dairy industry, and that the prestige of the organization has been impaired. This is the body, more than any other body, which is responsible for abolishing both the manufacturing of and the importation into Canada of oleomargarine. I think my hon. friend would not require to press a grant upon them, because the old dynasty has gone-the old president has resigned, and the old secretary has gone hence. I think the minister Would find no difficulty in putting them on a parity with the other two organizations.


Robert Weir: In the first place,
I did not understand the hon. member to refer to the Canadian Live Stock Cooperative Association. They did get into some difficulties through a misunderstanding they had with the cooperative in the United Kingdom- although they felt that they had been misunderstood-and with the drop in exchange- they were placed in a very embarrassing position.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right.


Robert Weir: Their new president came to see me in connection with the matter, and although there was no commitment whatever on our part, and although it was aside from any grant which had been made to them, it was felt not only because of the excellent work that they had done but of the possibility of work which they might continue to do, we could give them a special grant from a special vote, sufficient-and this was their request as a matter of fact-to let them out of their difficulty. I think the amount was about $10,000. That was their request, and we gave them that amount.


William Richard Motherwell: That would be only doing the same for them as the Minister of Finance did for the cattle shippers last year. For about forty days he was good enough to pay the exchange on thirteen commodities, one of which was cattle. I say that was a proper procedure towards the live stock pool, and I appreciate it. In that regard they were being treated the same before the stabilization fund came down as others were treated afterwards.


John Vallance: In dealing with the
Canadian quota into the British market, the hon. member for Melfort suggested a question to my mind which I should like to direct to the minister. I should like him to correct me if I am wrong. Is the importation of Canadian cattle into the British market the same for the first three months of this year as it was last year?


Robert Weir: It is more this year.


John Vallance: That is, it is extended now to six months, do I understand?


Robert Weir: Yes.


John Vallance: Has the minister any reason to give us as to why the British government has seen fit to take this action?


Robert Weir: The action was taken because of a number of circumstances. In the first place, when it was forecast that a very severe embargo was to be imposed against Irish cattle going into the United Kingdom, old country buyers before the imposition of this regulation bought all the cattle from Ireland, that they had money to buy with, or that they could borrow with which to buy, I believe. The result was that they had more cattle on hand than they had feed with which to properly look after them. Some of those cattle in the spring of 1933 were being forced on the market in a more or less unfinished condition and in quantities which had a depressing effect upon the market. Then, to accentuate that condition, in July and August of last year, a drought which had been unprecedented for years in the old land reduced pasturage to the point where they were forced to put on the market still more cattle than those people who were in the best position to forecast had thought possible. These cattle, too, were not finished as well as they should have been. Because of this drought, the root crop in the old country was very much below normal. Those hon. members who are acquainted with methods of feeding obtaining in the old country will understand that the basic food is supplied by the root crop. Especially is that so, I believe, in Scotland. This shortage continued the process of forcing cattle on the market in an unfinished condition, and in greater quantities. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the old land, hoping to improve the price of cattle, followed the same line he had followed with reference to bacon, and placed an embargo of fifty per cent against the importation of Irish cattle. That is, they could export to the United Kingdom only fifty per cent of the cattle they had exported during the same period ir

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying

previous years. The Irish Free State, not to be outdone, and to show that they did not have to do what the United Kingdom said they should do, decided they would take matters in their own hands and would not export as many cattle, even, as Great Britain had stipulated they would be allowed. That is the rather incongruous position now obtaining. At the same time the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries asked that we cooperate with them to hold off the market as many cattle as possible to see if the price would not go up. At first they asked that for three months we would not ship any more. They did not ask for a cut in our shipments, but simply that we would not ship any more in the first three months of 1934 than we had in the first three of 1933. That was felt to be not entirely satisfactory, because our first shipment in 1933 did not begin, to any extent, until late in January, and after negotiations had taken place the period was extended to six months. We feel that there is a probability-and I would not like to put it any stronger than that-that with any improvement of conditions, before the expiration of six months, if we can show it will be a hardship on us, there may be a further extension.


John Vallance: Following up the reasons given by the minister, may I offer some others which were produced on the floor of the British House of Commons. I find that the Marquess of Titchfield asked the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries whether, having regard to the fact that imports of cattle from Canada since January 1 had been greater than in the corresponding period of last year and to the stabilization arrangement announced by him on December 20 last, he had any statement to make on the subject. The reply of Mr. Elliott was as follows:
His Majesty's government in Canada have not found it possible to regulate imports on the basis of one-quarter only. They have, however, agreed' that the period of stabilization should be extended to the first six months of this year. Under the revised arrangement, total arrivals of Canadian cattle during the months January to June, 1934, will be limited to the aggregate figure for the corresponding period of 1933.
So it appears that we are not going to be permitted to ship any more cattle from the first of January, 1934, to the end of June, 1934, than we did during the corresponding period in 1933. But the quota in 1933 was applicable only to the first three months. I should like to ask the minister this question: Does this new order of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the British House of Commons apply also to oats and eggs?
{Mr. R. Weir.]


Robert Weir: My understanding
is that it does not apply to eggs. I am not in a position to say whether or not it applies to oats. My own impression is that it is not really effective so far as shutting out any of our oats at the present time is concerned, that there has been no hardship and no restriction has been necessary on the export of our oats. I thought I covered the point when I was on my feet before with reference to this being a hard and fast agreement for the first six months. We feel that if we can show cause, consideration will be given, just as they showed consideration in the extension of the first three months, because they do appreciate that we have tried in every way to cooperate with them. The number will be in the neighbourhood of 20,000 cattle on the basis of 1933. It was thought some two or three weeks ago, with the improvement of the situation in the old country, that there would be no necessity for restriction at all, but since then due to the conditions I have outlined the price has been depressed still further and things have not improved the way they had hoped.


John Vallance: What is the machinery, if any, that the department uses to see that that quota is offered, 'and what is done with the number of head above the quota that can be exported?


Robert Weir: There have been no steps taken so far to restrict the shipment of cattle from this country. If it is found necessary to make restrictions provision will be made to give the government sufficient authority, I understand.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Before six o'clock when I was questioning the minister I inadvertently made an error. I was reading from a publication of the government, the Bulletin des Ren-seignements Commerciaux, and quoting from an article headed "Les Importations de fro-mage et de beurre de 1'ouest de l'Angleterre en 1933. D. S. Cole, Commissure du Commerce." The article is in French and I translated it into English. I will now read it in French:
Au cours de 1933, la Nouvelle-Zelande a raffermi sa position sur le marche en portant ses envois a 8.743 tonnes sur une importation totale de 9.098. et 1'Australie en a eontribue 217, le Canada 46, et l'Etat Libre d'lrlande 91.
I will now translate the heading into English :
Provision Trade of the West of England in 1933
D. S. Cole, Canadian Trade Commissioner Cheese

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
When I was translating the paragraph into English in the house I did not notice the word ''butter" in small print. I made this error inadvertently, and I apologize to the minister and to hon. gentlemen. I hope that this explanation will prevent any wrong impression which might otherwise have been created. But after making this explanation I still maintain, Mr. Chairman, that Canada in its export of cheese to Great Britain occupies fourth position only, and in substantiation of my statement I refer to the bulletin issued by the statistics branch on March 9, which distinctly states that Canada occupies the fourth position in its export of cheese. I trust that the minister will accept in good grace this explanation which I am making to remove any impression that may have been created that I was trying to give a false statement to the house.


Robert Weir: With reference to
the statement of the bulletin that we occupy fourth place, I think hon. members will feel that that is not a fair statement considering the conditions under which the cheese industry in this country operates and the desire to get all manufactured cheese out of the country if possible before navigation doses. January is not therefore a fair month to take for comparison. So far as the hon. gentleman's statement with reference to the mistake he made before six o'clock is concerned, I do not think anyone listening to the discussion and appreciating the seriousness with which the hon. member was making his quotations had any idea whatever that he was trying to misrepresent anything, and everyone will gladly admit and realize that it was a mistake that anyone might have made.


Mr. VBNIOT:: Can the minister tell us how much Canadian butter is in storage in Canada at the present time?


Robert Weir: On March 1, 1934, Canadian storage stocks of creamery butter amounted to 7,056,695 pounds.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Has the minister any record of a shipment of New Zealand butter landing in Halifax since the first of March or a week or ten days previous to that?


Robert Weir: A number of shipments have arrived. Referring to a direct shipment from New Zealand I quote a telegram from Halifax, Nova Scotia, dated 74726-100i
March 16, and addressed to Mr. J. F. Singleton, dairy and cold storage branch, Ottawa:
Yesterday's price current make only. To-day's price the same. Canadian Scottish discharging Monday, Canadian Victor tomorrow.
That is a shipment direct from New Zealand.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: An item has appeared in the press that 12,000 boxes of New Zealand butter were landed at Halifax and that the shipment was held up for a number of days, after which 5,000 boxes were released. Can the minister tell us whether that is so or not?


Robert Weir: This, of course, comes under the Department of National Revenue. A number of shipments of butter did arrive in Halifax. There was some doubt whether a certain shipment was from New Zealand to Halifax via the United Kingdom and not directly from the United Kingdom. If the shipment came from New Zealand billed to Halifax, routed through the United Kingdom, it would come under the New Zealand treaty, under clause 4 of which the shipment may be held in bond for thirty days. That is why that shipment was at first held until an investigation could be made. In the meantime the Department of National Revenue got in touch with the various importers and very satisfactory arrangements have been made bv which this butter will be released in quantities which it is felt cannot unduly depress the price of butter. We have given a good deal of stud}' to the butter situation in the mari-times as a result of these shipments, and the latest information we have from the dairy commissioner in Nova Scotia is to the effect that at first he thought it was the increased production in Prince Edward Island that was coming into Nova Scotia, but the latest information is that none of this butter so far has been released for sale in Nova Scotia.
The situation is rather delicate.


Peter John Veniot: Where is it released for sale?


Robert Weir: Montreal, Toronto and various points in the east. At the present time the storage stocks of butter are perhaps the closest to consumption needs that they have been for many years.


Peter John Veniot: 7,000,000 pounds.


Robert Weir: That is just a little over a week's supply. That 7.000.000 pounds is in storage in different parts of Canada. As I say, a delicate situation exists at different points in the dominion in the obtaining of

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
supplies as soon as required. An effort is being made to embarrass no person and to keep prices at the present level. It is felt that during the winter months butter cannot be produced, even by the most efficient farmers, at any lower price.


Peter John Veniot: I take it that special protection was given to the producers of butter in Nova Scotia because none of this butter was released for sale in that province. Why give special protection to Nova Scotia and not to New Brunswick?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: You need a lot of butter.


Peter John Veniot: It is quite true that a lot of hon. gentlemen slid in on butter in 1930 but they may slide out on the same article in 1934 or 1935. I cannot understand why butter from New Zealand should be released for sale in Montreal where the consumer obtains a benefit not available to the consumer in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. It would appear that the present demand for butter is greater than the supply and, therefore, New Zealand butter is being released. This same situation existed in 1930 when Canada produced 280,000,000 pounds as against a demand for 310000,000 pounds. The importation of 30,000,000 pounds or thereabouts was permitted in order to meet the demand. I protest against the release of New Zealand butter which has been landed at Halifax for sale in Montreal and elsewhere, as this benefits only Nova Scotia. The 'benefit should be made applicable throughout Canada. My information is that in the vicinity of 12,000,000 pounds were landed at Halifax.


Robert Weir: Not 12,000,000
pounds.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps I may be mistaken. There were 7,500 boxes, and I do not know what each box contained.


Robert Weir: Fifty-six pounds.


Peter John Veniot: That would be in the vicinity of 6,000,000 pounds.


Robert Weir: Seven thousand boxes at fifty-six pounds would be in the neighbourhood of 400,000 pounds, less than half a million. I do not think the objection of the hon. member to the release of this butter outside of Nova Scotia is well taken. The storage of butter in that province this year was greater than the year before and I do not think this release gave any more protection to the farmers of Nova Scotia than to those in any other nart of the dominion.


Peter John Veniot: It is a queer thing that they could not find a market in Montreal for the home butter.


Robert Weir: The butter was released in the larger centres where there was a greater immediate necessity. We felt that by doing this there would be less effect upon the price of butter. The brokers stated that they had difficulty in obtaining an immediate supply. I believe the arrangement has proven satisfactory to the trade and to the producers and it is also fair to the consumers.


Peter John Veniot: How much butter was in
storage last fall in New Brunswick?


Robert Weir: The three maritime provinces are given together. The stocks of creamery butter in the maritime provinces on March 1, 1933, were 446,021 pounds, and on March 1, 1934, 651,548 pounds.


Mr. BOAVMAN:: Will the minister give
comparative prices for the better grades of butter in New York, Montreal and London?


Robert Weir: Yesterday's prices
on the basis of our own exchange were 29i cents to 30 cents in Montreal, 291 to 29i cents in Toronto, 24J cents in New York, 26 cents in Halifax, and 15tj cents in London. The London price is for the finest Australian butter, which is comparable to ours.


John Vallance: So the export market
has nothing to do with our price.


Robert Weir: That is because
we protect ourselves against the export prices.


John Vallance: The minister stated
there were 7,000,000 pounds of butter in storage; is that all Canadian?


Robert Weir: 'Canadian butter.


John Vallance: How much butter is
there in bond to-day?


Robert Weir: The latest information we have is 4,315 boxes of fifty-six pounds each, and some of that may have been released since.


John Vallance: AVhat are the regulations, if any, which permit bonding of butter in Canada?
Mr. AA^EIR (Melfort): Clause four of the New Zealand agreement.


John Vallance: Is that applicable only to New Zealand?


Robert Weir: New Zealand or
Australia.

Supply-A griculture-Dairying


John Vallance: Suppose butter was
shipped in bond from some other country, what rules or regulations would apply?


Robert Weir: I am not sure that I understand the hon. member's question. My information is that any importer can bring butter in bond, and it would remain in bond until he wished to release it. He is saved the paying of duty until it is released.


Edward James Young: What are the conditions
for getting it out of bond?


Robert Weir: In a case like that he would pay the duty.


Edward James Young: What is the duty on butter from New Zealand?


Robert Weir: Five cents per
pound on direct shipments unless clause four is invoked, when it is about eight cents per pound.


Edward James Young: What is clause four?


Robert Weir: I could not give
it offhand.


Edward James Young: Give us the substance of it.


Robert Weir: If we feel that
butter is being imported into Canada to an extent to injure the dairy industry, we can protest and place the butter in bond for a period of one month.


John Vallance: Does the British minister of agriculture rely on that clause to control his market?


Robert Weir: That is a clause in the agreement between New Zealand and Canada.


John Vallance: Does the same clause
appear in all the agreements?


Robert Weir: There is a different clause in the agreement with Australia.


Edward James Young: It is placed in bond for a
month, then what happens?
. Mr. WEIR (Melfort): If no satisfactory arrangement can be arrived at the butter will be released on payment of duty under the British preference.


An hon. MEMBER:: A duty of 5 cents per pound.


Robert Weir: No, 8 cents. That lifts it out of the treaty.


Mr. BERTRAND:: Before six o'clock the minister spoke of the very advantageous price [DOT]of butter we were enjoying in Canada, and during the dinner hour I looked up some of the prices that had been paid. I consulted my
good friend, the hon. member for Temis-*couata (Mr. Pouliot) to see1 whether he had anything in his file in connection with this question, showing the prices paid for butter [DOT]throughout the season by the different boards. The prices at the board to which I am going to refer now were those paid in 1933, and if hon. members will follow me they will see [DOT]what the figures actually were.


Robert Weir: At what point?


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: This is the Temiscouata board. On May 8 the price was 19J cents.


Samuel Gobeil: How .many boxes?


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: This was sold to Hodgson Rowson Company Limited of Montreal.
There were 53 boxes sold on that day, and if
they bought any more	they	did not pay	
higher prices at other points.		Perhaps, I had	
better give a list of the	prices:		
	Boxes	Price	
May 8	53	0.19	3-4May 15	79	0.17	1-16May 22	113	0.16	9-16May 29	118	0.18	J une 5	174	0.17	5-16June 12	233	0.18	June 19	420	0.18	3-8June 26	394	0.18	1-2July 3	401	0.20	July 10	488	0.19	3-8July 17	282	0.18	7-8July 24	234	0.19	3-16July 31	414	0.19	7-16August 7	268	0.18	13-16August 14	338	0.17	11-16August 21	232	0.17	9-16August 28	290	0.17	1-16September 5	536	0.17	September 11	258	0.18	September 18	212	0.18	1-8September 25	226	0.18	5-3October 2	197	0.17	1-2October 9	74	0.18	1-4October 16	196	0.17	3-4October 23	36	0.18	1-4October 30	59	0.19	
6,325
The season was over for that board, and the figures I have quoted will indicate that the prices paid there and the return to the farmer were less 3 cents per pound for the cost of manufacturing. We have therefore an idea of exactly what the net price to the farmers was. This however is not the point I wish to make. The important point is that these prices were paid to the producer duing the season of production and, as the minister explained a moment ago, during the summer we came to have an overproduction in Canada and we were afraid of what would happen to the 42,000,000 pounds

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
that we had-I am taking the minister's figures. We were therefore on an export basis. The minister was trying to credit the tariff with the high price of butter in Canada, but I would point out that when we are on an export basis the tariff will never benefit the producer. I will give further proof of that statement. During that period we exported butter: we exported to Great Britain for example, in the months of August, September, October and November, and a few pounds in December. This was probably on the good advice of the Minister of Agriculture, after there had occurred the discussion to which he made reference, that the amount of butter on hand should be reduced to assure better prices. But what happened is that during the season of production in Canada butter was low, and the intermediary, or whoever buys butter

like Hodgson Rowson, A. A. Ayer and other firms that have bought butter at different boards-and put it in warehouses. When the season was over the tariff still existed, and that is where the difference comes in. While we were on the export basis the producer was producing, so that he did not get the high price for his butter; but as soon as we were off the export basis we were all consumers. This is where the tariff plays the trick, because the consumer pays the high price. So that when it is said that we are now enjoying a price of 30 cents for butter, the fact is that the intermediary gets the benefit; the producer did receive from 13 to 15 cents per pound during the producing season, and the consumer is paying the difference. The fact is that in the non-producing season it is the consumer who pays. The minister said that we were selling butter at 29 cents as compared with 24 cents in New York and 15 cents in London, but I would point out to him that the producers have not benefited at all. That is the extent to which the tariff helps the farmer.


Mr. BO YES:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Not just now, I am sorry; I wish to follow the argument through.


Mr.   LAELECHE@Translation: If I may inquire, what remedy do you suggest?


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I regret that I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to interrupt me, although he is one of my compatriots and I sympathize with him. I want to be fair to everyone. To proceed, I would point out that the tariff has worked to the advantage of the intermediary, who gets the benefit of the prices which London may be fixing, plus trans-

portation charges, plus tariff, which enables him to boost butter prices in Canada, so that the consumer, as I have said, has to pay the difference. This is the only benefit which agriculture is deriving from the tariff in Canada. So much for butter for the present.
With regard to cheese, I listened with a good deal of attention to the argument of my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. Beaubien). Hon. members opposite discovered that he had made a mistake and they were getting a good deal of comfort from that fact, but I was pleased to hear the minister admit that anyone is apt to make a mistake occasionally. I would refer the committee to the bulletin prepared by the Commercial Intelligence Journal, dated March 17, 1934. We are not reassured at all by this bulletin in regard to the prospects for cheese exports in the future. You will observe that I have taken the precaution not to discuss butter in connection with this bulletin; 1 am speaking of cheese just now. Mr. D. S. Cole, Canadian Trade Commissioner, writing from Bristol, makes this statement:
Bristol, February 17, 1934.-New Zealand and Canada are the chief direct suppliers of cheese to the west of England, . . .
I emphasize that. Apparently in some parts of England at least we shall have trouble in the future as far as our exports of cheese are concerned.
Imports of Canadian cheese have fallen off heavily during the past year, and it is understood that while the chief consideration is the difference in price between Canadian and New Zealand, this is not the only reason. Prominent cheese importers state that in the past Canadian cheese has been brought direct to Bristol and then matured for several months before marketing. This was owing to the popular demand for a matured cheese. The public taste is now changing somewhat to a milder cheese which can be met by New Zealand, and has the advantage of cheapness owing to the premium which is paid' for the Canadian product.
And here are figures as to the importations of Great Britain from the different countries:
Importations into Bristol for the past four years:
From	1930	1931 1932 (Tons)	1933Canadian ports. .	. 3,239	3,008	4,215	2,500New Zealand. . . .	, .4,524	4,977	5,216	6,1837,763	7,985	9,431	8,683
Consequently there is an increase in the importations of New Zealand cheese to that part of Great Britain of 1,600 tons, while the figures as to Canada show a decrease of over 700 tons. So even if the hon. member for Provencher did make an error in presenting

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
his point he was not very far from the facts. The Canadian people should be warned of the danger of losing markets abroad. I think the Minister of Agriculture might very well explain to the committee and to the Canadian people how they are to face this situation. While this bulletin says that New Zealand cheese is selling cheaper than Canadian cheese on the British market, it is of interest to follow the matter further and compare the prices of Canadian and New Zealand cheese respectively when translated into the money of New Zealand and the money of Canada. What we find is that the New Zealand producer receives more in New Zealand currency for his cheese than the Canadian producer gets in Canadian money for his. Although the competition is keener for our producers, the New Zealand producer gets more for his product than we are getting in Canada for ours. I hope the minister will explain how we are going to face this situation and what is being done to meet it, so that our exports will increase instead of decrease.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) who in business life is engaged in merchandising, will I am sure appreciate more fully than some other hon. members the facts that I hope to place before him, and that they are not altogether in accord with the statement and the interpretation he has given with regard to the price of our butter. The prices quoted were paid by the Temiscouata board. In the first place they might not be representative of the prices paid generally in the dominion.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Would the hon. minister then quote the different prevailing prices on a market like Montreal, to indicate how much difference there would be week by week throughout the summer?


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to
[DOT]do that if it is felt necessary.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Well it is, Mr. Chairman. The minister has indicated that my quotations are not exact. In justice to himself if he can repudiate my statement he should give the necessary information.


Robert Weir: I did not say that
the statements of the hon. member for Prescott were not correct; the quotations the hon. member gave I did not dispute. The prices of butter quoted by the hon. member, 19J, 1(7t5, 16+, 18 and 17 cents, were the prices paid during* the summer months of 1933, according to the information put on Hansard. If it had not been for the protection given
to our dairy producers during that time the daily farmers in that locality would have met with this competition; the world price of butter in the United Kingdom during that time was 12.05 cents per pound. It can be laid down in Montreal at practically the same price. It costs something to get the butter from Temiscouata to Montreal; so if they resolve the price of say 12.5 at Montreal back to Temiscouata it will be at least somewhat lower. The price of butter fat being closely related to the price of butter, I think hon. members will admit that it would come to at least 4 or 5 cents a pound less for butter fat than they actually got. I am sure the hon. member realizes that, and if he will discuss seriously with any creamery man in Canada, as I have done, because of the steps we felt it necessary to take to have some butter exported, they will confirm what I say; that is that the average price of butter fat paid to farmers from one end of Canada to the other during the summer of 1933 was 4 to 5 cents a pound higher than it would have been had there not been this protection, had they been paid on the basis of the export price. That is what concerned the holders of butter in the fall, the creameries, the cooperative creameries in particular in different parts of Canada. They had paid more for their holdings than they should have paid, if they were to be in the position of having to export in the fall on account of this surplus they had in stock. That was not realized until the statistics of butter in storage came out on the first of September. Immediately they decided that to protect themselves they would have to drop the price of butter fat. They did that; the cooperative concerns had already done it in parts of the dominion. It was with this in mind that we called into consultation the holders of butter and the big distributors. In fairness to these men I must say that some of them held no greater quantities of butter than they could reasonably expect they would have been able to dispose of. Yet to assist in the situation that had arisen they agreed to take the loss themselves of lifting this surplus off the market, in the hope, of course, because that was the argument we used, that it would be to their gain to do so, giving a healthier tone to the market.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: They are making up for this to-day.


Robert Weir: The effect of that was that immediately the price paid for butter fat increased right across the country and the farmers got the benefit. As to the undue profits that it has been suggested these people
15S2

Supply-A griculture-Dairying
made in holding butter, let us have the picture fairly before us. The hon. member for Prescott knows that you cannot hold butter from June until February or March except at a considerable cost for storage, which is in the neighbourhood of a half cent per pound per month.


Edward James Young: Is that per month?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Not a half cent per pound per month.


Robert Weir: I have been informed, not only by officials of my own department but also by cooperative concerns that are truly representative of farmers, that storage charges, interest, insurance and other items that enter into the cost of holding butter total from three-eighths to one-half cent per pound per month.
There is another point in that connection which I should like to mention to the committee; it is this, that in September the full ' significance of the effect of the shortage of feed was not realized in connection with the production of butter; the reduced production that took place was not expected. If normal conditions had obtained and the early winter had not set in throughout the country and particularly in the west, resulting in production being cut down and thus creating a scarcity where otherwise there might have been a surplus, conditions would have been different. At that time these men did not expect to be able to sell their butter for more than 21 or 22 cents a pound, in which case their profit would have been made on a very narrow margin indeed. Actually, however, when they lifted these few million pounds off the market the price of butter immediately went up all through the country, and the price of butter fat went up almost in direct proportion. During the period when the price was increased the production of butter in Canada amounted to from 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 pounds a month, so the increased price paid for the butter fat due to the protection the industry has been given, amounts to a very considerable sum. Of course the difference in the cost of production as between the winter and the summer is taken into consideration, but that difference would have obtained even if there had been no increase in the price of butter, so that increased price was reflected back to the farmer, and the increased price of butter fat on the basis of
8,000,000 to 9,000,000 pounds of butter a month shows that this increase benefited the farmers very much more than it did the private concerns that held this butter and took the risk of being able to get rid of it.

If everything had not broken the one way, with poorer crops and the early winter which resulted in a lower production of butter, many of the people holding butter, unless they advanced the price for butter fat for the current make, would have stood to lose very materially.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Following that may I ask the minister when the butter was lifted off the market? I think that was the expression he used.


Robert Weir: The figures are as follows: September, 1,719,900 pounds; October, 1,763,800 pounds and November, 533,000 pounds.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Those are the amounts that were exported?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I just wanted to refer to this point, Mr. Chairman. During the time we had a surplus of butter we were also exporting. The bureau of statistics has supplied me with the figures just given by the minister, so we can take it that during September, October and November we were on an export basis. What was the price then paid to the producer of butter? The minister has said that if we had not had the advantage of the tariff the producers of butter would have suffered a considerable loss, but just let us see what weight can be attached to that argument. It was then known that the butter had to be lifted off the market; the press broadcast the fact that we had 42,000,000 pounds of butter, and everyone wondered what we were going to do about it. Let us compare the figures; it may be that my figures are not exactly correct, but they are in line with butter prices throughout the country, and if they are not correct let the minister give me the statistics for which I asked. During the first week of June the price was 17 cents and we were not on an export basis. During the first week of September, when we were on an export basis, the price was also 17 cents. How did the tariff help the situation; what did the tariff do for the farmers in June? According to the minister we were on an export basis in September; how does he explain the following figures? In the second week in June and September the prices were 18 and 18J cents. Is the advantage with the June period? No, the advantage is with the September period; of course it is. As we follow the weekly prices for June and September figures*we find a variation one way or the other of from one-eighth to one-quarter of a cent a pound.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
Let us be fair and frank and call it even; what exactly is the situation that remains? While we were on an export basis we were getting the world price, consequently the tariff did not help us at all. During the period when we had the local market, the sheltered market about which we heard so much, according to our friends opposite we should have received four or five cents more per pound, but that was not so; we received less than when we were on an export basis. So I say, Mr. Chairman, that my statement that the tariff did not protect farm products still stands.
The minister advanced another argument that I almost overlooked; he said that in September so many pounds of butter were released and from 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 pounds of butter were manufactured, and that as a consequence the price of cream advanced. The only variation that I find during the period mentioned, when the minister says the farmers enjoyed a better price for their butter, amounts to very little. The price ranged from 17 to 171 cents, one occasion touching 18# cents. The minister has said that the farmers have enjoyed an advantage during the period he mentioned, but I do not see how he can substantiate that argument. The farmer did not receive a greater price during the period in question. As I have said, the intermediaries or the jobbers have secured the whole production of butter at a price of from 17 to 18 cents per pound during the producing season, and are now selling it at 29 cents a pound. Unless the minister can suggest some further argument I will not accept his statement that the farmers have benefited by the increased price, and that the intermediary is not receiving the full benefit.


Robert Weir: If I understand the hon. member correctly, I gather he is urging that if we had no protection in Canada for the dairy industry butter would not be selling for any less than 29 cents a pound. Is that correct?


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: If the minister wishes
to know my opinion I shall tell him that if we had no tariff, the consumer would enjoy lower prices at periods when the farmers are not producing.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
is making the admission that if we did not have a tariff the consumers would pay less and the farmers would get more, and that the production is 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 pounds per month.


Edward James Young: No he did not say that.


Robert Weir: The question of
the price paid for butter in the month of June and in the following months would be based, as the hon. member knows, on the estimate that the trade would make-I refer to the cooperative creameries and so on- as to the price that they would have to pay for their requirements in the winter months. The only butter on which they would realize any considerable profit-and	that when
distributed over the country would mean very little-would be the surplus, Which is only a small proportion of the whole amount of butter; that is, there would be 42,000,000 pounds less 4,000,000 pounds. These brokers or holders of butter sold it and lifted it off the market in the months of September and October, not at the export price but at a loss to themselves.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: That being so, I should be quite willing to release 4,000,000 out of
42,000,000 pounds at a slight loss of a few cents per pound, if I were to make a big profit on the remaining 38,000,000 pounds. I Should be quite willing to do that, and it would be good business on my part. Let us be frank and clear as to my argument that if there were no tariff the consumer would enjoy lower prices when the farmers are not producing. During the summer the farmers were producing and we attained the position where we had to face world competition. There is no better proof of this fact than that in the months of August, September, October and November we were on the world market, and we had to accept world prices. Consequently the farmers could not enjoy a sheltered market. Probably the suggestion will be made that my argument does not hold for all the months in question. Then, let us consider these four months I have named. During the months of August, September, October and November we were on the export basis, and consequently, as I have said, the farmers could not benefit by a sheltered market. We had to face the competition of the world, and the prices in Canada were at that time as good as they were in the months of June and July when we did not have to face world competition. This is the condition that the farmers and the producers have to face, and this has always been the case. I am very happy to be speaking to a good cause at the present time, and to make an effort to show that the tariff does not help the farmer, due to the fact that he sells on the open market. He sells in competition with the world and buys on a sheltered market; consequently he operates at a disadvantage. There can be no

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
doubt about that. In the four months I have mentioned, we were on the open market and had to face world competition. At the present time we are not on the export basis; we are on the import basis, because we are importing butter. Consequently the sheltered interests are receiving benefit from the tariff, putting up the price of butter, and the consumer is paying for it.


Robert Weir: I regret to have to take further time of the committee, but the hon. member has completely evaded the point at issue, namely that butter is now selling at 29t- to 30 cents a pound. He states that if there were no tariff it would be selling at a low price, which means that the farmer would be getting less than he is at the present time.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: He is not producing it.


Robert Weir: The farmer is producing to the extent of 8,000,000 pounds a month, and that is on a basis of the highest cost, which makes it much more beneficial to him. The statement is made that in August, September and October we were on an export basis, and that the price paid for our butter was as high as or higher than it was in June-
Mr. B-ERTRAND: Just the same.


Robert Weir: The reason for that, of course, must be evident to the hon. gentleman, because in June the world price or the export price of butter was much lower than it was in August, September or October. And had it not been for the protection afforded at that time, butter would have come into Montreal and to the west coast at a price in the neighbourhood of 15 or 16 cents a pound at the outside. It is a mere mathematical calculation to follow the cost back to the prairie or to the inland districts of eastern Canada. That is, butter could be laid down in Vancouver, according to the figures the hon. member has given, for at least three cents a pound less than the farmer was getting for butter at inland points in Canada. And if that butter which was then being made was in direct competition with the Vancouver butter-that is the outlet for the Alberta butter and in a similar degree it holds in the east-the price that the farmers got for their butter offered at that time would have been, as I said before, considerably less than what it actually was.


Edward James Young: As I understand the minister's explanation, it is something like this: that during the producing season last summer the creameries paid to the farmers more than their cream was worth because they did not

understand the true situation. If they had understood the true situation they would not have paid it. Then, in September, they realized that they had a surplus on hand of
42,000,000 pounds of butter. They were afraid they would have to export this surplus and so force the price down to the export level. Then the government stepped in and appealed to the holders of butter to sacrifice some of their holdings on the world's market, in order to lift that load off the Canadian market. In connection with that there is a story. It is said that the only man who loses in a gentleman's agreement is the gentleman. Some of those appealed to did unload their butter on the world's market at sacrifice prices; others did not. Those who did, later on found that they had to replenish their depleted stocks from those who did not in order to supply their trade and at higher prices. But before very many million pounds were unloaded, the winter set in. It set in much earlier than had been expected; the fanners found themselves without feed, and immediately we had a shortage of butter instead of a surplus. It seems to me that the best thing the government could have done would have been to stay out of the market altogether. If they had stayed out, it would not have been necessary ito ask anybody to unload. The natural course of events would be to force the price up, as the minister explained, because there was a shortage created through the shortage of feed in the early winter. Now he tells us that the price of butter in Montreal is 29i cents a pound and in London 15-7 cents a pound. There is a difference of 13-8 cents a pound between the Montreal and the London price. He also tells us that we have large quantities of New Zealand butter in storage here, which under certain conditions might be released by paying a duty of four 'cents, and under other c auditions by paying a duty of eight cents. Suppose it pays the highest possible rate of duty, eight cents; that would still leave it 5-8 cents cheaper than the Montreal price. I ask the minister how he accounts for that spread of 5-8 cents between the Montreal price and the price of New Zealand butter in storage here even with the highest duty he can put upon it.


Robert Weir: Dealing with the
hon. gentleman's first statement, that more was paid for butter than it was worth-or perhaps it would be a fairer way to put it that more was paid than they would have paid if they had realized the situation-I think the best proof of what the effect of this whole thing meant is the messages that we

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
received, and I am sorry that I do not have them with me, from the cooperative organizations and creameries in different parts of the country.


Edward James Young: I am not disputing the
minister's statement. I accept it. I am quite willing to believe that they paid that price not knowing what the actual price would be.


Robert Weir: The hon. gentleman also wanted an explanation of why the butter price in Canada, when we are importing butter, is higher than the London price plus the highest duty we can put on it. I think the hon. member himself is sufficient of a business man to realize the situation. When a man starts to ship butter from New Zealand it is very much of a guessing competition what the price will be six or eight weeks later when that butter arrives in Halifax. Had they thought that the price of butter would, have stayed at the price it is now, I have no doubt that a much larger quantity of butter would have come forward.


Edward James Young: Then why don't they sell
what they have here?


Robert Weir: Because we have
made an arrangement with them which we feel is satisfactory to everyone, that the butter will be released gradually. The greater part, almost the whole of it, has been released already without any appreciable effect on the market.
Mr. YOUiNG:	That is to say they could
release it now by paying the highest duty of eight cents, and still make a profit of 5-8 cents a pound. If they are not doing that it is because they are holding the butter in anticipation of a higher price. I think the minister's policy is encouraging the speculator in butter.


Robert Weir: They are not holding the butter as speculators in the ordinary sense, but an arrangement has been made with them under which the butter will be released. So far as the legality of the thing is concerned they could release the butter when they paid the duty, but they have been fair enough to listen to our representations and they feel that it is more in the interests of everyone to release it gradually. The butter has been released except four thousand boxes of 56 pounds to the box, which is a very small amount of butter which no one would think of holding for purposes of speculation.


Mr. GOLDING:: I have been listening
very quietly to this argument, and I should now like to ask the minister two questions.
First, can he give any estimate to what extent, in dollars and cents, agriculture has been benefited by the tariff, and secondly, what has protection of all the other industries cost agriculture in the past year?


Robert Weir: I am sure the hon. member is not serious in expecting an answer offhand, but if there is any information he desires in that direction I shall be glad to get it for him so far as I can. It is a fairly simple matter to make a rough estimate of what protection means to the farmer. Some of the values of protection to the farmer I put on record on a previous occasion, in the debate on the address. Using the figures I used this afternoon, protection netted to our farmers in one week in April, 18-06 cents a pound more for every pound of butter produced than it would have netted had there been no protection of that industry.


William Richard Motherwell: Eighteen cents?
With a duty of four cents?


Robert Weir: That is the difference between the export price and our price.


William Henry Golding: I quite appreciate that
my question is a difficult one to answer offhand, but I take it for granted that the minister has the interests of agriculture at heart and is anxious to see that industry properly protected. I am quite satisfied to wait any length of time if I can find out what protection of all the other industries in this country has cost agriculture during the past year.


Robert Weir: The hon. gentleman must remember that under the past government there was no protection, so to speak, given to agriculture in Canada. This is the first time I believe in the history of the Canadian government that any government has attempted to protect agriculture and to treat the farmers of Canada on as nearly as possible the same basis as all governments in the past have treated the so-called private or special interests.


William Henry Golding: I do not give a snap of my finger for what has been done in the past. The question I am asking is what has actually taken place in the past year. I am not concerned about previous governments.


John Yeo: I am quite interested in the discussion which is taking place in regard to butter and cheese. I think hon. gentlemen opposite feel that the protection which has been afforded to agriculture by this government has been of considerable benefit to the farmers, and yet they don't like to admit it.

Supply-A griculturc-Dairying


An hon. MEMBER:: They are just playing politics.


John Yeo: Possibly they are playing politics to a certain extent.


Charles A. Stewart: You never
do it over there, do you?


Mr. BOYES:: A short time ago the Minister of Agriculture explained why there was not as much cheese being exported from Canada as there had been in the years past, and he named a number of ways in which milk is now being used which was formerly used in the manufacture of cheese. But there was one thing he forgot to mention, and that was that a lot of milk is being manufactured, especially in Ontario at the present time, into condensed milk and powdered milk. There are quite a large number of factories in Ontario, especially in the western part of the province, which are now manufacturing milk into condensed and powdered milk. That milk was formerly used in the manufacture of cheese. Another reason why I think there is not as much cheese exported now as formerly is that this government is affording protection to the farmer by not allowing cheese to enter this country free as it formerly did. We are still manufacturing cheese in Ontario and Quebec to quite an extent but in the western provinces, especially British Columbia, practically no cheese is being manufactured. In former days the cheese which came into these provinces was imported, whereas to-day considerable of the cheese manufactured, especially in western Ontario, is shipped to the western provinces.
I feel that our producers are receiving considerable benefit from the protection afforded on butter. If it were not for the protection enjoyed to-day I am quite sure we would not be receiving much more than 16 or 17 cents per pound. Some hon. members on the opposite side have said that the farmers are not producing milk at this time of year, but I think they are in error. In the western part of Ontario the creameries run the year round and produce large quantities of butter. Our producers are receiving benefits which they would not have received had the previous government continued in power. The farmers in my community are appreciative of the fact that this government is in power, and that they have a protection which is making money for them to-day.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member stated that the reason why the production of cheese has fallen is because more concentrated milk is being manufactured; is that right?


Frank Boyes: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: On page 558 of Hansard will be found certain statistics with respect to the exports of concentrated milk. The 1933 exports of concentrated milk to the British Empire were $380,103 more than the exports in 1930, but the exports to foreign countries were 81,231,196 less. There is a loss there of $851,093. The home consumption of concentrated milk for 1932-33 as compared with 1930-31 showed a loss of 48,990,807 pounds. What is the use of making more concentrated milk when we are consuming over 48,000,000 pounds less and our exports are down $851,000? I cannot understand1 the soundness of that proposition. My hon. friend cannot be well informed or else he is dreaming. Perhaps he is dreaming about the millions the Ottawa agreements were to -bring to the farmers of this country. These are statistics which have been given in the house and which have not been contradicted by the Minister of Agriculture or any other minister. I defy them to contradict them. The Prime Minister dots the i's and crosses the t's of the typewritten text of my speeches but he does not dare to contradict one single figure which I have given. He pays me a great honour by doing that but he- cannot contradict my statistics because they were obtained from the bureau of statistics. As far as concentrated milk is concerned, the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Boyes) knows nothing. That is the first point. Let us see about cheese. What have been the benefits of the Ottawa agreements in this regard?


An hon. MEMBER:: We cannot hear you.


Jean-François Pouliot: There are none so deaf
as those that will not hear. If my hon. friend does not understand me, perhaps I had better speak in French.


Mr. SPROULE:: Then they will hear you nt home.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps if my hon. friend crossed the aisle and sat beside me he could understand what I say. I am doing my utmost to be agreeable and pleasant to him. But I shall not quote only statistics, I shall quote the words of the prophet, the almighty, the human almighty or the semi-god almighty in connection with cheese. Sometimes he talks about profane matters which are of great interest to the farmer but let us see what this human almighty, whose absence we deplore so much at this time, said about cheese two years ago. Here are his words which appear on page 127 of Hansard of 1932-33:
-and the entire quantity of the type of cheese- produced in Canada the direct effect of this preference is not so important.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
According to this prophet, cheese is a negligible matter. There has been considerable discussion this afternoon and this evening about this commodity and I congratulate the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) upon the logical argument he put forward. I sympathize with the minister in his embarrassment, but it is easy to understand why he is embarrassed. What about cheese? Cheese is good. It is good to eat but the trouble is the farmer does not receive any benefit from our eating it. The Prime Minister was so busy with the possibilities and the potentialities of hogs when he spoke on that memorable October 12, 1932, that he paid no attention to cheese. The result is that the exports of cheese to the British Empire in 1933 were down $4,688,904 as compared with 1930, and the exports to foreign countries were down $441,497, a total decrease of $5,130,401. Apparently there has not been the great success which the hon. member for East Middlesex claims has been achieved. The imperial conference has not proven to be such a great benefit to the farmer in connection with the exports of cheese. The home consumption in 1932-33 was down 7,548,392 pounds as compared with 1930-31. Our exports, the major part of which are to the British Empire, were down by over $5,000,000, while home consumption had decreased by over 7,500,000 pounds. It is not a very successful policy. And why was the home consumption of cheese less? It is because the people have no money to buy cheese. They eat bread without butter or cheese, just plain bread. They have no money to buy cheese. If the people had more money they would buy cheese and the farmers would be more prosperous; they would be happier.
Let us see about butter. There is more butter produced-admitted. Let us take one year before the imperial conference of 1931, the year after the butter victory. On May 26. 1931. I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question, as reported at page 2006 of Hansard :
Mr. Pouliot: So long as the production of butter in this country is less than the consumption, is it necessary, in order to supply the trade and the public in general, to import butter ?
Mr. Weir (Melfort): Do I understand the hon. member's question to be this:	If the
production of butter in Canada is less than the consumption, should we allow the importation of butter?
Mr. Pouliot: No; is it necessary to import butter from outside?
Mr. Weir (Melfort): Yes.
In winter we produce less butter. In 1931 we imported 344,000 pounds; in 1932, 50,972 pounds, and in 1933, 1,199,000 pounds from
New Zealand. If it was bad to import New Zealand butter in those years, is it better to import it now? I put that question to the committee. I remember well that in the last general election, in every small parish or town, the Conservative speakers were saying it was a crime to import butter from New Zealand. We still import butter from New Zealand. Is it a crime or is it a virtue to import from New Zealand? I do not express any personal opinion; I am merely reminding the house of what was said at the time by the very friends of my hon. friends opposite and by themselves. And now the present government is doing much better 1 Thanks to them, we are importing, not candied fruit but butter from Syria, from Asia Minor, from all corners of the globe. We imported 2,264,000 pounds in 1931 from Australia and in 1932 160,000 pounds from that country. We are importing butter from those beautiful islands of the Pacific, the Fiji islands, 9,408 pounds.


An hon. MEMBER:: Cocoa butter,


Jean-François Pouliot: It may be called cocoa butter but it is plain butter just the same. From Newfoundland, we are importing 300 pounds; from Syria, 160 pounds; from the United Kingdom, 181,000 pounds. According to the evidence given by the Minister of Agriculture, butter is very fond of travelling. Butter was going across to England and coming back to Canada. The butter was shipped to England and returned to Canada. That has never happened before, but this government is doing marvels. We have a kind of travelling butter, butter which goes across and comes back, like a boomerang-boomerang butter. It is marvellous. This was in 1931, and in the last year also we imported 75 pounds of butter from Syria, probably to make the balance good, and some more butter from the United Kingdom. We are on an export basis. We export butter to the United Kingdom and we import butter from the United Kingdom. It is a kind of peddling butter. It is a most extraordinary thing; the butter goes to and fro, crossing the ocean like Lindbergh and coming back.


An hon. MEMBER:: It must be cheese.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it is butter. Perhaps the hon. member would like to follow the course of the butter.


John Thomas Sproule: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


John Thomas Sproule: Will he sit down and see
if we can get along a little faster?
1588	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture

Dairying


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is a farmer and I am not, but I know the farmers and I work for them, and I am showing the absurdity of the policy of this government with regard to agriculture. I might go to his constituency and have a joint meeting with him, in any place in his constituency, and discuss agricultural matters with him, and I would not be afraid to do so, just as I have done in other parts of Ontario, and I am sure his electorate would listen to me and say: "That man from Quebec is fair, because he takes the trouble to listen to the grievances and miseries of the farmers; he wants to adjust these matters so that there will be fair dealing in the House of Commons of Canada". I have never been bullied by anyone, Mr. Chairman, and I have never been impressed by anything of that kind, and I suggest to the hon. gentleman that instead of making jokes about my stand and what I say about butter he should appreciate the fact that a man who is not a technician in agricultural matters takes the trouble to study them in order to give a little help to the farmer, who is so much neglected by this government.
Now that that matter has been settled, Mr. Chairman, let me remind the Minister of Agriculture that the matter of rock bottom prices of butter came up in the house in 1931, and this is what was said. I am quoting from Hansard, page 2091, of May 28, 1931.
Mr. Pouliot: Would the minister be kind enough to give me the information referred to yesterday afternoon about the rock bottom price reached by butter when the Australian butter was released?
_ Hon. .Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture): The date when it was mutually agreed to release the Australian butter was April 21. The price of butter on that date was 22 cents a pound.
On May 28, 1931, the Minister of Agriculture stated in the committee that he thought he had good reason to believe that the rock bottom price of butter was 22 cents a pound. He knew nothing about the future. This evening, my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) has read figures which have been published in the St. Laurent Weekly of Riviere du Loup, my home town; he gave those figures and I will not repeat what he has said. Those were the prices paid for butter in Temiscouata during last summer. The farmers were complaining that they were making no money out of the dairy business. What do we see now? One can argue and split hairs for hours and days and months, but what is the direct result of that so-called agricultural policy of the government? Here is a paper which explains it, le Bulletin des Agriculteurs. Here is a book of 300 pages,

the Quebec Official Gazette. I will not read it so you may be reassured, sir, but I know the information contained in it. Le Bulletin des Agriculteurs is published by Mr. Donat C. Noiseux. It is a Conservative paper published in Montreal; my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) knows that paper, and knows that it never has a good word for the Liberal party. In the issue of February 8, 1934, it states that 2,554 farmers in the province of Quebec will have their land sold for taxes. Here I have the issue of January 27, 1934, of the Quebec Official Gazette, which contains pages of names of farmers whose land was to be sold because they could not pay their taxes. Why could they not pay their taxes? Because they got no benefit from farming.	They got no	benefitfrom	the sale	of	butter;	they got no	benefitfrom	the sale	of	cheese;	they got no	benefitfrom	the sale	of	concentrated milk or	cream.
The result will be that those people will join the ranks of the unemployed and come on direct relief because the government did not have a sound policy with regard to agriculture. Now my hon. friends opposite are afraid of the results; they cannot explain what has happened, so they say times are bad everywhere, that there is a world crisis. That is not what was said by the leader of that party during the last election. He told the electors that he would see that the farmers would get a fair price for their butter, their cheese, and all their products-I do not mention them all because I wish to remain within the item which is now being discussed. But the promise was general; everyone was to be made happy; everyone was to learn from him the recipe to become a millionaire. But what has happened? It is very sad. The farmers are not millionaires. In my own province of Quebec 2,544 farmers will have their land sold for taxes, and here is the Quebec Official Gazette, which is bilingual because in the province of Quebec all official papers are bilingual; I can show it to any hon. member and he will see the names of these farmers. Those who said to the farmers: "Come to us; vote for us; we will make you rich and happy; we will make you prosperous," have been unable to fulfil their promises, but they have not the courage of a member from our side who, having made a slight error in quoting figures this afternoon, admitted it. They put the blame on the provincial governments. Is it the fault of the Quebec government that the farmers cannot market their products outside of Canada and in all the provinces of Canada? The Minister of Agriculture is too prudent to say that, but we see it in news-

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
papers such as this, which say that the provincial government is to blame because the farmers cannot market their products and their lands are sold for taxes.
To conclude this, sir, I will quote again a paper which I preserve as a precious thing and which I quote on great occasions. I used it in May, 1931; I used it not long ago when we were discussing the empire bureaux item. It is now an old yellow page of the unrevised Hansard of April 8, 1926, page 2341:
Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw): You contend that if the tariff is taken off the prices immediately rise?
Mr. Meighen: We contend it and we know it, because we see the facts.
This was said by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen who is now the leader of the government in the Senate. Remove the tariff and prices will rise. Mr. Meighen was not the only one who said that; he was supported by our very genial friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), who said in about the same words: "If you take off the tariff you raise the prices of goods." The reverse must be equally true; therefore by imposing a high tariff you lower the prices of goods. This has been quoted in the house very often; I keep it as a treasure. I had the opportunity to read it in Ontario as well as in the province of Quebec and in the House of Commons; everywhere it has been listened to with great interest, and most people who hear this quotation ask me the same question as my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Weir) did a moment ago, on what page of Hansard do we find it. Let us take it seriously, hoping that as the government tried to take the first step with regard to international matters like the League of Nations, peace, and such matters, they should also take the first step with regard to lowering tariffs. Last year we heard the Minister of Railways say in the house that he had no objection to lowering tariffs provided it was done by mutual agreement of several nations. But some nation must start it, and I hope that this time Canada will give a good example to the other nations of the world, and that will help us to forgive the government for many wrongs they have done in the past.


Mr. PARENT:: Mr. Chairman, I am
rather late in rising to say a word on this item dealing with tlhe dairy industry, but I shall not be long. There is one point in connection with which I should like some information from the minister. This item provides for $234,000 while last year the vote was for $246,300, so we have a reduction this
year of $12,300. It is interesting to look over the statistics and follow the evolution of agriculture and particularly of the dairy industry. It is particularly interesting to look at the gross value of the production of the dairy industry in Canada for the last six years. These figures are as follows: In 1927 the gross value was $295,000,000, in round figures; in 1928 it was $293,000,000 and in 1929 it amounted to $292,000,000. In 1930 there was a slight drop, to $270,000,000. I direct the attention of the committee to the fact that up to 1930, under Liberal administration and a low tariff policy, the production was rather high. In 1931 there was a sudden drop, after tariffs had been put up, to $161,000,000, and in 1932 the gross value was only $132,000,000. Having these figures in view I wonder what justification the minister can suggest for reducing the amounts spent on agriculture, and particularly the amount spent in connection with the dairying industry.
Then on page 75 of Canada, 1934, published by the Department of Trade and Commerce, I find the following:
Dairying has long held an important place among Canadian industries. Cattle were introduced bv the first settlers and there naturally followed the making of home made butter and cheese, at first purely for home consumption but later for export. The export market grew. During the fiscal year ended March 31. 1926. Canada exported 1.483,000 hundredweight of cheese, valued at nearly $34,000,000.
At that rate the cheese would yield about 221 cents per pound to the producer. It is also stated that 233,000 hundredweight of butter valued at nearly $9,000,000 were exported, which would yield 39ys cents per pound to the producer. Then it is said that in 1931-32 we exported 85,424,700 pounds of cheese, which yielded 12-4 cents per pound and 10,917,300 pounds of butter yielding 21 -8 cents per pound. This was under the new government, after the tariff had been raised. In the following year it was still worse. We exported 85,711,600 pounds of cheese yielding 10-2 cents per pound and 3,206,000 pounds of butter yielding 18-3 cents per pound. If we go a little further we find that it gets worse. In the first nine months of 1933 we exported 38,474,600 pounds of cheese, yielding 10-9 cents per pound and 2,062,100 pounds of butter, yielding 18-5 cents per pound. From these figures, Mr. Chairman, it will be seen that in the last few years the dairy industry has been declining.
I should like to add a few more figures of interest. Much has been said about the Ottawa agreements; the Canadian people, and especially those interested in trade and manufacturing, expected that with the advent of the present government a market would be pro-

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
vided for the products of all lines of business. What do we find in connection with the dairy-industry? Last February the Financial Post published figures to show that 'Canada has not benefited at all, so far as the dairy industry is concerned, by the Ottawa agreements. The country that really has benefited in regard to dairying is Australia, and here are the figures. I will give only the gross figures: In 1928 Australia exported to Great Britain 45,000 tons of butter; in 1929, 48,000 tons; in 193031; 73,000 tons; immediately after the Ottawa agreements, in 1931-32, 91,000 tons, and in 1932-33, 100,000 tons. Let us see what butter Canada has exported since the Ottawa agreements. We find in bulletin 569 published by the Department of Trade and Commerce that the insignificant quantity of 1,034 tons of butter was exported from Canada to the United Kingdom for nine months in 1933.
This afternoon I heard the Minister of Agriculture saying that the United Kingdom was Canada's best market for dairy products. I should be delighted if he would deny the figures I have given and state that I am wrong. I wish I were wrong.


Robert Weir: Did the hon. member say I stated this afternoon that the United Kingdom was the best market for our dairy products?


Louis-Étienne Parent: I understood the minister to say that.


Robert Weir: I did not say it.


Louis-Étienne Parent: I accept the minister's statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore the Ottawa agreements are of no use.


Louis-Étienne Parent: Not more than half an hour ago the statement was made that the very best protection had been given to the farmers of Canada, and particularly to the dairy producers. Protection? AVhat protection? AVhere is it? There is no protection whatsoever. So far as Canada is concerned, the market for dairy products has been lost, absolutely lost. It is a complete ruin. Can that ruin be traced to the tariff? AVell, I shall not discuss that matter at this point. I am asking the Minister of Agriculture this question: AVhat will the farmers of Canada think when they find that $12,000 has been deducted from the vote to help dairy producers? I am one who would be very happy to see, not a decrease of $12,000, but an increase of that amount to help the farmers and the dairy industry.


Thomas Reid: One question, Mr. Chairman, before this item passes. The question of quotas has not been cleared up. I find in the Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire an answer given in the British House of Commons by Mr. Elliot wherein he stated:
The provisions of the Ottawa agreements securing free entry into the United Kingdom of butter and cheese from Australia and New Zealand are due to expire on August 19, 1935, while the undertaking that no restriction will be placed on imports of meat from those dominions is due to terminate on June 30, 1934.
My question is this: Is there some such provision regarding the importation of butter and cheese from Canada? It is very important that this matter should be cleared up, because it would seem to me that if there is it should be known, and if not I think it hardly likely that Great Britain would allow Canada to export butter and cheese freely, and restrict New Zealand and Australia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will read the agreements he will find the answer.


Thomas Reid: I did not hear the right
hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is provided
in the agreements. It was a three year agreement with respect to dairy products, not only for New Zealand and Australia, but also for Canada. The hon. member will find that in the documents. AVith respect to the other items, there was a special provision for Australia and New Zealand in connection with meat, which expires in 1934. There was no such arrangement with respect to meats in connection with Canada. But in 1937 all of the agreements fall in, so far as Canada is concerned.


Charles A. Stewart: I have
been greatly interested in the discussion on the dairy industry in Canada, which has taken place this afternoon and this evening. To my mind some very interesting developments have been announced by the minister and by other hon. members opposite. I have been curious about some of the statements which have been made, and should like first to read a statement made by the Prime Minister at Winnipeg on June 9, 1930. Upon it I shall base the remarks I propose to make this evening. He is reported as follows:
A\Te pledge ourselves to foster and develop agriculture, and the live stock and dairy industries, now so sadly neglected. . . . Listen, you agriculturists from the west and all the other parts of Canada, you have been taught to mock at tariffs and applaud free trade. Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? Tell me, when did free trade fight for you?

Supply-
A ffri, culture-Dairying
He emphasizes this interrogation, and then continues:
You say tariffs are only for the manufacturers. I will make them fight for you as well. I will use them to blast a way into the markets that have been closed to you.
The Minister of Agriculture has intimated that conditions have been exceedingly bad for the producers of dairy products throughout Canada during a very considerable period of the past three years. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. 'Gobeil) seemed to be very uneasy while this discussion was taking place, particularly when he learned from the lips of the minister that a considerable quantity of butter landed at Halifax had not been sold in the maritime provinces but had been shipped to the markets of Montreal and Toronto. Hon. gentlemen opposite will recall that the Liberal party was condemned in season and out of season, particularly during the campaign of 1930, when the price of butter was much higher than it is to-day, for permitting the landing of New Zealand and Australian butter in Montreal. What has happened to-day? One of my tenants told me that in 1932 he gave his cows away to his neighbours because they did not pay him for the wear and tear on his overalls brought about by milking them. Despite the fact that feed conditions are bad and that we are passing through a very severe winter, when of necessity the cost of production must be higher, what are we told to-night when there is a prospect for producers getting something in return for their labour? Under these conditions this government permits the importation of New Zealand butter. That is the statement we get to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman know that it pays a duty of eight cents a pound?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I know and appreciate that fact. 1 must say, however that it does not pay eight cents; it pays five.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is coming into Halifax and paying eight cents.


Charles A. Stewart: Under the
contract it is paying eight cents, but this is butter which is coming in under a special provision of five cents. I trust my right hon. friend will remember that, because I have been told it repeatedly to-night by the minister himself. What I am saying is this-


Robert Weir: Does the hon. gentleman say that butter coming from the United Kingdom to Halifax is admitted at five cents a pound duty?


Charles A. Stewart: I so understood the minister to say.


Robert Weir: I never said that.


Charles A. Stewart: Did not the minister state that to the committee to-night?


Robert Weir: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Coming direct.


Charles A. Stewart: Then I did not get the purport of the minister's remarks. He said that it was eight cents, but that if coming direct it was permitted to enter at five cents a pound. The minister confirms that statement.


Robert Weir: Might I make a correction ? If permitted to enter by invoking clause 4 it pays very close to eight cents a pound duty.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course, it is difficult for anyone to grasp all the intricacies of the complicated tariff duties under the administration of this government upon any commodity entering Canada. But whether it comes in under a duty of eight cents or five cents a pound is not the point. The point I make is this, that the promise which the Prime Minister and the Conservative party made in 1930 to the agriculturists of Canada-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has been substantially kept.	*


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, in some instances it has. The promises affecting manufacturing have been more than kept.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And with respect to butter too.


Charles A. Stewart: But I say to my hon. friend that the moment the farmer gets a chance to make a few extra cents, then butter is at once admitted and allowed to come into competition with the home product, and that must of necessity keep the price down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not kept the price down, to start with.


Charles A. Stewart: I take issue with my hon. friend on that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All you have to do is to read the figures.


Charles A. Stewart: Then for
what reason does it come in? My hon. friend will say because it is required. But every pound that comes in has a depressing effect on the price in Canada. That is exactly the



Supply-A griculture-D airy in g
argument my hon. friend uses himself, in reverse, and that he used when he was pleading for the support of the electorate in this country in 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman knows, if he looks at the figures, that the importations of butter into this country prior to 1930 and in 1930 were enormous. The trifling importations during the last few months have been to meet a demand that Canadian producers could not meet and the prices are not lower.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a specious argument.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a fact.


Charles A. Stewart: It is coming in when our price is two cents higher than the London and New York price, as quoted by the minister himself.


Robert Weir: Not two cents, more than two cents.


Charles A. Stewart: So much the better. Hon. gentlemen opposite were complaining in 1930 of the importations of butter into Canada when the price was very much higher than it has been ever since this government came into office.


Robert Weir: It was also higher in New York at that time.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say to hon. gentleman opposite that if they are going to make the tariff fight for the farmer, then for heaven's sake let the farmer have his own market and let the price go where it would go without these importations. You cannot argue in one breath that the importations do not depress the price, and in the next breath that importations are necessary because we have a shortage of butter. The minister himself admitted that owing to a fairly large surplus piling up last fall, we shipped butter to the old country at a loss to the brokers engaged in the business. And now when the farmer has a chance to make a little money, lo and behold we allow the importation of Australian and New Zealand butter. It is mighty amusing to sit here and watch the performance of this government trying to justify their measures from day to day in the light of what they promised to do for the people if returned to power. If anyone can name any manufactured article that is allowed to enter this country in competition with the goods manufactured in this country and that does not pay a very heavy duty, plus dumping duty, sales tax and everything else, I should like to hear what it is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to name such an i,tem_men's boots and shoes from Northampton.


Edward James Young: With a duty of 40 per cent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are not paying 40 per cent.


Edward James Young: What are they paying?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nothing like 40 per cent, and the factories in my town are suffering from this English competition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And rubber goods from Singapore.,


Robert Weir: Just a few words in connection with the dairy industry. The hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Parent) in his speech compared the dairy industry of Canada with the dairy industry of Australia, New Zealand and other countries, and gave figures to show that there had been an increased export of butter and dairy products from New Zealand and Australia and a decreased export from Canada, and on that, and on that alone, he based his argument that the dairy industry of Australia and New Zealand was showing greater progress than the dairy industry of Canada. The fact of the matter is that dairy production in Canada has not decreased as he would have led us to believe by quoting exports, but has increased, and increased very considerably in the past two or three years. Not only that, but this increased production, together with the normal production, has brought a price 14 cents a pound higher in Canada at the present time than the price obtained for the Australian product on the world market, and I maintain that that difference of 14 cents a pound on the total production of butter in Canada is due solely to the action of this government in carrying out its promise that it would make the tariffs fight for the dairy industry of Canada and for the farmer.


Edward James Young: A little while ago the minister explained that the high price was due to an early winter and a shortage of feed.


Robert Weir: The hon. gentleman knows that the price of butter in this country went up because of a certain degree of scarcity due to the conditions he has mentioned, but that would have been of no advantage to the dairy farmers if it had not been for the protection they had been given.


John Vallance: There are two statements which the minister made which I should like him to explain. First he made the state-

___________Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage
ment that the Canadian price is 14 cents a pound higher than the price for the Australian product on the world market. Secondly, he stated that there was a difference of 18 cents a pound between the export market and the Canadian market.


Robert Weir: That is right, in
April, 1933.


John Vallance: The highest duty on
butter entering this country is eight cents a pound. In view of the higher price, why do the importations not come in? Are there any other orders or regulations that prohibit the importation of butter into Canada outside of the tariff regulations?


Robert Weir: The explanation is very simple. The production of butter increases very much in Canada in April, and those interested in the butter trade could not have foreseen that the normal increase would not take place at that time, and therefore they would not take the chance of shipping butter three or six weeks ahead to arrive in Canada at a time when there was normally an increased production of butter in this country and when the price would naturally be expected to go down. Butter fat at the same time made almost the same increase in price as butter. If butter could have been landed here by aeroplane in twenty-four hours it would have come in, but due to the fact that the people in the butter trade could not foresee the condition that arose they were not in time to take advantage of it.


John Vallance: I suppose there was no butter in bond in Canada at that time.


Robert Weir: If there was butter in bond in Canada at the time and it was not released, that was all to the advantage of the dairy farmer in this country.


John Vallance: It does not take six
weeks to land butter in Canada from Great Britain. What were the regulations that prevented those importations? Very large consignments of Australian and New Zealand butter have been shipped into this country from Great Britain, as well as large consignments of merchandise. Britain is always prepared to ship butter or any other commodity into the best possible market on short notice. The minister has not yet convinced me as to the 14 to 18 cents difference in the price of butter, although I must take his word for it.


Robert Weir: That is the price
differential; it is the price actually paid on the market.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the 1930 promises with regard to butter have been substantially kept, there is little substance in the adverb. '


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cold storage warehouses, $32,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: Complaints were made this afternoon that the farmer receives very little for his butter, the principal benefit going to the middleman. Why does not the government increase the vote for cold storage warehouses so that the farmer may put his butter into cold storage and not be under the control of the wholesalers in Montreal, Toronto and other large cities? The farmers are like slaves, and I should like to see them independent on a cooperative basis. The government should assist them to have their own cold storage plants in order that they may obtain better prices in the winter time. The farmers have been exploited and at the present time an investigation is being carried on in this building in this connection. This vote has been cut down from $140,000 to $32,000 when it should be five or ten times as large. I hope the minister will consider this suggestion when the supplementary estimates are being prepared.


Robert Weir: We believe that
there is sufficient cold storage to take care of the butter requiring to be stored. With the exception of a recent request, every request has been for fruit cold storage facilities. This vote is sufficient to take care of all commitments which have been made.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: How does the reduction arise?


Robert Weir: There has been a decrease in the demand for grants.
Mr. AlOTHERWELL: This vote has been cut seventy-five per cent, yet the minister has stated that there is sufficient to meet commitments. I assume that means that the people are so hard up that they cannot afford to pay their share of the construction of these buildings.


Robert Weir: I would not say that. Aly understanding is that there is sufficient accommodation. In cooperation with the various provinces a survey has been made as to storage requirements. Ontario gives practically the same proportion as we do, and the other provinces make grants, so there is not a very heavy load on any organization which wishes such facilities.


William Richard Motherwell: Am I to understand that there have been no applications for storage facilities?

Supply-Agriculture-Fruit


Robert Weir: We have received some since this item was prepared and they will be taken care of in the supplementary
estimates.


Charles A. Stewart: What was expended last year?


Robert Weir: 


William Richard Motherwell: Have there been any new cold storage plants erected in the last two or three years?


Robert Weir: Yes. One was
erected for the Berwick Fruit Company, Berwick, Nova Scotia; one for the Thedford Cold Storage Company, Thedford, Ontario; and plants at Forest and Woodstock, Ontario.


William Richard Motherwell: When the matter of reductions was up before, the minister took the ground that they had been made possible this year and the year before by certain reorganization but that no impairment of service had occurred. I expressed some doubt that that could be done, and I should like to know if there has been any reorganization in connection with this item.


Robert Weir: There has been no reorganization in this case. There has been a reduction in office rentals, and travelling expenses have been less. There has been less demand for iced car service through the increased use of trucks.


William Richard Motherwell: Have there been some services eliminated?


Robert Weir: No.


William Richard Motherwell: The grant to the National Dairy Council was eliminated.


Robert Weir: At their request.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fruit, including grant of $4,500 to Canadian Horticultural Council, $425,053.
Edward James Young: This is a large item and perhaps it should stand.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, March 19, 1934