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

Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: What was the amount of the Sales Tax collections for April, 1921?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: Domestic, $2,186,649.80; importations, $686,569.34; total, $2,873,219.14.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. LEMIEUX:: For a copy of all correspondence and any report made by engineers to the Department of Public Works in connection with the work done by Camille Gagne, diver, at the wharf of Grande-RiviSre, in the county of Gasp6, Qu6.


CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT, AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
An motion of Hon. J. A. Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization), Bill No. 146, to amend the Chinese Immigration Act, was read the third time and parsed.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 12, to amend and consolidate the Law relating to Copyright (as amended)-Right Hon Mr. Doherty,-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Mr. FIELDING:: Will the minister please give a general explanation of the matter in controversy between the several parties interested in this measure?


Mr. DOHERTY:: As the committee is
aware, this Bill, after second reading, was sent to a special committee, whose report returns the Bill with a certain number of amendments. Copies of the Bill, printed as amended, are on the table of the House at the disposal of hon. members.


The CHAIRMAN:: It would be more
regular if the Chairman were allowed to call at least one clause. At present there is nothing before the committee.
On Section 1.-Short Title.


Mr. BUREAU:: Are the amendments
which have been made indicated by brackets in the Bill as now printed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am afraid they have not been. However, when we come to

them, it will, I think, be easy to indicate them; they are not exceedingly numerous. The member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) suggest that I should make a general statement with regard to the matters which have been in controversy in connection with this Bill and which are embodied in those amendments that may be considered important. The matter that has been controversial in connection with this Bill results principally from the contention, from what may be called the authors' side, for an absolute right of control of the reproducing of copies of their works, and the claim advanced from the other side, on behalf of publishers and printers in this country, for an assurance to them of an opportunity to participate in the production of what may be called the material part of the work; and the principal work of the committee was to endeavour; if not absolutely to conciliate those opposing claims, at least to arrive at an enactment of provisions which would respect, in some measure, both contentions. So far as the authors are concerned, the Bill, as originally drawn fully recognized in principle their right to copyright. It did contain, as originally drawn, certain clauses providing for the issuing of a license with regard to each work to a publisher in Canada, where the author of the work did not print, or provide for the printing of, his work in Canada. These clauses went exceedingly far. The Bill, as it now is before the committee, modifies very considerably the provisions of the Bill as introduced, and the modifications are all in the direction of giving a wider protection to the author, and limiting in consequence the rights conferred upon the publishers or printers. Just to take one instance of the kind of thing in which the Bill as amended differs from the Bill as introduced, I may say that in the Bill as introduced it was provided that when an author did not print in this country, it was open to a publisher, upon making application, to obtain a license which, under the provisions of the original Bill, continued in effect during the whole term of the copyright; and as that term is fixed at the lifetime of the author and a period of fifty years afterwards, the author found his work-because he was not prepared tc print it in Canada-for that entire period subject to the control, so far as Canada was concerned, of the fortunate licensee.


William Stevens Fielding: Without compensation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Oh no, there was provision for compensation. That also is modified. Now we have modified the Bill so that the license shall be either for a fixed period of time, which the Bill provides shall not exceed five years, or for an edition or a number of editions of the work.


Jacques Bureau: Is that under section 14 of the Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It has become section 13 in the amended Bill because section 13 of the original Bill was struck out. Now, in addition to this limitation as to the time of the duration of the license, or its restriction to a specified number of editions, the Bill has been modified as regards the rate of compensation. The Bill as introduced provided a fixed rate or royalty of 10 per cent on the sales price of the book. It was pointed out that that did not operate to do justice-that there are some works upon which perhaps 10 per cent might be a high royalty and that, on the other hand, there are other works on which, their intrinsic merit or perhaps those qualities which make them count among "best sellers," might justify the author in claiming a larger royalty. In particular it was brought to the attention of the committee that there are not a few authors who, in other countries, command a royalty of 20 or 25 per cent, and it was pointed out that in their cases it would be obviously not just to enable a Canadian publisher to give forth an edition of their books at a lower royalty in competition with the publishers of other countries who may be at liberty to export their books here, and who are paying the author a larger royalty. The method adopted to meet that situation is to provide that in each case the parties respectively-the publisher applying for a license and the author-shall be heard by the minister and have opportunity to place before him the different circumstances bearing upon the question of what would be a just royalty; and the minister is empowered-after so hearing the parties or after notice to the author-to determine the royalty that ought to be paid. He is also empowered to determine the number of editions that are to be published and the term of years they are to run, and any terms or conditions which the circumstances of the case may demonstrate to be necessary to be inserted in the license and to which the licensee shall be subject. Now on those two matters, those are the substantial changes that have been made. The committee trust that the changes will

commend themselves to the judgment of the Committee of the Whole and of the House.
The other matter, 'which gave rise to a good deal of discussion and difference of opinion, has to do with the question of copyright in connection with phonographic discs and the rights of the author. It applies mostly to musical publications, and to the right of the author when copies of his work are made by means of the production of discs to be used in phonographs and other mechanical contrivances whereby songs are reproduced. In that connection it is to be pointed out, that the maker of the discs gets a copyright himself in the disc that he has made. Nobody is entitled to make copies. If I have made a disc from an original plate, nobody has a right to reproduce copies from that disc, so that the manufacturer of the disc gets a substantial advantage in that regard. The discussion, however, did not turn on that. The discussion turned upon the adjustment of the rights respectively of the author of the work reproduced in this way and those of the person reproducing. The clauses in that regard have not been substantially or materially changed by the committee. As regards the question of remuneration the provision of the Bill as originally introduced was that the author of a piece which was so reproduced-


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask hon. gentlemen to refrain from conversing in the chamber. A moment ago, two hon. members who are trying to follow the explanations given by the minister called my attention to the fact that it is absolutely impossible to hear what the minister is saying, and looking around the chamber I saw only eighteen gentlemen speaking to others.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am glad to realize that this time inability to hear what I am saying is not attributable to the weakness of my voice, because I have been striving to make myself heard. As I was saying the Bill as originally introduced provided, as a remuneration to the author whose work was used for the purposes of reproduction upon these discs, a royalty of two cents per disc. In Great Britain the remuneration consists of a percentage on the selling price of the disc. In the United States it. consists of a fixed rate which rate is the same amount that this Bill proposes, namely two cents. I do not recall that we have had any remonstrance on

the part of the authors as regards the amount. The manufacturer however, has claimed very strenously that this two cents a copy is too high. On the other hand it is to be pointed out that when the Bill was originally drafted the draftsman proceeded by adopting the English system of a commission upon the selling price. The manufactureres themselves urged a fixed rate rather than a percentage rate, and the Bill as originally drawn accepted their contention in that regard. It would seem to one that perhaps it would be a more reasonable system to proceed by a percentage rate. However, it is to be realized that perhaps it is difficult, with regard to reproductions of the kind in question, to arrive at a very satisfactory conclusion as to what the percentage rate ought to be; and indeed it is difficult even in the case of a fixed amount to give any very definite and logical reason why you select a particular amount rather than another. It must be borne in mind when it is a question of reproduction of copies by means of these mechanical contrivances that you reproduce also the work of somebody else than the author. For instance, suppose it is a song, before the disc can be made the song has to be sung by somebody, and in a large number of cases, if not indeed in the majority of cases, it is pointed out, as I think must be readily conceded, that the great value of the disc consists not so much in the fact that it reproduces the particu* lar song as that it reproduces the execution of that song by a particular artist. A song sung by other good singers and reproduced upon a disc will never command the sale that the same song sung, for example, by John McCormack or some other great operatic singer would command. So it is difficult to find any logical basis for the determination of the particular amount that ought to be paid. Having met the view of the manufacturers as to the manner in which this should be imposed, and having in mind the fact that in the United States this rate of two cents has been fixed and, so far as we could ascertain, has given rise to no serious complaint, the committee, after very fully hearing argument in support of the contention of the manufacturers that it should be reduced, thought that the course of wisdom was to adhere to the two-cent rate. There is an additional reason for our adopting that course in the fact that we have always to keep before our minds the necessity of not so legislating as to deprive our authors of the advantage of copyright in the other


countries concerned, and more especially in the United States. Under the United States system, in order that the copyright of authors of other countries should be recognized within that country-which recognition is effected by means of a proclamation of the President-it is essential that the officers there should be in a position to certify that an American author has under the law of the other country as large a protection as the law of the United States extends in like cases. It will be necessary to come to some arrangement with the United States, and I will have a word to say about that when we deal with the final clause of the Bill which provides that it comes into force only upon proclamation. Naturally we can foresee that if we give a less degree of protection as regards reproduction of copies by these mechanical contrivances, applications by our authors for copyright in the United States might be open to objection there.
I think I have covered what were really matters of contention before the committee and with regard to which the substantial amendments made by the committee have a bearing.
I should like to impress upon the committee the importance of our adopting a copyright act, even if it should not appear to us that this attempt has resulted in perfect success. It will be much more easy to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion concerning most of the matters upon which there is a difference of opinion when some system has been tried and we have experience of how it works. The argument before us in regard to these matters turns upon what was apprehended would be the consequences of one disposition or another. From that point of view I think it important that we should make a start.
I should like also to call attention to the very unsatisfactory condition in which our legislation upon this subject stands at the present time. Copyright in this country is now governed partly by Imperial Acts of 1842 and 1886 and by a Canadian Act of 1889. As I understand it, any one who obtains copyright under the Imperial legislation holds it without regard to the provisions of our law, and it certainly is not desirable that our legislation should be in that condition, for it gives rise to confusion. In 1911 Great Britain passed a Copyright Act-and I may say in parenthesis that a large part of the present Bill is a reproduction of that Act-and in the other Dominions legislation has been enacted following the example of Great Britain.
In that Act of 1911 it was especially provided that it should extend only to the selfgoverning Dominions whose Parliaments declared it to be in force, and power was expressly given to repeal the British legislation to which I have referred so far as it was in operation in any Dominion.


Jacques Bureau: That legislation only
had effect because we in Parliament so legislated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. The contention
was that the copyright Acts of 1842 and 1886 had effect in Canada without regard to any legislation of ours. I do not recall the year, but Sir John Thompson had a very protracted discussion with the Home authorities on that point in connection with the copyright measure that he desired to introduce. I do not know whether that discussion was ever published, but it certainly is very interesting. No conclusion seems to have been reached at that time, but in 1910 or 1911 the late Hon. Mr. Fisher went to England in connection with the copyright legislation which was then contemplated by the Imperial Government, and as the result, as I understand it, of his insistence along the line of argument which Sir John Thompson had developed, the Imperial Parliament passed this special enactment recognizing our authority to repeal that legislation.
Now, if I have not made it absolutely clear to the committee, I hope I have at all events conveyed some idea of what seems to me the very unsatisfactory condiiton in which we stand with regard to copyright legislation. Then, although this is a minor consideration, it has its importance. In the present condition of our legislation we stand as a sort of outsider in the general community of nations which have interested themselves in the subject of copyright. We are not in a position to give our final adherence to the amended Convention at Berne, and I may say that we have had at various times representations from the Powers that are parties to that Convention pressing upon us that we ought to come into the general community. In France and in England a great deal of interest is taken in this subject. I may say that the authors of France in particular find it difficult to understand why we are not willing to co-operate in the general movement for the protection of the rights of authors. In that country a very special importance seems to be attached to that right. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for us to enact this legis-

lation. Of course, I do not ask or expect that hon. members who may find that there are grave defects should not seek amendment. I would ask, though, that as far as possible the importance of our getting a law passed which may form the basis of future improvement should he borne in mind. Since 1911 this matter has hung in suspense. In that year the late Hon. Mr. Fisher introduced into this House a Bill following very closely the British legislation and, consequently, in very large measure similar to this one. Since that time, if I am not mistaken, there have been at least two attempts at improvement. A Bill was passed through the Senate, I think, two years ago, it did not succeeed in passing this House. Last year we had a Bill before this House, but it seemed so difficult to get at any conclusion which could be reasonably expected to conciliate the contending interests that the matter had to be dropped. This session, I may say on behalf of the committee and on behalf of the special officer charged with this subject of copyright, very assiduous efforts have been made to bring about a measure which, if not absolutely meeting the view of all interested, may at least prove acceptable; and I myself have endeavoured to give what little aid I could in that regard. I therefore commend the measure to the considerate consideration of the committee.


William Stevens Fielding: I desire to thank the right hon. gentleman for the explanation he has given; I am sure it will prove to he very helpful. May I ask now, referring to the first part of his remarks, whether the conclusions that the committee have reached are very satisfactory, or is there still conflict between the author and the publisher? Are these interests fairly satisfactory, or is there still conflict between the author and the publisher? Are these interests fairly satisfied with the compromise which has been reached?


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the
author, I may say that his contention was that there should be no licensing system; that he should be, as matter of right, the sole person controlling the reproduction of his work. We have not been able to meet that requirement, but we did receive a memorial from the Authors' Association, in which, after putting forward that contention, they went on to indicate in detail what were the particular things in the Bill as introduced which in their view failed to do them justice. I think I may

safely say that each one of these particular objections has been fairly met. Perhaps on the part of the Canadian authors the strongest ground of objection was that by this legislation we exposed them tc losing their copyright in the United States, because we were making legislation which, as they considered-and I think it probable -would not he looked upon as acceptable by the United States. This legislation recognizes, as to all of the Copyright Union countries and as to all their authors, copyright in this country. It is not possible to treat in the same way authors of the United States, because that country does not form part of the Copyright Union. There are, however, provisions in the Bill enabling the Governor in Council, whenever it is possible to certify that the law of any country not in the union gives as efficient protection to our authors as our law does to theirs, by proclamation to extend the advantages of this Act to the country in question. Furthermore, once we have a definite law not necessarily an immutable law, but still a definite law- which we can submit to the American authors-for their consideration, there is every reason to expect that we shall be able to obtain from them a recognition of the sufficiency of our law similar to that which they have already granted to the law of Great Britain. That done, all the danger which the Canadian authors apprehend would disappear. I think I may say that their representatives felt quite reassured, when we pointed out that it was intended not to bring the Act into force save by proclamation, and that the purpose of making that provision was to enable us to be quite sure that we had a law that would operate to obtain for them protection in the United States and that, being satisfactory to Great Britain, would assure to them protection there. The representatives of the authors who came before us were satisfied upon that point, and that seemed to he the thing to which they attached the greatest importance.


Mr.  H. M. MO WAT@Parkdal'e: The committee, I may
say, fully considered the representations of the different interests-the Canadian Authors' Association and the English Authors' Association, called the Incorporated Society of Authors, Playrights, Composers, and others. I think I can say that the committee gave every possible consideration to what was advanced by the contending parties, and that it regards the Bill as now reprinted as the safe course between the two, if any great difference

does exist, which I very much doubt. The trouble in Canada has been that under the present Copyright Act one of the conditions for the obtaining of copyrights is that the work in question shall be printed in Canada. Section 6 of the present law, Revised Statutes, chapter 62, section 5, says:
The condition for obtaining such copyright shall be that the said literary, scientific or artistic works shall be printed and published or reprinted and republished in Canada.
This was felt by the authors to he a hardship, and it may be that with a continuance of the clause requiring printing in Canada in that definite way, we would not be able to take advantage of our participation in the Berne Convention, which was arrived at on the part of the principal civilized countries of the world in 1886 and again, in what is known as the Revised Berne Convention, in 1908. We now have a Bill which protects each interest as far as possible. Instead of providing that the works shall he published in Canada-a provision which the printer, publisher and book-binder wants, and which he has hitherto in draft Bills succeeded in getting-we have substituted a license provision, requiring, not that the author shall state his intention of not printing in Canada as in the original draft of the Bill, but that if he does not so print then a license can be granted to any applicant upon giving sufficient royalty to the author. The author, therefore, is protected.
Then this Bill contains a provision which has hitherto been absent from our law, namely, that the Canadian author of a song or a piece of music, who has not had copyright in Canada and who has, therefore, had a legitimate grievance against his country, is now protected to the extent of 2 cents for each record, or 4 cents, if the record is printed on both sides. We have done away with the objection which manufacturers of records or discs had, that they might have to pay in another country if discs were exported. We have drawn the Bill so that only the 2 cents is to be collected as a condition of manufacturing.


Mr. CURRIE:: Is that 2 cents royalty?


Mr.  H. M. MO WAT@Parkdal'e: Yes, 2 cents on each disc. The particular manufacturer in Canada has not to pay more than 2 cents. If the disc goes first to another country and it is shown that 2 cents, or whatever sum it is, has been paid, then there will be nothing further to pay. The author is compensated by the two cents paid in any country; that is supposed to be sufficient for him, and I
think that sum, which is found agreeable in the United States, will be found suitable and agreeable in Canada for authors for their songs.
The impulse for this legislation seems to have come first from those people who were not protected before. We have a very anomalous state of affairs in Canada as regards the copyright law, and it is this. While we were authorized as a Dominion to deal with "Copyright" matters, and while we did so in 1875, the Act of that year containing this printing clause. In a case of Smiles, the author against Belford in 1874 or 1875, as reported first in the Ontario Court of Appeal, it was held by the Privy Council that we could not prevent a British author from ignoring that provision. Therefore, until now we have had in Canada two laws, one the English law of 1842 which is declared to be in force as regards British authors, and our own Act, and there is a conflict owing to the decisions of the courts which has made the law uncertain. It is only as cases arise that the law can be made clear. This shows the importance of getting this legislation as soon as possible on the statute book. The situation is very much as described by the Royal Commission on Copyright in 1878, which describes the law in Britain as follows:
The law at present is already destitute of any sort of arrangement incomplete, often obscure and even when it is intelligible upon long study, it is in many parts so ill-expressed that no one, who does not give much study to it can expect to understand it. Obscurity of style however, is only one of the defects. Their arrangement is often worse than their style Of this the Copyright Act of 1842 is a conspicuous instance.
The same remarks would apply, it seems to me, to the copyright law of Canada which has been the despair of judges and lawyers for many years. If we can pass this legislation, we will largely do away with those difficulties. I agree with the remarks made by the right hon. gentleman who is in charge of the Bill, that this is a sincere effort to bring the two parties together. I think that has been done and that this legislation may be favourably received by the committee.


Mr. RINFRET:: As a member of the committee, I would also like to make a few remarks to explain the particular situation in which we were placed when we were confronted with this Copyright Bill. As the minister explained, there were many conflicting interests, and it was very hard,

in some cases, to have them agree on any particular provision. I think, however, we all agree on this point that we have on the statute book a very antiquated copyright measure, and that it should be replaced by a new one at the earliest possible moment. In fact, it was urged upon us that it would be better to pass a copyright measure which might not be perfectly satisfactory, than not to pass a Copyright Bill at all. I do not know whether we should entertain that idea.
There is one point on which I first wish to insist, and it is the case of the composer whose songs or musical productions are reproduced by phonograph, gramb-phone, by means of discs or other contrivances. At present there is no right at all which can be exacted from the manufacturer, and therefore, the composer was placed in the situation that his production could be used by the manufacturer without any return to the composer. As regards that particular case, the demand of the composer is fairly met by clause 18 which, while it does not allow a very large return to the composer, is, at least, an improvement on the statute which now exists, because formerly no provision for any return was made. We can all agree on that clause, and all that relates to that particular feature of the Bill.
The conflict is more on clauses 13, 14 and 15 which deal with relations between printers and writers. The writers claim that they have a full right to their production; that it does not matter if they have obtained copyright, they are the sole judges whether their works can be reproduced or not. It has been said that the Bill gives them protection in this sense, that it will afford them, in any case, a fair return for their work; but it takes away from them protection in this sense, that they no longer remain the sole judges whether their books shall be printed or not in Canada. At present when a writer prints and obtains another copyright in another country and at the same time in Canada, he is the only judge whether he will have the book printed in Canada or not. By this Bill a license may be granted to any printer or publisher, who applies for it, and he may print a book on which copyright exists whether the author deems that advisable or not. I think that is the main point in the discussion in connection with this Bill. We can all agree to every provision of this Bill except the three clauses dealing with the license. I may say that I have kept in touch with the

writers; I am a representative of them in a way, being a member of their association, and they object to their works being dealt with in this manner. They claim that they have an absolute right to their works; that they should be the only judges whether their work shall be published or not. While they wish to be protected as regards the royalty to be paid for their works, they are more anxious to be protected as regards the printing. That is their case. Of course, there is the case of the printer who says that his interests are prejudiced when a work is published in a United States magazine which is circulated in Canada, because that affords the American magazine the advantage of a large circulation in Canada where a Canadian magazine cannot compete. It was urged upon us that we should allow the Bill to pass in any event, because this Bill will be put into force only through proclamation, and it will be possible in the meantime to improve it.
I do not wish to impose my views on the committee, bur I think we should endeavour to pass this Bill in as good a shape as we can possibly make it. As far as I am concerned, I feel like approving of the Bill altogether, but I would urge upon the minister to drop clauses 13, 14 and 15. The Bill will not come into force except by proclamation, and I think it would be more proper to pass the Bill without these clauses when we feel that we are not on safe ground. Then, if it is found necessary, we could add them later. I think the contention that these three clauses, which by the way are not to be found either in the British Copyright Act or in the copyright act of any other country, are In direct contravention of the Berne Agreement, is a sound one. The Berne Agreement says in respect to rights granted to members of the union in other countries, that the enjoyment and exercise of those rights shall not be subject to the performance of any formality, and to meet this provision we have provided that instead of the author who will not print his book being compelled to make a declaration to that effect, a stranger may apply for the right of printing the book, and it was claimed that as long as the author had not to perform the formality this would not be tampered with.
I want to pay this tribute to the minister and the committee. The work of the committee has been done in a most agreeable and noncontentious way, with a view to framing an acceptable Bill. But it does

seem to me thac even if the author is not forced to declare that he will not print, yet the right of protection to his work is taken away from him, if a stranger can obtain a license. I do not know if the committee will see it as I do, but I think that the spirit of the Berne Convention is very strictly that nothing should be done in any of the countries which are members of the union that would come in conflict with this section, not only in wording but in spirit, and I think that to allow a stranger, a publisher or printer perhaps, to apply for a license is a formality by which the author is going to suffer if he feels that his work should not be published. If is not simply a question of dues; it is a question of the very ownership of the work by the author. I do not wish to press my point further at this stage, as we shall deal with the Bill clause by clause. I share the view of the minister that we should pass the Bill, because if we do not do so now, we shall have to go over all this work again next year or later. I do think, however, that it would be very much wiser to pass the Bill without these three clauses, because I think there is not the slightest doubt that they are in contravention of the Berne Agreement. If we find it advisable to introduce them later, that can be done.


Jacques Bureau: If we leave out these three clauses how will it leave the Bill as regards the publisher?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The author in Canada would be the sole owner of his rights. A publisher could apply for the right to publish, but he would have to apply to the author instead of to the department.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When we come to the
clauses in question, I shall have something to say in answer to the hon. member. I think, however, he might ask himself, when he suggests that the Bill should pass without these three clauses, whether we can pass the Bill .without them, because there are people who take the other view. In the committee we heard both sides, and it is to be conceded that this is a compromise provision that does not recognize the extreme right of the author. On the other hand, it limits him to this extent only, that if he does not think proper to print in Canada somebody in Canada may be authorized to do so on terms absolutely fair to the author, in the way of remuneration and in every other respect. It is true that it has the effect of saying that to this extent his property may be made use of by another person, but after all, we hold all our property subject to restrictions in the public interest. Here this Parliament, and the people of Canada, through this Parliament, are extending protection to the right of the author.


Jacques Bureau: Does the minister compare the right of the author to the right of eminent domain?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That property ought to be subjected to the consequences of the principle that all other property is. I am not suggesting that the case is absolutely analogous, but when we are extending this protection, is it an unfair thing to say to the author: Now that we are extending to you this special protection, we think that we ought at the same time to have present to our minds the interests of the Canadian people in connection with that publication. In the work there is the author's intellectual effort; there is also the printer's and publisher's material work. Now what we think we have achieved is to have done something to enable a Canadian to take part in that material work, at the same time giving full compensation to the author for the use of the intellectual work.
I have in mind also when we come to the clauses, by reason of representations that have been made to me since the committee met, to ask chat there be a provision that where the author has printed an edition in Canada and published it, and has made up his mind that he does not wish to issue any further editions, there shall be no license issued to publish a further edition. But we will take that up when we come to the clause. I would ask that this present clause, which is the British clause, be adopted as amended.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 13-application for license to print book in Canada by others than owner:


Jacques Bureau: I understand that this is a kind of compromise between extreme views of the authors and publishers, and that if these clauses were omitted, as has been suggested by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), the Bill would be more or less valueless. I think they have to subsist to give the Bill some value.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would not feel that
we could expect to pass a Bill on the absolute line one way or the other. I an'
REVISED EDITION:

not without sympathy for. the views of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rin-fret), but I am quite confident that to do what he suggests would defeat the possibility of our passing the Bill. I would suggest that we have gone as far as we could possibly go, with one exception, in respect of which I propose to move an amendment. This amendment will recognize this further right of the author who has printed and published an edition, that he shall not be subject to have a second edition published and printed by a licensee if he has made up his mind that he does not want to publish any further editions. It has been pointed out to me that an author who has issued an edition, published either by himself or by someone else, may on reflection feel that his work ought to be revised. He may not any longer entertain all the opinions he expressed in that work, and this is particularly true in regard to scientific works. The progress of science is very rapid, and a man who may have written a work ten years ago, in which he committed himself to certain views on scientific problems, might find, through the process of time, that his views were no longer tenable. Under this and analogous circumstances, therefore, it does not seem right that the author should have a second edition of his work published against his judgment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before the minister
offers the amendment which he proposes, he might explain what is the delay contemplated to be fixed by regulations in subsection 5 of section 13.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: It would vary in different instances.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The original Act provided a fixed delay, but when we came to look into the matter, we could not but realize that for an author resident in Ottawa, it would hardly be reasonable to fix the same delay as in the case of an author resident in Paris or Rome. A delay that would be adequate for the remotely situated author, would be a waste of time as regards the man close at hand, and it was thought that it would be better to determine the delay according to the circumstances of each case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is something else on which I should like to be enlightened. Suppose an author publishes a book in which he expresses certain opinions, religious, political, or otherwise, and later regrets having given publicity to those opinions. Would it be right that this

author-perhaps he may have published something bordering on immorality-should see his work republished, notwithstanding his own sincere regret for having' given expression to such views and opinions? I have in mind a book which created quite a sensation in the Old Country not very long ago, and possibly the author, when sober reflection had dawned upon him or her, might be very much opposed to a republication of it. Could any enterprising editor come to the minister, under this section, and obtain a license to publish that work in spite of the author, who is entirely opposed to the further propagation of the views and sentiments he has expressed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under subsection 12 of section 13, there is recognized the right of the author to suppress his work, and it is provided, even where a license has been granted, that if the author decides to suppress the work, the licensee shall print no additional copies.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is hard to suppress a book which has already been in circulation; its circulation is all the greater because the book serves as an appetizer to some people.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the difficulty of authors absolutely suppressing all copies; but if an author determines that he does not wish his views to be given further publicity, under subsection 12 he is entitled to stop the licensee from printing any further copies. The clause does allow the licensee the right to sell such copies as he has already printed and published, subject, however, to the author's right to buy from him all those copies, paying for them simply the cost of printing. We have, therefore, gone pretty far in protecting the author who desires to suppress his work. I quite appreciate, in fact I share in, the view of the hon. member, that the author ought to have the right, if he has revised his opinions for any reason, and does not want to continue being responsible for the dissemination of those opinions or doctrines, to suppress further publication of them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They may be immoral
views.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, and there is the case I mentioned a moment ago of scientific works.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The author may have
changed his views.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Exactly. He may find himself to-day with a book written ten or

fifteen years ago, and if that work were to continue in circulation, he might find that apparently he was teaching doctrines which the whole scientific world had discovered to be erroneous, and which, under the circumstances, he certainly would not endorse. I propose to strengthen the position of the author by adding a clause which might be added to subsection 12, providing that nothing in the section shall authorize the granting, without the consent of the author, of a license to publish any succeeding edition of a work whereof such author has published one or more editions in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: Does section 13 impose upon the minister a duty in respect of which he has no discretion; such language is usually construed as imperative. It is a general rule of law that, where an authority is conferred upon a public officer the statute conferring it is construed as making it imperative that he should exercise that duty. Some of the expressions in this section may not be quite clear. Another question I should like to ask is this:	Subsection 12
provides that no more copies shall be printed of a book which the author suppresses. Suppose an author has suppressed a book before any application is made for a license, what is to happen then? This is a case which does not seem to be provided for.


William Stevens Fielding: May I, in connection with the same section, be permitted to ask whether the expression "suppressed by the owner of the copyright" has a clear and well-defined meaning? What constitutes "suppression?" Is there some provision elsewhere which determines that?


Mr. DOHERT  Y@: As to the right that
authors have had in the past to endeavour to stop the reproduction of their works I am not in a position to give a definition of just precisely how it is to be done, nor do I think it belongs to us now to suggest, in connection with a Copyright Act, the creation of a right which I understand is a recognized right. What we were seeking to do was to leave that right, whatever its extent may be under common law or under the law as it now stands, unaffected by the fact, or affected as little as possible by the fact, that a license has been issued for the publication of that work. I have not gone into the question sufficiently to be able to give a very satisfactory answer as to what is the nature and extent of the right recognized by the law in an author, irrespective of copyright questions, to suppress his work. What we were seeking to do was to leave that right, so far as possible, unaffected by the fact that a license has been issued.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the term already used in the statute.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know of any legislation of our own in which it has been used.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the word has ar.y technical meaning.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might say that, this clause was taken from a draft of a Bill made some years ago by the present Deputy Minister of Justice, and that is what called my attention to it in the first place. On discussing the matter with him he left me under the impression-and I can secure the different instances which he gave- that authors had exercised the right. Of course what they can do to suppress a book is a question which depends on many practical considerations. I do not think there is any right recognized in the author,-after he has let the book be published and I have bought it-to come to me and say "You must turn your copy over to me." If no license were granted if course it would be in his hands to, stop all further publications. By reason of the license being grantd, however, the publication has passed into the hands of somebody else, and the purpose of this clause is to prevent the fact of the license being issued leaving the author powerless to stop the future circulation of his work. Now, in this clause, what was in mind was that when the circumstances indicated exist, it should be the duty of the minister to grant the license, but with regard to the terms and conditions upon which it should be issued, that it would be in the exercise of his discretion-it would rest with him to determine what are the fair terms and conditions as to the royalty, duration of the license, and so forth. I do not know which particular clauses might perhaps require modification to make that clear.


John Allister Currie: Might I suggest to the minister that in sub-clause 5 of section 13, line 34, after the word "minister," a few words should be inserted to the affect that "the minister, if by him deemed advisable, may grant." That will give the power to suppress on behalf of the author and cover all the objections raised. As it stands now the minister must grant the application. If there was an objection and it was de-

sired to suppress the book I do not see how the minister could act, unless some discretion is given to him in this clause as suggested by the right hon. - member for King's (Sir Robert Borden).


Georges Henri Boivin: What about the
amendment already before the committee?


Robert Laird Borden: Is there an
amendment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did intimate my intention of moving an amendment.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Doherty moves to amend section 13 by adding at the end of subsection 12 thereof the following words:
Provided that nothing in this section shall authorize the granting, without the consent of the author, of a license to publish a second or succeeding edition of any work whereof such author has published one or more editions in Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: Would it not be necessary to define the meaning of "edition"? How many constitute an "edition"?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The author himself is the judge of the number.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We fix the number as being an edition.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, no.


John Allister Currie: I think that comes under sub-clause 12.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not grasp the suggestion. Is it that we should define how many copies should be looked upon as an edition?


William Stevens Fielding: It seems to me the remainder of your clause is dependent upon that. You say if he has published an edition already he shall have the right to protect himself.	The question immediately arises how many copies constitute an "edition." I do not want to be too critical in the matter but I think it would be necessary to define the term. A man may publish a dozen copies and he may call that an edition. There should be some definition of what constitutes an edition.


John Allister Currie: The word " edition " is very often confounded with the word " reprint." An edition is technically where an author revises his book and issues a second edition, but very often some of these books have ten, twenty or thirty reprints. The first edition may consist of one thousand or three thousand copies. Then there would be in a month or so another reprint of five thousand copies

and it goes on like that. There is no definition to distinguish clearly between what is called a reprint, and an edition where the author makes a revision and perhaps adds some new matter.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: Subclause 7 of Section 13 gives to the publisher the right to publish not only an edition but as many editions as he may wish to publish for five years. For example it reads:
Such license when issued shall entitle thf licensee to the sole right to print and publish such book in Canada during such term, no exceeding five years or for such edition or edi tions as may be fixed by the license.
The license, of course, will deal with the question as to how many editions he has published. I wish to draw to the attention of the minister that he has not dealt with the main Objection made on 'behalf of the authors. I expected to hear him say something on the principle of withdrawing from the writer the sole and complete control of the book or serial produced by himself, and I think we ought to have some information from the minister on that point. Neither the publisher nor any one else assists the writer, the book is the product of his own brain, and he has the same right as the maker of any article has always had to sell it to whom he pleases; in other words, he has the right to control what belongs to him and to no one else; but we are removing from the author this control. I have before me a petition which was addressed by Thomas Carlyle to the British House of Commons in 1839 on the Coypright Bill then under consideration, and I think it would not be out of place for me to read it, because it expresses I believe, the view of Canadian authors on this matter. This is the petition:
Petition on the Copyright Bill (1839)
To the Honourable the Commons of England in Parliament assembled, the Petition of Thomas Carlyle, a Writer of Books,
Humbly showeth.
That your petitioner has written certain books, being incited thereto by various innocent or laudable considerations, chiefly by the thought that said books might in the end be found to be worth something.
That your petitioner had not the happiness to receive from Mr. Thomas Tegg, or any Publisher, Republisher, Printer, Bookseller, Book-buyer, or other the like man or body of men, any encouragement or countenance in writing of said books, or to discern any chance of receiving such; but wrote them by effort of his own and the favour of Heaven.
That all useful labour is worthy of recompense ; that all honest labour is worthy of the chance of recompense; that the giving and assuring to each man what recompense his

labour has actually merited, may be said 1o be the business of all Legislation, Polity, Government, and Social Arrangement whatsoever among men;-a business indispensable to attempt, impossible to accomplish accurately, difficult to accomplish without inaccuracies that become enormous, insupportable, and the parent of Social Confusions which never altogether end.
That your petitioner does not undertake to say what recompense in money this labour of his may deserve; whether it deserves any recompense in money, or whether money in any quantity could hire him to do the like.
That this his labour has found hitherto, in money or money's worth, small recompense or none ; that he is by no means sure of its ever finding recompense, but thinks that, if so, it will be at a distant time, when he, the labourer, will probably no longer be in need of money, and those dear to him will still be in need of it.
That the law does at least protect all persons in selling the production of their labour at what they can get for it, in all market-places, to all lengths of time. Much more than this the law does to many, but so much it does to all, and less than this to none.
That your petitioner cannot discover himself to have done unlawfully in this his said labour of writing books, or to have become criminal, or have forfeited the law's protection thereby. Contrariwise your petitioner believes firmly that he is innocent in said labour; that if he be found in the long run to have written a genuine enduring book, his merit therein, and desert towards England and English and other men, will be considerable, not easily estimable in money; that on the other hand, if his book proves false and ephemeral, he and it will be abolished and forgotten, and no harm done.
That, in this manner, your petitioner plays no unfair game against the world; his stake being life itself, so to speak (for the penalty is death by starvation), and the worlds stake nothing till once it sees the dice thrown; so that in any case the world cannot lose.
That in the happy and long-doubtful event *ft the game's going in his favour, your petitioner submits that the small winnings thereof do belong to him or his, and that no other mortal has justly either part or lot in them at all, now, hence forth or forever.
May it therefore please your Honourable House to protect him in said happy and long-doubtful event; and (by passing your Copyright Bill) forbid all Thomas Teggs and other extraneous persons, entirely unconcerned in this adventure of his, to steal from him his small winnings, for a space of sixty years at shortest. After sixty years, unless your Honourable House provide otherwise, they may begin to steal.
And your petitioner will ever pray.
Thomas Carlisle.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have some reason from the minister to show that it is the right of the House of Commons to interfere with the author's absolute control of his own works. This Bill professes to give a license to some person to publish the work of the author, whether the author is willing or not. It strikes me that any person wishing to publish a book should come to the author for leave to do so, and that the author ought to have
complete control over the product of his own labour.


Mr. MORPHY:: Referring to the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's as to defining the number of hooks that would constitute an edition, I see a great deal of difficulty. Sub-section (c) of the interpretation clause reads:
"book" shall include every volume, part or division of a volume, pamphlet, sheet of letterpress, sheet of music, map, chart, or plan separately published.
Now the word "book" is used in subsection 12 of section 13, hut it means all these things, and although it might he found that an edition of 500 copies would he all right for a book, it might be all wrong for a map, chart or plan or other particular work that would not be readily sold. So to my mind it is very difficult to set down any specific number that must of necessity constitute an edition.


William Stevens Fielding: I notice that subsection 3 of section 13 refers, for different purposes, to an edition of not less than 1,000 copies. I do not press the point, but t. seems to me that if the word "edition" is not defined somewhere the law may be easily evaded. However, I am content to call the minister's attention to it.


John Allister Currie: I think there are a great many places where some changes might very well be made, but until this legislation has been in operation for a year or two I do not think it would be possible to come to a final decision on many of these controversial points. There is no doubt we need some such law. The United States by their legislation have attracted a great deal of the world's book printing, and we must do something to keep the printing of the works of our own authors in Canada. That is what we are legislating for.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: To dispel the impression that this clause is the result of a compromise between the authors and the publishers, I would point out that it cannot be, for the simple reason that the authors object to the system, as they did in the days of Carlyle, which my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has pointed out. I do not want to press the point unduly because we are very anxious to have the Bill passed, and, besides, we have the promise that it will not be put in force except by proclamation. But I still think it wrong to pass the Bill with the clauses to which we object, and I feel confident

that the minister will find out that they are in contravention of the Berne Convention, and that he will have to do away with them if we wish to adhere to that convention.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I find I have to do that, I will. In saying it was a compromise, I did not mean to suggest that it was a compromise reached by the authors and publishers after a conference. It was a compromise effected by the committee between the respective contentions; I did not mean to say more than that. I have great respect for Carlyle, and I have the most profound sympathy for the widest interpretation of the author's right. But I may, perhaps, take the opportunity of pointing this out to the authors, that at common law they had no copyright at all -at least that was, I think, the predominant opinion. I had occasion to go into this question very carefully some years ago in a case where the point directly arose, and I felt compelled to decide that outside of statutes there was no copyright. Mind you, we are dealing not with the ownership of the manuscript, not of the ownership of the work itself, but with the question of what happens after a man has given, by way of publishing it, his work to the public. It is not so absolutely obvious that after a man has written a work and distributed it to the public he has a right to the produce of all the copies. So far as his work is a money producer and gives him an income, the community contributes to it. His work, as he wrote it, does not put money into his pocket unless the community purchases it, and he cannot get it to the community and get money for it unless somebody prints and publishes it. Now, I would suggest to the authors that if they want to preserve the sympathy which I am sure all right-minded people have with their demand that their rights be given the widest possible interpretation consistent with the public interest, they do not take too uncompromising an attitude and say to this Parliament, for instance, or to any other legislative body: You must think of nobody else but me in regard to that work and to all the copies of it, although other people contribute to produce the copies; nobody is to have any consideration from Parliament except me, the author. Now, that is not ah attitude that is going to preserve sympathy or gain it for the authors. I approach this legislation with every imaginable sympathy for the author, but I am free to say that I think the author who [Mr. Kinfret.j
takes exception to these licensing clauses, with all the safeguards that are put around them to see that he suffers no injury, is not in any more reasonable position than would be the proprietor of some other kind of property who would rise in revolt because his property was expropriated for the public interest and the public benefit, he getting ample compensation. We all submit to that, though our right to property in other things is just as absolute as the author's right can be in the work that he produces. I suggest that it is not wise or in his interests that the author should take this extreme position; it is of a nature to bring about opposition on the part of people who certainly have interests which conflict with the recognition of that principle. But apart from that, this Bill improves very materially the position of the author. Let us get for the author this substantial step in advance. Perhaps we may be able to go further as time goes on, but let us get now what can be got.


Robert Laird Borden: In addition to what the minister has said, the situation might perhaps be described as follows: if an author has written a book, has put it away, and locked it up in his desk, there is no question involved of the right of eminent domain; it remains and will remain his personal property and he may do what he likes with it. But if he sees fit to copyright it in some other country and in Canada as well, and if he publishes it in some other country but not in Canada, then the minister will have to ask himself whether there is any good reason why that book, having been published in other countries, should not also be printed and published in Canada. I cannot see that a provision of this kind can be construed as, unfair or unreasonable so far as the rights of the author are concerned. I would, however, make this suggestion to the minister: there is language here which unaccompanied by the context would indicate that an imperative duty is cast upon the minister; there is other language which indicates that that imperative duty is to be discharged by him subject to such terms and conditions as may seem to him fair and reasonable. Above all things, it seems to me desirable that we should make the section plain. I think it would be made perfectly plain if the minister would consent to add in the thirty-fourth line, clause 13, page 8, the words: "in his discretion," so that the section will then read:

The minister in his discretion may grant to the applicant a license to print and publish such book upon terms to be determined by the Minister after hearing the parties or affording them such opportunity to be heard as may be fixed by the regulations.
The addition of these words would, I think meet the position so far as the author is concerned and is thoroughly consistent with what follows. Without their addition,
I am really not quite clear as to what the section would mean.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be glad to accept the suggestion of the right hon. member. I move to amend subsection 5 of section 13 by adding after the word "minister" in line thirty-four, the words "in his discretion."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Rodolphe Lemieux: What about the other amendment?


Robert Laird Borden: The other
amendment was carried. The addition of these words will preclude the necessity of another amendment which I had intended to move, namely, that where a book has already been suppressed the minister should not grant any license. In view of the amendment which has just been assented to, the minister is perfectly at liberty to say that no license should be granted in such a case.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I ask
the minister whether the committee has considered the possible effect of this enactment upon the amount which a publishing house, say in the United States, would allow an author for the publication of his work? An American publisher will take work from a Canadian author because he is sure of having the market of the United States and the market of other countries as well. If this Bill goes into force, it limits to a certain extent the possible market that a publishing house may have, and, consequently, the amount which may be made on a contract.
Mr. DOHERTY The existence of this provision of law, which modifies the author s own right to the extent of subjecting it to the possibility of a license, may, of course, affect the value of that right when ha goes to sell it. It is a right affected by the existence of that law. It was, however, urged-and it seems to us that it has considerable force-that, while it may be perfectly true to-day, with no impediment in the way, the American publisher expects to get and insists on getting the rights in Canada of the book which he
buys from the author, if you had a situation such as this law creates where the publisher will know that he will be liable to come into competition with the holder of the license, but where he knows that the author cannot alter that situation, it is impossible that the publisher is going to say:	" Then I will not buy the book."
Surely, the American publisher who buys a w'ork has principally in mind his immense market of 110,000,000 people, and it would seem to me a very exceptional case where the right to publish in Canada absolutely without restriction would loom so large in the transaction that the transaction would fall through. As to what the author might be paid, let me point out that if what he gets from the American publisher is reduced by the American publisher not getting the Canadian right, if this license is carried through, the author will get his compensation in Canada for the circulation in Canada; he will not foe deprived of that right without ample compensation. I am not suggesting that the author is left just as well off as if this clause did not exist. I have conceded that this is putting a limitation on the interests of the author. Might we not appeal to the author, the Canadian author in particular, not to be absolutely selfish, but to have some thought for the Canadian printer or publisher who has contributed his part to this book? Might not the author have some consideration for the publisher's interest, and even if this reduces, in some degree, the price that the author gets from the American publisher, is it an unfair thing, when we are taking all the pains that we are taking to protect the author's rights and to surround them with guarantees, to ask him to be willing to accept, without too great criticism, this provision? I may point this out also, that as the law now stands, notwithstanding the issue of this license, works may be imported from countries that are in the Copyright Union, and if we come to a satisfactory understanding with the United States, as we have every reason to expect, no doubt we shall be in a position to extend the privilege to the United States. In that case the American publisher will be able to sell those books in Canada. All that he will be called upon to submit to is competition with a Canadian publisher.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Assuming that an author by further research has come to the conclusion that he does not care to have a certain edition republished,

can he .be protected against the republishing of such edition?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have already moved an amendment to provide that the second edition or subsequent editions shall not be published without the consent of the author.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-license to publish books in serial form.
Mr. HOCKEN:: This clause nullifies what has been done in the preceding clause. It reads:
If the publication of a book is lawfully begun as a serial elsewhere than in His Majesty's Dominions or in a foreign country to which section 4 of this Act applies, and the owner of the copyright has refused to grant a license to any person-
That is to say, the author may start printing the book as a serial in the United States or in Great Britain; then there will be no right for any publisher in Canada to get a license to print the book, and what we have done in the preceding clause, we are undoing with these words. What should ibe done is to make the clause read in this way:
If the publication of a book is lawfully begun as a serial elsewhere than in Canada-
And strike out the words: " His Majesty's Dominions or a foreign country to which section 4 of this Act applies." Then the two clauses would harmonize. If you are going to be consistent, the words that I have mentioned ought to be struck out.
I would like to know what the minister says about the matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am disposed to think there would be no objection to accepting the suggestion of the hon. member. Of course, I am frank enough to say that what we have in contemplation in the Bill is to make a distinction between countries which come into the Copyright Union and those which do not. The clause as it reads is following on that general line of action. On the other hand, I quite realize that it is, perhaps, fair that where a work is published as a serial, say in England, there should be a possibility of a paper in this country publishing it. I am trying to think what ground of objection there could be. I do not know to what extent this Bill will expose us to difficulty in Great Britain. As I pointed out earlier in the treatment of this matter, it is important that we should make such a law as in Great Britain will be found to give British authors as full protection as their

law gives us. I do not know whether this would afford ground for the suggestion that we are not giving them as full protection as they give us, because I do not think they have any licensing system at all, and their author under their system is interfered with in no way by any right recognized in the publisher. I feel so strongly that the thing is unobjectionable that I would have no objection to accepting the amendment, and in the event of further consideration revealing any objection to it, I will speak to the hon. gentleman and the matter might, perhaps, be adjusted in the Senate. In the meantime I will accept the amendment. I beg to move to amend subsection (1) of section 14 by striking out these words in the second and third lines of the section: "His Majesty's Dominions or a foreign country to which section 4 of this Act applies," and by substituting therefor the word "Canada."


Mr. EULER:: Should the deleted clause not begin with the word "elsewhere"? It is the word "elsewhere" that makes all the trouble.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The clause as amended will read "elsewhere than in Canada." If a book is started as a serial in Canada, I do not understand the suggestion to be that there should be a license.


Mr.  H. M. MO WAT@Parkdal'e: Has the minister appreciated the trouble we may have in having this Bill accepted by Great Britain? We shall have to have their concurrence in joining the Berne Convention, which is the protection, all over the civilized world, of authors. May not the minister by striking out these words and making the provision apply everywhere, foster a feeling of opposition which may give us great difficulty in dealing with the British Government? My recollection is that that was in our minds when we drew the clause in this way. What we endeavoured to protect a serial magazine man from was this: The United States is the place to which the Canadian author will go, and at times he is not able to publish his work in a Canadian magazine, because when he asks the American magazine publisher for the right to publish in Canada he is met with a somewhat curt refusal. The American Magazine publisher will say to him: Our magazine is published in Canada, and I will not give you those rights. The Canadian magazine publisher, who has been striving for years to build up a good business and to give Canada as good a magazine as can be got elsewhere, feels that it is a great hard-

ship that he is not able on fair terms to the author to get a license to publish these articles. The magazine men feel very keenly over this. One magazine after another in Canada has gone into bankruptcy simply because the publishers could not get past this impediment put in their way-and no doubt quite properly from the point of view of business-by the American publishers. That was the idea underlying this clause, and I would ask the minister to hesitate before he extends it to Great Britain.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: All I have in mind is
that we should not allow the publication of a book as a serial in the United States publication to prevent a license being issued in the Dominion of Canada. The minister assures me that the clause as it stands has that effect, and upon his assurance, therefore, I remove my objection to the clause. I did not desire to do anything more than provide that a man cannot write a book and start it as a serial in the United States in order to escape the licensing clauses of his Act, and on the minister's assurance that that point is covered, I withdraw my objection.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There can be no doubt that that is the effect. I said that there was a reason which I could not think of at the moment, and it is the provision in the Berne Convention that serial stories published in the newspapers or periodicals of one of the countries belonging to the Union may not be reproduced in the other countries without the consent of the author. I move for leave to withdraw my amendment.


William Daum Euler: I was quite in agreement
with the minister when he made his amendment, although there was a little misunderstanding as to just which words were being withdrawn and which inserted. If the clause remains as it is in the Bill you will be violating a principle with regard to the serial printing of a story that you observe in the case of the completed book. My understanding of a principle that was to be observed in this Bill was this: that where a Canadian author prints his work in book form in the United States it should become possible for a Canadian publisher to obtain a license to print that book in Canada. I think that is correct, and if that is correct with regard to the story in book form, is it not intended that the same principle shall apply to the book when printed in serial form? It seems to me that the wording of the section prevents that. It says:
If the publication of a book is lawfully begun as a serial elsewhere than in His Majesty's Dominions or a foreign country to which section four of this Act applies.
I would think that section 4 will conceivably apply to the United States when it joins the Berne Convention. If so, the United States will be exempted entirely from this provision and the Canadian publisher will not be able to get a license.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the United States joins the Berne Convention-up to the present time she has not done so, and she has given no indication of doing so-she would come under this express provision of the Berne Convention, which escaped my mind at the time I proposed the amendment:
Serial stories, tales and all other works, whether literary scientific or artistic, whatever their object, published in the newspapers or periodicals of one of the countries of the Union may not be reproduced in the other countries without the consent of the author.
Now when the United States, if she ever does, comes into the Berne Convention she will come under that provision. But we are legislating, of course, for the existing condition of affairs, and as things stand today, this clause we are considering has the effect precisely of enabling licenses for serial stories to issue in Canada where a story is published as a serial in the United States. It would also be true of any other country not in the Union, but I think for practical purposes the country we are interested in is the United States; it would hardly be desirable to insert any particular country, but we get a practical result by saying "elsewhere than in countries that belong to the Union."


William Daum Euler: Does the minister then
state that this disability on the part of the American publisher will disappear if the United States joins the Berne Convention? If the United States joins the Berne Convention, will or will it not then be possible for the Canadian publisher to publish in serial form under license the work of a Canadian author which has been published in that form in the United States?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the United States
should join the convention, then it will be for us to consider what legislation we ought to make in view of the altered conditions. If that should happen, and we want to continue this privilege, we will have to consider whether we had not better legislate to continue it even though that country has come into the Union. That will involve our considering what we then ought to do about

adhering to the convention. But we are making a law now to meet the conditions that exist at present, and as conditions now exist, this gives to our publishers the right to obtain a license to publish these things as serial stories where they are published as serial stories in the United States. No doubt there will be a different situation if the United States changes its position and we will then have to consider what we ought to do about it.


William Daum Euler: Does the discrimination
remain as against the Canadian publisher as compared with the British publisher or publishers in other parts of His Majesty's Dominions merely because of the fact that they belong to the Berne Convention?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know that we analysed just what was the reason why, but the fact is that they do belong to the Berne Convention, and the fact is with regard to all countries belonging to the Berne Convention, if they wish to adhere to it, that we cannot enact this legislation as applicable to them. The same reason applies to Great Britain and the dominions as applies to all other countries who are in the Berne Convention, and therefore it was not necessary for us to consider whether there was any additional reason why we should do it with regard to the British dominions.


William Daum Euler: Is it true that under the Berne Convention there is a distinction with regard to the publication of books printed as a whole, and those printed merely as serials.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is an express
provision that serials shall not be reproduced without the consent of the author.


William Daum Euler: That does not apply to books?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no such express provision with regard to books.
Amendment withdrawn.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it intended to make the language of this section conform to the amendment which has already been agreed to by the committee with regard to section 13? Perhaps it is worth while to adopt the same language as that already added to section 13, to provide that the license may, in the discretion of the minister, be granted to any person in Canada.


Georges Henri Boivin: Sir Robert Borden
moves to amend section 14 by inserting

after the word "may," in the forty-first line-[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: I do not move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, because I am not sufficiently familiar with the Bill as a whole to judge whether this should be done. I am merely making the suggestion to the minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I understand it,
whether we confer the discretion or not, the minister would be expected, unless there were substantial reasons to the contrary, to grant the license where all the conditions were fulfilled. However, I do not see any objection to giving him discretion in the matter. I move, first, that subsection 2 be amended by striking out the word "shall" in the first line, and substituting the words "may, in his discretion."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: It will also be necessary to move the amendment suggested by the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), with regard to subsection 1, to conform with the amendment just proposed.


Robert Laird Borden: I think so.


Georges Henri Boivin: Sir Robert Borden
moves to amend section 14, subsection 1, by inserting after the word "may," in the forty-first line, the words "in the discretion of the minister."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 47-Acts of United Kingdom.
John Howard Sinclair: What Acts of the United Kingdom are in force in Canada with regard to copyright?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Act* of 1842 and the Act of 1886 are both in force in this country, predominantly over our legislation where they differ from our Act of 1889.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 49-Adherence to Convention of Berne.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If sections 13, 14, and 15 do not conform to the Berne Convention, I should like the minister to state that the Government will rather abandon those sections than fail to adhere to the convention.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If those sections are at variance with the convention, we shall

have to come back to the House, because the law of this country would put the Government in a position where it could not consistently adhere to the convention, and we should have to decide the question then. After the best examination I have been able to give to the matter myself, I am disposed to believe that there is nothing inconsistent with the convention of Berne in these sections. There is no question of formalities at all.
I may say in confirmation of that, that I had the question put-not directly myself but through a gentleman in this country who was very much interested in the copyright question, and entirely from the author's point of view-to those who are in charge of the bureau in connection with the convention, and I am in possession of a very interesting letter, which I will be pleased to communicate to the hon. gentleman, in which the opinion is expressed- not because the writer is enthusiastic for these clauses but because he thinks it is so 

that whereas a clause which was in the Bill as originally introduced and which required the filing of a declaration, which clause has disappeared, would be a violation of the provision that there must be no formality, that these licensing clauses are not a violation of that provision. In any event the proper time to consider and decide upon the course to be adopted should these clauses be considered a violation of the convention, will be when, if ever, the objection is raised by some other party to the convention. I may add that though it does not go so far, the British Copyright Act provides for the issuing of a license in one case, and if it may be done in one case, why the principle is the same. It is provided by section 12 of our own Act, which is copied from the British Act, that at any time after the death of the author if the owner of the copyright does not republish or allow republication, a license may be ordered to be granted to other people to do it. The principle is conceded there and nobody has ever questioned that the British legislation was in conformity with the convention.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before we pass section 49 I wish to ask a question in regard to the convention of Berne. I understand that the convention of Berne establishes a bureau, such as the postal convention established, an international bureau under the direction of the Swiss Government. As the convention of Berne has already been revised and as the status of Canada has been somewhat altered, are we
to understand that in any future convention to be convened at Berne that Canada shall be represented as Canada or shall we be represented through His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of India? Furthermore in the conventions which are held, according to the regulations made or provided for in the instrument, will Canada be officially invited to those meetings at Berne as she is invited to the postal convention?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The question the hon.
gentleman puts to me I am not in a position, perhaps, to answer very positively at the moment. It is to be borne in mind that the convention we are now dealing with is a convention that was passed in 1908. The form in which the stipulation is made there is very different from the method in which more recent treaties have been entered into. The convention at that time was entered into without any special reference to Canada and it contains a provision that contracting countries shall have the right to adhere to the convention at any time for their colonies or foreign possessions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What number is that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 26, page 32.-
I do not think the particular form in which the convention would be executed will necessarily be governed by that particular provision. I presume that "His Majesty would adhere in behalf of Canada" in whatever form would be thought proper; and I would be disposed to think in view of the recent practice introduced and carried out now in quite a few cases we would have an adherence by His Majesty on behalf of Canada that would put us in the position of being one of the countries members of the union. However, I would have to look into that question a little to see how it should be worked out to attain that end before giving a positive answer.


John Howard Sinclair: Before the Bill passes
I want to enter my protest against the enactment of clauses 13, 14 and 15. I regard them as an unjustifiable interference with the rights of the Canadian authors. At the present time the Canadian author has a right to copyright in Canada and the United States. He has a right to go to the American publisher and say "I have copyrighted this book or serial in Canada and no one can publish it without my consent" and he is able to sell the right to publish in the United States for the best price he can

get. This right we are taking away from the author. He can no longer go to an American published and say "I can give you the sole right to publish this serial or this book," because he is up against this statute which enables some one jn Canada to come in and interfere with that right and to publish such book or such serial and sell it not only in Canada but also in the United States. My hon. friend from Park-dale (Mr. Mowat) has said the Canadian magazine publishers are now put to considerable inconvenience because they cannot secure the author's consent. But does not the right of publication belong to the author? We will say that my hon. friend has a gold watch and that I have not got any and it is inconvenient for me and I would like to have his watch. If I ask for a license to go and take his watch from him my hon. friend would protest very strongly. I think the foundations on which this legislation is based are unjust and I desire to go on record as opposed to it.


Mr.  H. M. MO WAT@Parkdal'e: If the law was that I should not carry a gold watch unless I gave inquirers the time, then it would be fair to say that my hon. friend from Guysborough would have the right to ask me the time. It is a sort of compromise. Copyright exists only by statute, and if we pass such a statute then we have the right to say, "Now, as a reasonable compromise in view of your getting that copyright you are not to take away the rights enjoyed by other citizens."


Rodolphe Lemieux: My right hon. friend will notice that Article 1 of the revised Berne Convention reads:
The contracting- States are constituted into a Union for the protection of the rights of authors over their literary and artistic works.
Then Article XX provides:
The Governments of the countries of the Union reserve to themselves the right to enter into special arrangements between each other, provided always that such arrangements confer upon authors more extended rights than those [DOT] granted by the Union, or embody other stipulations not contrary to the present Convention. The provisions of existing arrangements which answer to the above-mentioned conditions shall remain applicable.
I should like to know if there are special privileges which the adhering nations' colonies or dominions will not have.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would not so understand it. The present parties make a Convention and stipulate certain rights and obligations for the members of this Union, and among other things they stipulate
[Mr. Sinclair.!
that the contracting countries shall have the right to accede to the present Convention at any time for their colonies or possessions. That implies, in the first place, that the accession of the countries mentioned (the contracting parties), does not necessarily involve their colonies at all, and it provides for a method by which those colonies, so treated distinctly from what may be called the mother countries, may adhere to the Convention. I would understand that when any country adheres to that Convention it adds itself to the list of parties who have made the Convention, and that therefore it would form a member of the Union which these original adherents had formed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the meaning of "reserve to themselves" in Article XX?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The governments of
the countries forming the Union reserve to themselves certain rights.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It applies to those who adhere?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would think that
would be the accepted understanding, that when countries parties to the Convention admit another country, that other country becomes an additional member.


William Stevens Fielding: The wording of Article XXVI of the Berne Convention which my hon. friend has referred to is interesting:
The contracting countries-
One of which is Great Britain.
-shall have the right to accede to the present Convention at any time for their colonies or foreign possessions.
I should like to know whether my right hon. friend considers Canada a "colony" or "foreign possession" of Great Britain.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not consider Canada to-day is a colony of Great Britain.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, my!


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
should not ask me a question for the purpose of creating a situation where he can exclaim, "Oh, my!" to the answer. If he thought enough of my view to be willing to ask for it, he might perhaps control and conceal his contempt. At the time, back in 1908, people were not giving as much attention perhaps to correct designations as I hope we are to-day and I do not know whether there is any great importance to be attached to it. The hon. gentleman has my answer as to Canada's present status. I do not think that will embarrass her standing in the Convention


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to join with the member for Guysborough in taking exception to sections 13, 14 and 15.


Georges Henri Boivin: If we are to return to those sections which were passed long ago, I must ask the unanimous consent of the committee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is true, but we passed them very rapidly.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am not calling the hon. member to order, but simply pointing out that unanimous consent is necessary for him to return to those sections.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There was pretty good discussion on sections 13 and 14, and I do not think we ought to go back to them. I am opposed to it, anyway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will reserve my remarks until we get to the preamble.


Georges Henri Boivin: There is no preamble.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We have done our very best to expedite the passage of this Bill, and I think we should show courtesy to the leader of the Opposition and allow him to make a statement.
% Mr. LANCTOT:	If you want to stay
here two weeks more, go ahead.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand why the minister in considering the terms and conditions cannot take into account all that my hon. friend has said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I give my right hon. friend an example from my own experience in connection with the publication of a book?


Robert Laird Borden: I am taking as correct everything that my hon. friend has said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think lean illustrate the point I have in mind in this way: a firm in the United States accepts a book from a Canadian author and allows him 15 per cent royalty on the first 1,500 copies, 20 per cent on all copies between 1,500 and 2,500, and then 30 per cent on additional copies sold. The firm makes that contract in the expectation of having a large market. As it is a book by a Canadian author, they take into account the possibility of its sale in Canada. Once the point of 1,500 is reached the author commences to get his royalty on a 20 per cent basis; when 2,500 is reached he gets his 30 per cent, and he gets it in virtue of sales in Canada as well as of sales in the United States. But if this law as it stands goes into effect what will happen? He may conceivably be kept at the 15 per cent royalty.

The minister when considering how much he will allow the author when a Canadian firm undertakes the publication, will say: The company in the United States is giving a 15 per cent royalty; we will allow the Canadian publisher his contract with the author on the same basis and the author will thereby be kept on the 15 per cent basis. Whereas if the author were free to have his contract carried out by the American publishing house as to sales generally, instead of getting 15 per cent on his hooks he might be getting 30 per cent on the greater proportion of the sales. I can see that that may be the effect in practice. It may not amount to much in the case of some persons, but in the case of most authors a difference of a few hundred dollars here and there is a quite important matter.


Robert Laird Borden: I still do not see why the minister cannot take that all into account when he fixes the rate of remuneration.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: My understanding of the Bill differs from that of the hon. leader of the Opposition. An author may write a book and sell it to an American publisher. The American publisher can print it in the United States or he can print it in Canada as well, and the gross sale is just as large as if the printing were all done in the United States. Therefore the proportionate increase in royalty that there would be under the old condition should prevail under the new condition. He gets the Canadian market; if the author wants the book published here, it is published here. This licensing clause is only to provide that when the author will not publish in Canada, somebody else may do so, paying him reasonable compensation. I cannot see that the author's rights are injuriously affected; on the contrary, I think they are adequately protected. If we had the same law that they have in the United States, the Canadian author could not get a copyright until his book was' set in type and printed and the copy laid before the Secretary of State in Ottawa, but under this law the type can be set in the United States, and plates can be made and sent to Canada if the author wants to publish the work in this country. If the author will not publish it in Canada and if his American publisher will not do so, then some one in Canada may say: I will publish the book and_ pay the royalty determined by the minister. Surely there is nothing unfair 
in that. The author is entirely protected, if I understand the Bill correctly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have had urgent requests from gentlemen in the Senate that the Bill should reach them at the earliest possible moment, as they would like to have time to go into it. It would be well, therefore, if the Bill could be read the third time now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All right.
Mr. DOHERTY moved the third reading of the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I express the hope that as the Canadian law is now to be changed, when the next convention meets Canada appear on her own behalf as she does in the postal convention?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am sure that if an>
effort be needed to bring about that re>
suit-and I do not think there would be any difficulty in the way-the effort will not be wanting. Of course, I cannot assure my hon. friend of what will happen, but I have every reason to believe that when we adhere to the Convention we shall be recognized when the meeting is held as we are recognized everywhere else when we meet the other nations of the world.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 214, (from the Senate) for the relief of Ernest Joseph Wismer.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 215, (from the Senate) for the relief of Carman Adams.-Mr. Mowat.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 205, to amend the Oleomargarine Act, 1919.
Mr. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hunt-ingdon) :: Before this Bill is read the second time I should like to repeat what I pointed out to the minister When the resolution was under consideration a few days ago. While consenting to the admission of oleomargarine during the war, at a time when dairy products were very high, I can see no good reason why we should continue

the admission of oleomargarine into this country. The minister will recollect that it was the policy of Canada for many years, under both Liberal and Conservative administrations, to prevent the admission of oleomargarine into Canada on the ground that it was a detriment to the dairying interests of this country. During that period the dairying interests of Canada made wonderful progress, so much so that we were able to put our products, not only butter and cheese, but bacon and beef, into the markets of the world. To the dairying industry we owe directly the production of such important foodstuffs as butter and cheese, but that industry is also the basis for the production of meats: bacon, beef, veal and poultry products. It also helps to fertilize the soil. The greater the dairy industry; the more cattle there are, the better will be the crops. While grain growing may be profitable temporarily, it takes away the fertility of the soil, while on the contrary, the production of dairy products and the raising of cattle and swine contribute not only to the na-. tional wealth but to the fertility of the soil, so that we produce more grain.
War conditions have passed and the price of dairy products is down to about normal. The price of butter is not high; the price of cheese is not high; indeed, if the price keeps on going down, the cost of production will be greater than the selling price. Under such conditions it might be well for the minister to make haste slowly in the way of granting concessions for admission of oleomargarine into this country. Under present regulations manufacture is permitted up to the month of August of this year and sale up to the month of March of next year, so that those who have been importing oleomargarine and those who have been manufacturing oleomargarine in this country will have ample time to dispose of their stocks. I am told -and I am making this statement so that the minister may correct me if I am wrong -that there are only two firms manufacturing oleomargarine in Canada, and although oleomargarine comes in free of duty, its importation is surrounded by so many restrictions that the manufacture of oleomargarine in this country is practically a monopoly. The minister admits certain ingredients used in oleomargarine free of duty; that is refunds of duty are allowed. The statement was made the other day by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) that an immense sum of
money had been refunded by the customs to importers of oleomargarine.
I have no desire to delay the House at this time when we are trying to dispose of business and to close up, but I should like the minister to take into serious consideration the question of extending the fights to import oleomargarine or to manufacture oleomargarine in Canada. The time has now arrived when we should revert to the old conditions under which the dairy industry of this country was so well built up. During the Budget debate we heard much from my hon. friends opposite as regards protection to the farmer. So far as I know, the farmer is not asking for any special protection on his products, but this is a case where we can give him a fair protection by prohibiting the importation and manufacture of a product that enters into serious competition with his product.
There is another feature of this matter that I should like to direct to the attention of the minister. After all, oleomargarine, according to a statement of what it contains, is an adulteration, manufacturers of oleomargarine contending that it contains about 70 to 75 per cent of farm product; there is some butter and milk used in its manufacture. We have laid down as a principle that there should be no adulteration in certain farm products. We have recently had that before us in the question of maple products, where an attempt was made to go back oo legislation introduced two or three years ago, and it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee on Agriculture that we should not admit of any reaction in this matter, but that we should keep these products pure. That should apply to butter as well as maple products. I submit these considerations to the minister, and I hope he will not press his Bill at this time.


John Howard Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words in regard to this Bill before it is read the second time. My hon. friend (Mr. Robb) has expressed my views pretty clearly in regard to it. The importance of the dairy industry, of course, will be admitted by everybody; it is of vast importance to the country; it is a growing industry, and we should be very careful not to take any steps that would in any way check or interfere with it. I have been sent a circular letter by Mr. D'Arcy Scott, Secretary-Treasurer and General Counsel of the National Dairy Council of

Canada, dated the 21st of the present month, and containing the following resolution:
That this Council strongly disapproves of the efforts of manufacturers and vendors of oleomargarine to present that article in such shape, appearance and colour as to attempt to deceive purchasers into the belief that they are actually getting butter or an article with the same food values as butter. This Council is of the opinion that to remove the unfairness of the competition of oleo with butter, and to prevent deception and dishonesty, strict regulations in addition to those now in effect should be passed by the Government of Canada providing for a standard colour of oleo other than the colour of butter, the printing on the container of each package of oleo a statement of the ingredients used to make up the oleo and the proportions of each ingredient. Also that no dairy products be allowed to be used in the manufacture of oleo sold in Canada.
No action whatever has 'been taken to comply with this resolution.
Then it goes on to say:
The manufacture and sale of oleo in Canada was prohibited prior to December, 1917, when the prohibition was temporarily suspended by Order in Council under the War Measures Act. Since the armistice the suspension of the prohibition against oleo has been extended from year to year by legislation. The suspension will expire on September next unless Parliament -passes further legislation.
We are now proposing by this Bill to admit the manufacture and importation without restriction. This appears to be an unfortunate time to pass a law permitting importation and manufacture of oleomargarine in competition with the butter industry. Last year we sold as much as 6,000,000 pounds of butter in the United States; but owing to recent legislation in that country imposing a duty of six cents a pound on Canadian butter, it is very unlikely that we shall be able to make equally great sales to the United States when this legislation comes into force. That should be considered. The price of butter has dropped very low; the industry is not in a prosperous condition at present, and if there ever was a time when we should be careful as regards legislation, it is at present. The price of butter is back to almost its pre-war level, and the prospects are that it will go still lower in the future. I do not consider that it is at all necessary to continue the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada when butter can be secured so cheaply, and I therefore wish to place myself on record as being in entire agreement with what my hon. friend from Huntingdon had just said in regard to this matter. I shall vote against the Bill.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I have opposed the
importation and manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada from the very first, and in opposing it to-day I am simply in line with what I have done in the past. I am glad that the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), who _s disposed occasionally to drop a few free trade sentiments and to give more or less vociferous applause to free trade sentiments dropped by someone else, is alive to the effect of what the imposition of the six cents duty on butter now being imposed by the United States Government will be so far as that market for our producers is concerned. The duty used to be two or two and a half cents, and now they have raised it to six cents. The effect will be to exclude Canadian butter from the American market. I think it was intended to have that effect, and it certainly will have that effect.
Let us look for a moment at the conditions prior to the adoption of the Order in Council which permitted the admission of oleomargarine into Canada and its manufacture here. I could understand action along that line having been taken previous to the time when it was taken. In 1914, for instance, we imported over 7,000,000 pounds of butter, and exported on.y
1,250,000	pounds; in 1915 our imports were pretty nearly 7,000,000 pounds, and our exports 2,700,000 pounds; in 1916 our imports were 4,300,000 pounds, and our exports 3,400,000 pounds. In all these years, according to the import and export figures I have just quoted, we were not producing a sufficient quantity of butter in Canada for our home requirements and in those years the argument could have been advanced that was advanced later, that we were not making enough butter to supply the home demand, that the price was inordinately high, and that therefore the poor man was being deprived of an essential article of food. In 1917, however, our imports of butter were 997,000 pounds, and our exports were pretty nearly 8,000,000 pounds: that is to say, according to our import and export figures, we not only produced enough butter in Canada to supply the home market, but we had a surplus and had to look for a market for that surplus in other parts of the world. It was at that time, on December 10, 1917, that the Order in Council was passed permitting the importation of oleomargarine into Canada and its manufacture in this country. At that time the argument that was advanced by the then Minister of

Agriculture, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), was that the price of butter was so high that many poor people in this country were unable to buy it. He justified-and in this he was backed up by many other hon. gentlemen in the House*-the admission into Canada and manufacture here of oleomargarine on the ground that the fats necessary for sound physical health were not obtainable at a reasonable price in Canada in the form of butter. That argument was accepted by the Government and, I must say, by an overwhelming majority of members on both sides of the House. If that was the only argument advanced, and I am not aware at the moment of any other argument having been put forward, that argument does not hold good to-day.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: Did my hon. friend state since when there had been a surplus of butter in this country?


William Cameron Edwards: The figures I gave showed that up to 1916 we were not producing enough butter to supply the home demand, but that in 1917 we imported only
997.000	pounds of butter while we exported
7.900.000	pounds. I take those figures to indicate that we were producing enough butter not only to supply the home demand, but to leave over a good surplus. That was the year in which the Order in Council was passed, for the reasons I have stated. Now in 1918 we imported only
443.000	pounds of butter, while we exported pretty nearly 5,000,000 pounds. In 1919 our imports of butter were less than 2,000,000 pounds, while our exports were over 13,500,000 pounds. In 1920 our imports of butter were 397,000 pounds, while our exports were over 17,600,000 pounds.
I wish that my hon. friend would pay attention to the figures I am now about to give. I have stated that according to the import and export figures from 1917 up to 1920 we were producing in ever-increasing quantities more butter than we required for our home consumption. That of itself would have a tendency to push the price of butter down to a reasonable figure in this country, and in consequence of the surplus we had to look all over the world to find a market for it. Now, in 1918 we imported into this country 2,262,514 pounds of oleomargarine. Every pound of that, in my judgment, replaced a pound of butter and forced our farmers and dairymen to look elsewhere for a market for that quantity of butter. In 1919 our imports of oleomargarine were 4,217,000
pounds, and in that year we exported over 13,000,000 pounds of butter. In 1920 our imports of oleomargarine amounted to pretty nearly 7,000,000 pounds, and in that year we exported some 17,000,000 pounds of butter. Now, it is claimed that the Government were justified in allowing oleomargarine to enter this country because of the high price of butter at the time the Order in Council was passed, and that the high price was due to scarcity of supply. But the figures show that at the time the Order in Council was passed there was no scarcity. But consider the matter on the basis of price. Let us see what the average price of butter was from 1914 on. According to the Montreal Gazette the average price of butter per pound for 1914 was 27.6 cents; 1915, 29.4 cents; 1916, 34.2 cents; 1917, 39.9 cents; 1918, 47 cents; 1919, 58.9 cents; 1920, 55.8 cents. Those who oppose my view of this matter may argue that the price of butter, notwithstanding the importations of oleomargarine, is constantly going up. Well, let us take late reports, because, if it is fair for those who favour the importation of oleomargarine, to quote the prices of butter notwithstanding the importation of this article, surely they will not object to my quoting the prices of butter also and arguing that there is no need, in view of those prices, to allow the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine at the present time. I take the dairy produce market report for the week ending May 7. 1921, and I find that butter, No. 1 grade, was sold in Montreal at 28| cents a pound. Six hundred and sixty packages were sold at this rate. On No. 2 butter, a bid of 25 cents was refused; but in that week, butter sold as low as 26| cents a pound. That is very much below what butter was selling at-and below the price fetched by oleomargarine-all through 1919 and 1920. Let us take the report for the week ending May 21. In Montreal, butter sold at 25i cents, and 251 cents a pound, and at St. Hyacinthe, and other places, as Wjell as in Toronto, the same prices obtained. In view of these prices, which have been maintained pretty steadily for some considerable time, there is no good argument which can be adduced in favour of the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. In my judgment, butter is selling to-day at a price which does not enable the dairyman and the farmer to come out anywhere near even. That is my well-considered judgment in the matter; and in view of the immense amount of money


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
which is invested in the dairy industry, and the large sum of capital invested in buildings, stock, etc., as well as the number of people directly interested in the success of the industry in Canada, I think that this Government, or any other, should give very careful consideration to the business and do everything possible to help it along. If this House agrees with me that at the present prices, and the prices that have obtained for some months past, the dairyman is not making ends meet, then I appeal to the Government that this is not a proper time at which to pass a permanent measure granting for all time, in this country, the right to import oleomargarine and to manufacture that product here. Whatever arguments may have been advanced in favour of its importation and manufacture in times past, when butter sold at a high price, I certainly contend that to-day the dairy industry should receive consideration at the hands of the Government, and that this Bill should not be pressed. With the action of the Government last session in giving a year's extension to the Order in Council, as was also done the year before, I know that the great majority of members on both sides of the House agreed. Very well, I did not agree, but I was in a hopeless minority. However, if the Government feel that there should be an extension of time for another year, and can assure us that the present price of butter is only temporary, while I would object to the passage of this Bill, as I have done before, I would frankly say that it would not be as bad as passing the Bill and making the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine a permanent thing.
I know it may be argued by some that Canada is the only country which up to the present time has not definitely allowed the importation and manufacture of this article. The United States and other countries have allowed its importation and manufacture. Well, that is their affair; but I do not think that conditions in this country are on all-fours with conditions in the United States, in Denmark, or in any of the other countries which permit the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. Of course, opinions may reasonably differ in that regard, and I am only giving my personal view of the matter.
I want to say again, what I said in speaking on the Budget, that I fail to understand how one can defend the free importation of oleomargarine into Canada.

If the question were asked why we have a duty of 4 cents a pound on butter, the answer, I presume, would be that it is for the protection of our dairymen in Canada. Well, if that is true, how can we justify the importation free of duty of oleomargarine which certainly comes into the country in direct competition with butter -for every pound of oleomargarine takes the place of a pound of butter. To be consistent, we should take the duty off butter, which is something I suppose my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) would agree with.
Michael Clark: Sure.


William Cameron Edwards: Or, in the alternative, we should place a duty on oleomargarine at least equal to the duty which is now imposed on butter coming into the country. That is the course I would take if this article were allowed to come into the country. Considering the large amount of money invested in the dairy industry, the importance of that industry to the Dominion, the number of people directly interested in it, and other reasons which could be advanced, in my judgment this is not an opportune time to place on the statute book of the country an Act which would allow the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine for all time to come. To be consistent with the course I have taken on previous occasions, and also with my own conscientious views in this matter, which have not changed a particle, I must express my opposition to the measure, and, in fact, to the whole principle of allowing oleomargarine into this country at the present time, or permitting its manufacture here.


Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi) :: I must enter a protest against the Bill which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) is asking the House to pass. I am very sorry that the minister felt obliged to introduce this Bill, in view of the present condition of the dairy industry in this country. I feel sure that, were he left to use his own judgment in the matter, he would have dropped the Bill. At any rate, I give him credit for that feeling. The dairy industry is the most important of all the agricultural industries in Canada, and this Bill strikes a very serious blow at it. At the present time, the price of butter is below the pre-war price; it is so low, indeed, that the dairyman is producing butter at a good deal below cost. I need not tell the House that if this condition continued for any length of time the

only course open to the dairy farmer would be to stop dairying. When that time arrives-although I hope it will not come- a Bill of this kind might then be necessary and appropriate because we would all have to eat oleomargarine. Another very serious fault of the Bill is that it permits the adulteration of butter. Oleo is largely made from butter, milk and cream, and I protest most emphatically against any regulations which permit the adulteration of the product of that great basic industry the dairy industry. If the regulations were so framed as to require oleomargarine to be manufactured solely from vegetable and animal oils there would not be the same objection to the proposal; but unfortunately the department has allowed the manufacturers of oleo to use from 20 to 25 per cent of butter, milk and cream in the production of this article, and therefore it is without any doubt an adulteration of butter. In a very short time the Canadian dairyman will be deprived of his export markets entirely. The United States, who were large consumers of our butter, are putting on a duty of 6 cents a pound which will be prohibitive. As to the British market it is flooded with butter. That commodity was formerly under the control of the Government but decontrol has now been carried out and hundreds of tons of butter have been thrown on the market there. Consequently any possibility of our exporting butter at the present time to England has gone. The arguments advanced by the hon. member for Chateau-guay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) and the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) are very good and I wish to endorse them thoroughly. I will not detain the House any further at the present moment.


Mr. JOHN BEST (Dufferin) :: I heartily agree with the views of my hon. friend from Frontenac. Like that hon. gentleman I opposed this Bill on a former occasion, and the reasons for doing so at that time were not as good as the reasons for opposing it to-day. On the former occasion I pointed out that other articles that were protected were just as high in price as butter. I am a protectionist, a moderate protectionist, and I believe the farmers of Canada have just as good a right to protection as other classes have. The argument has been advanced that the poor man and the poor woman in the past could not afford to buy butter. The statement probably was true, I am not disputing it, but if you are going to remove the protection from butter why not do it also in the case of the
244 J
boots and clothing that the poor man and the poor woman wear?
Some hon. MEMBERS : Hear, hear.


John Best: I am not arguing for a moment that the duties in any instance should be removed, I want protection to be maintained in every direction. What I say is that the importation of oleomargarine ought to be prohibited and in that I an: consistent; I want protection on everything that the farmer has to sell. But my friends across the way, who pretend to defend the farmer, have never raised their voice to have the farmer protected-I never heard them say a word in the past in favour of doing that. It is argued now that because butter is so cheap, oleomargarine will not be bought. If that is the case why allow oleomargarine to come into Canada or be mahufaetured here. I cannot see why any sane man should go on manufacturing oleomargarine if he finds no sale for it. Butter is now selling at local points-I am not speaking of sales in the city-for 25 cents a pound and in some cases for less. I do not think there is any excuse for the poor man or the poor woman not buying butter under present conditions-with the wages they are paid now they can well afford to buy butter which proportionately has gone down in price more than wages have. We have been trying in Canada to build up a dairy industry and we have succeeded fairly well; but unfortunately we are permitting the importation of millions of pounds of oleomargarine, and the consumption of every pound of that product in the Dominion means one pound less in the consumption of butter. Why should we allow that? I believe in fair play to all classes. We have several industries in this country, but the agricultural industry is the one that deserves to be protected above all others. Yet the present Bill means taking away the protection so far as butter is concerned. How are we in this northern country-where the farmer has to put up buildings that will cost him from three to four thousand dollars to house his cattle for six or seven months in the year-to compete with farmers in the southern states, and in other countries, where they do not have to put up such buildings at all -where they have summer all the year round? We cannot meet such competition without protection. I am for protection for the farmer and I wish to see that he gets fair play because in this country he is up against handicaps such as they have not

to contend with in the country to the south and in other lands similarly situated.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not protect the poor people?


John Best: Why certainly. We might just as fairly lower the duty on underwear as lower the protection in the case of butter. I don't see any difference in principle. If we are going to help the poor man why not start in with his feet? Take the protection off boots and shoes, then off clothing, and progress until .you reach his stomach.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Best: But I am not advocating taking duties off. What I am advocating is keeping the duty on, and protecting the farmer by not allowing oleomargarine to enter, or be manufactured in, this country. I contend that I am quite consistent as a protectionist in arguing that oleomargarine should not be permitted to come in free or be manufactured in Canada. Now, my hon. friends opposite seem to think, judging from their interjections, that I find fault with protecting boots and shoes, and clothing, and that I am against protection. Not by any means, but I do think that we have a just right to protect the most basic industry we have in the Dominion, and that is agriculture. If we are going to permit the importation and sale of oleomargarine when there is no sale for our butter what are our dairymen going to do? As one hon. gentleman opposite said, under this policy the dairy industry would dwindle away, and that if the farmers of this country cease to keep cows we would have to have something to take the place of butter. In such a case as that I would not blame them; but the farmer at the present time certainly cannot make anything out of selling butter at 25 cents a pound. A few years ago, before this legislation was enacted, the farmer could buy a binder for $150 but he has to pay $300 to-day for it. That enhanced price is not due to protection because the duty only amounts to 12i per cent, but everything else has gone up in proportion. The farmers of this country are certainly going to protest if they are not protected as they should be, and I believe this to be one of the worst pieces of legislation, from the farmer's standpoint, that could be introduced into the House. I think the minister probably is sincere in thinking that this legislation is going to benefit the poor, but I appeal to him to see to it that the farmers are not discriminated

against in this way. During the war they were appealed to to keep more cows and hogs, and they did, but now the war is over and the prices of farm products are declining those farmers are left with their stock on their hands. I hope the minister will see his way clear to withdraw this Bill, because I am not going to be inconsistent -I am not going to vote for a measure that I have spoken against.


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, I hope to follow my almost invariable custom of taking only a little time in expressing my views on this question. That is the more easy, because I have on two previous occasions supported the minister very heartily in his temporary legislation on this subject. My hon. friend (Mr. Best) who has just resumed his seat finds fault with his fellow-farmers in that they do not apply for protection for their industry. I do not think he quite gathers what is the breadth of view of the Progressive party upon this subject. We believe that we have a policy which, in supporting all industries according to the principles of justice, right and freedom, will support our industry and build up the whole country better than his policy will build it up. We are just as friendly to the farmer as he is, but we think-as no doubt he thinks-that we are more enlightened in the methods by which we would promote the interests of the agriculturists.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose to advocate my view by a reference to general principles-by a reference to the interests of the nation as opposed to the interests of any class, and in doing so I plead with my hon. friend to give me credit for being, if not a good dairyman, at least a good Canadian. The local view is: Help a certain industry, and take the first road to that end; the national argument is: Look to the good of the nation and you will help everybody. Let us take the question of trade at the present time. What is going to happen to this country with its diminishing trade if we have a Minister of Finance going around and telling our people not to import commodities, and if his efforts are followed up by the Government putting obstacles in the way of that importing? I will tell my hon. friend and this House what will inevitably happen. If you prevent the importation of commodities, you will prevent the exportation of commodities; you will decrease your national trade and diminish your national prosperity. I do not want to labour this point any further, for I have argued it so often. It is

the very element of sound economics. I ventured, in the short debate we had on reciprocity in the early part of this session, to express the view, which I repeated in the debate on the Budget, and which I will now re-state: that there is nothing the world needs so much at present as the facilitation in every possible way of international commerce. If I may, I should like to buttress my opinion by a quotation from a speech which Mr. Asquith delivered in the British House of Commons about two weeks ago. He delivered it with the evident agreement of three-quarters of the assembly, according to some descriptions of the speech, though in the Imperial House of Commons they do not always vote as they think. He used in his inimitable style this language, which I should like to give to this House for its serious consideration and as having a very direct bearing upon this measure:
What the world wants is the freest and fullest production and interchange of commodities. That is the only way in which to stabilize exchange.
Now, Mr. Asquith is not only a great statesman and a great lawyer, but he is a very great economist, and I commend those words not only to this House but to the whole of this nation and-if my voice could reach-to the world. What the world wants at present more than anything else to relieve its economic troubles is a free and full production, which can only take place if you have a free and full exchange.
Why, what has happened on this very subject? I listened with the greatest interest to what my hon. friend from Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) said just now, and if I rightly followed his facts, he proved that since we had had free importation of oleomargarine the production of butter had gone ahead by leaps and bounds. He proved that past all possibility of contradiction. Now, it may be said, how has that been brought about? In the simplest possible way. For every pound of oleomargarine you introduce into this country you must send something out in payment; and I submit to the intelligence of this House that if you send butter out it is no loss to the nation. Just imagine a Parliament that has on its hands a bankrupt railroad wanting to restrict, first, the carrying of strawberries, then the carrying back of exports, the things that would pay for the strawberries, and next the members of the same Parliament getting up and wanting to restrict oleomargarine coming in and, of necessity, thus restricting the going out of
what pays for it! If you carry that process far enough, your bankrupt railway is with you to stay; you can back your engines into the yards to rust and leave your men tc be unemployed.
This is a very serious matter at this time.
I am glad indeed to look into the frank, full face of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie). I am sure that one of these days he will join the Progressive party-and when we have the condition of affairs that we see in this House, why, we have got to look for recruits. If my hon. friend the leader of the official Opposition had been in his place I would have offered him my sincere sympathy. Although his sterling henchmen by moving his amendment to the Budget lined up the whole of this side of the House in favour of a lower tariff, yet at a moment's notice his chief whip leaps from the free trade camp and comes out a full-blown protectionist, and he is followed by other members on the same side. I am surprised at these hon. gentlemen so soon breaking away from sound doctrine. I look, as I say, with pleasure into the face of my hon. friend the minister, and I hope he will stand to his guns, because if trade is declining, no sensible and rational legislature will take measures to make it decline further. That is the whole argument in a nutshell from the point of view of trade. We have had a great surplus of butter production since we had free oleomargarine, we have been exporting butter, and I want to submit to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, especially to my hon. friend from Frontenac, that it is no misfortune to the country to have a large export of dairy products. It has been said that the price' of butter has fallen. Well, I am a broad enough farmer, I want to tell my hon. friend from Dufferin, to rejoice in that. I will tell him why-and I am still arguing on national grounds. Only a handful of men


John Best: Will my hon. friend-


Michael Clark: The hon.
gentleman does not need to ask me any questions; he will get the full gospel before I am finished with him. There are only a handful of people in the country producing butter. No butter worth the name is produced in Montreal or Toronto; no butter worth the name is produced in any of our large cities. Only a handful of people, I say, are engaged in producing butter, but we nearly all eat it, and my interest is on behalf of the people who eat the butter.


John Best: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Would he glory as much in a similar reduction of the price of wheat? Only a comparatively small number of people are engaged in the production of wheat.


Michael Clark: I have always believed in free wheat, and I am glad that on this matter-


John Best: I am speaking about the price. Does the hon. gentleman want the price down?


Michael Clark: I believe in
cheap things-certainly. I believe in cheap beef. I took $70 for steers last fall that I would have got $120 for the fall before. I want my hon. friend to understand the difference between the shallow, contracted Tory view and the broad Liberal view. My view is the Liberal view; my Liberalism is of the spirit. If you get your beef cheaply, I am then in the position to turn round to you and say: You are buying beef from me at nominal prices, you are buying hides from me at one cent a pound; in the name of conscience, try to give me cheap boots too. We all use beef, butter, boots and a hundred other things, and it is therefore a clear benefit to the whole community to have these things cheap. There is not an hen. gentleman in this House who, when he goes to purchase does not haggle for the very best price and the very best bargain he can get and thus by his own action in everyday life he argues his belief in cheap goods. Now, that is my answer to my hon. friend, and I hope it is honest; I hope it is full, and I am not at ail sure that it is not convincing. If my hon. friend believes in dear things, then I should like him to stand up and get looked over as a curiosity, because certainly all the women of the country would be against him, and, I think, most of the men.


John Best: Did the hon. member ask a question? Did he ask me to stand up? I certainly do say that I am in favour of high-priced farm products.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Michael Clark: Well, perhaps it is my method of appeal. I feel very much in earnest in the matter, but I know that the hon. gentleman can always stand up manfully for what he believes,-he may be a little mixed in his belief, but he is always ready to stand up for it. The question of price, Mr. Speaker, does not affect my thinking at

all. What I am looking for is international commerce, and, in addition to that, the freedom of the subject. The Liberalism in which I was raised meant freedom; the word itself means freedom. For the life of me I cannot understand the thinking of people in this great, free, democratic country of Canada who say that for the sake of imaginary help to a few people engaged in a certain industry, the teeming populations of Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg should be prevented from buying oleo if they want to buy it. The most sacred right a man has is to sell his labour to the best advantage, and when I buy oleo or anything else I sell my labour for it, whether I am a workingman or not. None of us has any right to what we do not labour for either by our heads or by our hands, or is not given to us by bequest. When I buy oleo or anything else I sell my labour, and I claim the sacred right to sell that labour and to buy the product of it in the cheapest market, in the best market-in short, in any market that suits me. If a man in Montreal wants to buy oleomargarine, what right has anyone from Huntingdon, even if he is a member of Parliament, to object to his buying it? I cannot understand it, on the grounds of the liberty oi the subject. The fundamental objection tc protection is that it is an interference with the liberty of the subject, because it is an interference with a man's selling his labour, where he can do it without breaking any moral law, to the best advantage.
Something has been said about the fertility of the soil. Well, I would be very sorry if the introduction of oleo interfered with the fertility of the soil. We have such boundless acres of fertile land in this country that that argument has a very small effect on my mind. I know what the argument is; there is nothing in it, however. I should like to submit to my hon. friends on this side who talk about the fertility of the soil that the huge increase of the dairy industry which my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) proved has taken place does not make against the fertility of the soil. It would be too much, Mr. Speaker, to expect that a case which was supported by my hon. friend from Frontenac on one side of the House and by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) on the other would be logical in all the elements of argument that were produced.


William Cameron Edwards: Let me tell my hon. friend that I did not support it as he

asserts. It is just my hon. friend's failure to understand the fundamentals in connection with the matter.


Michael Clark: Well, I never expect my hon. friend, either in speech or in interruption, long to fail to descend to personalities. I am very sorry, of course, that my understanding was weak. I followed my hon. friend carefully and when I did not think I was understanding him fully I got him to amplify his statement. But of course we all have to work, whether we be working in this House or in York-Sunbury, with as much intelligence as the Lord has given to us.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker-


Michael Clark: I must ask my hon. friend to observe the ordinary courtesies of debate. I promise to be brief.


William Cameron Edwards: Does my hon. friend understand what ordinary courtesy is?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Michael Clark: The hon. gentleman has just come out of a discussion down in New Brunswick and he actually wants to get into another here, against the rules of the House.


William Cameron Edwards: Always ready.


Michael Clark: I thought he would have learned, Sir-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must, remind the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that he has already spoken. The hon. member for Red Deer has the floor and has asked not to be interrupted.


William Cameron Edwards: I understood he was discussing oleomargarine and not Frontenac.


Michael Clark: I was discussing also the arguments which have been used in this debate, and I was saying-and I think I was well within the rules of parliamentary debate when I did so-that I hardly expected that an argument would stand well which was supported on one side of the House by my hon. friend from Frontenac and on the other side of the House by my hon. friend from Guys-borough. I do not for a moment want to commit to my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards), but he would he the first to admit that he does not find himself in very general agreement with the hon. gentleman from Guysborough, and I was simply expressing the playful opinion that one might expect that a debate supported from these
very opposite quarters was likely to show disagreement in the argument. And there is disagreement in the argument. My hon. friend from Frontenac proved that the dairy industry was going forward by leaps and bounds. My hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) to my right said that they feared for the fertility of the soil if oleomargarine was introduced. I thought the facts of one hon. member contradicted the position of the other. The point is a small one. I do not think we are suffering very much from the want of fertile soil in Canada. I do not want to extend my remarks; I think I have said enough to indicate where I stand. I believe in conferring the benefit of freer trade wherever it is possible to do it. It has been clearly possible to do it in this case without hurting the industry in question. It is a great boon, or the people think it is a boon to large masses of the people in our cities, and I trust the minister will stick to his guns and give the people engaged in this industry in Canada some security in following it by knowing where they stand in the matter, and at the same time promote international commerce between us and the great nation to the south of us to at least this small extent. I am perfectly sure that it is along those lines, rather than along the lines of further restrictions, that we are going to take the best road to solve our difficulties of high cost of living, unemployment, lowering of trade, general depression and want of prosperity from which we are suffering at the present moment.


Mr. GEORGE BOYCE (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, while I have no objection to any person using oleomargarine, if he wishes to do so, I have very strong objection to its coming into this country free of duty at this or any other time. Possibly a year or so ago, when butter was 70 or 75 cents a pound, there might have been some excuse; but at the present time when butter is down to 25 or 30 cents a pound, I do not see that any excuse can be urged on the ground of poor people requiring a cheap article. Whatever may be said about the quality of this article, I for one have no great fancy for it; I never ate anj of it, and I would not do so if I could avoid it, because I do not think that, being made of grease, it is of any benefit to our farmers. I would not buy it. The minister should proceed very carefully at the present time because the farmers of this country are passing through a serious
:860

crisis. I speak as one who should know a little about farming because I have been a farmer all my life; I know fairly well
the wants of farmers and what suits them. If you do away with the dairy industry, you hurt agriculture to a greater extent than is possible in any other way that I know of. Some one said that dairying or cattle-raising was not of very much benefit to the soil. I am glad to say that that gentleman did not live in. Ontario, because, if he did, he would tell a different story, as this is of the greatest possible assistance to farming. Cattle-raising is one of the mainstays of the farmer in Canada. In Great Britain, Germany, Italy and other countries, a farmer would not think of putting in a crop without the addition of fertilizer; but in this Canada of ours, at least in this section of it, it is impossible for us to get fertilizers, and the next best thing is cattle-raising, and the dairy industry. Let me tell the House that the dairy production of Canada in a year amounts to $250,000,000. We export over $258,000,000 worth of cattle, and our other agricultural exports amount to over $365,000,000. The number of livestock, milk cattle, and dairy cattle, in this country is over 20,000,000. That is a very large number, and this stock is of great benefit to our farms in putting them in better condition for raising other agricultural products. Some may think that a very high valuation has been placed on this livestock, but the valuation which is not too high at all, amounts to over $1,296,000,000. That is something that ought to be looked after very carefully and not injured in any way. The farm lands of Canada are valued at $2,792,000,000; the buildings which we must have in connection with the farms are valued at $927,000,000, and the value of the implements amounts to about $387,000,000. Altogether, the value of what is connected with farming and the dairy industry, which is the mainstay of the farm, amounts to about $9,000,000,000, which would pay the national debt of this country four times over. Anything that represents such an enormous amount of value, and especially something upon which all of us, city people as well as country people, depend for our living-because we are all as anxious for good crops as the farmers are-deserves to be protected as well as possible. I trust the minister will not do anything which will injure the dairy production of this country. If the dairying industry is hurt, another thing that is going to be handicapped is the production of ice cream and 
condensed milk. As a body of Canadians we ought to do all that we possibly can to foster the dairy industry, because it must be admitted, according to the agricultural returns, that it is one of the greatest benefits that we have in the Dominion of Canada. If we throw obstacles in the way of that industry, we are going to hinder the progress of the country at a time when we should do everything in our power to meet the national debt which has accrued in years gone by. The money has to be raised; it must be paid, and no one is more willing to assist in paying that debt than the Canadian farmer.
At Six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Mr. A. M. DECHENE (Montmagny) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the legislation with which we are now dealing is more important than it might appear at first glance. Shall we allow the sale of oleomargarine or other substitutes of butter ? Such is the question which we have to settle.
The Government, through the Minister of Agriculture, favours that sale. Shall we follow them in that course? As far as I am concerned, I do not think that we should do so, and for many reasons. What strikes me first is the time chosen for bringing down such legislation. I object to the practice of the Government in trying, on the very last days of a session, to shove through any legislation of a more than doubtful intrinsic value. In the present circumstances, do they want to avail themselves of the unfortunate tendency of this House to pass a Bill without giving it the full consideration it ought to receive? I am rather inclined to think so. I do not know for whose benefit this legislation will be enacted, but I am satisfied that it is not to foster the dairying industry of this country that this legislation is asked, because that industry will be the very first to suffer from the sale of these substitutes of butter. Besides, the consumer pays as much for substitutes as for butter, and it therefore cannot be in the interests of the latter that this Bill is introduced, as it will be of no benefit to the great mass of people.
However, somebody must be interested in keeping those products on the market. The manufacturer and the importer would be the only parties interested. This, I

understand, is an excellent reason for the hon. Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues to allow, henceforth, the importation into this country, as well as the sale and even the manufacturing of oleomargarine, butterine and other similar products. It is, as in, the past, a discriminating legislation in favour of the manufacturer and of the Government's friends.
I see nothing there but a law for the benefit of a few privileged people, a law absolutely Tory in its character. This is already enough to satisfy me that the Bill is unsound and contrary to the best interest of the country as a whole; nay more, it directly affects the material interests of the' Canadian people and is detrimental to the dairy industry, which is the very basis of national prosperity; it affects everything connected with agriculture, and its depressing influence will be felt more and more by the farming community of this country. What would we have gained in working for half a century to improve our farming and our dairy products, so as to place them on the markets of the world, if we now try to maintain in our midst a destroying germ introduced during the war, a germ which will contribute to checking our progress in the dairy industry, and I say it without hesitation, a germ of death?
We have established in this country, with great pains and with great effort, a Canadian herd of considerable value. When we consider that this herd is at present valued at about $1,296,602,000, we necessarily wonder why Canada, a country so naturally peaceful, should maintain a herd of so considerable a value. The reason is very simple, the herd is the soul of the farm; without it, a farm cannot be maintained even in a fairly good agricultural condition. Let my hon. friend from Red Beer (Mr. Clark) say what he likes, the fertility of the soil depends, to a great extent, on the herd, and the fertility of the soil, coupled with the fact that our farms are kept in good condition, means the enriching of the farming community and of more than half the population, and the enriching of that class really means the enriching of a country as a whole. If you introduce into your legislation a principle which is destructive or likely to check the improvement or the enriching of the farming community, you introduce by the very fact, a principle which is apt to destroy the prosperity of the nation. Considering the enormous debt which we are saddled with and which we will be called upon to pay within a pretty short delay, a debt
which weighs mainly on the farming community, how can we expect those people to carry their burden if, first of all, we impede their production?
Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was alluding to the value of the Canadian herd, to the great amount of work necessitated during the last fifty years to establish that herd, and I was referring also to its general importance. I think there are others also who acknowledge the importance of the Canadian herd. The hon. minister himself (Mr. Tolmie) laid great stress on the value of that herd as well as on the means by which we should try to increase it and give it an additional value if possible, when he brought down, this year, the Estimates pertaining to agriculture. In fact, if we refer to those Estimates, we find that of the sum of $4,502,139.50 voted for agricultural purposes ,in 1920-21, two important items have been exclusively applied to improving and maintaining the national herd. We find, in this vote, $1,410,000 exclusively reserved for the care of the Canadian herd. We find, moreover, a sum of $1,000,000 intended for the improvement of that herd or, in other words, two millions and a half, out of four millions and a half, exclusively devoted for these purposes. Therefore, the hon. minister himself understands how important it is for this country to have an important herd and one of the best. But, Mr. Speaker, what would be the use of having such good herds if they were merely to supply food, to supply butchers' meat? Evidently, the thought by which the hon. minister is guided in the very administration of his department extends further. He knows that, to every good farmer, the herd is foremost and that large sums of money are voted to keep it foremost. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the usefulness of the national herd is so well understood, if it is admitted that this herd must be beneficial to the farmer, by all means it must necessarily be admitted that the main object of a herd, for a farmer, is surely to warrant the operation of the dairy industry.
And if the dairy industry be the very basis, the foundation of Canadian farming, why do they come and ask this House for the continuance of evils we had to endure during the war? For you will agree with me that the trade in oleomargarine, butterine and every other substitute for butter is an evil brought upon us by war, an evil which we were able to exclude and which, it seems, is liable to implant itself anew

among us, for reasons still unknown. We should not permit oleomargarine and other substitutes for butter to be imported into Canada, to be manufactured on a large scale and often sold in a fraudulent manner; I say fraudulent because traders often sell to their customers oleomargarine and other substitutes as if they were real butter, though they are but a camouflage.
The introduction of this product on our market, the permission to manufacture it on a large scale would also have another result, besides dissuading our farmers from keeping good herds of cattle. Observing that the possession of a first-class herd upon his farm is not calculated to bring him a sufficient income, and that every product which might hinder the development of that herd is admitted to the market just like the natural, the pure product, the farmer will of course desert that industry and we shall soon see the butter, cheese, condensed or evaporated milk factories jeopardized. Let us bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that we have in this country 3,282 factories of butter, cheese and milk by-products in which up to date a capital of more than $25,388,026 has been invested. Should the time come when no profits will be derived from the sale of butter and cheese, these factories will certainly close their doors, so that the farmer's son will be incited to leave the paternal roof and go into the cities where he may at least expect a better living without having to work for a paltry income. People often complain that young men turn away from the fields. Why? Because, often enough, work of a farmer doesn't bring as much money apparently as the workingman can earn in the cities, and because life is less cheerful and pleasures are wanting in the country.
If you suppressed whatever advantage there may be in the dairy industry, what will remain to keep the farmer's son at home? We who are living in country places know that every month or every fortnight the butter or cheese maker pays to the farmer for his milk and cream a sum of money which is brought home and accumulated monthly. This adds enchantment to life and incites the young farmer to grow fonder of rural life. Therefore, by doing away with that advantage you offer those young men a further excuse for leaving the paternal roof.
Somebody said a moment ago that we should let everybody buy what he wants according to his taste. An hon. gentleman was asking the fiery member from

Red Deer (Mr. Clark) whether or not he would consent to the sale of wheat as he would like butter and cheese to be sold. My hon. friend answered that he was in favour of the complete freedom of trade. Since they are in favour of the complete freedom of trade would it be wise to open our doors to every kind of produce which might come from abroad and over which we have for a number of years deliberated with as much wisdom as sternness?
Under the circumstances I think we ought to be satisfied with our natural product and to keep for ourselves the already restricted market we have. At the present time we have large quantities of butter and cheese. On the first of January, 1921, our stock of butter and dairy produce amounted to 14,271,382 pounds; we had 11,078,000 pounds of cheese and 412,962 pounds of oleomargarine; we had almost two pounds of cheese and three pounds of butter per capita in store in this country, a large quantity which shows that production has now reached its maximum, and unless we pay attention to it, butter and cheese-making is going to be materially reduced for some years to come, so that farmers will have to change their ways, that is improving their herds, their lands and their produce.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Agriculture has agreed with the departments of agriculture in the various provinces that they would attend to the registration of milch cows, so as to remove from the herds unsatisfactory cows and to know what quantity of milk is given by each animal. In former years the farmers had no confidence in the efficiency of that cow-testing method. The Quebec and Ontario governments lent a hand and immediately we witnessed a material increase in the number of tested cows and at the same time a greater quantity of milk given by eacn animal. Last year, the quantity of milk in each province was already large. In 1919, there were 22,517 registered animals: 10,374 in Quebec, 4,214 in Ontario and 2,714 in Nova Scotia-mentioning only these three provinces. In 1920, in the province of Quebec, the number of cows exceeded 35,000. I regret that I have not the figures relating to the other provinces. Quebec may now boast of having more than 50,000 tested cows.
Therefore the farmers in the provinces which are more interested in this movement will know how to increase their output of milk and fat; but if on the other hand, substitutes for butter and cheese which would

submit them to a ruinous competition were allowed on the market, they will have the right to ask us whether we are justified in advising them to do what they are doing and we shall then see the good work done so far set at naught.
Those are .some of the reasons that ought to guide us when we are considering this Bill. According to me, the reasons I have mentioned as briefly as possible are peremptory and I have no hesitation in saying that the proposed legislation will have disastrous consequences all over the country and that we ought to oppose it.
I am of the opinion that members of this House should take a greater interest in the development of the country than in the passing of a Bill granting favours to a few only, and that they ought to join hands with the opponents of this measure.
Therefore I beg the hon. minister to desist in furthering this legislation.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion that has taken place. Some of it has been to the effect that the butter situation has been seriously affected by allowing oleomargarine to be manufactured and imported into this country. This is not backed up by figures. As a matter of fact, the output of our dairy products has greatly increased during the period in which the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine has been permitted. We also find that in such countries as Denmark, which produces the highest quality of butter in the world, and which depends for its prosperity upon the production of butter, the people of that country consume no less than forty-four pounds of oleomargarine per head per year. Oleomargarine has been recognized as a very wholesome article of food all over the world and Canada is the only country at the present time that has any restrictions on its manufacture, importation or sale. It has proven a boon to the poor man during tne periods when butter has been at a very high price and we find that lately, since butter has come down in price to the point where it is now only a few cents above oleomargarine -in the city of Ottawa to-day oleomargarine is selling for only 7 cents a pound less than butter-the consumption of oleomargarine is almost nil. There is nobody '-n the country who has any taste for good butter who will buy oleomargarine if good butter is to be purchased at a reasonable price, and that is the case all over the world. I do not propose to take up any more time at present. I rose simply to say
that as there seems to be a good deal of difference of opinion as to the length of time to which we should extend this provision I am willing, as we are nearing the end of the session, and we wish to avoid a long discussion, to extend this provision for the manufacture, sale and importation of oleomargarine for another twelve months, if that meets with the approval of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: I am very sorry that the minister has announced this change of front. A year ago when he was dealing with this subject I ventured to express the hope that he would then deal with it as a permanency, or otherwise he was simply postponing trouble. Now the trouble has come.
I do not think there is any justification for placing restrictions on the manufacture, sale and importation of oleomargarine. It did not need any statistics, which have been so freely given this afternoon and evening, to show us the importance of the dairying industry. It is a very great industry, one of the natural industries of the country, and if there is ^ny industry of Canada that can stand on its feet and live and flourish irrespective of outside considerations, and that simply asks for a fair field and no favour, it is the dairying industry. It is for the moment under a little temporary depression, but not more so perhaps than some of our other industries. There has been a rapid decline in the price of butter and cheese, more rapid perhaps than the decline in the price of the articles which the dairyman requires, and in that respect the dairying industry is for the moment suffering, but that is only a temporary condition. The dairymen of this country are producing something that the country wants; they are producing something perhaps of as good a quality as any other country in the world produces, and under these conditions I do not think there is any fear for the dairying industry. I have never been able to see how the dairying industry was mixed up with oleomargarine. I quite agree in what the minister has just said, that when people can get good butter at a moderate price they do not want oleomargarine under any condition.
The real question in this matter is this: Is oleomargarine a legitimate article of commerce? That is the whole question. If
it is not a legitimate article of commerce let us bar it out. If it is a legitimate article of commerce, why should we interfere with it at all? This is not a tariff Bill. I am

not discussing whether there should be a duty on oleomargarine. If anybody wants to put a duty on oleomargarine I shall not quarrel with him. It is as legitimate a subject for taxation as butter, and I have no doubt that the manufacturers of oleomargarine in this country would be exceedingly pleased to have a duty. But that is not the question to-day. The question is:	Is
this a legitimate article of commerce? The whole world outside of Canada answers that question: Yes, it is a legitimate article of commerce. Twenty or thirty years ago when oleomargarine was first banned it was not so regarded. Perhaps in those days- it is a good many years ago, and I am not so familiar with conditions then- margarine was a cheap and nasty product which we had better do without. I do not know whether the prohibition originally came because the article was in itself unwholesome or as a protection to the dairying industry. If it was unwholesome in the early days it is not so now. The minister has stated that oleomargarine is not unwholesome, but that it is a healthful article of food: It is not as good as butter, nobody pretends that. If it is a wholesome article of food, what justification is there for barring it out? If there was justification thirty years ago, that time had passed long before the recent years in which this matter has come up for discussion. So long as good butter could be obtained at a reasonable price, nobody paid any attention to this matter. If the question had been raised at any time during the last ten years, no good reason could have been found for banning oleomargarine.
Every country in the world except Canada recognizes that it is a legitimate article of commerce. One is reminded of the old story of the juryman who complained that he had never seen such stupid men in his life as the eleven others. The opponents of oleomargarine are in just that position. The whole world except Canada says:	Oleomargarine is all right,
let us buy it, and sell it if we can. But we are going to decide in Canada, against the judgment of the whole world, that it is not a legitimate article of trade, and it seems to me that that is not a position that can be maintained at all. We are told now that oleomargarine has been adulterated. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker; it is being adulterated by being mixed with butter. Well, adulteration implies the deterioration in quality of an article, and the creation of something inferior by the IMr. Fielding.]
addition of a poorer substance, and you could not possibly adulterate oleomargarine by putting good butter into it. That argument is absolutely fatuous. It seems to me that the question we have been discussing is wholly a mistaken one. The sole question is this: Is it a fair article for general trade? That is all. I cannot believe that there is any danger to the dairy industry from the sale of oleomargarine. The question is much less important to-day than it was a year ago. I grant you that to-day it is not very material whether this Bill passes or not, for the people are not going to use oleomargarine in Canada if they can get good butter at a reasonable price, and but for the principle involved in the Bill, I would not raise my voice in the matter at all. If my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie), decides on an extension of time for another year, he is only putting off the responsibility for some other minister. This Bill, as introduced in the House, is a sound Bill. It recognizes that oleomargarine is a legitimate article of trade, and says that its sale shall not be forbidden, as has been done in the past. Put all the regulations you like around its sale, and take every precaution which you think will in any way prevent fraud. If you have not sufficient regulations to ensure that the article is properly stamped, and advertised to the public as oleomargarine, then make your regulations stronger. I will support the minister in anything that will guard against fraud, and whatever provisions he thinks are necessary to this end, I will commend; but do not commit the folly of prohibiting the importation and manufacture of this article when the whole world says that it is only an ordinary legitimate article of trade. The question of free trade does not enter into the matter at all. The Bill is not a tariff Bill. If you want to put a duty on oleomargarine, put it on by all means; I will not quarrel. It is quite as legitimate a subject for duty as is butter, and if you want to tax butter and tax oleomargarine as well, I shall not object. But that is not the question. The question is: Shall we or shall we not permit oleomargarine to be sold and manufactured? Some one says that no harm is done by the sale of oleomargarine if you grant this extension of time for a year, while others contend that even if you stop it, no injury will be done. Well, injury will be done to the people who have invested their money in

whatever apparatus is necessary for the manufacture of oleomargarine. There are several factories in Canada, although I have not the pleasure of knowing any one connected with any of these factories and cannot say how they are individually affected; but if men have been induced to put money into factories for the manufacture of oleomargarine and are kept in suspense from year to year, it is certainly not fair to them. It would be far better to prohibit the manufacture and sale of this article at once, and have done with the question; but the idea of giving a few months' permission to people to manufacture the article, and then having the question raised a year hence, ds an unfortunate mistake. I hope the minister will stand by his guns, because the JBill is a good one and I will support it.


Mr.  H. M. MO WAT@Parkdal'e: Those who have so far taken part in the debate seem to be gentlemen who have come from the farm and are interested in the dairy industry. But there is another important class who wish to be heard in the matter, and that is the inhabitants of the cities. There is a very large demand for oleomargarine in the cities at times when the price of butter is as high as it was a few months ago, ranging from 65 to 70 cents. The mere fact that, fortunately for them, the price of butter is temporarily down, does not affect the principle of this Bill. The Dairy Industry Act of 1914, section 5, says:
No person shall manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell, or have i-n his possession for sale, any oleomargarine.
If this Bill were defeated, that section I have just read would again come into force and interfere with business as it is at present carried on. I have received about twenty letters of protest from dealers, and I think it is only proper, now that the Bill is being discussed, that I should record the opinions expressed in those letters. I shall read them as I have them here:
I am taking the liberty of asking you to do anything you can to prolong the life of oleomargarine in Canada.
Arnold Bros., Butcher & Grocers.
If Oleomargarine were to be removed from the Canadian market I think it would work an actual hardship on a great many people who have been consistent users of this product.
J. G. Pond,
Grocer and Fruiterer.
We would like to go on record as being absolutely opposed to the discontinuance of the sale of oleomargarine in Canada.
Philbrook Bros.,
Butchers.
As I am one of many retail merchants in your constituency who sell this produce, would like to urge your support of the Bill.
A Snyder,
Grocer.
I have several customers who use oleomargarine all the year round and I do not see any reason v'hy the people who wish it should not be able to buy oleomargarine as well as any other food product on sale in the retail stores.
Frank H. Ball, Groceries and Fruit.
Think it will work a hardship on some of the consuming public who buy oleomargarine for cooking and eating purposes.
Lyndroute Groceries, Ltd.
Have just heard that oleomargarine legislation is being considered at this session and as I have some customers who use this product at certain times of the year when butter is high,
I would like to ask your support on any measure permitting the permanent sale of this product.	[DOT]
A E. Maundrell,
Meats and Provisions.
A number of my customers at some seasons find it a hardship to pay the high price of butter, and on their behalf I would like very much to have your support of any measure making the sale of oleomargarine a permanent matter.
Alex Dury.
I have customers who at some seasons of the year use this product exclusively on account of the high price of butter.
G. Ferguson, Butcher and Grocer.
I have a constant demand for it from a certain class of my customers.
B. L. Love,
Butcher.
I find that there is quite a sale for oleo, and if the public as a whole are deprived of the privilege of buying it, it would work a hardship in many cases.
C. Barrett,
Grocer.
Will you kindly lend your support to help the passage of any bill before the House which would permit the continuous sale of oleomargarine in Canada?
John Sherriffs.
Our customers buy this product because it effects a big saving in their household expenses. Oleomargarine is a clean and wholesale food product and as such we think it has a distinct place among other food products in Canada.
Cook Bros.
Grocers.
As I understand it, the Dairy Industry Act, passed in 1914, was framed with the distinct object of providing that the manufacture of butter, cheese, and other dairy products should have certain restrictions and safeguards for the protection of the people, and this section with regard to the importation of oleomargarine was merely a little clause thrown in at the time by way of extra precaution. At that time, oleomargarine was a very different product

from the article now sold; it was not surrounded by the protection of inspection now provided by the Department of Agriculture. It was entirely different from the oleomargarine now on the market. It seems to me, therefore, that it would work a great hardship on the business of the country if, by the defeat of this Bill, the Act of 1914 were revived, absolutely preventing the importation and sale of oleomargarine. But there is another reason why I think we should be at fault in not supporting the Bill, and that is the fact that the women are almost unanimously in favour of it. Those women who are engaged in the dairy business might probably, like those of our friends who have spoken against the measure, be opposed to the importation and sale of oleomargarine; but the ordinary woman in the country who belongs to Farmers' Institutes and kindred societies, does not believe that the sale of this article has any adverse effect on the dairy industry. Indeed, I have received a letter which shows that women's societies of this class are very much in favour of this legislation. I know, as a matter of fact, that the National Council of Women favour this Bill, and other bodies that support it are the Montreal Women's Club, the Housewives' League, the Catholic Social Service Guild, the Catholic Women's League, the Montreal Board of Trade, the Jewish Council of Women, the Local Council of Women, and the relief branches of the Salvation Army. Now that we have given the women of the country a voice in the direction of public affairs, by conferring upon them the right of the franchise, we should depend upon them to keep us properly advised in matters of this kind, because they are the buyers of the food for the family, and they know more about this sort of thing than any honourable gentleman who has spoken in the House on the subject to-day. They know what is good, and what is healthful in the way of food, and I do not think that any restrictions, such as would exist if this Bill were defeated, should be placed on the housewives and the home managers of Canada. For these reasons, and on behalf of the consumers not particularly engaged in the dairy business, I hope that this Bill will carry. The minister suggested to-night that he should limit the period of its importation for one year. I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that we should settle the principle now. If we are beaten it cannot be helped, but I do not think we will be beaten. To go back to the old 
legislation will be a distinctly retrograde step, and I hope the minister will not consider it.


Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont) :: The question now under discussion is of considerable importance to the people of this country, both consumers and producers, and I am inclined to think it affects the consumers to a much greater extent than it affects the producers. It has been argued that to allow the importation, manufacture and sale of oleo in Canada is a menace to the dairy interests of this country. With that view I cannot agree. I do not think that the permission to sell oleo in Canada, or to manufacture it, is a very serious menace, or in fact a menace at all, to the dairy business. The matter works out in this way:	Ever since 1917
Canada has been exporting large quantities of butter, principally to the British market. The price of that exportable surplus has been determined on the British market where it has to go into competition with the butter of all other countries, and also with oleomargarine. The price of butter in Canada is, to a very large extent, determined by the price received for our exportable surplus. If the price in Canada falls below the price received for the exportable surplus, then the supplies of butter will be drawn away from our Canadian markets to go into our export trade occasioning a shortage which will enhance the home price to meet the price of the export trade. In the same manner, if the price on the Canadian markets rises above the export price, then the butter will be drawn away from our export trade until we will have no exportable surplus whatever. But as long as Canada has an exportable surplus of butter the price on our home markets will be largely determined by the price received on the British market, and the butter which is sold there is sold, and has always been sold, in competition with oleo. Therefore it is quite inconceivable that the admission of oleo into this country is going to affect the price received on the British market for our butter, and that price largely determines the price of Canadian butter on our Canadian markets. There may be slight variations, due to local causes which are of a more or less temporary character, but in the main that argument holds good. So that while we are now selling our butter in competition with oleo, it would not be any benefit to the dairymen of this country to have oleo excluded from our markets. In brief, my argument

is, that to admit oleo into Canada for sale on the Canadian markets is not going to depress the price we receive for our Canadian butter; and to exclude it from our markets is not going to enhance the price in the Canadian markets, because the price paid for butter is in no way determined by the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. As I say, the price is determined by market conditions the world over, and the cost of production in Canada is not taken into account. I therefore think that much of the argument advanced against the measure which the Minister of Agriculture proposes is wide of the mark.
It has been said that oleo during the last two years has been displacing a large quantity of Canadian butter in the Canadian home. That is quite true, but it is unfortunate more from the standpoint of the Canadian consumer than from the standpoint of the Canadian producer, because the consumer is made to believe he is buying and using a substitute for butter, something which will give him an equivalent food value for butter, which contention I, of course, dispute. Very extensive investigations have been carried on by nutrition experts throughout Canada and the United States, as well as in Europe, and, although opinions differ, I am inclined to think the result of their conclusions would be that there are certain elements of nutrition- very essential to the growth of the human body and the maintenance of human vigour -present in butter and dairy products which is entirely absent from oleomargarine. So that the continued use of oleo instead of butter might, over a long course of years, be considered more or less of a detriment to the public health. That is a question which I commended to the consideration of the minister last year, and, I think he might well investigate that question more fully in the next twelve months during which he proposes to permit the importation of oleomargarine into Canada.
The statement has been spread broadcast throughout this country, and it has I think been repeated in this House on several occasions, that the sale of oleo is going to be a great boon to the Canadian people. Now I think that argument has been altogether over-estimated. Oleomargarine may be an advantage in certain times when the price of butter is very high, but when you figure out the amount of butter used by the average family, and figure out the difference in price between butter and oleo, and the actual financial advantage, I think
the real advantage is very small indeed and has been very much over-estimated. Now while the dairymen of this country are quite ready to accept the competition of the manufacturers of oleo at any time, they do expect that that competition will be fair and above board, and that such manufacturers will pot be permitted to impose something on the Canadian people as a substitute for butter which is not butter and which is not as good as butter. In view of this fact I would like to draw the attention of the minister to some of the restrictions the dairymen of this country would like to have imposed on this article, and in doing so I would suggest that those restrictions be embodied in this Bill. They should be covered by statute and not left to be a matter of regulation by the department. I think we should recognize the responsibility of Parliament in this matter, and insist that these restrictions be incorporated in the statute and not left altogether to the department. In the first place everybody knows that butter has a well recognized standard colour, although certain markets, of course, demand certain variations in that colour. Oleo is placed in the market largely with the view of taking the place of butter, and the manufacturers of the product have done all they can to imitate butter as to colour. It is true that they are prohibited by regulation from placing any colouring matter in the materials they put into oleo, but they get around that by including in their oleomargarine articles which in themselves are coloured and which give the product practically the same colour as butter.
The dairymen and consumers of this country have every right to expect that the minister will provide in his Bill that the manufacturers of oleomargarine shall not imitate the colour of butter in their product so that at a glance oleomargarine may be distinguished from butter. They might also rightly expect the minister to provide that on every package of oleomargarine its ingredients shall be printed or stencilled. This is not an unreasonable request, because it is already required in regard to commercial feeding stuffs. It will be remembered that in the Act passed last session providing for the regulation of the sale of certain commercial feeding stuffs, manufacturers were required to stencil their packages not only with an analysis of the chemical contents but with the proportions of the various ingredients. If the department is so solicitous for the welfare of our

animals, surely they should be equally solicitous for the welfare of our people.
Then another thing which we have always considered more or less unfair is that although the Dairy Standards Act requires that nothing but butter fat shall be allowed to enter into the manufacture of butter, yet in the manufacture of oleomargarine it is permissible to use large quantities of butter and milk, these products of the dairy being mixed with other fats or oil's. This practice, I think, is rather unfair to our dairymen, and they are quite justified in asking that no dairy product whatever be allowed to be used in the manufacture of oleomargarine. If the people of Canada want to use oleomargarine on their table, we are prepared to meet the competition of the manufacturers of oleomargarine, but we do object to meeting unfair competition by reason of their being able to use some of our products in the manufacture of oleomargarine, whereas we are prohibited-and quite rightly so- from using anything hut butter-fat in the manufacture of butter.
These few suggestions I commend to the consideration of the minister during the next twelve months, so that before he decides to make this measure permanent he may consider the advisability of prohibiting by statute the practices that I have alluded to.


Mr. S. P. GLASS (East Middlesex) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not very often claim the indulgence of the House, but I desire to say a few words on the subject now under consideration. I agree with a good deal of what the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Kennedy) has said. In my opinion our trouble at the present time is not so much the fact that oleomargarine is being manufactured and distributed, but the indefinite position in which it stands. In 1918 when the then Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), introduced a similar Bill he said:
Now, I want to draw attention to the fact that the Order in Council with regard to oleomargarine sets out that it is to be regarded as a war measure. In the preamble we And these words:
"Such regulations to be in force and to have effect for the period during which the present abnormal conditions continue, the conclusion of such period to be determined by His Excellency the Governor General in Council, as provided in the said regulations, and as a war measure only."
The Bill which he introduced permitted the importation and manufacture of oleo-

margarine under certain regulations, and I find the complaint in the country generally has not been so much against the manufacture of this article under the rigid restrictions imposed by the department, but that the sore touch all through has been that although a duty is imposed on the farmer's butter, yet this substitute, which is admittedly an inferior article, has been admitted free.
Prior to the expiration of that Act notice was given that it would be extended for another year, and the hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) when introducing the Bill in 1920 for that purpose said:
Now, so far as the extension of time is concerned, it appears that the condition that prevailed when the Act was first passed to offset the high price of butter still obtains. Oleo is used to a very great extent by large numbers of poor people in the large cities and also in the country, and I consider that at the present time it is advisable to at least extend the Act for one year, and during that period to watch very carefully what measure might be adopted to put down the fraudulent use of oleo as butter. It is the intention of the department during that period to accumulate from other countries as much information as possible as to what is being done along this line, and to do their very best to apply this Act rigidly.
Now, Sir, the dairy industry of this country contributes a very large part of our agricultural production. The record I have here for 1919 shows that the value of the produce of the dairy for that year amounted to no less a sum than $251,526,201; and looking over the lists provided by the department, I find that the dairy interests of Western Canada have been increasing their production very rapidly, and that during the past five years the production has almost doubled. Therefore, our concern in this matter is not confined to the provinces of the East, it is a matter >
of very great concern to the provinces of the West.
I take it, Sir, that the people who represent this industry are entitled to some consideration. The hon. member who last spoke made several suggestions, almost all of which are embodied in the circular from the National Dairy Council of Canada, which was read this afternoon by the hon. member for Ar.tigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) Now, Sir, who compose this National Dairy Council? Do they represent the interests of the great dairying industry? I find that from the Atlantic to the Pacific the dairy interests are linked up in this one great organization. In it are included the Ontario Milk

and Cream Producers' Association, the Dairymens' Association of Western Ontario, the Dairymens' Association of Eastern Ontario, the Dairymens' Association of the Province of Quebec, the Montreal Milk Producers' Co-Operative Agricultural Association, Canadian Milk Distributers' Association, Canadian Ice Cream Manufacturers' Association, and so on. In the West we have the provincial dairymen's associations of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association. Coming back to the East, we have the New Brunswick Dairymen's Association, the Nova Scotia Dairymen's Association and the Prince Edward Island Dairymen's Association. It will be seen, therefore, that almost all the large dairy interests from the Atlantic to the Pacific are represented.
Now let me point out-and I say this by way of commenting on the suggestion that the minister has made to-night-that it may be all very well to let this matter stand for another year, to let it remain in its present unsettled condition, but personally I do not believe that is the best policy. There is a way of dealing with this matter, and dealing with it once and for all. I think the people are tired of the pussyfooting on this Bill; they want some definite policy on the part of the Government, something that will let them know definitely where they stand. This circular, a copy of which, no doubt, the Government has received, sets forth the views of the dairymens' associations-and I think they arc reasonable views. I gather from a reading of the letter that they have become reconciled to the continuance of the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada, but they ask that certain further restrictions be imposed, and I want to point out what they are. If they are reasonable, it seems to me that this matter should be disposed of once and for all, in such a way as to create satisfaction among these men-because there is an alternative which will suit them-and at the same time to be fair to the farmers who produce the butter; let oleomargarine, which comes into Canada free, pay a duty just as butter does I wish to read again the resolution adopted by the National Dairy Council at its annual meeting in Toronto last month and to make some comments as I go along. The resolution says:
That this Council strongly disapproves of the efforts of manufacturers and vendors of oleomargarine to present that article in such shape,
appearance and colour as to attempt to deceive purchasers into the belief that they are actually getting butter or an article with the same food values as butter. This Council is of the opinion that to remove the unfairness of the competition of oleo with butter, and to prevent deception and dishonesty, strict regulations in addition to those now in effect should be passed by the Government of Canada providing for a standard colour of oleo other than the colour of butter, the printing on the container of each package of oleo a statement of the ingredients used to make up the oleo and the^ proportions of each ingredient. Also that no dairy products be allowed to be used in the manufacture of oleo sold in Canada.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me has pointed out that the dairymen have said: We do not allow butter to be adulterated. We have thrown around that other staple agricultural product, maple sugar, all the necessary protection, and the people of this country endorse the action of the Government in that record. But we say, on the other hand You may adulterate your oleomargarine with butter. The member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) I think, po'-^ed out that you cannot adulterate an inferior thing . with a better thing. I have not the strict definition of adulteration, but I think that adulteration might very well come under the head of blending these two entirely different articles of food to bring about a cheaper average. Be that as it may, that is the thing to which objection is taken; that is the thing which the Dairymen's Council of Canada would like this Government to correct. Is it or is it not reasonable? I cannot see any earthly objection to it. It is bad enough for these people to use milk in churning up their greases without their taking our standard creamery butter and using it in the manufacture of their product. The Canadian manufacturers of oleomargarine issued a circular a couple of years ago in which they asked the question: "What is margarine?" Then they went on to describe what it was. When you examine the ingredients of margarine you find that it certainly does contain a very large amount of pure dairy products. I quote from the circular of the Canadian manufacturers of margarine:
Oleomargarine Is a distinct product made of the following ingredients:
Products of Canadian farms:-70 to 75 per cent.
They desire to point out that in the manufacture of this product they are using materials which are the product of the farm to the extent of 75 per cent. The circular goes on:



[Stage Direction]
1.	Oleo oil-separated from the crude edible beef fats of the abattoir so as to produce a soft fat. This has resulted in increasing the value of all beef fats. Its manufacture is safeguarded under rigid Government inspection so that it is a perfectly wholesome product. It is to the interest of every farmer to have oleo oil produced in Canada.
2.	Neutral lard

separated from the crude, edible lard of hogs in such a manner as to eliminate the objectionable taste of ordinary lard. This also increases the general value of 'ard. It is produced under rigid sanitary inspection.
3.	Milk-the fats are churned with milk under the most rigid sanitary inspection.
Note-only the finest creamery butter containing no artificial colour is permitted to be used.
Other products:-25 to 30 per cent.
1.	Vegetable oils such as peanut, cocoanut and cottonseed oils. These must be of a quality to pass rigid Government inspection.
2.	Salt is the only other product added.
These products are mixed together and
churned in factories under the direct inspection of officers of the Department of Agriculture. Thus a distinct product is obtained which, by the excellence of the process of extraction and manufacture, has turned into a palatable form those fats, etc.
The people of this country have used oleomargarine during the last few years, including the last years of the war, and no one denies that it does contain
9 p.m. good food substances. But that is not what is the trouble. The trouble has been that we did not take the proper stand in the first place. It may have been all right to regard it as a good article of food in wartime, under proper safeguards, so that it could be sold on its merits, but, as I say, objection has arisen owing to the indefinite policy which has been pursued in reference to the matter. The importation and manufacture has been extended for a year and then for another year; no definite and permanent policy is adopted, and a state of uncertainty exists. It would have been far better if we could have faced the music and settled the thing once for all. I think it is possible for the minister to deal with this matter so that it will not be a recurring nightmare in this House and a continual source of irritation throughout the country. The National Dairy Council, as I have pointed out, prefer that oleomargarine should not be manufactured to compete with their butter. But they say, in concluding the letter to which I have referred:
It is submitted there is now no necessity or justification for the continuance of the manufacture or sale of oleo in Canada-
That is the opinion they express, for what it may be worth. The letter goes on:

-but if it is the intention of Parliament to legalize the manufacture and sale of oleo in Canada after September 1st next, then I beg to ask in the name of this Council that the conditions set out in the above quoted resolution be made applicable.
The minister, no doubt, has a copy of this letter, and I hope, when he is speaking further on this legislation, he will be able to tell us whether there is any reasonable, consistent objection to the request or demand, as it may be, contained in this letter of the National Dairymen's Council. If that suits this representative body of dairymen in this country, surely it should be satisfactory to members of this House, because no matter what may be the wishes of individual farmers, that is the opinion of a great national body representing the dairy industry from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They s<-t forth in their letter what they want, andjt will be far better for the minister to frame legislation to meet the conditions set forth by them and to settle this thing kmce for ail. Moreover, the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), before he brings down his Revenue Bill for * the third reading, should have it definitely settled that butter which is produced in this country is not going to have a duty imposed against it when exported to the United States while oleomargarine is allowed to come into Canada free. There is nothing right, consistent, logical or reasonable in such a situation as that, and the Government cannot justify it. They will get over the difficulty, if the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance will come together on this subject and definitely decide that they are going to remedy this injustice. As the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's said earlier in the evening, there is no objection to that being done, and the request cannot reasonably be refused. The whole trouble can be avoided and definitely settled by dealing with the matter along the lines that I have suggested.
William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, I rise chiefly to say that I regret very much that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) has decided to modify his Bill. I think he should go on with it just as he has it framed now.
I particularly disagree with him in the contention that one of the reasons why we should modify the Bill is in order that Parliament may prorogue at a fixed date. That principle has controlled this House entirely too much in past years. If it is in the interest of this country that the oleomargarine question, as well as many

other questions, should be settled definitely once for all, I do not think that the Government, with or without consent of the Opposition, should fix in advance a definite date when Parliament should prorogue. The House should rise only when its business has been properly completed, without regard to the personal desires of any one.
Regarding the question of oleomargarine, I should like to say a few words from the point of view of the consumer. There can be only two legitimate reasons why this Bill should not be accepted. One is that oleo in itself is unhealthful and unfit for use, and the second is that it is sold in such a manner as to deceive the public. I do not believe either of these conditions applies in this case. It has been pretty well esr tablished-it is admitted, I think, on all hands-that oelo is quite healthful and fit for consumption, and in the second place, it is the Jaw, that all oleomargarine must be sold with the imprint of the commodity upon the wrapper.
I have no fault to find with the suggestion that has been made by the hon. member for Glengarry and Stormont (Mr. Kennedy) and others that the package itself should bear the name and, perhaps, the proportion of the ingredients that enter into the manufacture of oleomargarine. That is not an unfair provision. But if the article in itself is unobjectionable; if as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has said, it is a proper article of commerce, I do not see that this House has any right whatever to interfere with the choice of the individual with regard to its purchase. If a man wants to eat a tallow candle, he has a perfect right to do so, provided it will not do him an injury. I remember, in my youthful days when butter was occasionally so scarce and expensive that people spread lard upon their bread, and it is quite within their private right to do that if they so desire. There is entirely too much interference with personal liberty at present, and I have no particular commodity in mind when I say that. If the housewife desires to use oleomargarine, that is her right. We are told that butter is so cheap now that it makes little difference whether we permit the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine; people will buy butter in any event. In that case, then no harm is done to the producer of butter. But we have no guarantee whatever that in six months from now butter may not be at a very high price, and this question may become an important one again. We
have to-day in our cities a great deal of unemployment. It is much more serious than it was during the war, and men have much less money with which to buy the necessaries of life than they had a year or two years or even three years ago. You can imagine a man in one of the larger or smaller cities who works, perhaps, three days a week. He has to make the little bit of money he earns reach just as far as he possibly can. He goes into a store and asks for oleomargarine. He knows what he is doing; he knows what he wants; he is satisfied to get oleomargarine because he can buy it a little cheaper than butter, and he tells the storekeeper that he wants oleomargarine. Who has the right to say to him that he shall not be allowed to buy oleomargarine because somebody wants to force him to buy butter? That position is absolutely unreasonable and untenable. It is just as unjustifiable as, for example, a case of this kind. We will say a woman with her little children goes into a store. The only kind of stockings that she can afford to buy for the little ones is cotton stockings. She would prefer to have them in wool or silk, but she has not enough money to pay for them. But the merchant says to her: "I am not going to sell you cotton stockings because to do so would hurt the wool or silk stocking business."
During the war the price of meat ir Ontario was extremely high and it is so still, as a matter of fact. At that time the Government of Ontario stepped in and brought fish from James bay and sold it to the people at from 10 to 15 cents a pound. That was a great relief to the people in the cities and towns of Ontario. It would have been just as reasonable in that case for the stock-raisers to have made a complaint and demand that the people should not be allowed to consume fish because that hurt the business of the sale of meat and the raising of cattle. Or, we will say, some genius invents a practical method of heating our houses very cheaply with electrical current and the men who own coal mines interfere and say: "You must not be allowed to do that because it will injure our business of producing and selling coal." These instances may appear far-fetched, but I contend that they are absolutely on all fours with the contention to prohibit the importation or manufacture of oleomargarine. I would raise no objection if it were thought well to place some restrictions upon the importation of oleomar-

garine. I can see some reason in that; but I do not see what possible excuse there can be for prohibiting the manufacture of it in this country and the sale of it to our people if they want to buy it, provided always that the article is fit for use, is perfectly healthful and' is not put up in such a way as to deceive the public. I am going to support the Bill, but I would again suggest to the minister that he do not limit its operation, hut go right ahead and remove once and for all the restrictions on the manufacture, at least, of oleomargarine in this country.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the arguments advanced in connection with the Bill now before the House. I look at it possibly from a different angle from most of the speakers who have taken part in this debate. The last speaker (Mr. Euler) rather scouted the idea of the manufacture of oleomargarine being any interference with legitimate business, and pleaded for greater freedom in its manufacture. It is a remarkable thing that after over three years of experience with this commodity, the manufacture and importation of which has been provided for by legislation extended from year to year, with the assurance that the license would terminate when butter had reached a reasonable price, we have not yet had any explanation from those who ought to be in a position to know as to what really constitutes what is sold as oleomargarine in this country. We have in the Government service a large staff of officials who are supposed to be watching the manufacture of this article. Yet we have never had, to my knowledge, at least, any statement from the department as to just what constitutes oleomargarine. I quite agree with the statement that has been made that the consumer is entitled to know what he is paying for. He does not know that at the present time when he is buying oleomargarine. I must take exception to the statement that has been made !by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), who said there could be no question of adulteration in connection with this commodity. My understanding of adulteration is that it is to falsify, by the admixture of baser ingredients of a lower value, and that is the very thing that is taking place in connection with the manufacture of oleomargarine, because to the butter which it contains are added these other in-

gredients. We had before the (Committee on Agriculture a few weeks ago a Bil to permit the adulteration of maple products. That Bill was entertained bj hardly one member of the committee, if 1 remember rightly. I think the Bill now before us might very well have been referred to that committee, but it has come upon us so suddenly, I suppose-it has only adorned the Order Paper since March 4-that we have not had time to think out the proper course to pursue.
Milk fat which enters into the manufacture of oleomargarine differs from other fats in that it contains certain life-giving substances that are essential to promote the growth of the young. Science so far has not yet been able to discover any other source from which the equivalent milk fat can be derived. Every one recognizes its value, and there are certain people who by reason of the fact that oleomargarine contains milk fat want to enter upon its manufacture, and mix with it baser ingredients purely with a view to commercial gain. That is exactly what is being done with oleomargarine, and I do not think it is fair. I do not think the Government are justified in again coming before the House with this measure without giving us some idea of what enters into the manufacture of oleomargarine in this country.
I have not opposed the importation or manufacture of oleomargarine. I have been consistent in that respect, and I hope I shall continue to be so. I have a very distinct recollection of a general election that was held in 1878. The arguments which were then advanced made a profound impression on my mind, and I remember many of them to this day. I thought when I read the speech from the Throne at this present session those who were engaged in the manufacture of dairy products were going to be protected as other people were to be protected. I think they are entitled to protection. In 1911, when the reciprocity question was before the people of this country, I bad in my mind the arguments that were advanced thirty years ago, and the position the Canadian people were placed in when the reciprocity pact with the United States was abrogated by that country in 1866. We then had to develop other channels of trade. I believe that if we had entered into an arrangement with the people of the United States in 1911, it would not have had one particle of influence upon their putting into effect the tariff arrangement they have recently

adopted, whereby a duty of six cents a pound is placed on our butter going into that country.
It is stated that oleomargarine is being manufactured in other countries, and that we are the only country in the world that has restrictions on its manufacture. That statement has not been substantiated. It is merely a bald statement, and I take exception to any such statement as that. There are safeguards provided in nearly every other country where oleomargarine is manufactured. I do not know of any other country in which the same pains were taken as in Canada to see that the manufacturers of this article were given the great privileges they were given under the Order in Council of 1917. Under that Order in Council the manufacturers have the right to get a license from the Government to mix whatever they see fit with butter, and they are given the exclusive right to do these things, because it is specifically mentioned that no factory where butter is being manufactured will be permitted to do anything of the kind. My hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) would surely not consider that the freedom for which he was contending. Our dairymen, who are engaged in the manufacture of a legitimate article of food, which has a standing and reputation all over the world, are debarred from mixing anything with butter, and particularly anything that goes into the manufacture of oleomargarine. But the Government say to the manufacturers of oleomargarine: We will give you a license to manufacture this stuff, and you can put in practically anything you see fit.
I wish to refer to a statement that has been sent out, and which doubtless every hon. gentleman has received. It is of the same character as other statements that have been issued for years by the manufacturers of this article, and it is absolutely false and misleading. Within the covers of the four sheets in which it is contained there is very little truth to be found. It says, in words that have been quoted here to-night, that oleomargarine is a product that is used to-day in practically every civilized country of the world, the gross per capita consumption being actually in the most important dairy countries. It states that Denmark in 1916 used fourty-four pounds per head of the population, and so forth, and goes on to say that 70 to 75 per cent of the ingredients of this article are obtained from the livestock products of the Canadian farms. It also refers to
what has been said with regard to the value of the products which go into oleomargarine. It informs us that oleomargarine is made of pure, highly refined beef and pork fats, creamery butter and fresh milk. As a matter of fact, this fresh milk is fresh skimmed milk, and that was made quite clear by the general manager of the largest company manufacturing this article in Canada. They are permitted to incorporate about 14 per cent of skimmed milk, and to add a culture and other ingredients, all of which are mixed together and worked up in the churns in the factories, in order that the article may appear to be really a dairy product. This statement says that the justice of the manufacturers' request for permanent legislation permitting the production of oleomargarine lies in the simple fact that there are large quantities of animal fats produced in Canada which, in justice to the producers of beef cattle, and the manufacturers of livestock products, should be made up into the most palatable and valuable form possible. A few days ago, when we were putting through the Budget resolutions, which exempted oleomargarine and these ingredients from the sales tax, I pointed out that enormous quantities of this stuff were being brought into the country. I have a statement from the Customs Department, for eleven months of the past year, which shows that there were imported from the United States during that period, the following products: lard compound, 27,647 pounds; oleo oil,-this is the Canadian beef fat which they claim is to enter into this product-1,714,562 pounds; cottonseed oil, 889,208 pounds; cocoanut oil, 701,995 pounds; besides peanut oil, corn oil, nucoline, stearine, salt, and beef fats, or a total of 3,680,350 pounds. We put through legislation two years ago by which we refunded to these manufacturers 99 per cent of the duty collected on these ingredients that go into the manufacture of this article of food, and for the eleven months I have mentioned that total duty amounted to $138,367, which was turned back to those manufacturers who bought so largely in the United States.
Now, I do not intend to take up any more time of the House; I can make my position clear in a very few minutes. I want to point out, however, that, according to a statement which was submitted in the United States Congress, France does not even permit the retailer to dispose of butter and oleomargarine, and today, I will venture to say, a very large

proportion of this article of food is being sold to and consumed by people in Canada who are under the impression that they are using butter. When you find it difficult to keep butter on the knife, particularly in cold weather, you can readily understand that it has not the consistency of real butter, but is really oleomargarine. When a manufacturer is supposed to turn out a good article, and is surrounded with regulations to ensure the purity of that article, being prohibited from mixing that article with something else, I do not see why some one else should be given a license to purchase this superior article, mix it with an inferior product and place it on the market without anything to show what it really is. It is contended that the wrapper must indicate the nature of the article, and it is also said the word "oleo" has to be put on the covering. As a matter of fact, however, immense quantities of this stuff are bought up and placed in many boarding houses in the country, and there is good reason for the belief that it is coloured and worked over and placed on the tables of the country as butter. / object to the unfairnes that is practised in connection with this article.
There is no article of food, or, for that matter, anything else, in connection with which there has been so much deception and fraud as has been practised in the United States, or in any other country where the manufacture of oleomargarine is permitted. I believe that in the United States, apart from the export business, the manufacturers are not permitted to put up oleomargarine in containers of less than ten pounds; and in Germany, I understand, no dairy produce is permitted to be incorporated in it. Many manufacturers of margarine in this country are also opposed to the mixture of butter with this article, and I think that if it is to be sold at all it should sell on its own merits, and on its merits alone. If that is done you will get a better article of food than you are getting to-day, because there are many articles used now in the manufacture of oleomargarine that are made palatable simply by being churned in milk, to which culture has been added, giving it a wholly artificial flavour. Now, we have a Health Department in this country, and analysts without number in connection with our departments of Government. Why have they not analyzed this article and given us a statement which might guide us to-day in dealing with this measure, which seeks to make permanent 
the manufacture of this oleomargarine? Would not that be reasonable? Is it not something which the people are entitled to know? If this is such a splendid article of food, why is it that there is no one today who is in a position to tell us what really goes into the manufacture of this article. Why should it be left to me to bring here a statement from the Customs Department showing what actually transpired in this country during the past year? The Minister of Finance will advise the people of this country to buy home-made articles, and to see that money is not sent to the United States; and yet we refund to manufacturers, who buy these ingredients in the United States, the duty that was collected on this article of food.
I have been a consistent protectionist for many years, and I am a consistent protectionist to-day, but I may say here and now that if the business in which I am engaged, and others also, is going to be singled out and not protected, if it is going to be subjected to the most unfair and contemptible process of competition, it is possible for the mind of man to conceive of, I am not going to follow any such policy as that. In view particularly of conditions at the present time, and of the strenuous years that are confronting us, I say it is absolutely necessary that we should have a protective policy in this country. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) may quote Asquith, and other men in the United Kingdom as to what we should have under freedom of trade. But we have not freedom of trade, nor are we in a position to demand freedom of trade no matter how much we would like to have it. We must face conditions as they are, and with the great country to the south raising a tariff barrier against us such as they are doing, it is absolutely essential that the farmers of Canada should have the same degree of protection that the manufacturers have had for years and which they are entitled to have now
I do not believe that we can have a well-balanced community unless we adopt the policy of give and take. I believe that our prosperity in this country depends more on a prosperous farming community than it does on anything else. We have induced
25,000	of our returned men to go upon the land, and they have obtained loans from the Government in order to carry on. I have pointed out in the past that I was afraid many of these men would curse the day they ever accepted a loan from the Government and went on the land, and when I said that I believed I knew what I was

talking about. Are you going to put those men in the position to-day that many engaged in the dairy business are in? Are you going to put them in the position of producing an article at less than cost? The hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy) pointed out that the price of butter, or of dairy products, in this country cannot be fixed by the Canadian people at the cost of production plus a reasonable profit-it has to be fixed on the markets of the world. The argument of the manufacturers ef implements, of clothing, of boots and shoes, or anything else in this country is that they cannot go on manufacturing unless they do so at a profit, and that it is important and essential that they should be able to do so. They point to the fact that they have men engaged in these industries, that they provide a home market for our produce, and that in that way great benefit results to the community. I quite agree with that argument. At the same time, however, I want to point out that the farmer cannot go on manufacturing butter or cheese, or anything of that kind, unless he does so at a profit. Hon. gentlemen understand the movement that has been going on for a number of years past from the farm into the town and the city. To such a degree has this been going on that you will find, even this year, that almost all the men who are walking the streets of our towns and cities are out of employment. Never, during all the years I have been engaged in farming, have I found it so difficult to get farm help as during the present year. Never, during all my experience, have I found farm help as scarce as it is at the present time, and I want to say this: You will find if the present prices continue, if the deflation-which has come in advance as far as the products of the farmer are concerned; deflation has reached the farmer before any one else-if deflation continues you are going to have conditions in regard to which I can only say, "God help this country."
I intend to move when we go into committee on this Bill that no dairy produce shall be used in the manufacture of oleomargarine. I am in favour of allowing the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada, but I would only permit it to enter this country subject to a duty as other articles are subject, and I think that is the proper course to take. As to extending this privilege for the year, we were told in 1917 after it had been adopted by Order in Council and then submitted to Parliament, that it was a temporary
measure introduced by the Government in order to overcomme the difficulty the poor people had in getting butter or a "spread" for their bread, and that when the period of deflation had arrived we would go back to the old condition of affairs. Now the proposition is to continue the privilege for a further period. When the price of butter on the wholesale markets of this country has reached within a fraction of 25 cents a pound we are asked to continue it for another year. Just one year more! Yes and when that year has expired it will be a case of granting another year or "You have had it so long now you might just as well make it permanent". Those are the arguments that have been put up to us and which we have had to meet in the past. Who is getting all this rebate in connection with this commodity? I notice that one company who had a license from the Government to manufacture this article has received during the past two years $171,906 of rebate in connection with the articles which they were importing and putting into the manufacture of this stuff. What a howl would be raised by some hon. gentlemen sitting in this House if some article they were manufacturing was taken and the label removed from it and some parts of it were used in the manufacture of another article? They would not be so submissive as they are to-day. I do not like it, and it is not a pleasure for me to speak as I am doing in connection with this matter, but I am going to be consistent even though the Government are not consistent upon this subject. I believe in protection. I believe in protecting particularly the interest of the farmers of Canada, as well as those who are engaged in other industries. I belive it is essential for the prosperity of this country that that should be done; and I am of opinion that if we do that, if we pull together as we should and adopt a policy of give and take-a little here and a little there-we will soon overcome our difficulties. But if we are going to send our money out of the country and buy something cheap where we can get it-just as there was laid on the markets of the ci|y of Toronto during the Spring butter from Argentina, badly mottled butter, which was churned in a factory in that city and placed on the markets of Canada-why, it is an altogether different matter. A process such as that is contrary to the Dairy Standards Act. There is a clause in that Act which prevents anything of the kind being done but our inspectors did not carry out the law. The fact that this was done was published in

all the newspapers at the time. Where was the staff of inspectors that are paid to superintend the manufacture of oleomargarine? It is one thing to appoint inspectors and apparently another thing to enforce the regulation. There is no reason why we cannot have an analysis made by the Health Department that is supposed to be regulating the food products of this country. Where have they been that they have not submitted a statement to us in connection with this matter? We should prohibit the incorporation of dairy produce in this stuff. Then I assure you you will get a better article of food than you are getting to-day. Because oleomargarine can be manufactured and placed on the market much cheaper than is the case to-day in this country, and it will be a more wholesome food, if not so palatable, than the article which they are now producing. It is by reason of the palatability of the ingredients that this article is made attractive.
Do you imagine for a moment it is from philanthropic motives that large manufacturers such as the Harris Abattoir people and the Swift Canadian Company, who are the only two manufacturers in this country so far, want the privilege of manufacturing this product? Why beef tallow is worth about three cents a pound at the present time, and skim-milk is worth possibly twenty-five cents a hundred pounds or a quarter of a cent a pound. They are permitted to incorporate as high as 14 per cent of skim-milk in this product and place it on the market. With tallow fixed up by the stearine being extracted from it they are enabled to place this cheap commodity on the market. You may say, "Oh, it does not cost us within ten, fifteen or twenty cents of the price of butter, and consequently we will purchase it." But you have not the faintest idea as to the value of the article you are purchasing. Its composition ought to be stamped on the label, as is the case when we are purchasing fertilizers or foodstuffs, for there is infinitely greater reason why the nature and proportion of the ingredients of oleomargarine should be disclosed on the package. I would go further and put a stop to the deception which is practiced in the colouring of this article. Mr. McLean, general manager of the Harris Abattoir Company, made the statement on oath before a committee of this House a short time ago that the manufacturers overcome the difficulty of the colour by buying up large quantities of June butter-which, as is.well known, has a very high colour- [Mr. Sutherland.!	j
and by adding it to the other ingredients a colour is imparted to the article which makes it resemble butter and so deceive the people. The manufacturers of oleomargarine are very clever in that particular as they are in many other respects.
I might refer to certain other practices in the manufacture of this article, but I will not do so for the present. I think the Government would be well advised to deal with the matter now and embody the conditions to which I have alluded instead of staving it off for a few months longer.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle):: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this measure to extend for another year the sale of oleomargarine, and I wish, before the House, to support my attitude by word and vote. Such a legislation is prejudicial to the agricultural interests of the country. It is also, Mr. Speaker, an insult to the good taste of the citizens of this country. We were told, when this legislation was introduced some years ago, that it would be of a temporary character only, that it was intended for war times and no longer, and that as soon as normal conditions would return, the Government would deem it their duty to recall it.
In fact, when this legislation was introduced, the price of butter was very high and it was feared that it would be impossible, at a later time, to take advantage of this commodity which was greatly needed. That is why the Government of the time, following the example set by the governments of other countries, thought it advisable to bring up this legislation which was decidedly of a temporary nature. Now that normal conditions have returned, that the war is over, we would do well to abolish it. Canada is known amongst other countries as an essentially agricultural country and it would certainly be prejudicial to her good reputation, and her agricultural interests, to maintain such legislation. What will other countries think if Canada is not able to produce enough butter for home consumption, if she is obliged to resort to such a substitute, such a subterfuge? Should we have recourse to such an expedient, were we to maintain such a substitute, instead of the pure food, we would certainly be giving Canada a poor certificate in the eyes of other nations.
Those who have spoken before me and have supported this Bill, have been the mainstays of this Bill, have thought proper to support their request for such legislation by so-called petitions

which have been signed in certain parts of the country and also by women's associations. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these petitions were prepared some time ago; when the price of butter was still very high, almost as high as those we had to pay of late years. One need not go back very far, indeed, to find that prices were comparatively high. A month ago, two months ago, at the very time when such petitions might possibly have been signed, the price of butter was very high. But now that this price has been greatly reduced-the price is really very low- legislation to replace butter by a substitute owing to the high cost of the former cannot be justified.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am in favour of pure food when there is a question of such a commodity as butter, and I object to all substitutes. We may be rather inclined to-day to replace the pure food by the substitute that is unfortunately too often introduced on the market. Substitutes to-day have been manufactured even for olive oil, and if we continue to allow substitutes to replace necessary food, first-class commodity, like butter, we are opening the door to absolutely harmful legislation.
I do not intend to speak at length and to repeat the excellent reasons which have already been advanced in opposition to this Bill by those who have preceded me. I have always declared myself in favour of agricultural interests; I have always done so in this House and will so continue when occasion arises to stand in defence of these interests. If there exists an industry which has progressed with great difficulty in this country, it is the dairy industry. I remember, years ago, the campaign which was undertaken throughout the provinces so as to establish this dairy industry which has become the principal agricultural industry and has been the main cause of the prosperity of our farmers. Many an expenditure has been made in the province of Quebec to promote this industry; many a grant has been given by the different governments, federal as well as provincial; many an endeavour has been made by our statesmen, so as to impress on the minds of the people the desire to improve the dairy industry. Now that we have obtained this result, that this industry has been largely developed, I think we would give it its death blow were we to say: The butter which you produce, which is so fresh and white, resembling somewhat our clover blossoms and which has the
fragrance of our fields, this butter, we do away with. Why? Because we prefer a substitute which is nameless, this kind of oleomargarine which should never be seen on our tables.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in defence of our agricultural interest and in so doing I am protecting all classes of society. I do not think any one would rise in this House on behalf of the working class to defend oleomargarine. On the table of the poor, as well as on the table of the rich, good butter is demanded to-day, such butter as can be produced in the country, at a reasonable price. It is said:	The price [DOT] is
very low, at present, but it might be raised later. That is possible. I do not know what the fluctuations of the market are, but the price of butter is now the same as in prewar times, and future fluctuations will not be such that the poor labourer cannot get good butter. Therefore I am in favour of good butter and shall certainly vote against the hon. minister's Bill.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I must offer my congratulations to my hon. friend who has just preceded me (Mr. Fortier), and also to my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) who has pleaded so eloquently the cause of good butter and the rights of the farmers. It does not appear to me, Sir, that the Government are very anxious to see this measure pass, but that they are rather acting upon the demands made by some interests-quite legitimate, doubtless-and in the meantime are willing to leave this question absolutely free to all members without giving any recommendation for or against. When the resolution which preceded this Bill was introduced last Saturday it was my intention to oppose it, but the Prime Minister said then that the adoption of the resolution would in no way be interpreted as general assent to the measure or to the principle embodied in it. I therefore take this opportunity to express as strongly as I can my opposition to this Bill.
I have tried to inform myself as to the facts and circumstances in connection with the sale of oleomargarine in Canada during the last few years. I may be mistaken in my understanding of the situation-if so, I wish to be corrected. But my information is that up to the year 1917 the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada had been prohibited. I take this first fact as an argument in favour of the contention which I now make. There must have been good reasons for prohibiting the manufac-

ture and sale of oleomargarine prior to 1917, and I maintain that those reasons still exist. This product was allowed to be placed upon the market because of the exceptional circumstances which then prevailed. The Government, making use of the powers vested in them by the War Measures Act, passed an Order in Council in 1917 to allow the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada. At that time and on several occasions since it has been argued by the Government and by members of the House that this Order in Council was passed as a war measure in order to place at the disposal of the people a certain article of food at a reduced price. We all know that at that time the consumption of butter, sugar and other articles of food had been limited, and it was therefore thought proper to permit the use of oleomargarine. For my part, I thought the course then taken was a wise one. But there came a time when Orders in Council were no longer of avail and in order to permit the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine the Government had to pass a Bill.
So far as I am aware, the first Bill ever passed in this country to allow the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine was the Bill which became chapter 24 of the statutes of 1919, second session. This enactment is entitled "An Act to Permit the Temporary Importation, Manufacture and Sale of Oleomargarine in Canada." Now, I submit that the title of the Bill in itself indicates the extent to which it was supposed to go. I insist on that word "temporary," because it was made clear to the House at the time that the measure was only a temporary one; that there was never any question of passing
10 p.m. a law of a permanent character to allow the importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. But it was argued when that Bill was passed that a year or so after the war the price of foodstuffs had largely increased and that an enactment of this kind, temporary in its character, would be of benefit to the country. I am ready to say, Sir, that even at that time I would not have strenuously opposed the Bill, although I was in principle always against the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in this country. So much for 1919. Then last year, 1920, this legislation was supplemented by another Bill extending until the month of October, 1921, the period during which the manufacture and sale of this product might be carried on in Canada. CMr. Deni*. 1
and we are now considering a Bill to make a further extension of another year.
The question is :	Is it necessary or expedient that we should at this time allow the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine for a year from next October? In order to answer that question, one must consider the actual condition of the dairy industry at the present time. Last year, in the month of May, butter was selling at 55 cents wholesale; iji May of this year butter has been sold wholesale at as low as 26J cents-the price to-day wholesale is 28 cents. Therefore, Sir, the best quality of creamery butter is selling to-day at exactly 50 per cent less than the price which prevailed a year ago. I may say also that a year ago oleomargarine was selling at about 35 or 40 cents a pound. Now, if twelve months ago such an inferior and doubtful product as oleomargarine was selling at 35 or 40 cents a pound, I say that this year the public have the means to pay 28, 30 or 32 cents a pound, whatever the retail price may be, for good butter. The reasons which prompted the action of the Government in 1917, 1919 and 1920 to permit the manufacture and sale of this product do not exist to-day. The main reason was the high cost of living, but to-day the price of butter does not contribute to the high cost of living. We must, therefore, give to butter the same standing that it had before this war measure was passed in 1917; in fact, so far as that product is concerned we are in the same position to-day that we were in prior to the war.
The prohibition of oleomargarine is for the benefit of both the producer and the consumer. To permit the manufacture and importation of it is unjust alike to the farmer and to the consumer, or poor man. It is unjust to the farmer because this article of food, which is an inferior article, is sold in direct competition with butter, the product of the farmer. It is unjust to the consumer or poor man, because oleomargarine is a product of doubtful origin; it is a product of which we have no complete analysis; it is a product, the value of which as food, and particularly as a healthful food, is very doubtful. At the present time, would the farmers of the United States allow Canadian manufacturers to ship oleomargarine into that country to be sold in competition with butter? We know what the Americans are doing at the present time to encourage the farming community in that country. To-day the greater part of the oleomar-

garine consumed in Canada comes from the United States, so that what I have said is one more reason why that product should not be allowed to enter Canada. Therefore, the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine should be prohibited for the sake of the farmer and also for the sake of the consumer or poor man, because it is more advantageous for the consumer or poor man to buy butter at the price at which it can be bought to-day than to use the secondary or inferior product which is called oleomargarine.
This House has been detained long enough upon this subject, and it is not my intention to speak further upon this point. I might have other considerations to offer, but I do not think it is worth while to offer them, because hon. members already have their minds pretty well made up in regard to this matter. The only thing which we have to do is to endeavour to dispose of the Bill in such a way that it will be set aside and the manufacture and sale of this article will be forever prohibited in this country after the month of October next. Consequently, in order to bring the discussion on this subject to a definite and practical point, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charle-voix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain), to strike out the word "now" in the main motion and to add at the end of the motion the words "this day six months."


Mr. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take up two or three minutes of the time of the House in speaking to this question. When this subject originally came up, I think, in 1918, I had the pleasure of supporting the then minister in bringing in the resolution which is practically the same as the one now before the House. I should like to say at the outset that if I at all believed that permission to bring in or manufacture oleomargarine would do any real injury to the farming or dairy industry of this country, I should feel inclined to oppose this legislation on general principles, because I think every member in this House will admit that our farming industry is necessarily the backbone of the country. But I do not believe the importation or manufacture of oleomargarine will do that. I well remember, in my various visits to England, that oleomargarine was used to a great extent in that country. I also vividly remember that, during service in the line, the soldiers of all the Allies that I had anything to do with, were using oleomargarine, and so far as I know they found it as useful and as palatable to them in the form manufactured in England as butter.
The question of food value has been taken up by various speakers on this subject, and while I will not dispute for a moment the statements that oleomargarine has not so good a food value as butter, at the same time I submit, so little of either of those materials is used in the dietary of the ordinary man, woman or child, that a slight difference in the food value is not of much importance. I agree with those who state that this material should be distinctly marked as oleomargarine; that by no stretch of our laws should anybody be permitted to sell oleomargarine as butter, not because I think that this article might necessarily do any harm to the purchaser, but because it would be a form of deception which should not be permitted to be practised by any manufacturer or dealer in this country.
The main reason why I think, particularly at the present time, the manufacture or importation of oleomargarine will do no harm to the dairy industry is because of the prevailing price of butter. I do not believe any Canadian will buy oleomargarine when he can buy butter in the neighbourhood of 30 or 35 cents a pound. Therefore, I submit that no harm will be done to the dairy industry, and I believe other speakers have given to the House figures showing that since the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine has been allowed in this country, the manufacture of butter has increased. The main thing which I wish to point out is that oleomargarine is sold very widely in the dairy shops of England, and people in that country on many occasions cannot tell oleomargarine from butter. I had the experience of sitting many times in hotels and restaurants in which we disputed whether we were using oleomargarine or butter, and what was considered a good food over there-and no one disputed the fact that it was a good food-should not do any harm if used by the people of this country.
I believe that the principle is right that you cannot prevent the manufacture of a food unless that food can be shown to be injurious to the people who might use it. In these few words, I wish to put myself on record. My constituency is not a city one entirely; I have in it dairies which from their standpoint have opposed the manufacture and importation of oleomar-

garine and I have no quarrel with them. But at the same time, looking at the matter from the broader standpoint of the good of the people in general, I think the minister is quite correct in bringing in this Bill. I also wish to support him in, for the time being, limiting it to a year. The reason why he modified it to a certain extent and limited it to a year was in order to get, so far as he could, what was best suited to the largest group in this House, and my opinion is that our laws should be introduced in such a way as to meet the view of the great majority who believe that those laws are in the best interest of the country.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: Since I have had the honour of occupying a seat in this House, for the last three or four years we have had an annual oleomargarine day. Yesterday we had Empire Day. The difference between Empire Day'and oleomargarine day is that on Empire Day we have a holiday and the House is not sitting, but on oleomargarine day we have to sit and listen to such a discussion as has taken place this afternoon and evening. It seems to me it is somewhat beneath the dignity of Parliament for hon. members to be discussing this question annually. We have an annual discussion-we have not reached it yet this year, and I am beginning to hope we may not-on navigation freight rates by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong). For years we have had an annual flax day, and now we have our annual oleomargarine day. Seeing the House is shortly to prorogue we were hoping we might escape this, but perhaps for the sins we have committed during the year we are obliged to do this day's penance. I have looked up the definition of the word oleomargarine and I find this:
Consists of a mixture of oleo oil, with neutral lard, frequently with the addition of vegetable oil, usually cottonseed oil, the whole being churned with milk, salted, and worked like butter. Sometimes a small amount of butter is also added.
It seems to me that as lard forms one of the ingredients of oleomargarine I should be the only person in this House to object to it, but I am broad enough to be willing to discuss this thing from the purely Christian standpoint, if I may use the expression. If I want to use oleomargarine, and am willing to put my soul in danger by the use of it, what business is that of anybody else? I have in my division quite a large number of Christian
[Mr. Manion.J
voters, who perhaps prefer oleomargarine to butter. Some people have such a perverted taste and palate that they may like oleomargarine, but is there any person here who will tell me that if my palate is perverted to that extent, I must not use it? We have introduced in this country within recent years laws prohibiting the importation, sale and manufacture of liquor-which laws are in vogue-in every province except the good old province of Quebec. We protested against such a law, and we in Quebec have a law of our own, which is satisfactory not only to us, but to all the visitors from neighbouring provinces. Now this Parliament is beginning to encroach on the food of the people. Where is this going to lead us? The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) made a long harangue this evening and declared that it was not good for anybody to eat oleomargarine. Other hon. gentlemen coming from districts where there is a large farming community also told us that oleomargarine is very deleterious, that it is dangerous, that it is poison, and that we ought to eat butter. I ask myself this question:	Would the
hon. member for South Oxford or other hon. members who have spoken in this debate against the use of oleomargarine have the same views if they represented city divisions? I wonder if they would. Personally, I consider that these proposed restrictions are an encroachment on the liberty of the citizen. We have the right to eat whatever we want, and if it suits us to use oleomargarine, we will use it. I think it is absurd for hon. gentlemen Who talk here every day about freedom and liberty and freer trade and fairer trade to assert here to-night that that is all right in a thereotical way, but when it comes down


Donald Sutherland: Would my hon. friend favour the dairymen being permitted to mix these commodities with the butter, and to place the product on the market?


Samuel William Jacobs: Certainly, if the label
clearly indicated what the mixture was. If I want to use a mixture of that kind, why should I not be allowed to do so? One of the members for Toronto, speaking on this question a couple of years ago, told us that oleomargarine was quite as wholesome as butter, providing the ingredients which comprise the article were wholesome when they went into its manufacture. I understand that the hon. gen-

tleman was city Health Officer for Toronto, and that is the information we have on his unimpeachable authority. There is nobody who would suggest for a moment that the ingredients of oleomargarine are deleterious. It is simply a question whether we are going to bar the importation of this* article in order to send up the price of butter. Speaking for myself, I am against any such action. Butter is strong enough to stand on its own feet, and I refuse to have butter forced down my throat if I want to use oleomargarine.


Mr. G. W. ANDREWS (Central Winnipeg) :: Had it been my privilege to speak
before you left the Chair at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I should then have been in a position to congratulate my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture on being better late than never, but in view of his remarks since six o'clock I can only hope that it will be my' privilege to congratulate the members of the House as a whole on passing the Bill as it was originally brought down.
I have listened with a great deal of sympathy to the remarks of hon. gentlemen who are opposed to the measure. For nearly seven years it was my job to milk cows week days and Sundays, and to sell the product in the form of butter, and I have no hesitation in saying that it was the toughest job that I have ever done in the way of trying to make an honest dollar. Butter, in proportion to the amount of labour put into it, is, I believe, and has been for years, the cheapest and the most valuable product that is sold in Canada, and I believe that if it were sold at double its present price it would still be the cheapest food product in Canada. When one compares a glass of milk at five or ten cents with a glass of this temperance stuff that is put up at the same money-why, there is no comparison. I have often thought that if milk was advertised in the same way these other products are, there would be a fortune in it for some one.
Having said that with regard to butter and milk, I want to say a word for oleomargarine, because it has been my privilege to eat quite a lot of it, and I have found it very palatable and wholesome. Like my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) I have seen the time when Canadians sat around a table eating oleomargarine for a week, and there were no complaints that it was not butter they were eating. The point I really desire to make was made this afternoon by my hon. friend the member for Shelburne and
Queen's (Mr. Fielding). It is this- and I can only emphasize it: If I have not the price to buy good butter I am mighty glad to buy good oleomargarine, and if I have the price to buy good butter I will never buy oleomargarine. That, I believe, is the view of the great majority of the constituents I have the honour to represent.
I shall have great pleasure in supporting the Bill as it was originally brought down.
The hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) asked the Government to take a definite stand on this matter and settle it once and for all. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) repeated that request. I also ask the minister to settle this matter once for all, but for different reasons. With the permission of the House I shall read a short extract from a letter I have received this month from one of my constituents:
I was lead to expect the new Margarine Act was in course of preparation and would he put in force shortly. The local papers have given us no information on the subject, and my people are anxious to commence operations as soon as the new Act becomes operative.
Will you be good enough to advise me when you expect the new Act will pass the House, so that I may advise my people?
That refers to the building of something like a $300,000 factory in Winnipeg. Today, when we are so anxious to start building operations to bring down the cost of the commodities of life and to give employment to those who are out of work, I would ask hon. members, is this any time to postpone either of these desirable objects for a year?
Mr. P. R. Du TREMBLAY (Laurier-Outremont) : The only objection I have to the legislation before the House is that it is not to be permanent. This food, which is the subject of discussion, is either good or bad; if it is bad, the consumption of it should be prohibited, and if it is good, then its sale should be permanent. I do not see why we should prevent the sale of this article which, I understand, is subjected to the inspection of an officer appointed by the Government. A large number of peop'e in the cities and towns, rich and poor alike, use oleomargarine. According to figures I have, margarine is sold to-day at between 18 and 20 cents, and butter at 35 cents; and when butter was sold at 60 cents, the price of margarine was 35 cents. This shows that there has always been a difference between the prices of these two articles of food a difference which is quite appreciable to the consumer. It is contended by some that people do not like

margarine. That is not so; on the contrary, it is becoming more and more popular, and it seems to me to be unjust that poor people who cannot afford butter should he denied the privilege of buying this commodity, which is certainly a desirable article. I do not think the Government has any right to limit its sa'le to a period of only one year. The very fact that they allow its sale at all is recognition that the food is good, and if oleomargarine has good food value-and I do not think there can be any doubt about this-it should not be kept out of the market. It was stated a few moments ago that most of the oleomargarine used in Canada is bought from the United States. That is probably due to the fact that in that country the saie of this article is permanent; but in Canada the business men dare not enter on any large scale into this enterprise, because the Government to protect a certain class, are now making it known that next year the importation and sale of margarine will be prohibited. T repeat that the only part of this legislation to which I object, and I object to it strongly, is that it is to be applicable for only one year. This food should be placed on the market in open competition with every other article.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is under the impres! ion that this legislation is only for one year. The Bill, upon which we are voting, makes the importation and saie of oleomargarine permanent, but the minister has intimated that he may limit it to one year later on.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: I am glad the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), has corrected me. I was under the impression from a remark made by some hon. member, that it was only for one year.


Mr. J. A. LEDUC (Westmount-St. Henry) :: I did not intend to speak on this
question, but as I know something about butter and oleomargarine, perhaps it is my duty to place my views before the House. I represent a city constituency, and I think it is only right that, especially after having received letters from housewives from everv part of the city of Montreal, I should ask the Government to pass some legislation permitting the sale of oleomargarine. For every hundred boxes of butter sold during the war, twenty-five boxes of oleomargarine were sold, and of that proportion I have not heard, so far, one complaint respecting the quality of margarine. This article is, and should be, subject to the same i7!spec * 
tion as any other kind of food; the federal inspectors have a perfect right to inspect it. The fact that no complaint has so far been made in regard to the quantity that has been sold up to the present time, shows that it is in every respect a good article of food, and the Government should not prevent those who cannot afford butter from buying this cheaper food, which is perfectly wholesome. I know of many people who cannot pay 60 and 65 cents for butter, but who were only too anxious, when that article was selling at those prices, to buy margarine at 35 cents; and I myself have eaten margarine on the trains coming from Montreal to Ottawa, when we had to pay $1.50 for meals.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that the Canadian
National?


Joseph Alfred Leduc: The Grand Trunk and the Canadian National. Now, oleomargarine, if it is properly put up and has passed a strict inspection, is a perfectly palatable food and should be placed on the market for those who cannot afford to buy butter. It has been pointed out that while some people could not afford butter at 60 cents a pound, they are able to buy it at 30; and this week, it is true, we have been able to buy butter at 28 cents a pound wholesale. But that does not say that six months hence butter will not be sixty cents a pound again, as soon as exportation starts. When that happens, what will those people do who cannot afford butter, if we prohibit the sale of margarine? The member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) says that every one can afford 30 cents a pound for butter. That may be so; but consider the question of wages in connection with this. When men were earning $6 and $8 a day, butter at 60 cents a pound did not mean as much to them as butter at 30 cents a pound does now, when wages are so much lower than they were at that time. I hope the Bill will pass, because we must protect not only one class; we must consider the welfare of those who cannot make butter for themselves, or who cannot afford to pay the high prices of butter. The question is asked, why do not people buy butter in quantities now that it is cheap? Well, every one knows that in the cities to-day poor people cannot afford to buy, because they cannot keep more than one pound of butter at a time. So they buy a pound of oleomargarine every day just as they require it, because it is freshly manufactured and sold in a fresh state. Those people who, in former

years, were able to buy a tub of butter in the fall and were able to keep that butter during the whole winter cannot do so to-day. The modern dwellings of the great mass of city residents are so constructed that they have no place in which to store food products; in fact they are so short of accommodation that they" frequently have to put articles under the bed. The dwellings and apartments of the toilers of to-day give no opportunity to buy food products ahead in any quantity, because they simply cannot be stored under conditions that will enable them to be kept without deteriorating. Butter and oleomargarine are articles which will quickly deteriorate unless they are kept at a proper temperature. So the mass of consumers find the better plan to buy these commodities by the pound as they need them each day. For the reasons I have given I am going to vote for this Bill.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac) :	I
find myself in rather an awkward position in reference to this Bill. Being a Liberal, and in favour of freedom for commerce as well as freedom for the individual', I am compelled to vote for the measure. It is one of the first Bills brought in by this Government that I really feel like voting for. Now that an amendment has been moved to the measure I shall be placed in the position of having to vote for the Government. However, I have the satisfaction of voting for the first good Bill introduced by them and in opposition to some of my hon. friends on the other side. I wish to say that I represent a purely agricultural constituency and I do not believe that the people I represent would ask me to penalize those of the Canadian public who wish to use oleomargarine. If they do entertain such a view and it causes any of them to vote against me I shall have to take the consequence. With me it is not a matter of expediency, it is a case of doing what I believe to be a right thing for the country as a whole. I think the Minister of Agriculture showed bad judgment this evening when he announced that he would limit the operation of the Bill to one year. I think he should have had the courage to stand by the Bill in the form in which he presented it. True, there has been a certain amount of criticism from hon. gentlemen opposite, but from past experience the minister might have known that a Bill presented by the Government would carry. I think therefore the minister should have stood by it and seen that it passed the
House. I shall' have the compensating advantage in my course that I shall be voting against some of the worst Tories on the Government side.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have the happy
privilege of representing an urban and a rural constituency, but it so happens that in both cases my electors consume perhaps as much oleomargarine as they do butter. As long as there is a good and really serious inspection of that commodity I do not see why the people should be prevented from using it. In these days of the high cost of living when there is even a few cents dilference in the value of food products it is a matter of some importance. Although there has been of late a marked decrease in that cost, we still suffer from the high prices, and I believe that when such products as oleomargarine are properly inspected the people should not be prevented from using them if they choose to do so. I quite sympathize with my friends from the province of Quebec who have spoken this evening against the use of oleomargarine. It must be remembered that to-day Quebec is the banner province in dairy production. A year or so ago we secured the first prize at the Toronto Annual Exhibition, and even although last year the first prize went to the West it was discovered by the Minister of Agriculture in Quebec that the gentleman who had won the prize was a former student of the St. Hyacinthe Dairy School. From that point of view I quite sympathize with my hon. friends who uphold the exclusion of a product other than butter. We must not forget, however, that we must have some consideration for the masses of the people. I have always supported free food in this House, and under the present circumstances I feel that I would not be doing my duty toward the vast mass of the consumers of Canada if I did not give them the liberty of selecting the food of their choice, provided that food is adequately inspected.


Mr. THOMAS HAY (Selkirk):: I wish to say that I am not opposed to the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada, but I am opposed to the unfair competition to which it subjects dairymen of this country. The ingredients used in the manufacture of oleomargarine are allowed to enter the country free and, mixed with butter, to enter into competition with the [DOT] Canadian butter makers, which I think is unfair. If the Bill passes in its present form I think

it will work a great injury to the dairy interests of Canada. In a very short period, if prices remain as low as they now are, the Canadian butter makers will be put out of business and then the manufacturers of oleomargarine will have a monopoly of the Canadian market. I think that would be the final result if the Bill were to pass as it is now framed. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that a fairly heavy duty be placed on ingredients entering into the manufacture of oleomargarine. We have a duty against imports of butter, and I see no reason why a duty should not be placed on the ingredients referred to. I think it is only fair to the dairy producers that this should be done. I noticed in an article in the Free Press of yesterday that Manitoba is becoming a large producer of dairy products, and that something like 6,000,000 pounds of butter were produced in that province in the year 1920. In my opinion the Bill in its present form would seriously affect the manufacture of butter in the province of Manitoba, in fact in the whole of Canada. I am not looking at this question from a purely local point of view; I am viewing it from a national standpoint, and I believe that as a nation we would suffer from this legislation unless some safeguards are thrown around the manufacture of dairy products in this country. I therefore feel that the minister should take these facts into consideration in dealing with this measure.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is the House ready for the question?


Donald Sutherland: Before submitting the question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the exception by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Hay) is well taken. The manufacturers of oleomargarine are permitted to import all the ingredients under a duty of only one per cent. It has been stated by the advocates of the manufacturers of oleomargarine that about 70 to 75 per cent of it consisted of ingredients produced in this country. Well, by having a protective tariff on those ingredients you could ensure that condition of affairs. But it would not suit the manufacturers as well as the present arrangement, because of the fact that they are now enabled to buy in a foreign country all those ingredients with the exception of butter. When butter was 66 cents a pound, as it was a little while ago, there was a tariff of only six per cent. At 33 cents a pound that tariff would be at the rate of

12 per cent. In other words, when the price doubled the tariff was reduced by ond-half. In connection with the tariff on other articles manufactured in this country there is an ad valorem duty, and therefore -when the price doubles the tariff also doubles. That is the difference in the treatment of the two articles under our tariff, and it is absolutely unfair. We ought to have an ad valorem duty on butter.
>
As a matter of fact about $250,000,000 worth of dairy products were produced in this country last year, and only about one-fifth was exported. So there is no closing our eyes to the fact that our home market is by long odds the most valuable one our farmer has. At the same time I realize the importance of the consumer getting his food as cheaply as possible. These large exports of butter during the past few years have been entirely due to the enormous expansion of the dairy industry. In the county from which I come, where the first cheese factory in Canada was established, I have witnessed successive transformations. First it was largely a butter manufacturing county; after that the farmers went almost entirely into the manufacture of cheese, and as Ingersoll cheese it was well known all over Great Britain; those cheese factories one after another gave place to the condenseries and powder factories as a result of the British Government controlling the price of cheese during the war. Now, there is a tendency to again open up many of the cheese factories, for the reason that the farmers after experiencing both conditions realize the importance of having a well balanced system of farming.
The butter-making industry to my mind is the most important branch of agriculture that we have to-day, although we are not carrying it on at all in our county. I suppose nine-tenths of the farmers of my constituency purchase butter, and I am not too sure but what lots of them purchase oleomargarine. Therefore, when I take exception to this measure it is not by reason of the fact that there is any great demand from my constituency-I want thvt distinctly understood-but it is the principle involved, and it is also because rf the fact that every drop of the milk we are selling to the condenseries goes off the farm. As a result of that system of farming there is an enormous drain on the fertility of the land; but with the system of dairying whereby butter is manufactured you have the essentials to sue-

cessful agriculture. The raising of cattle, hogs and other live stock is the only way in which the fertility of the soil can be maintained and farming carried on successfully. To-day our people are very largely purchasing commercial fertilizers, and I am not too sure, even with the high price they have been obtaining for condensed milk and powder and ice cream

 because there are factories where the milk is converted into ice cream-that they have any advantage As I pointed out, many of our farmers are going back to the manufacture of cheese again, and I believe that many more would welcome butter-making factories if they were established in thit district. The places where you will find the best system of agriculture carried on are where cattle and hogs are being raised. There is no closing our eyes to the fact that we have a difficult period ahead of us, and I am satisfied that live stock s the only salvation for our farmers in the future, and that therefore we must encourage by every means in our power successful development along these lines. I believe this measure is a retrograde movement, and I am absolutely opposed to the principle involved in encouraging adulteration, because, as I pointed out before, the present system is really enabling these people to adulterate oleomargarine.
What about the original manufacturers and importers of oleomargarine? Two years ago I received a letter, but I did not quote it When this matter was last before the House. It is dated October 8, 1919, and is from Mr. H. D. Marshall, Canadian sales agent of "Kingnut" butter. It reads:
I read with considerable interest the item in this morning's Citizen, giving an account of the discussion in the House yesterday regarding the extension of the permit for the sale and importation of oleomargarine in Canada.
I was particularly interested in the stand which you took regarding the use of June butter in the manufacture of oleomargarine.
Permit me to say from the standpoint of one who is largely interested in the sale of oleomargarine, that I heartily approve of the stand which you take.
The admixture of butter with oleomargarine does not improve the quality of the oleomargarine, and certainly does not add anything to the value of butter. This practice is one which I would like. to see stopped, and the oleomargarine industry placed on its own legs to stand or fall on its merits. The admixture of butter into oleomargarine is the result of a popular demand from dealers to give them an article which they can place 'before the consumers as nearly representing butter as possible.
My contention is that oleomargarine is a commodity which can be used as a spread for bread, but does not and should not and should not be made to interfere with the business of manufacturing and selling butter.
It is evidently too late for any aotion to be taken on this during the present session, but if at the next session of the House you feel disposed to bring this topic up again, you can rest assured that you will have the hearty cooperation and support of at least one who is largely interested in the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine.
This Kingnut butter, or margarine, is manufactured very largely in the United States, and also, I believe, in Canada, and, as I have said, this letter was sent to me by the Canadian sales agent here. I cannot support any measure that will discriminate against the freedom of the individual, and, as has been pointed out by several hon. members who have spoken, that is what this measure does. The dairy industry is one of the most laborious in this country. While an eight-hour day is being agitated for in connection with other activities, those who are engaged in the dairy industry find it necessary to put in twelve or fourteen hours a day. It is not intimated in the measure now before us that any change in the regulations is contemplated, and in view of all these considerations there is only one course for me to pursue. I am not in favour of preventing the manufacture or importation of this product, and if I had any assurance that anything better would be adopted I would be inclined to vote accordingly. But there is no assurance from the Government that these most iniquitous regulations will be removed and the monopoly cease which is now enjoyed by two of the large packing houses in this country-companies which have received a rebate of nearly a quarter of a million dollars during the last year and a half in connection with this matter. I contend that these regulations in their present form are not in the interests of the public and since they are to remain I am compelled to vote for the amendment.



[Stage Direction]
Stein,	Tobin,
Sutherland,	Trahan,
Thompson (Hastings), Truax-33.
NAYS	
Messrs.	
Allan,	Lapointe,
Anderson,	Leduc,
Andrews,	Lemieux,
Argue,	Lesage,
Arthurs,	Long,
Ballantyne,	MacKelvie.
Ball,	Mackie (Edmonton),
Best,	Mackie (Renfrew),
Blair,	Maclean (Halifax),
Blake,	Maclean (York),
Bolton,	MacNutt,
Bonnell,	MoCoig,
Boyce,	McCrea,
Boys,	McCurdy,
Brien,	McDermand,
Bristol, ,	McGibbon (Muskoka),
Buchanan,	McGregor,
Bureau,	Mclsaac,
Cahill,	McMaster,
Calder,	McQuarrie,
Caldwell,	Manion,
Campbell,	Martin,
Casselman,	Meighen,
Chaplin,	Mewburn,
Charlton,	Michaud,
Charters,	Middlebro,
Clark (Bruce),	Molloy,
Clark (Red Deer),	Morphy,
Clements,	Mowat,
Cockshutt,	Munson,
Cooper,	Myers,
Cowan,	Nesbitt,
Crerar,	Nicholson
Cronyn,	(Queens, P.E.I.),
CrowTe,	Nicholson (Algoma),
Currie,	Papineau,
Davidson,	Pardee,
Davis,	Peck,
Doherty,	Pedlow,
Douglas (Strathcona),	Prevost,
Douglas (Cape Breton	Redman,
S. and Richmond),	Reid (Grenville),
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Reid (Mackenzie),
DuTremblay,	Rinfret,
Edwards,	Ross,
Fielding,	Savard,
Finley,	Scott,
Foster (Sir George),	Shaw,
Foster (York),	Simpson,
pulton,	Smith,
Gervais,	Spinney,
Glass,	Steele,
Green,	Stevens,
Guthrie,	Stewart (Hamilton), *
Halladay,	Stewart (Lanark),
Harold,	Thompson (Weyburn),
Harrison,	Thompson (Yukon),
Hay,	Thomson
Henders,	(Qu'Appelle),
Jacobs,	Tolmie,
Johnston,	^remain,
Kennedy (Glengarry	Tweedie,
and Stormont),	White,
King,	Wigmore,
Knox,	Wilson (Wentworth),
Lalor,	Wilson (Saskatoon),
Dang,	Wright-130.
[Stage Direction]

(The list of pairs is furnished by the Chief Whips).
Messrs.
Tudhope,	Proulx,
Griesbach,	Euler.
William Daum Euler: I was paired with the
hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Griesbach). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Main motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House thereupon went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin ir the Chair.
On clause 1

manufacture, importation and sale permitted.


Robert James Manion: I beg to move to amend
clause 1 by substituting for the new section three therein proposed, the following section:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Dairy Industry Act, 1914, chapter 7 of the Statutes of 1914, or in any other statute or law, the manufacture in and importation of oleomargarine into Canada shall be permitted until the 31st day of August, 1922, and the offering for sale, the sale, and the having in possession for sale of oleomargarine, shall be permitted until the 1st day of March 1923.
In other words the amendment is to the effect that this legislation holds good for one year.


William Stevens Fielding: It is much to be regretted that the Government has spoiled a good Bill by encouraging this amendment. There is no reason in the world why we should shilly-shally with this thing from year to year. If oleomargarine is a bad thing, let us put the ban on and stop it; but this bringing in a Bill, as the minister has done this year, to provide that oleomargarine shall be treated like any other article of commerce, and now because the Bill has met with a little criticism to postpone, as he is doing, a final decision for another year, is not wise politics; it is not good statesmanship; it is not common-sense. Let us settle the thing and be done with it, and not go on in this way for another year.


Michael Clark: I find myself in absolute agreement with what has fallen from the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). There is no defence in logic for the course which the Government are taking. What is the reason? Was this Bill not thought out before it was brought down to the House? Do the Government confess that they have so ill-considered the principle of the Bill that it

is changed on account of a slight waft of opinion on their side?
No reason is offered for the change. As my hon. friend has just said, it is good or it is bad to introduce oleomargarine into this country. If it be good, why do it for a year? Many things were done temporarily during the war, but the war is over, and there is no argument that I know of for any action along temporary lines. If there is, I am subject to correction, and I shall be glad to hear the correction. It is not done out of principle; it is done out of party expediency to meet the views of certain kickers on the other side of the House. Having made that protest, I do not know that there is any need to talk any further, the Government's action is strong confirmation of the view of those that think this Government has outlived its mandate and ought to go to the country-strong confirmation indeed. Is there any subject upon which they take a definite stand? I dare say they would answer: On the principle of protection. Well, even that stand is taken outside of the House, and not in it. My right hon. friend spoke on that subject the other day, and never put up an economic argument. He keeps those for outside of this House. On a dozen other things, as I have indicated before, this Government has committed acts of infanticide, and this is an addition to the number. Here is perhaps the strongest personality in the Government, whom we all respect, or did, as a really strong man, coming down with a Bill which presumably he has thought out with the care which he bestows on every detail of his departmental work. At the end of the session, after he has had four months of a session to think about it and a year since the question was last before the House, he brings before us the considered proposition of a government that professes to have a mandate to rule this country, and in one afternoon he changes his opinion and says: We will try it for just another year. Well, an Englishman naturally sympathizes with the bottom dog, and when peoples are so weak in their support, why, my sympathy naturally goes out to them. But there is a duty for hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and my duty is to protest that we have in this the last evidence of weakness on the part of the Government and a strong argument why they should cut the painter, take their courage in both hands, and go to the country with their principle of protection or any other policy they have, and give the country a chance. Then we
246$
shall get a Government that really governs in this country. This Government does not govern. If I wanted to prove to any visitor to Ottawa for the first time that this Goveernment does not govern, I would take him to the Plaza and show him the method of recording time here. He would look on one side and see a clock arranged by the railway company, showing two o'clock in the day. He would look at another clock, arranged by the municipality of Ottawa, and see that it was three o'clock. He would naturally say: What is the Government of the country doing? I should have to reply: Oh, they take the time from the municipality when they are looking that way, and from the railway company when they are looking the other way. I do not want to go over all these acts of infanticide again, but they are getting too numerous for this country to have the slightest further patience with the Government, and they call on the Government to take at least one resolute action, and that is to go and get a breath of fresh popular air in their sails and see how it suits their constitution.


Donald Sutherland: I hold in my hand the Canada Gazette, under date of October 25, 1917. Dealing with this matter, the Order in Council provides:
Whereas attention is drawn to the abnormal demand for butter due to war conditions and to the very great probability that such abnormal demand and consequent high prices will prevail for this product for some time to come.
Then, after referring to the regulations, it provides:
Such regulations to be in force and to have effect for the period during which the present abnormal conditions continue, the conclusion of such period to be determined by His Excellency the Governor General in Council, as provided in the said regulations, and as a war measure only.
Mr. Chairman, I contend that the period of deflation in the price of butter has arrived, and that the regulations contained in this Order in Council are no longer justified. I have pointed out that I do not take exception to the importation or manufacture of this article of food. What I did object to was the regulations contained in this Order in Council. I therefore beg to move in amendment to the amendment, seconded by the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith), to add at the end of the section the following words:
provided that no oleomargarine shall be imported into Canada or manufactured in or sold, offered for sale or had in possession for sale in Canada which contains any milk or cream or any product of milk or cream.

This will do an injustice to no one, and will be a protection to those engaged in the industry.


John Best: I think it ill becomes any hon. member to get up in the House and read a lecture to the Government and to hon. members as to how they should vote, as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has just done. I can tell him that if the members sitting around him vote as he wants them to at the snap of his finger, the members on this side of the House have minds of their own and they vote as they see fit. Judging by the way the hon. member for Red Deer talks in this House, one can imagine that if he had the powers the Czar of Russia had some years ago, he would be much more intolerant than the Czar himself. This is not the first time that the hon. member for Red Deer has read the riot act to the Government and to hon. members on this side of the House; yet I do not think there is a member of this House who talks as much one way and votes the opposite way as the hon. member for Red Deer. I voted the way I did because I understood the measure was to be extended for one year, and I trust that when I vote as I see fit the hon. member for Red Deer will not find fault with me.


Michael Clark: The hon. member has totally misrepresented what I said. My remonstrances were naturally directed to the Government, and I hope in parliamentary language, for not standing by their Bill. I said nothing about how my hon. friend or any one else in the House voted. There is a total misunderstanding or a total misrepresentation of what I said, and I must ask my hon. friend to accept my disavowal. I never made a single remark about the way he voted; my remonstrance was addressed entirely to the Government, to whose ranks my hon. friend does not yet belong.


John Best: I do not know any hon.
member who talks as much one way and votes another as the hon. member.


Mr.   D@: I am opposed to
the amendment because it is unfair to the people of the country, and to the freedom of trade. If this legislation is to be made applicable only for one year, you will discourage the manufacture of this food in Canada, and as I said before, if this food is wholesome there is no reason why its sale should not be permanently permitted, subject to proper inspection by the officials

of the Government. No doubt the Government will accept this amendment to please the farmers. They are trying to please everybody in the country, but they will succeed in pleasing none. The Bill, as first introduced, would allow the permanent manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada. Why change that principle now? It is said that this article is mostly bought from the United States now. Well, that will continue to be the case if permanent legislation is not passed here, because no business man will invest in the manufacture of this oleomargarine in Canada without some assurance of permanence and stability. The Minister of Agriculture should stand by his Bill to-night and not be intimidated by any suggestions as to what the consequences may be. He cannot deceive the farmers of the country; if he changes his attitude they will know very well it is for political purposes, and he will not attain the end he has in view. The amendment should not be sustained.


William Cameron Edwards: When this matter was first introduced into the House in 1918, it was brought forward by the then Minister of Agriculture, the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). At that time it received the endorsation and approval of practically every member in the House, and certainly of the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). The war ended on November 11, 1918, and in 1919 it was thought necessary to pass legislation to authorize the continuance of the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. At that time the member for Red Deer did not raise his voice in protest, and say that the matter should be settled at once. He found no fault, as he does now; he approved of an extension for the year. Another year went by and we came to 1920, and again, in his estimation, it was perfectly all right to extend the period for another year, and there were no charges against the Government of vacillation. It was quite right, in his estimation, to extend the period for one year. Now, however, all of a sudden, a change has come over the spirit of his dreams, and it is an undoubted evidence of weakness on the part of the Government that they should ask the House to do exactly what he approved of doing on two different occasions in two former years. What is responsible for this sudden change on the part of the member for Red Deer? On a former occasion he had not a word of disapproval for the extension of time, and, of course, that settled it. When the matter had the ap-

proval of the member for Red Deer it was perfectly proper, irrespective of what any other member might think. Now it has his disapproval; it is bound to be wrong; he undertakes to read the House a lecture, and gets off some of his talk about protection and free trade, and mandate, etc.
In speaking on this Bill this afternoon I said that I had opposed from the start, on principle, the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine, but I found myself in the first instance in a hopeless minority. That was certainly true in 1919; and again in 1920 practically the whole House was in favour of extending the time for another year. I said this afternoon that while I should like to see the importation and manufacture of this article prohibited, I thought that it was well that, if in the judgment of the House-and I was influenced by the fact that on two former occasions the vast majority of the members were in favour of it-an extension for one year should be permitted, legislation should be passed to that end; and I said that I would rather see an extension granted for another year than see a permanent measure put through.
What can be said in favour of an extension for a year? There is this that might be said. While you can point to prices which have obtained for butter during the last two or three months as being so low as to give the producer of butter no profit, at the same time, others who favour the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine might say that this is only a temporary condition, and might plead for an extension for a year until we found out for certain whether these low prices would continue, or whether they would get back to their former basis. That is something the Government might urge in justification of their attitude in extending the time. On that ground, and because I understood from the remarks of the minister this afternoon that, instead of putting a permanent measure through, he was disposed to extend the time for another year, I voted with the Government on the Bill. I am in entire accord with the amendment to the amendment. I agree with my hon. friend from Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), that the manufacturers of oleomargarine should not be permitted to make use of butter or cream in order to give some degree of respectability to the article they are trying to sell in competition with the makers of butter. For that reason, I shall vote for the amendment to the amendment, because I think that it is
an improvement on the Bill and will allow the manufacture of oleomargarine for another year, when conditions and prices . may adjust themseves. The acceptance of the amendment of the member of Oxford is something which the Government could do without injury to the Bill; in fact it would add strength to it.


William Stevens Fielding: I am no advocate of rash legislation If this were a new matter which the House was considering for tne first time I could see some reason for temporizing with it, such as my hon. friend who has just spoken has advanced. But, as I pointed out we have had this question before us now for three years. Therefore the Government know all about it. It is not a case where they need further information. They have had all the opportunity possible for learning what are the ingredients that enter into oleomargarine. They have had every opportunity to learn whether it is a wholesome or unwholesome product; there is absolutely no more to learn. We know as much about it to-day as can be learned in the course of another year. It is for that reason I prote,t against the Government temporizing wi.h the question. If there was something more to be -learned, if some reason was indicated for postponing this question again, it would be a different matter. But twelve months hence, especially if there be an election pending, we shall have this same story again and somebody will be trying to postpone the question for another year. It is a most unreasonable thing. If oleomargarine is a bad product, if its importation, manufacture and use is objectionable, .r against the interests of the farmer, let us say so and settle the question once and for all. If oleomargarine is open to all the objections that hon. gentlemen have urg"d so strenuously the Government are doing a great wrong in continuing it for another year. Let the question be dealt wi :h to-day without any further shilly-shallying; let the Government deal with it as they would deal with anything else.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I did not have the advantage of being in the House during the discussion this afternoon, but I think I shall say something in reply to the statements of my hon. friend for Shelburne and Queen's. This Bill has been, in virtually the same form, before this House on, I think, two previous occasions. In the Bill as introduced by the Government in the first place, a stipulated time was fixed for the law to remain in effect, for the rea-

son that there were at that time very special circumstances affecting the production and consumption of butter in Canada, necessitating, as it was deemed, some cheaper substitute because the poor and the labouring classes in this country, particularly those two, could not afford butter at the higher price being paid for it. Those were the special circumstances that had to do with the limited time that was fixed in the Bill. That measure was followed by the Bill providing for an extension. When the Bill was introduced this time the Government felt that there was no further reason for a limited time, and that in accordance with the best public policy oleomargarine should be admitted without limitation of time, of course under the restrictions that are provided for by the regulations and such further regulations as might be called for. In that form the Government would prefer the measure to pass. I unde, stand that the Minister of Agriculture this evening-in view of very considerable opposition in the House to the Bill passing in that form; the ground being taken that the special circumstances that surrounded the production and sale of butter have in great degree passed away and that consequently there should be no permanent prohibition of the importation of oleomargarine-under those circumstances the Minister of Agriculture stated that rather than see a prolonged discus* sion of a subject of this kind when we hope to end the session shortly and rather than imperil the Bill in any way, he would accept it in the form in which it passed before. Of course, I am prepared that lectures shall be read by the hon. member for Red Deer, but I am not very seriously alarmed by the accusation that because the Government under such circumstances accepts an amendment to a Bill, it consequently commits infanticide and abandons its principles. The Government does not do that at all. We are now, as we hope, very dost to the end of the session. We would prefer the Bill as it is, but if it meets the wishes of the House better in the amended form we would rather have that than delay the session too long or imperil the legislation,-that is all For those who are fearful as to the authority of a Government that admits an amendment, I would commend them to look around to a cap'tal not very far from here, where they will find very close friends of their own who seem not at all concerned when they introduce legislation, and, if hostility appears, even on the part of the  j
Opposition, ignc miniously abandon it on very short nctice, where such hostility is not merely an accident arising toward the end of a session but seems to be the regular practice. However that is not the case here. The Government's position is this: We prefer the Bill as it is. We believe, though, in view of the opposition, that we should accede to that amendment rather than imperil the (measure and we propose to accept the amendment if it is the will of the House. We prefer the Bill in the shape in which it is. We think ourselves that the time has come when oleomargarine should (be admitted. I am sorry that opposition to the Bill developed on this side of the House, or on either side; but under the circumstances, as we are nearing the end of the session, we felt it was better, rather than that there should be prolonged discussion, that the Bill should pass in a form which leaves the matter just as it is for another year, When, under the circumstances of that time, the House can again decide what it wishes.


William Stevens Fielding: The Prime Minister tells us that he and the Government prefer the Bill as it is. He did not give us a chance to vote for the Bill as it is. Before we reached a division on the question, when the matter was still pending, the Minister of Agriculture volunteered the statement that the Government were going to abandon the Bill as it is, and under this amendment we had no chance to vote for the Bill as it stands to-day.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The amendment of the hon. member for South Oxford appeals to me for a reason which I think has not yet been suggested to the House. Canada at times exports large quantities of butter to outside markets and has done so for years. It is quite well known that difficulties have been created in the past, both in regard to cheese and butter products by reason of the mixing of an inferior article with the genuine product. Now we propose in this Bill to probably permit the adulteration of butter (by the mingling with it of oleomargarine. I believe the farmers and producers, and the dairymen of this country, are proud of the products they have produced in the past, both as regards cheese and butter, and are endeavouring to excel in the superiority of these articles to-day and for the future. Now if it is going to be permitted in Canada to mix butter with

oleomargarine and sell it under the name of oleomargarine the result may probably be that some of it will be so near butter that it will be hard to distinguish from the genuine article, but nevertheless a taint may be produced in it and in some way it may be shipped out of the country and thus injure the market for Canadian butter. I think that is a very dangerous expedient to favour in the interest of the dairy producers of this country. There is no question to my mind that in the United States frauds in oleomargarine assumed enormous proportions and I fear that in the case of Canadian butter when shipped abroad there will from the possibility of its manipulation and the likelihood of oleomargarine being mixed with it, be a tendency to vitiate the high standard of Canadian butter, to lower that standard in the markets of the world, and thereby bring injury to the butter producers of Canada. Therefore I propose to vote for the amendment to the amendment of my hon. friend for South Oxford.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It seems to me that
this amendment to the amendment is neither logical nor reasonable. If, as we are told, 25 per cent of oleomargarine is composed of butter, then to that extent its use makes a market for butter. If on account of the high price of butter

fortunately it is not so at the present time-it ever happens that some people are unable to buy it, they will buy oleomargarine and thus be able to indulge in butter to the extent of 25 per cent. The opponents of the Bill say that oleomargarine is not a wholesome article of food. If that be so, why should they make it worse by preventing the use of 25 per cent of dairy products in its manufacture? I think those two reasons are sufficient to justify my voting against the sub-amendment.


John Howard Sinclair: The
hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) said that he voted for the Bill because of the fact that there was a certain amount of oleomargarine manufactured in the country which had not been sold, and he wished to give its owners an opportunity of selling it. My hon. friend evidently has not looked at the statute, because, as I understand it, under the present law the sale of oleomargarine is legal until March 1922. Therefore there was no need for my hon. friend to vote for the Bill on the ground he stated.
My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture does not seem to be very certain about the Bill itself or he would not have
accepted the amendment. His attitude justified me and other gentlemen on both sides of the House who voted against the Bill, because if he was sure it was a good measure he would have stood by it and it would become law. The Prime Minister is in the same position. He prefers the Bill as it is. But although he has a sufficient majority at bis back to put the Bill through, he hesitates, for some reason or other which I am unable to understand.
I am opposed to the Bill for certain reasons, principally because the Government have given no assurance to our butter makers that they will frame regulations to prevent oleomargarine being confused with butter. That is one of the main reasons,
I am informed, for the opposition from our dairy people. They complain that the product which is put on the market is neither oleomargarine nor butter, but a kind of adulterated butter, and it is often sold to people who do not know the difference between the two articles. That is unfair to our butter makers, and if the department had made regulations to remove that uncertainty I would not have the same opposition to the Bill. The Dairy Association of Canada has made a proposal-which apparently the minister has not taken any notice of-that some steps be taken in regard to the colour of oleomargarine to make it impossible to palm it off as butter. In order that that may be brought about I intend to support the amendment of my hon. friend from South Oxford, as, if carried, we will have either pure margarine or pure butter.


Samuel Francis Glass: The amendment of the hon. member for South Oxford embodies practically the main features of the request of the National Dairymen's Association to the Government as recited by the hon. member for Guysborough this afternoon and repeated by me later. Like the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, I do not like this temporising, for I think it creates unrest and dissatisfaction, and heaven knows at the present time our farmers have enough anxiety and worry over the very sudden deflation of the commodities they produce. I have no doubt that the views of the Dairymen's Association have been placed before the Government, and I should like to see those views given effect to and the measure made permanent.
To fully satisfy the needs of our dairy industry the Minister of Finance should also remove the unjust discrimination against butter in favour of oleomargarine.

The manufacturers of oleomargarine have stated that about 75 per cent of its constituent parts is made from products of the farm. The hon. member for South Oxford says that that is not so. At any rate there is no doubt that a very large proportion of the ingredients are the byproducts of the farm, and naturally that makes a market for what otherwise would to some extent command a much lower price. Therefore to that extent it is to the interest of farmers that these fats may be used to manufacture a commodity that brings a better price.
I certainly think the amendment is entirely in accord with the sentiments I expressed on the floor of the House, and with the wishes of the National Dairymen's Association, and I trust the Government will see fit to accept it. I am satisfied that the measure would be far better if it were made to apply permanently, not only to allay unrest and anxiety on the part of our farmers, but also on the part of the manufacturers of oleomargarine, because as the hon. member for Winnipeg pointed out, the institution which contemplated starting the manufacture of oleomargarine in the West *toll no doubt hesitate unless they have some certainty of a permanent market.


Mr. CAHILL:: A few minutes ago I supported this Bill, and to that extent the Government, but I must confess that I then had no idea that the Government were going to be so wobbly as to turn tail and run from their own Bill. I am afraid that I cannot follow them any further in their backsliding. But I would ask the minister now how far he proposes to go with this amendment and the amendment to the amendment. What is the Government's well-considered policy on this Bill at the present moment?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I cannot agree with the amendment to the amendment as submitted by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). In the first place, if we adopted his suggestion we would not have what is known as oleomargarine in this country at all. While the National Dairy Council is an organization we all respect and one which is doing a great deal of good, an organization which may represent to a considerable extent the great dairy interests of this country, still we must not forget that there are hundreds of thousands of beef cattle in this country raised on the ranch and on the farm, and that the men who produce these cattle have every right to market their produets to the very

best possible advantage. In the average beef steer slaughtered in our packing houses there are ten or twelve pounds oi stearine, ten or twelve pounds of oleo oil, and some tallow. The stearine is usually used for shortening in baking and tlie oleo oil is at present being used in the manufacture of oleomargarine. All this manufacture is carried on under the most careful supervision, and this oleo is secured only from what are known as the edible fats of the animal carcass. We do not permit the manufacture of oleomargarine in the ordinary creamery or dairy, because it would be quite impracticable; we would have to maintain an army of inspectors to carry on the necessary inspection and supervision. The manufacture of oleo is permitted only in the packing houses of the country where we maintain a corps of skilled meat inspectors who see that all the various operations are properly carried out. In addition to the inspection of the oleo and of the fats from which the oleo is made, there is also the inspection of the vegetable oils. The mi'lk and butter used in the manufacture of oleo must either come from tested cows, showing that the animals are free from tuberculosis according to the tuberculin test, or must be pasteurized, showing that there is no possibility of the oleo being contaminated by the use of tuberculous milk or butter in its manufacture. Under these conditions I do not see why the manufacturer of oleo should be prevented from adding good clean butter and milk-articles that are more expensive, and, as our friends claim, more nutritive than the article which he produces in the abattoir-and thus to improve the quality of the product which he is turning out. One hon. gentleman, I think it was the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy), referred to the nutritive value of the various products, and I think quite properly said that milk is perhaps one of the very best products for growing children or growing animals. By the addition of this milk and butter, then,	we make
that spread which the poor man is compelled to use for his family when butter gets too high in price. This product is better in quality than it would be if it was made from straight oleo or straight vegetable oil. I do not think we should refuse the poor man this cheap spread for his bread in place of the dripping, pork or beef, which has often been used in this country in the past. I do not

think he should be refused the right to purchase all the oleo he wishes to use at the cheaper price, provided the product is made under careful inspection.
Now, with regard to the imported oleo, the animal oleo comes in here with a certificate from the Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington, which is the same as our Health of Animals Branch here, showing that the product has been manufactured under careful supervision. Vegetable oleos made from straight oils are accompanied by a certificate from the Bureau of Chemistry at Washington showing that these articles have been prepared under proper conditions. So that this oleo is perfectly safe from a health standpoint; it is considered very wholesome indeed, and by the addition of butter it is made more palatable than it would otherwise be. Some one has suggested that we should provide that oleo shall be made of a colour foreign to its natural colour. I hold in my hand a sample jar containing oleo prepared in the Harris Abattoir in the middle of winter; hon. members can see that it is of a distinct yellow colour, and I think it would be unfair to ask the manufacturers of this oleo to dye the product pink, or blue which is entirely foreign to its natural colour. Now, what do we find so far as the application of our regulations is concerned? I may say for the benefit of the hon. member for Guysbor-ough (Mr. Sinclair) that our regulations are already very strict.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister say whether there is any butter in the sample which he showed to the committee?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No, this is natural oleo from the Harris Abattoir, and the colour is its natural colour. No colouring matter is allowed to be used in the manufacture of oleo. No colouring is allowed to be sold or given away with the package of oleo. The brand "oleo" in prominent letters must be clearly placed on the side of each package of oleo-that is, right on the article itself. We do not permit the words "butter", "dairy", "creamery", or the name of any breed of cattle to be placed on any package or any advertising matter for the purpose of selling oleo. In addition to that, we are at present considering a change of the shape of the packages in which oleo is sold. I hold in my hand the ordinary package in which butter is sold, and also a narrower, flatter package. It is suggested that the oleo manufacturers
be compelled to sell their products in a narrow package of this kind. This practice has been followed in Denmark for some time, with very satisfactory results.
Now, let us see what the manufacturer of good butter has to fear from the manufacture and sale of oleo in Canada. There is no possibility of oleomargarine ever being a competitor of good butter. As I said this afternoon, once a person has got the taste of good butter he will not be satisfied with oleo. But there are several brands of bad butter with which oleo actually comes in competition. I think it was the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) who said this afternoon that when it comes to a comparison between good oleo and bad butter, we would rather have the good oleo. Now, the following is the result of the application of the law by the inspectors of the Health of Animals Branch and the Dairy Branch during the years 1919 and 1920. In 1919 there were 8 convictions under the oleo law, and 111 convictions for the manufacture of bad butter. In 1920 there were 12 convictions under the oleo Law and 128 convictions for the manufacture of bad butter, showing that the maker of good butter has not so much to fear from the oleo manufacturer as he has from the man who tries to sell inferior butter.


James Alexander Robb: If the minister will allow me, in order to make his comparison correct he should give the committee the number of manufacturers of butter as compared with the number of manufacturers of oleo.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I cannot give that. But some hon. gentlemen have suggested that oleo is doing a great deal of harm to the manufacturers of butter. I may say that from December 1, 1917 when the importation of oleo was first permitted, to September 30, 1920, there were imported 15,373,334 pounds of oleomargarine. During the same period we manufactured in this country 22,463,727 pounds, or a total of 37,837,061 pounds of oleomargarine manufactured and imported. In the same period we consumed in this country 600,000,000 pounds of butter, so that oleomargarine did not play a very important figure in those years. Since permission was given for the manufacture, importation and sale of oleomargarine, the manufacture of butter and dairy products generally in this country has gradually increased.


Mr. SMITH:: Being a farmer myself, mixing amongst them, and seeing many consumers of oleomargarine, I have

never heard any desire expressed that this Bill should go into operation. I venture the assertion that no Order in Council would have been passed in 1917, and no Bill would have been passed by this House at a later period, had butter been at the same price at which it is to-day. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) says that this is either right or wrong. I have no use for the Bill; I think it is wrong, and, therefore, I propose to support the amendment for one year because we shall be able to have another whack at the matter in that time. When I say that I have no use for the Bill, my reason is because oleomargarine-whether it is manufactured here or imported, does not make much difference-must take the place of so much butter. Farmers are going to have hard enough times during the next twelve or eighteen months, and this is one of the means of making times a little harder for them. I should like to have supported the amendment of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) for the six months' hoist, but I felt there was such a strong feeling in the House that a Bill of some kind should go into operation, that I thought it was better to vote for the amendment for one year.


John Howard Sinclair: Has
the minister considered the proposal of the Dairymen's Council to give oleomargarine some distinctive colours that it cannot be confused with butter?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I thought I had made
that quite clear. I drew the attention of the committee to the natural colour of oleo oil, and I said that I could see no reason why any one should want to make it a distinctive colour which would be a great handicap to selling it in the market. The butter maker is permitted to colour his winter butter, which is very light, and to make it like June butter, but we refuse to give a similar permission to the manufacturer of oleomargarine. Some go so far as to object to his mixing good butter with oleomargarine and to permitting him to buy butter in June, although by so doing he is improving the quality of his product and making it more palatable. When we consider that this article is used by families whose fathers do not earn very large salaries and who are compelled to use the cheaper product, I think the manufacturer should be permitted to make that product as palatable and as good in quality as possible. Our experience- and I have kept in very close touch with 
the situation since this Oleomargarine Bill first came before the House-has been that as butter has gone down in price, the consumption of oleomargarine has lessened in proportion. This information was given only this afternoon by an official of the Dairy Commissioner's branch. He says that the average price of butter in Ottawa to-day is 35i cents and the average price of oleo is 28i cents, showing an advantage in favour of butter of seven cents a pound, and there is no sale at all for oleomargarine. That has been the situation. As I said a moment ago, no one who has once acquired the taste of good butter will waste time on oleo if good butter is to be obtained. ,


John Howard Sinclair: Am I right in assuming that the manufacturer of oleo is allowed to mix it with butter and sell it as oleo?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: He adds from 20 to 25 per cent of butter to the oleo, vegetable oils, neutral lard and so forth.


John Howard Sinclair: Would the minister have any objection to the manufacturer of butter mixing butter with some other oleo product and selling it as butter?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That would not be permitted under the Dairy Act. We do not allow the manufacture of oleomargarine in the ordinary dairies and creameries of the country, because it would be almost impossible to keep track of the business. The manufacture is carried on only in establishments where there are regular inspectors who carry out the Meat Inspection Act. All that work is carried on under the closest supervision.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the minister, for the benefit of my health, kindly inform me what are the respective nutritive qualities of butter and oleomargarine?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Does that make the hon. member any healthier?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The general argument is that milk and butter are better for growing animals and children, although I might point out that the adult who consumes oleomargarine, while not obtaining quite as much nutritive matter as he would obtain if he were consuming straight butter, also consumes many other articles of food which make up for that loss. Our Canadian army used oleomargarine altogether when at the front, and I never heard of Germans complaining of any lack of "pep" on the part of our men.


James Alexander Robb: I am going to vote for the amendment to the amendment, because I can find in the regulations nothing that will prevent manufacturers of oleomargarine, if. they wish to do so and prices got about equal, from mixing 75 per cent of butter instead of 25 per cent, and the result might be that they would gradually displace the manufacture of butter and, to that extent, injure the dairy trade.


Jacques Bureau: Are there as many
calories in oleomargarine as in butter?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No, there are more in butter than in oleomargarine.


Samuel Francis Glass: The minister was good enough to say that the department were giving some consideration to changing the form of the package in which oleomargarine may be sold. May we reasonably hope that this consideration will develop into definite action in the matter? That is a point that the Dairymen's Council felt strongly on, namely, of having a differently shaped package entirely, so that you would get it away from the butter form. That has been the complaint since oleomargarine was first placed on the market, and if the Government carry out that idea, a serious grievance will be removed.


Donald Sutherland: We have heard a great deal about the splendid qualities of the ingredients that go to make up oleomargarine. The general manager of the Harris Abattoir gave evidence before a committee of this House with reference to the matter. This question was put to him by my colleague to my left (Mr. Nes-bit:
Q. You do not churn it with the first milk?- A. Yes, it is churned with skimmed milk, fresh skimmed milk.
Q. I understood it was fresh milk?-A No.
It is skimmed milk that is used, and it is well known that there is not much substance left in skimmed milk, whether it comes from tested cows or not. As far as tested cows are concerned, if there were any defects in the milk, they would come off with the cream. Now just a word or two with regard to colouring. This witness also admitted that they purchased highly coloured June butter to make their product more palatable. This was the evidence:
Q. The law expressly forbids colouring to be put in margarine, and you endeavour to get round this by purchasing June butter which Is highly coloured, to deceive the public?-A. You are entitled to your interpretation of the facts.
Q. Is that not a fact? You realize that if it was sold without any colouring?-A. It would not be so palatable; it would be like eating lard.
So you see that the object is to deceive the people, and that is the reason I have moved the sub-amendment which is now before the committee, so that people will know exactly what they are purchasing. We should have information before this committee to-night as to the ingredients of the oleormargarine that is on the market to-day, and that has been for some time past. That information has not been supplied to the House. Consequently I feel that we are justified in seeing that dairy produce is not placed in the position that was referred to by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) and by the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb), where these people would be able to purchase butter when it was cheap and possibly incorporate eighty per cent of it in their product, thus making it a greater competitor with butter than it is to-day.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: I rise to a point of order. The vote on the second reading of the Bill very clearly expressed the view of the House upon the principle of the Bill. The Minister of Agriculture has stated that the amendment to the amendment if adopted would mean that oleomargarine could not be made in this country. Therefore, the amendment to the amendment is a complete reversal of the principle enunciated by the House to-night, and I submit that it should be ruled out of order. I have very grave doubts whether the amendment itself is in order, but I do not raise that point.


Georges Henri Boivin: The sub-amendment
reads as follows:
Provided that no oleomargarine shall be imported into Canada or manufactured in or sold, offered for sale or had in possession for sale in Canada which contains any milk or cream or any product of milk or cream.
When the sub-amendment was moved, it was certainly in order. The statement has since been made by the Minister of Agriculture that according to some scientific information which he has received it would be impossible to make oleomargarine that would be saleable under the conditions mentioned in the sub-amendment. It would, I think, create a very bad precedent if information of this nature was relied upon by the chairman in deciding a matter of parliamentary procedure. The information given to the House by the hon. minister was

evidently for the purpose of informing and directing hon. members in the matter of their votes, and not for the purpose of directing the chairman in his decision upon a point of order. I have no hestiation in ruling that the sub-amendment is in order.
Amendment to the amendment negatived; yeas, 17, nays, 78.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: I beg to move as section 2 of the Bill the following:
2. Section seven of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following words ''and are also marked or labelled with a statement of the ingredients and the proportion of each ingredient used in making the oleomargarine contained therein."


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That would not be practicable at the present time, as far as our present information goes. We have been considering this matter, and have it under consideration now, and are gathering as much information as we can possibly get on it. These ingredients may vary in proportion to one another at different times. For instance, in hot weather probably less of the lard oils are used than at other times. The cheapness of a certain quality of butter might mean the inclusion of a larger percentage of butter than was usual when prices were higher. The ingredients vary according to the market price and the supply available. I do not think there are any two factories that make their product on exactly the same formula. The formula varies in all packing houses to a certain extent, but at the present time we are giving very careful attention to that particular point, and if we decide that it is practicable to apply such regulations, the Act will permit us to do so.


William Frederic Kay: Is it not true that in the
United States they have to put the ingredients on the package?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I cannot give an exact
answer to that question, but I do not think that it is so; it has never been brought to my attention.
Amendment negatived on division.
Bill as amended reported.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 138, to amend the Criminal Code,-Right Hon. Mr. Doherty.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
[The Chairman.!
On section 1-definition of " feebleminded."
Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of this
section is to make it an offence to carnally know a feeble-minded female, and the first sub-division of the section gives the definition of feeble-minded persons. In the words of the section:
"Feeble-minded persons" means persons in whose case there exists from birth or from an early age, mental defectiveness not amounting to imbecility, yet so pronounced that they require care, supervision, and control for their own protection, or for the protection of others.
There is a provision which is added as clause 302 (a), that every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for five years who has illicit connection with any girl or woman who is feebleminded. We have it on the testimony of a large number of persons, who take an active interest in the protection of women and children, that there is a widespread habit, on the part of men, of taking advantage of the feeble-mindedness of females who may have reached the age of consent or got beyond that age, to have illicit intercourse with them; and it seems to be a proper protection of these unfortunates who, while not being absolutely imbecile, have not been favoured by nature with ordinary mental capacity.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think the statistics show that at least four-fifths of fallen women are found to be feeble-minded. There is nothing here to show that the person who has connection with a feeble-minded girl or woman, and who is unaware of the fact that she is feeble-minded, is to be differentiated from the person who has that knowledge. Where is the protection for such a person?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, there will
have to be evidence establishing the feeblemindedness of the woman concerned, and I think that if you can adduce facts that demonstrate the existence of feeble-mindedness on her part, those facts in themselves would make it palpable to any person coming in contact with such a woman that she was feeble-minded.


Samuel William Jacobs: But it is a scientific fact that practically all women of this character are feeble-minded, or they would not be in that state.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member overlooks the definition of feeble-mindedness contained in the section. No doubt there may be degrees of feeble-mindedness, but

the definition calls for something that goes further than mere feebleness of mind. It will not be sufficient to prove that the person is feeble-minded in the ordinary sense of the word, and in the sense in which I think the hon. member uses it when he speaks of a large majority of a certain class of people being feeble-minded, and of persons coming in contact with them not being aware of the fact. The feeble-mindedness defined in the section I have just read is of such a degree that, I think it is not unfair to assume, it would be quite evident to any one dealing with a person of the mentality therein described.


Samuel William Jacobs: But there is a question
of knowledge on the part of the person having connection with the feeble-minded person. Take the case of a fallen woman who has become an ordinary street-walker, and who, in the course of her peregrinations, meets a man and takes him to a house of assignation. How is this man, on a mere cursory acquaintance with this woman, to know that she is feeble-minded?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The acquaintance is
very apt to be cursory under the circumstances.


Samuel William Jacobs: How is he to know that
she is feeble-minded?


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: We might assume that those people for whom my hon. friend has so much sympathy should have some responsibility placed upon them before they undertake to get into trouble. But there is another point in connection with this section that bothers me somewhat. A feeble-minded person is described as one who is not necessarily an imbecile, but whose mental defectiveness is so pronounced that she requires care, supervision, and control for her own protection, and for the protection of others. It seems to me that my hon. friend has not been very guarded in the terms he uses. Is there in the criminal law of any other country whatever a section of this description? It seems to me that the words my hon. friend uses there are capable of various interpretations by different judges; I doubt very much whether any two judges would give the same interpretation. I think you might almost assume that almost any of these women are persons who require care, supervision and control. I think it is probably because they have not had the amount of care, supervision and control that they should have had that they have gone astray. Perhaps there are
not so many of us that have had the care, supervision and control that we should have had.


Mr. BELAND:: The hon. gentleman, of course, is speaking for himself.


Levi Thomson: I will leave my hon. friend out. However, I seriously think the words are not well chosen, and that there will be a wide range of interpretation given to them. I have not any phraseology to suggest to my hon. friend such as would better fit the case, but I think the words at present in the section are unsuitable and dangerous to have there.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to say precisely the states in which there is such a definition, but I am informed that a similar provision does exist in certain of the states and that this is the definition that is given. I would like to point out that you must have two things combined: you must have a feeble-mindedness that gives rise to the necessity of care and supervision and so forth. The mere fact that care and spervision would be good for somebody would not put that person in this class. You must prove that the person has been subject to feeble-mindedness from birth or subject from an early age to mental defectiveness, not amounting to imbecility tout so pronounced that she requires, care, supervision and control. Now I am sure that the bon. gentleman, when he suggests that many of us require, care, control and supervision, even if we were prepared to admit it, would not expect us to admit it was feeblemindedness that made such necessary; it might be propensities of another description. I do think, with all respect, that no judge would err with that definition before him and having it put clearly before him that the things that he requires to have proved are, that from birth and from an early age the persons suffered from mental defectiveness not amounting to im-bicility, but of such a character as to make care, control and supervision necessary. It has to be pointed out that it wiU not be sufficient to prove that care and supervision would be good for that person, or that because that person may be addicted, say, to drink that control and supervision would be a good thing to bring him, or her, within the class of feeble-minded persons. It must be established that there was a mental defectiveness that was the source of this need of care and supervision; and it does not seem to me that we are putting before

the courts anything in the nature of a specially difficult matter to deal with in asking them to ascertain whether the facts laid down in that definition do or do not exist. Of course those facts will have to be established by evidence as all other facts require to be established. I feel very strongly that nobody is being exposed, in view of that definition of feeble-mindedness, to be convicted under this section under circumstances that he could not very well be held responsible for. The difficulty is, I would not say conjured up, but-like certain letters that have been heard here -really imaginary, and I think we might very safely leave those who might be prosecuted for this offence to be dealt with by the court. If you should have a case where the party would be in a position to show lack of knowledge, or so forth, I think we could safely leave it to the court to mete out under those circumstances so small a punishment as might be suitable to the offence. We have always to remember that a gentleman to whom this law is going to be applied is a gentleman who comes before the court in the position of having undoubtedly had illicit connection with some female; and while it might not be desirable to make that offence punishable as a crime, still if it did happen that the gentleman who did permit himself to have this illicit connection did make a mistake and did not pay sufficient attention to know that the victim was a feeble-minded person, I do not think he would be the object of great commiseration if he did get some mild punishment to make him realize that when you do take a chance of that kind you are taking a very serious chance.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does my hon. friend call five years imprisonment mild punishment?


Mr. DAVIS:: I submit that the negative feature in this adds nothing to the definition. In that lies the difficulty, and the provision would be very much clearer if the words "not amounting to imbecility" were struck out. The provision would then read:
"feeble-minded persons" means persons In whose case there exists from birth or from an early age mental defectiveness so pronounced that they require care, supervision and control for their own protection or for the protection of others.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the reason for inserting the words in question is that there already exists a provision covering the case of a man having illicit connection with an imbecile woman, and that the pur-

pose of making the distinction is, I apprehend, because the present offence is not treated as being as grave and subject to as serious punishment. I am not able to lay my hand on the section at the moment but that section exists without doubt.


Mr. PARDEE:: Is it section 216?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 219 reads:
Every one is guilty of an Indictable offence and liable to four years' imprisonment who unlawfully and carnally knows or attempts to have unlawful carnal knowledge of any female idiot or imbecile, insane or deaf and dumb woman or girl under circumstances which do not amount to rape, but where the offender knew or had good reason to believe,
And so forth. With regard to the observation about punishment, and in view of the difference, I think we might substitute four for the five years.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why in face of section 219 does the minister think it at all necessary to add this amendment. That section already reads more strongly than this amendment, and you are endeavouring to so word the latter that the greatest doubt would prevail and expert evidence would have to be given as to whether the woman was or was not feeble-minded. She might be feeble-minded along one line and perfectly sane along other lines, and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) will back me up in that statement. Now you are taking from a clear-cut we'll-defined section and you are endeavouring to surround it with such difficulties that when a case comes before a judge to decide whether the accused is guilty or not guilty medical evidence will have to be had first on one side and then on the other, that the girl is compos mentis in all but one thing, or non compos mentis all down the line. A man might be enticed by a female who appeared perfectly sane and able to take care of herself, he commits this offence, and then you make it a matter of expert testimony whether he has committed an unlawful act or not. I have no sympathy whatever for the man who knowingly seduces a woman who is feeble minded and appears so-punish him as severely as you like; but here in section 219 you have the offence laid down perhaps even stronger than this amendment in its definiteness:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to four years' imprisonment who unlawfully and carnally knows or attempts to have unlawful carnal knowledge of any female idiot or imbecile, insane or deaf and dumb woman or girl under circumstances which do not amount to rape.

You cannot make it stronger than that unless you get yourself into a maze of technicalities, and I submit to the minister that he had much better leave the section as it stands.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 219 remains
just as it is-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Quite so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: -and under it there
is the same necessity of proving the insanity. The purpose of this amendment is to make it an offence to have illicit connection with girls or women who are not insane but are feeble minded as defined. This creates a new offence. It does not alter the offence which is created under section 219. I observe, however, that in the latter section there has been borne in mind what the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier suggested, that there should be some provision for knowledge on the part of the person accused, and I think that probably it might be proper to make the same provision in connection with this offence. I would be prepared to amend this clause by adding similar words which would meet the objection made by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier, and would go a long Way to obviate the other objections that have been suggested.


Levi Thomson: I am in full sympathy with the minister's desire to provide adequate punishment in these cases, but I still think that his terms are very indefinite. In his explanation of this section it seemed to me he was leaving the impression that feeble mindedness was part of the definition. As a matter of fact it is not feeble mindedness that we are defining; mental defectiveness is the term used. That is just as vague as the other terms we are referring to. As I said before, we all require "care, consideration and control." I am not sure that we are not all more or less mentally defective.


Samuel William Jacobs: This time you are talking of the Farmers' party?


Levi Thomson: We
will accept the Farmers' party, if you like. But there is a certain amount of mental defectiveness about everybody. No man is effective in every particular. I should like to see the minister formulate something which will be a little more definite.


Mr. BLAKE:: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: In view of the observations which have been made and the manifest differences of opinion which exist, I suggest that we let this clause stand and go on with the other clauses of the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: Instead of standing we had better rise.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, it is necessary, preliminary to standing, that we should rise. But there are many clauses of this Bill which I think we could dispose of, and perhaps we might consider dropping entirely those that are very contentious.
Section stands.
On section 2-"Recorder's Court" included in definition of "justice."


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move that
section 2 be dropped. The provision was proposed at the instance of the municipal authorities of Montreal. I have had communications from the Attorney General of the province in which he enters objection to the passing of the clause. I do not think it would be proper for us to pass it until these two authorities who are directly concerned in it have come to a conclusion.
Section dropped.
On section 3-provision respecting instructions to jury in cases of seducing girls between 16 and 18, seducing female employees, carnally knowing girls between 14 and 16.	*


Charles Joseph Doherty: The section itself dealt with the age of consent and likewise made it a criminal offence for an employer in a factory or business establishment of that kind to seduce a girl or woman occupying the position of servant. The amendment extended the provision so as to cover, among other classes, domestic servants, who were not previously covered. The Senate passed the amendment but added a proviso to the effect that in cases of seducing girls between 16 and 18 or seducing female employees or carnally knowing girls between 14 and 16, the judge might instruct the jury to the effect that if they thought it was more the fault of the girl than of the person accused they might acquit him. Now, that provision strikes at the principle of the thing. The principle of the law is that the girl below the age of consent is incapable of consenting and under this proviso made by the Senate, if the jury is told that this girl whom the law assumes to be incapable of consenting may have been more at fault than the party charged, he may thereupon be acquitted. As I say, it is a proviso that goes far toward destroying the effect of the provision itself, and as the House has already come to the conclusion that the law ought to stand without that proviso, it is only logical that we should adhere to the legislation as we enacted it. Of course, it is within the power of the Senate to adhere to what they enacted, in which event our amendment will prove ineffective.


Jacques Bureau: The section of the Act
says that on the trial of any offence under sections 4, 5 or 8 of the Act the trial judge may instruct the jury that if in their view the evidence does not show that the accused is wholly or chiefly to blame for the commission of the offence they may find a verdict of acquittal. Now, we might by this Bill strike out the clause in the section of the Act which deals with the age of consent and let the others remain.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would be prepared
to accept that suggestion.


Mr. McMASTER:: I seems to me absurd that a man should be acquitted in a case of that kind. It might be quite proper that his punishment should be very much modified by reason of the lessening of the moral obliquity, but it does not seem to be logical to acquit him.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-prohibition respecting concealed weapons extended to pistols, etc.
Mr. ARTHURS:: It is a very grave
mistake, I think, to put the word "ammunition" in that clause. It would deprive a man of the right to buy a few cartridges at any time. I think it is uncalled for.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We will let that stand.


James Arthurs: I would like to see the clause itself pass, because we did something last year that we did not intend to do. We passed an act whereby it was made unlawful for a man to have in his possession any kind of rifle, pistol, shot-gun or firearm of any kind. It was intended to apply to aliens but the effect has been that any man is now liable to penalty if he has any of these things in his possession. I am desirous that the clause should pass, but I think that the word "ammunition" should not be used as it appears in the clause.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will be found that
clause 5 has not the effect of adding to the severity of the law; on the contrary, it seeks to correct what was an over-severity in the provision as it was passed. It is to reduce the severity of the law, not to increase it.


John Allister Currie: The effect of the word
"ammunition" being in the provision is that a man is allowed to have a pistol at home, but he is not allowed to carry any ammunition home. That is absurd. If the word "ammunition" is struck out, the provision will be all right.


Jacques Bureau: I should like to point out that we have been here since two o'clock in the afternoon and it is now twenty minutes after one o'clock. The minister should move that the committee rise.


John Allister Currie: This is a very important clause for our consideration; it involves thousands of people, and it will not take five minutes to put it through. This is the most important clause in the whole Bill. If you want to stop it and drop the thing, all right; you must take the responsibility.


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Justice or the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is in charge of the Bill. We are asking the Minister of Justice to move that the committee rise and I think we are making a fair demand. We have been sitting here since two o'clock in the afternoon, and it is now twenty minutes past one. We ought to consider this measure after we come fresh from bed to-morrow.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Although I may be in charge of the Bill, the hon. member for North Simcoe has the same right to express his view of the question whether we ought to proceed as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) has. I think, however, we all desire to adopt that course that will be most conducive to business being put through promptly and at the same time receiving proper consideration. If hon. gentlemen feel that it is not consistent with those requirements that we should continue this morning, I have no desire to insist against the wish of the committee generally. If that be the wish of the committee, I would have no objection to the committee rising and reporting progress. I would be glad to be able to report more progress before we rise, but I do not desire to insist against the general wish of the committee.


John Allister Currie: When did it come about
in this House that a member is not allowed to speak before a committee? The hon. member for Three Rivers knows that he was out of order when he made such a charge. He has no right to check me; I am just as old a member of this House as he
is.	My concern in this Bill is this: I introduced a Bill in the House covering these clauses; the Minister of Justice agreed to take my Bill, and I dropped it like a gentleman, in order to save the time of the House I did not force it through. Having regard for that, I think the least the committee could do would be to have regard for me because I did not spend two or three days arguing over the Bill. Now, when it comes before the House, somebody wants to block
it.


Jacques Bureau: I do not want to block it, but I do not want to be commanded by my hon. friend


Charles Joseph Doherty: Supposing we just forget the suggestion of commands. I am sure the hon. member for North Simcoe had no wish to issue any orders. We want to proceed in good humour and to consult each other's views as to what is desirable. If it is the general desire of the committee that the committee should rise, I move that the committee rise, report progress and beg leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 1.25 a.m. Thursday.
Thursday, May 26, 1921.