SOLDIER SETTLEMENT REGULATIONS

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: Subsection 2 of section 63 of the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919, provides that regulations made under the authority of that act shall be presented to parliament within, fifteen days after the meeting thereof. In accordance with this provision I beg to lay on the table two regulations made under the act.



CONVENTION OF COMMERCE-CAN AD A-NETHERLANDS

James Alexander Robb: On behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), and for the information of the House, I beg to lay on the table a copy of a convention of commerce between Canada and the Netherlands signed at Ottawa on the Uth day of July, 1924. In connection with this convention, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) that one thousand copies be printed forthwith, and that rule 74, in relation thereto, be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to present the report of the special committee appointed to prepare

and report with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the House, under rule 10. I move that the House concur in the said report.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I am afraid I cannot
concur in it now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It may stand
as a notice of motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands, as notice of motion.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Canada Temperance Act to provide that if by the laws of the province intoxicating liquor can lawfully be sold only by or under the authority of the province or the government thereof, said prohibition shall nevertheless remain in force as to all intoxicating liquor not belonging to, nor imported, nor so'd by or under the authority of, the province or the government thereof.
Mr. CALDWELL:: Explain.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: This is merely a notice of motion; when the resolution comes up for discussion explanations will be in order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of the promise I made last evening, I should like to make a statement with respect to the depositors of the Home Bank:
On July 17, 1924, this House unanimously adopted the report of the committee on Banking and Commerce with respect to the losses sustained by the depositors of the Home Bank of Canada. The concluding paragraph of the said report is as follows:
Your committee consider that the facts brought out in the interim report submitted by Mr. Chief Justice McKeown, and the evidence therein referred to, establish that the depositors of the Home Bank have a moral claim in equity for compensation by the country on account of any loss they may suffer by reason of the failure of the Home Bank.
In the circumstances, the government has decided to introduce, this session, a measure recognizing, with respect to the depositors of the Home Bank, "the moral claim in equity for compensation", as referred to in this paragraph of the report. The proposed legislation will be brought down in due course.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to make an observ-

Supply-Post Office
ation with reference to the first sentence of the Prime Minister's statement, and I make it without regard at all to what the attitude of the opposition may be towards the measure. The reference was to the "unanimous" adoption of a report. There were many reports adopted in this way hastily last session against my vigorous protest, and I stated at the time on more than one occasion that I did not consider such adoption as in any way binding the House to the terms of the report. That is the position I take still. In this connection I want to ask whether the amount which the government proposes to give is to be in the supplementary estimates, and also why it is not in the main estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bill which will be introduced will indicate the amount; there is no reason why the estimate should be given before the bill is presented.


Arthur Meighen: Will the amount be in the supplementary estimates if the bill passes?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will depend on the action the House takes with reference to the bill.


Arthur Meighen: But if the bill passes, will the amount be in the supplementary estimates?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The House will be asked to vote whatever amount is required, and I presume the request will be made in the usual order.


Arthur Meighen: That does not answer the question. The question is whether it will be put in the supplementary estimates or not. Whether the government does it in the usual order or whether it does not, will the amount be provided in the supplementary estimates, assuming that the bill will pass?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid my right hon. friend will have to "wait and see".



CAPE BRETON MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: In view of the report of the Winfield conciliation board, does the government propose to take immediate action in the appointment of a royal commission to make a full, fair and impartial inquiry into the whole situation in Cape Breton with a view to ascertaining the costs of production and the returns on capital actually invested?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: We are at present in correspondence with the Miners' District Board and the officials of the company as to their respective 15
positions on the Winfield board's recommendations or opinions. Further action will be determined when we have ascertained their views.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Civil Government-Post Office-Salaries, including amount required to pay allowance to office appliance operators, grade 2 operating Hollerith card punching machines, in accordance with provisions of Order in Council P.C. 156/2521 dated December 24, 1923, $1,143,729. Contingencies, $195,000.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Postmaster General):: Mr. Chairman, the committee will
observe that the salary items in this estimate refer only to salaries paid at Ottawa in the inside service; they have no reference to anything in the outside service. There is but little substantial difference between the amount of the estimate this year and that of last year. It will be noticed that last year the House voted $1,109,518 for these services, while this year the committee is asked to vote $1,143,729, or an increase of a little over $34,000. That increase is made up of statutory increases to the extent of about $28,000, and the balance is represented by amounts required on account of salary revision by the Civil Service Commission and the reorganization effected in the department through the same body. The number of employees, it will be observed, has increased by 25. Twenty of these new positions are what are known as office appliance operators, and are due to the introduction of what is known as the Hollerith system for mechanical sor'tation and audit of money orders and postal notes. In this connection it will be noticed that last year the amount for contingencies was $145,000, this year it is $195,000, or a difference of about $50,000. Now this difference is accounted for wholly by the introduction of the system to which I have just referred. The $50,000 is made up of two items:	One for the purchase of 23,000,000
cards used in connection with the system of mechanical sortation and audit, and the other for the rental paid for the machines which perform the work. It may be stated for the information of the committee that if this system had not been introduced the department would have had to provide for the salaries of about 100 additional employees to carry on the work as it was carried on under the old method. In times past it frequently happened that this work was in arrear, sometimes to the extent of two years, but under this new system the work is kept up to date;

Supply-Post Office

and whereas in former times, from 140 to 150 employees sorted and audited about 32,000 money order cards per day, under the new system 113 employees can handle over 50,000 orders a day and make out about 50,000 cards per day. This system has perfected the work in one branch of an important public service, and the officials who are in charge of it under the Financial Superintendent would be glad if members of the House would drop into the Union Bank building, where it is installed, and see the system in operation.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The estimates last year I see amounted to $1,109,518. What was actually spent?


Charles Murphy: I am informed that on
account of salaries there was expended for 1923-4 $1,034,603, and for contingencies $154,108.66.


Arthur Meighen: How did the government manage to get the money when it was not voted?


Charles Murphy: We did not-it was carried over as a charge against the present year.


James Dew Chaplin: When machines are introduced in the course of ordinary business the usual effect is to reduce rather than t >
increase the number of employees. Will the minister explain the purpose of these machines? Perhaps some of us will have to go down and see them in order to understand them properly.


Charles Murphy: 
Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Are there any in use in other countries?


Charles Murphy: They are used at Washington. Officials from here went down and observed them in operation and made a report on them before their installation was decided upon.


James Dew Chaplin: Are they what is known as the International business machine, or of a similar type?


Charles Murphy: I have not heard that term applied to them. They are known as the Hollerith system for mechanical sortation and audit.


James Dew Chaplin: These machines are rented, not bought outright?


Charles Murphy: Yes, rented.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the rental for each machine?


Charles Murphy: There are different rentals for different classes of machines. Some rent at $8.50 a month, some at $30 a month, others, such -as the key-punching machines and the tabulators, rent at $57.50 and $75 a month.


William Findlay Maclean: Where are they made?


Charles Murphy: In the United States.


Mr. MANION:: Notwithstanding the fact
that men have been laid off because of the introduction of these machines the total number of employees in -the department has increased by twenty-five. While 821 employees are provided for in the inside service this year, there were only 796 last year. The minister said these machines would do away with some forty or fifty employees.


Charles Murphy: There were posit'ons abolished during the year and there were other employees who went out at that time and were replaced by others on the staff. My statement was that if the old method had been pursued, owing to the increased volume of business there would have been an increase in the number of employees, but -because of the introduction of this system the number has been kept down. When employees having a maximum salary go out they are usually replaced by others in the service at the time who come in at the minimum salary. The increase in the amount that we are asking for is but slight

Supply-Post Office
compared with the number of employees who have been added. That is one of the reasons. Those who were displaced1 by reason of the introduction of the machines were absorbed into other branches of the department. That was one of the conditions on which the system was introduced-that there should not be any large reduction in the amount of labour employed.


Robert James Manion: I was not thinking especially of the increase in the amount of money spent, but rather of the increase in the number of employees. Even if an employee who has attained his maximum is replaced by another at a lower salary, it takes only one man to replace him. What I want to know is why there are 25 more employees in the inside service than there were the previous year, in spite of the changes due to the machines.


Charles Murphy: Perhaps I did not make that clear. It is due-not altogether-to the increase in business in this particular branch. There has been an increase of 25, I am informed, in the number of employees.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The conversation
may be very edifying, but we in this part of the chamber have not the faintest idea of what is going on at the upper end of it.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Are these machines purchased from an American concern direct, or through a Canadian agency?


Charles Murphy: They are rented through a Canadian agency, I am informed.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Who represents the Canadian agency?


Charles Murphy: They are represented in Canada, I understand, by a gentleman named Foran-not the gentleman who is secretary of the Civil Service Commission.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That of course, would be very surprising.


James Dew Chaplin: I am not quite clear
whether these machines are simply for tabulating records or whether they are used in the handling of mail.


Charles Murphy: They are for use in auditing money orders and postal notes.


Mr. STEVENS:: Did the Customs department not try these machines and discard them?


Charles Murphy: Not that I ever heard of.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Charles Murphy: Partly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will be observed that in the number of office appliance operators there is an increase of twenty, and in the whole department an increase of twenty-five. I have been informed that the Customs department tested these machines over a period of years, in work similar to that for which the Post Office Department is using them, and found them unsuited to government work. If that is true, and in view of the increased cost and the increase in the number of employees, this seems to be a questionable innovation, particularly if there is no saving.


Charles Murphy: I have never said the Customs department tried these machines for any length of time, but even if they did and the machines were found unsuitable for the work in the Customs department, of course, it would not follow that they would be unsuitable in any other department. As a matter of fact, they suit this particular work admirably, and as I have pointed out if it were not for the introduction of these machines we would have to engage at least one hundred additional employees to cope with the greater volume of work.


Arthur Meighen: What is the revenue expected this year from the department, and how does it compare with last year?


Charles Murphy: I have not that statement on hand, but I will be glad to get it for my right hon. friend on another item, and we can discuss it then.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister has a pretty good idea; nobody would have any better.


Charles Murphy: At the moment I am sorry I have not.


Arthur Meighen: I have no information I would want to become authority for, but I understand the revenue is less. Now, with a smaller revenue, we have a larger personnel, and all these Hollerith machines. How does the minister account for so much more money being required when the revenue received is so much less?


Charles Murphy: I have explained the reason for the additional amount required. As to the revenue, I have not a statement on hand, but I shall be very glad to get it and let my right hon. friend have it. As a matter of fact, the officials upon whom of course I have to rely for all this information, assure me that the expenditure would be very, very much greater were it not for the introduction of this system; that money has been saved
Supply-Post Office

by its introduction; speed has been attained in the doing of the work; and, of equal importance, greater accuracy has been obtained.


Arthur Meighen: It looks pretty bad if only for these precious machines we would have one hundred and1 twenty-five more employees than last year.


Charles Murphy: Provided the volume of work kept up.


Arthur Meighen: Why is there such a volume of work? The post office is not increasing its functions that I know of, and it is not increasing its revenue. Why is the work increasing at head office?


Charles Murphy: The money order business has increased twenty-five per cent. It has been one of the most remarkable increases in connection with the department.


Arthur Meighen: Does the head office here have much to do with the general money order business?


Charles Murphy: Yes, in connection with auditing. After these money orders have been paid and certified, they are sent in here to the Pinancial branch of the department, and it is there that this audit work is done, and there that the arrears of work I have spoken of have accumulated.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose money is going out to pay for foreign manufactures. Where is the money all going?


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend knows that a man may go into the post office in Ottawa, for instance, and get a money order payable on an office in Winnipeg. The Winnipeg office deals with the payee, and when the transaction is completed as between the Post Office Department and the member of the public entitled to receive payment, these orders, and a list certified by the official in charge in the paying office, are sent to Ottawa, where the audit takes place in the Financial branch of the department.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I see there has been some change in the number of audit clerks employed. The number of senior audit clerks has been reduced from 16 to 15; one has been let out there. Then in audit clerks there is an increase from 2 to 5, an increase of three; so there has been a net increase in those two staffs of two. Then there is an increase in senior clerks of two, making the net increase four. There is also an increase in clerk-bookkeepers of one, making the net increase five; also an increase in account

clerks of two, making the net increase seven. The only other increase that I notice is in the office of appliance operators, where the increase is from 61 to 81. There is one other decrease which would make the net increase in the inside staff of the Post Office Department twenty-five. That would hardly account for the large increase now asked for by the minister. Last year under this item we voted $1,109,518; this year we are asked to vote $1,143,729, an increase roughly of about $34,000. Do I understand that the whole of that $34,000 is required to pay the extra salaries of the twenty-five new assistants taken on in the department?


Charles Murphy: Perhaps my hon. friend was not in when I explained that of the $34,000 increase, about $28,000 in round numbers, represented statutory increases over which, of course, the department has no control.


Mr. FORKE:: When is it likely that statutory increases will cease?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Never.


Robert Forke: Then will there always be more expenditure for all time to come on account of statutory increases? It seems to me that when there are employees coming in at the bottom there will be some going out at the top, and that the time should come when there would be no increase, that there would be a balance struck. But for a number of years, ever since I came into this House, the vote on account of statutory increases grows. Will that always go on?


Charles Murphy: There is a minimum and maximum salary for each class. An employee begins at the minimum and receives automatically an increase each year until he reaches the maximum for his class, when the statutory increases for him stop. These are matters fixed by the Civil Service Commission, under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. But each year as my hon. friend has mentioned, there are people coming in at the minimum salaries, and therefore statutory increases have to be provided for them.


Robert Forke: When one new employee
comes in at the minimum salary, does it not happen that one goes out at the top who is drawing the maximum salary? Or, is the staff to increase for all time to come?


Charles Murphy: No, the staff increases
only in proportion as the work increases, only as there are increased duties to be performed.' There are changes, of course, in the different branches of the department, and in the net result there has been an increase this year, as I have already explained.

Supply-Post Office


Mr. BROWN:: That same net result seems to happen every year.


Charles Murphy: No.


Hugh Guthrie: I would have no objection personally to these statutory increases. I think the officials are paid little enough, and in many cases they are paid too little. I understood the minister to say that of the increased vote asked for this year-$34,000 in round numbers-$28,000 was to be applied to statutory increases under the act. That would leave only $6,000 to be spent on the twenty-five new employees, or an average of $240 for each employee. Surely there must be some discrepancy there. I doubt if such a sum as $28,000 is necessary for the statutory increases. Would the minister explain that?


Charles Murphy: Perhaps I had better give the details as furnished by the department. My statement as to $28,000 in round numbers being required for statutory increases is substantially correct. There were 379 statu-ory increases, amounting to $27,900 New positions 28 in number called for an amount aggregate of $25,260. There are: Two senior clerks at $1,320; one clerk bookkeeper at $1,020; three audit clerks $960; two account clerks $960; twenty office appliance operators, grade 2, $840. Then there is an increase due to salary revision by the Civil Service Commission, $3,180, and increases due to re-organization by the same body, $1,180. Adding all these increases together we have a total of $57,520. Now, set off against that, are the following decreases:	Three positions not required owing to re-organization $5,080, the difference between salaries of employees who have been promoted or who have left the service and salaries of persons promoted or appomted to replace them at lower salaries, $18,229; or a total decrease of $23,309. Deducting the total decrease from the total increases there is a net increase of $34,211. That is how the amount is made up.


Mr. CLARK:: Would the minister give a statement showing the volume of the money order business done over a period of three years and the cost to the department of doing that business for those years?


Charles Murphy: The total number of orders issued for the fiscal year 1921-2 was 10,031,198; for 1922-3, 11,098,222; for 1923-4, 12,561,490. The aggregate values of orders issued for each fiscal year were as follows:
1921-2, $139,914,186.39; 1922-3, $143,055,119.94;
1923-4, $159,855,114.97. The total receipts from the money order business were: 1921-2, $1,852,824.62;	1922-3, $1,180,957.45;	1923-4,.


Arthur Meighen: Those are the charges?'


Charles Murphy: No, those are the receipts from the money order business. Does my right hon. friend mean by "charges" the expenditure for salaries and so on?


Arthur Meighen: No I mean the commissions on the orders.


John Arthur Clark: There is a material decrease in the last fiscal year as compared with
1921-	2.


Charles Murphy: There is an increase over
1922-	3, but a decrease as compared with 1921-2.


John Arthur Clark: Just where did the increases in the volume of business come in?


Charles Murphy: Perhaps my hon. friend misunderstood me on that point. I was not speaking of the amount, but the increase in the number of orders handled. The increase was, roughly, a little over two and a half millions.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Would the minister tell us whether he has made a definite term contract for the use of these machines, and if so for how long?


Charles Murphy: My information is that there is not a definite term contract. The machines are rented for an indefinite time and as long as they suit. They may be rejected or exchanged whenever the department sees fit.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister explain why the profits of the department have decreased very materially whereas the volume of business appears to have increased?


Charles Murphy: The explanation, I am informed, is that there is just the same amount of work required in handling a money order for a small amount as for a large amount,, and that the number of orders for small amounts has increased in number over those of larger amounts.


Mr. BOYS:: How many machines have been installed and what is the total monthly or annual rental?


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps before the
minister answers he will permit a word of comment on his last explanation. The explanation was that the number of small orders had increased out of proportion to the number
Supply-Post Office

of orders for large sums-that the amount of work on a small order was just as much as on a large order. That is the reason why- although there was a larger business, a larger number of orders, and a larger total-the profits now are less than they were three years ago. Does not the minister see that it follows from his explanation that the small order business is done at a loss?.


Charles Murphy: In reply to my right hon. friend I would say wre would lose a great deal more if the other system were in vogue.


Arthur Meighen: What other system?


Charles Murphy: As indicated by a question a short time ago the amount is determined by the commissions paid. There is the variance that was mentioned, there is no doubt about that. In reply to my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) who inquired as to the number of machines in use-


William Alves Boys: And the monthly or annual
rental paid.


Charles Murphy: -I may say there are 30 key punch machines at $8.50 a month; 13 sorting machines at $30 a month; 7 tabulators at $57.50 a month; and 1 tabulator at $75 a month. Then besides, in the postal note division, there are 12 key punch machines at $8.50 a month; 4 sorting machines at $30 a month; and 3 tabulators at $75 a month.


William Alves Boys: What is the total amount for the two departments?


Charles Murphy: The total is $18,834.


Arthur Meighen: I am not very much
impressed with the minister's comment on my argument. I tried to show him that if he gave a right account to the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) of the reason for the loss of profits notwithstanding the increase in business-* it must mean that he is losing money on his small orders. When I pointed out that, his answer was that if we had done it the other way we would have lost more. I do not know what the "other way" is, but I would advise him not to get into a worse way. Surely the country is not going to understand that on the small order business of the Dominion it is losing money.


Charles Murphy: No.


Arthur Meighen: That must be the case, or the answer the minister gave to the hon. member for Burrard is wrong.


Charles Murphy: I think my answer was correct.
cMr. Meighen.]


Arthur Meighen: Could the hon. gentleman not speak as to a particular year? A certain year, let us say, thirty per cent of th? business is small order business and seventy ,per cent large order business. That year the profits are so much. Now in a later year there is forty per cent of the smaller business and sixty per cent of the larger business, but there is far more business and the profits are leas than they were previously. Now, to account for a less profit it must be that the small order business loses money. If it all makes money, then the more business there is the more money is made, in ail classes. But there is less money made. Therefore it cannot all make money. Why is it we are doing a great class of our business at a loss?


Charles Murphy: There may be less money made, but that does not of necessity entail a loss. It is the difference in one year compared to another.


Arthur Meighen: If there is less money made because of an increase in a certain character of business, it must be because that certain character of business is a losing venture.


Charles Murphy: No. I will point out now something which I overlooked before, that there was a change in the rate of exchange which made a difference. A higher rate of exchange had to be paid to the United States than previously.


William Findlay Maclean: Would it not reduce the expenditure if the business of sending money through the post office were encouraged and the public were offered the opportunity to keep deposits in the post office savings banks, cheque out the money and have the cheques marked good in the office where the money was deposited? The big department stores keep deposit accounts for their customers and money is chequed out in that way. There is no great bookkeeping required and the system is very simple. I think we have a system in connection with the postal notes and money orders which is 4 p.m. altogether too elaborate. This method could be simplified by allowing the public to keep deposits at the post office, to issue cheques for any amounts they desire to withdraw, and to have the cheque marked good, as is done in the banks.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend has touched upon a point that he and I have discussed more than once. A change has been made by allowing depositors to withdraw up to the sum of $25 without going through the for-

Supply-Post Office
maility of notice. The extension of that system has been under consideration, but it has to be borne in mind that what my hon. friend has in mind is rather a savings bank branch of the Post Office Department. Properly speaking it is not a part of the Post Office Department; it is in point of fact more properly a branch of the Department of Finance. Originally it was attached to the Post Office Department for the convenience of the public. The banking business is no part of the postal service. The post office savings bank, as I understand it, was designed to encourage people to deposit their savings and keep them there. A man may deposit money in the ordinary savings bank branch, but will proceed immediately to issue cheques. The two purposes are at their root different. But the suggestion of my hon. friend is well worth considering, and I will bring it to the attention of the superintendent.


John Arthur Clark: I desire to draw the minister's attention to the fact that in the statement he gave to the House a few minutes ago he said that in the total number of money orders issued there had been an increase of 25 per cent. Now in addition -there has been an increase in the total amount of money orders of about twenty-three per cent, and yet there has been a decrease of approximately thirty per cent in commissions or profits earned by the department. That is something I cannot understand.


Charles Murphy: There is an increase as between last year and the year before. My idea is that the amount would be approximately as great were it not for the exchange which has to be paid on business with the United States.


Mr. SPENCER:: Has the department considered purchasing the machines that have been mentioned?


Charles Murphy: No, the company owning them will not sell them.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. minister says they will not sell the machines in this country. I say then that they should not be allowed to dictate the terms. When a company or anybody comes to this country and obtains a patent and is protected by that patent, if the government require the use of that machine, the government should compel them to deliver it to us.


Charles Murphy: Perhaps I should have
added in my explanation that an important part of the arrangement-and I have no doubt my hon. friend and the leading business men
of the country know it-is that the company undertakes to keep the machine in working order, so that no time is lost. That is a very important point.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Typewriter companies
adopt the same method, but they sell the machines.


James Dew Chaplin: The companies do it for no other reason than that it is a matter of great importance to them in the way of profits.


William Findlay Maclean: And it savours of monopoly.


Mr. LEWIS:: Could the minister tell us the total revenue derived from the sale of these postal notes to the public?


Charles Murphy: For the last year it was $1,364,110.53.


Arthur John Lewis: Is that less than what is paid to the postmasters for preparing the notes?


Charles Murphy: I did not grasp the question.


Arthur John Lewis: The postmaster receives a
certain amount for issuing the notes, and I am asking if that amount is the total revenue.


Charles Murphy: No, that does not include the item mentioned by my hon. friend. That is just the total amount of commission.


Arthur Meighen: I have been thinking
over the explanation the hon. minister gave for having voted last year $145,000 on contingencies and spending a lot more. His explanation was that there was still more to be voted. They anticipated the vote this year. Did they do it by Governor General's warrant?


Charles Murphy: No.


Arthur Meighen: Out of what account did the money which was spent come?


Charles Murphy: The amount was not raised, but was charged against the amount which is asked for this year.


Arthur Meighen: You have to have cash to pay cash. Where did the actual cash come from? There was no cash there. You might charge it against this year if this year's money was voted, but where did that money come from? It must have been a case of misappropriation if there was no money voted for it.


Charles Murphy: The only explanation I have is the one given me which I have transmitted to the hon. member. If there is any other I shall be glad to get it.
Supply-Post Office


Arthur Meighen: Some money has been voted against which these cheques were issued. There must have been. It is a pretty free and easy way just to vote the money out of "any old" account and say: "Oh well, it will be voted next year in parliament". By the way, I noticed this morning in one of those press announcements with which the government always precedes an official statement of disaster the fact that this year's estimate is going to be made a lot less than last year's, by the very ingenious device of increasing last year's. Is this to be an instance?


Charles Murphy: My right hon. friend
must refer to some other department.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose the same may apply to a few others as well. This explanation was very amusing and I hope it struck other hon. members the same way. I cannot help admiring the courage of a government that foreshadows a campaign of economy by the process of increasing the expenditures of the year previous. Now, if the government has not yet had this money voted and has spent it, and if there was no Governor General's warrant to authorize the expenditure, then it must have been against an account the moneys of which were voted for a totally different purpose.


Charles Murphy: The only explanation I
have had is the one I have given. If there is any other I shall get it and shall be glad to submit it to the committee.


James Dew Chaplin: A moment ago the minister referred to a loss by the department by reason of a loss in exchange. How could the department suffer any loss in exchange?


Charles Murphy: It was not a loss in
exchange. The difference in the amount inquired about is due to an increase in the exchange which had to be paid to the United States.


William Alves Boys: But surely that difference would be collected from the customer at the time of the purchase of the money order. I am quite aware that at one time you could not send five dollars to the United States without paying difference in exchange but one would have thought that this difference between the currency of the two countries would be charged the customer and that the government would suffer no lose.


Charles Murphy: There is a certain fluctuation in the total amounts, and the question was asked as to the reason for the difference between one year and another. The explanation that was given me I have already submitted to the committee.


Arthur John Lewis: What percentage of the
revenue goes to the local post office, and how much does the department receive?


Charles Murphy: I presume the question
refers to the money order business. In the revenue offices the percentages are, four cent? to the postmaster issuing the order and one cent to the postmaster paying it.


Arthur John Lewis: I understand that. I want
to know what percentage of the million and odd dollars goes to those who issue and pay the notes, and what percentage of this total goes to the department.


Charles Murphy: I might best answer that
question by submitting the following statement:
Receipts
Commission from public	$1,240,961 22
Profit in exchange with other countries.. 87,278 98 Void money orders issued between January 1, 1922, and December 31, 1922	 35,870 33

Expenditure
Approximate cost of clerical force employed at money order duties in city offices.. .. $ 205,000 00 Commission paid to postmasters at country
offices	
449,950	53Balance of commission paid other countries	
31,589	73Printing and stationery for	head office.. ..	40,150	49Financial papers	and journals	
15	00Printing, stationery, date stamps, etc., outside service	
109,982	49

This shows an excess of receipts over expenditure of $527,422.29.


Arthur John Lewis: Does that $527,000 pay for
the staff and machinery connected with the service?


Charles Murphy: No; we pay these
operators out of the vote which is before the committee.


Arthur John Lewis: I want to know whether the
revenue derived pays the total expenses connected with it.


Charles Murphy: Yes, it does.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister has already explained the expenditure for two specific years which he compared, one of which carried a much larger number of postal orders than the other, and for the difference he gave two reasons:	First, the receipts of one year's
business were less than those of the other owing to a smaller number of orders having been issued; second, there was a loss of revenue owing to a difference in exchange. I

Supply-Post Office
dc not yet understand that question of exchange, because I cannot see how this country could sustain any loss whatever by reason of a difference in exchange. I want that thoroughly explained.


Charles Murphy: The difference in exchange, of course, had to be charged to the public.


James Dew Chaplin: Oh, that answers the question. Then there was no loss to the government on account of exchange?


Charles Murphy: No.


James Dew Chaplin: That is all charged to the public who buy the money orders?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Then we are to understand that no portion of this loss of $500,000 is to be accounted for by any difference in exchange?


Charles Murphy: No.


John Arthur Clark: What does account for the loss, then?


Charles Murphy: There is a difference between the two totals but there is no loss.


John Arthur Clark: There is a distinct loss of some $500,000 and I understood the minister to say that no portion of that loss was to be accounted for by the question of exchange.


Charles Murphy: We do not call it a loss; I think my hon. friend has got hold of the wrong term.


John Arthur Clark: There is a difference in the total returns to the department.


Charles Murphy: Yes, the total receipts in money order business.


John Arthur Clark: That is to say, in commissions earned by the department; and no portion of the loss is accounted for by exchange. Is that correct?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Where, then, does the exchange come in? It does not come in at all, and what I want to know is what accounts for the loss of $500,000 in commissions.


Charles Murphy: If the exchange were, say, two per cent, that amount would enter into the transaction and would go to make up the total.


John Arthur Clark: But the purchaser would pay it, not the country, so that the question of exchange does not enter at all.


Charles Murphy: The purchaser has to pay both, but in settling accounts between the countries we have to pay out the difference in exchange to the United States.


John Arthur Clark: But you have already received it. My point is -that the department's commission or profit is represented by the last figures given by the minister. If the purchaser of money orders pays this exchange, how can the country's revenue be affected by even one cent?


James Dew Chaplin: Do not the figures given by the minister a moment ago demonstrate the fact -that the country is ahead on exchange? In other words, according to the figures the customer is charged more money than the actual difference on the exchange; there -is a profit on -the exchange business besides.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend is correct according to the situation as it exists.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister give the
House the reason f-or this decrease in revenue earned by the department from 1920-21 to
1923-24?


Charles Murphy: The only explanation is that the money is at par, and therefore now there is very little charged as against what was formerly charged.


Mr. LADNER:: Surely the money being at pax would not enter into the question of exchange at all.


Charles Murphy: Perhaps I should have said -almost at par.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Has not the department accurate, intelligible figures to give us some idea of the disposition of the $500,000? Other members may have been able to analyze the difficulty, but I certainly have not been able -to.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister give us again the total business for the two years under discussion?


Charles Murphy: The total receipts from the money order business in 1922-3 were $1,180,957.45; in 1923-4, $1,364,110.53.


James Dew Chaplin: Evidently the explanation is that in 1921-2, when the difference in exchange was greater, the government made a bigger profit on exchange than they are doing to-day when it is almost at par.


Charles Murphy: The explanation given me is that this year, when exchange is nearly at par, we are not collecting so high a rate.
Stipply-A gricul lure


James Dew Chaplin: You are not collecting so much money.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Agriculture-Dairying, including grant of $3,000 to the National Dairy Council, #?30,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the exact function of the National Dairy Council?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Chairman, it is an organization of dairymen extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It exists in addition to the provincial organizations. Its chief functions are: to keep track of the general dairy interests of Canada; to propose any new or any amended legislation that they think is required; and to see that the law is observed. Some members of this Council are now attending a series of conventions extending from Quebec right through to British Columbia. The work is of an educational charaoter. Formerly the vote was in the miscellaneous items. It cannot be paid out of the main vote without indicating the character of the grant.


Arthur John Lewis: We should have some explanation of how this money is expended.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friend, I think, knows, we have recently introduced a system of grading of dairy products, principally carried on in the city of Montreal, but elsewhere as wed wherever it is convenient to do so. This involves a certain amount of additional expense, but it has not necessitated any expansion of the grant, we having dropped some other work. Cow testing was discontinued last year, and handed over to the live stock branch. There is a considerable amount of educational and inspectional work going on all the time, but more particularly in connection with the grading of dairy products and infractions of the law. I am sorry to have to report that in certain centres there is a disposition to put on sale adulterated butter. It takes a good deal of care on the part of our officers and a considerable staff to check up this adulteration.


Robert Forke: What is the butter adulterated with?


William Richard Motherwell: Oils-cocoanut oils, chiefly. We have only one report of an infraction of the law of that nature which got past the dairy graders. It is not always easy to detect the adulteration without an analysis. These are some of the activities of the dairy branch. The work of the combined 
creamery and cheese factory in the town of Finch, with which the hon. member (Mr. Kennedy, Glengarry) and others are familiar, is now completed. The work done there during the last twelve years has shown that a factory of fairly large proportions can be run much more economically and on a better basis than the small factory. I notice that the Ontario government is carrying out the same idea this year, that of encouraging the consolidation of small factories for the purpose of keeping down overhead and increasing the turn-over. This work having been completed we have sold the property at Finch and it has gone into private hands. We may later take up a similar demonstration for the province of Quebec.


Mr. ROSS (Simcoe):: Do we understand that this adulteration takes place in the creameries or butter factories? Or is it done by the dealers?


William Richard Motherwell: Very little of it is done in the creameries.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where is it done?


William Richard Motherwell: It is done in the cities, where people make a business of buying butter and adulterating it.


Arthur Edward Ross: By dealers?


William Richard Motherwell: I think we have only one case reported of its being done in the factory.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is not done by individual fanners?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, no. I am glad to say that the farmers' product is improving from year to year. It was very much needed for some of them.


Mr. LUCAS:: Has the minister's department done anything in regard to setting up a uniform standard of grading of dairy products for the Dominion?


William Richard Motherwell: A uniform system of grading has been in force wherever grading is done provincially. It is only recently that grading has been done federally. The system of appointing butter graders is not yet quite uniform. In the three prairie provinces, where they started it first, we have adopted their grade certificates; that is to say, we have adopted their grades as federal grades in order to avoid overlapping. There is often some little mix-up in a system which is largely federal but which is provincial in some aspects; for example, sometimes by mistake these provincial certificates are issued, and follow the butter, instead of the federal cer-

Supply-Agriculture
tificates. The chances are that in time we will take over that grading in the three prairie provinces and make the system uniform. As to the scale of points and the score cards, these have been adopted by. the federal authorities in conjunction with the provinces and are practicably uniform.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Is the grant to the National Dairy Council an annual grant?


William Richard Motherwell: Y'es.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont):: Is it the intention of the department at any time in the near future to adopt a system of grading of dairy products for home consumption as well as for export?


William Richard Motherwell: As soon as there
is any demand for it. We find that the public have about all the grading they care to stand now. You have to carry out these reforms more or less gradually. When it is remembered that we have adopted an entirely new system in the matter of the grading of cheese and butter for export, completely reversing the practice that had previously prevailed for thirty years, I think it will be agreed that we have done fairly well even in adopting a grading system for export alone. The home market has grown up as the result of a taste acquired by the public over a long series of years, and I do not think the people are demanding a system of grading of dairy products for home consumption. It would mean, of course, an increased number of inspectors and a greater cost. It will be a few years yet before the system of grading for export is fully accepted by the British importer, so we might wait a little while, before going further along the line -my hon. friend suggests. I understand that some of it is already graded voluntarily. The same .principle is adopted in regard to the inspection and grading of eggs; it is not a new principle. We have considered it inadvisable just at present to go beyond this voluntary grading.


John Wilfred Kennedy: I am disappointed at the remarks of the minister in. this connection. If I remember rightly, in the course of a conversation I bad with him last year he said that so far as the grading of idlairy products was concerned, Canada was twenty years behind the times-


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, that is right
-not quite twenty, perhaps.


John Wilfred Kennedy: -and if that is true his department should not hesitate to make up some of that time. His system of the grading of dairy products
for export has been working out admirably. But the neglect to grade dairy products for home consumption means that second-grade and third-grade cheese and butter are left for our Canadian consumers, and as our own people are not getting a first-class article they are not consuming as much of our butter and cheese as they should. Moreover, some of our cheese factories and creameries are working up a local trade, and in the absence of any system of grading they are making a low-grade product, or are at least failing to come up to the standard of the number one grade. One of our inspectors in Ontario recently showed me some figures with respect to last year's operations which demonstrated clearly that the factories catering to home consumption are not coming up to the requirements, are producing a high percentage of second grade cheese and butter For that reason I would urge upon the minister the desirability of requiring cheese and butter for home consumption to be graded as in the case of cheese and butter for export.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
has presented the case exactly as it is. It is a question, to some extent, of cost of operation, and also of the advisability of going ahead rapidly or otherwise. We have taken some pride in making progress. We started out late in the day in the matter of grading. If my hon. friend knew the number of kicks that have come into the department against the new regulations-not so much now against the dairying end of it, but at the beginning they were very numerous-he would be -more fully seized of the importance of going Slowly in the matter of these reforms.


John Wilfred Kennedy: Where are the kicks coming from?


William Richard Motherwell: I am free to admit, from the least important factor. However, I will be very pleased to take my hon. friend's suggestion into consideration, and if we can introduce about another three or four more graders we wTill probably do it, but every time we inflate the civil government list, there is always someone wanting to know, "What does all this mean?" So we have some hesitation in making the necessary explanation as to why this expansion. As a matter of fact, we have been starved all along the line, and if I had the freedom of expression I would like to have, I would tell my hon. friend that I would like to be able to meet him to-morrow, because after all we have adopted the very same principle he suggests in the matter of grading eggs. There is not much demand for it yet from the public. The objection has been on the part of the middle-
Supply-Agriculture

men,-the objection always is from them. They say we are interfering with their trade, that their trade is in danger to some extent. It is the old story that dates back to the early days of humanity-our trade is in danger. They do not like change.


Mr. THOMPSON:: How many graders are employed by the government in grading cheese, and what are their duties?


William Richard Motherwell: Their duties are to grade and inspect the cheese. The principal graders are stationed at Montreal, because that is the converging point in the export trade. There are two or three other places in the province of Ontario where grading is done. I have the names and salaries of the graders here. We have some twenty graders scattered throughout the Dominion, in addition to the ones we accept from the prairie provinces.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: How many points are there in Ontario where this grading is being done?


William Richard Motherwell: Belleville and Toronto; there is also one in London part of the time. A great deal of the produce of Ontario, however, naturally gravitates to Montreal and is graded there, especially from the eastern part of Ontario. It would be very convenient if we had more places where grading could be done, but the more places you have the greater the expense.


Thomas Henry Thompson: Why is it that the government does not stand behind the grader's grading? I have in mind several cases where the graders have graded cheese as No. 1, and then it went over to the Old Country and was graded there as No. 2 or No. 3, and the buyer was billed back for it. And the government has so far refused to stand behind their own grader's grading; the buyer has had to bear the loss. I think this works out very unfairly to the buyer, and the government should certainly stand behind their own grader's grading.


John Livingstone Brown: Do we understand that in the eastern provinces there is no such grading of cream in the butter factories as we have in the west? Is the grading simply done on the manufactured product?


William Richard Motherwell: Anything that comes under the question largely of production is left to the provinces to take care of. We are trying to find a line of demarcation between provincial and federal activities, and speaking generally those activities that have to do with

production are left to the provinces, and matters respecting marketing and grading are left to the federal authorities. So the question of cream grading in the west has been a provincial matter, for some time. Hon. John Martin has introduced a bill in the Ontario legislature, however, for the compulsory grading of cream, for the first time in Ontario.


John Livingstone Brown: That is just what I wanted to know, whether they had a system of grading.


William Richard Motherwell: Replying to my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Thompson): It takes more than one or two years to build up a grading system that would be recognized by the British or any other market. They have been accustomed to private brands alone in the past, and may be buying on consignment. While we have adopted a grading system here, they have not become sufficiently familiarized with it yet to buy entirely on the basis of grade, but as soon as they get sufficient confidence in it and find that the grade is as indicated on the box, they will gradually accept our certificates at their face value. I do not know what my hon. friend means by saying that we do not stand behind the graders.


Thomas Henry Thompson: I say that cheese is sold here according to the government grader's grading. It will be graded No. 1 here, and sold as No. 1, and quite often the grade is changed when it gets to the Old Country to No. 2 or No. 3. The old country merchant refuses to pay for the cheese, and the government so far has refused to stand behind their own grader's grading.


William Richard Motherwell: I think I understand my hon. friend's point. It involves a pretty long story but I think I may take two or three minutes to try and explain the difficulty to him and other hon. members. Of later years the practice has been to ship cheese in a very green state. Just as soon as it has solidified enough on the shelf, and when it is still merely a bundle of curd, a great many factories are desirous of shipping it out. Obviously we cannot get a fair grading on cheese in that condition, and sometimes our graders absolutely refuse to grade it, because it is too green to get a grading that will do justice to the cheese and to the grader. In the Antipodes they do not have that difficulty because they have adopted the system of holding the cheese for a certain length of time before grading is permitted. In addition, after their cheese has been graded, there is a long voyage which permits further maturing before the cheese reaches the market. In the case of

Supply-Agricul ture
green cheese it is impossible to anticipate what bacteriological action will develop before it reaches its destination, and the graders have simply to do the best they can with that class of cheese. We expect to bring down legislation this session trimming up some of the shortcomings of our present Dairy Act, and the only thing I can suggest at the moment is that this question may possibly be dealt with by providing that the cheese must be, say, two weeks old before it can be removed from the shelves of the factory in which it is made. That would ensure a certain degree of development that would enable the grader to make a fair grading of what the cheese was likely to be at the end of its journey. The situation now is unsatisfactory, and the whole question is, how soon can we put that pressure on? I must make the statement now that a number of other improvements are necessary in the dairy industry in order to make our products more acceptable in the British markets. If my hon. friend thinks that to have cheese two weeks old before leaving the factory would be an improvement I agree that it would be a veiy substantial advance. We will probably make the change anyhow, but I do not think the period should be any longer than that. In order to know where they stand with regard to their returns from the farm people want to realize their profits. The urgency of their financial requirements necessitates their getting the returns from the sale of the cheese as quickly as possible.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Will the minister be good enough to give us an outline of the improvements that will be necessary in order to place our dairy products on an equal footing with the products of other countries in the British market?


William Richard Motherwell: It is not usual to anticipate possible legislation; that is usually talked over in council before it is brought down. I think I may say, however, that one of them will deal with the boxes. The cheese boxes, for example, certainly need to be of a better design. We have had photographs taken by our own officials in Great Britain of boxes of cheese on their arrival in that country. We have also had photographs taken bv disinterested friends, Canadians visiting England; and really the dilapidated condition of these boxes is enough to spoil the sale of the cheese, and would really have that effect were it not for the quality of the product itself. When these boxes of cheese arrive in such a topsyturvy condition it is most objectionable to possible purchasers and always hurts the sale
of the product. The same objection does not apply to butter boxes as to the present cheese boxes. I think the type of cheese box used in Canada will have to be remodelled; as a matter of fact the kind of wood employed in the manufacture, they tell us, is becoming exhausted in this country. So, in any event, we will be obliged to change the style of box. Every time the boxes of cheese are moved or handled they suffer deterioration. On arrival in Montreal when they are placed in the freight shed other breaks occur; in fact a break occurs every time the box is handled. With every process of handling the condition of the box becomes worse, notwithstanding the fact 'that it is wired; and the handling the boxes receive from the dockmen reduces them to a mass of wreckage by the time they reach the docks in Great Britain. I am not exaggerating in the least. As I say, I have seen photographs of cheese boxes as they arrived overseas and their condition was greatly to be deplored. I hope I shall have the support of hon. members-I know I shall be supported by my hon. friend from Viotoria City (Mr. Tolmie)-in endeavouring to effeet an improvement. The Australian and New Zealand box seems to me to be the ideal article; it is a six sided box, two cheese deep.
Then there is 'the question of the adulteration of butter with any kind of oils. In this connection I think something must be done besides merely prosecuting the offender. What does the prosecution amount to as a rule? The magistrate imposes a low fine; sometimes he lets his sympathies run away, with his judgment. In addition to instituting a prosecution I think we should have power to prohibit any factory found, in proceedings before the courts, to be guiLty of adulteration with various oils in the manufacture of butter, from exporting for a certain period of time. That course was adopted by the food board. I do not want to quote the food' board as an ideal example, but that was one plan to which that body had recourse and it proved effective. I think we might also, in the case of butter, prevent the exportation where adulteration has bean shown to have 'been practised.


Donald Sutherland: Why the difference between butter for export and butter intended for home consumption?


William Richard Motherwell: There is a difference. No producer should be allowed to pursue a Course which would have the effect of destroying our foreign market. So far as home consumption is concerned we are assuming that
Supply-A gricul ture

the Canadian consumers will soon detect the fact, in the event of there being adulteration, and will manifest their resentment. The guilty parties also will be condemned by our own producers. If the practice were persisted in I think we might almost go to the length of closing the factory.


Donald Sutherland: In other words, anything is good enough for the home consumer, but we must have a first-class article for export.


William Richard Motherwell: Everybody recognizes that the home market in Ontario, and some of the other old provinces is not very fastidious, otherwise we would not be so long in getting an improved product.


John Wilfred Kennedy: The home market for both butter and cheese is an important one and should be cultivated. If the Department of Agriculture does not take the dead very soon in seeing that the grade of butter and cheese for home consumption is improved, we shall be using before very long New Zealand butter-


William Richard Motherwell: Hear, hear.


John Wilfred Kennedy: -and Danish butter.


William Richard Motherwell: Just what will
happen.


John Wilfred Kennedy: I think that is a very important reason why we should lose no time in grading all butter and cheese consumed at home. I was somewhat alarmed by the statement of the minister of the recommendation he is going to make as to the time the cheese may be left on the shelves of the cheese factory. I think his object wouild be accomplished by refusing to grade cheese or butter under a certain age instead of requiring that the products be allowed to remain on the shelf for a fixed period of time.


William Richard Motherwell: It would involve a lot, of handling in Montreal.


John Wilfred Kennedy: That might be true but I would point out that some factories have no cold storage facilities, and to require them to keep cheese or butter on their shelves under those circumstances would involve hardship and difficulty.
The minister spoke about the factory at Finch, and its disposal to a private concern. I should like to know a little more about the disposition of that factory, and the compensation which was paid to the factories on each side of the Finch dairy station?


William Richard Motherwell: I may say that the patrons were first given the opportunity to buy this factory, and the conclusion was almost arrived at that they would do so. On second thought, however, the patrons concluded that it would be better for an outside company having a chain of creameries to acquire the factory if they would pay the desired price. It was thought it might be better for an outside body, a vigorous, thrifty institution that could do the very best for the patrons because of their financial abilities, to take over the property. It was sold for $25,000. We assume that that paid all the expenditure that was put into the factory, so that we got the educational value of the institution without any expense to the country. I am not familiar with the early histoiy of the factory, but I understand that some twelve years ago there was compensation paid, and the expenditure covered two factories. We have not got the detailed information. We find, however,, that the work of that consolidated factory, if I might call it so, expanded so rapidly that it enveloped two others more or less-one entirely and the other partially. One was owned by, I think, a Mr. Maclean. The amount of compensation in that case was arrived at by arbitration and was fixed at $3,000. The other amount, reached by a similar method, was $500. The principle of compensation was recognized at the beginning; I do not think we could go in and wipe out a man's investment without giving some compensation.


John Wilfred Kennedy: Did these men agree not to reopen their factories.


William Richard Motherwell: That was the agreement.


Thomas Henry Thompson: We have regulations on grading. Do they not cover the improvements which the minister has outlined. In the first place he is speaking of cheese which is too green. If I understand the regulations aright, it is the grader's duty to hold the cheese until they are properly cured and fit for market. If the boxes are not up to the standard the grader's duty at the present time and under the present regulations, is to put them in a lower grade.


William Richard Motherwell: What does the hon. member suggest? Would it be better to move them right up to Montreal, or wherever they are to be sent, and let them stay there in proper storage the required length of time?


Thomas Henry Thompson: Is that not what you have just outlined in the present regulations?

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, they have that authority and they exercise it, but it involves a lot of extra handling, and that means extra expense. I think it would be better for the factories to do what they are doing, and hold it in the factory. But then we would have one constant complaint from the factories that we are holding it too long. I am prepared to take into consideration any suggestions as to which is the better way. I think the custom in the Antipodes is to keep it in the factories of production. It is kept there, and each factory can store it in its own accommodation. If we adopted that system it would not involve such a lot of expense in re-handling at Montreal. I admit that in some of the local factories the place for storage is not of the very best. Frequently they have no control of the temperature; consequently that would be an additional argument why you should ship it to Montreal or some other place, keep it at the proper temperature, and grade it when it matured. It is a question of expense. The best way is not always the practical way because of the additional cost involved.


Donald Sutherland: With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Thompson) a moment ago as to the government standing behind the grading of cheese, the question asked was as to cheese which had been graded as No. 1. The minister in his answer referred to cheese that was green and unfit for shipment going to the hands of the grader. The grader certainly would not grade it as No. 1. The hon. member for East Hastings asked1 about cheese which had been graded as
5 p.m. No. 1 by the grader here, and when it reached the Old Country was reduced to second or third grade. What about conditions of that kind where the loss falls on the shipper? That is the question the hon. member asks. The minister endeavoured to make it appear that the cheese was going there too green. If it was too green it would certainly be placed in the lower grade by the grader and not as No. 1.


William Richard Motherwell: No, it might have the elements of No. 1, but you cannot estimate what bacteriological action may develop on the voyage across. We have the same trouble with anything that is perishable. Butter is subject to change and is very difficult to grade arbitrarily in such a way that it will "stay put". Eggs and cheese are in the same category. The sooner you get butter and eggs on the market the more likely they are to hold their grading. With regard to cheese
the more it matures before being graded the
more likely it is to retain that grade. Of course, we have to take the chances of the grading in mixed shipments and having the article hold its grade. I think we have been shipping out too early and taking too many chances on the grade being held. Those are the conditions under which we feel we have something to learn yet in the matter of grading cheese, and even after we have learned it all, as long as it is graded in the neighbourhood of two or three weeks old, there will always be a liability of some of it going wrong. When butter is three weeks old and unpasteurized we have to grade it. In case it is pasteurized we have to regrade it if it is six weeks old.


Donald Sutherland: Will eggs require
regrading?


William Richard Motherwell: You have to have
regrading to allow for deterioration.


Thomas Henry Thompson: I think the explanations given do not apply to conditions in East Hastings. The cheese are held there until they are properly matured for grading. The cheese board have regulations to that effect, and no cheese is allowed to be offered for sale until they are matured. In that section I have known cases where cheese properly matured, as I have stated before, have been graded as No. 1, and regraded in the Old Country, and billed back to the buyer. The buyer has paid on the cheese according to the government grader's grade, and it so suffers a great injustice. If this government appoints graders throughout to grade these cheese, in my opinion they should stand behind the grade given. If not the grading is practically a farce.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think the hon. member understands the grading system at all; otherwise he would not talk in the way he has;-he will pardon me for my frankness. No government stands behind the grader s grade under the grading system of which he speaks. As far as humanly possible, it is graded according to the judgment of the grader. Who gave the buyer the authority to regrade our cheese? He is interested in grading it down. They can put it at what they like. We have to build up as near as possible a uniform grade according to our conceptions of what is proper, and the provinces aim at making that as near as possible what the consumer on the other side wants. Let me draw attention to the oldest system of grading that I know of in Canada; that is in respect to our grain. You can send a consign-
Supply-Agriculture

rnent of No. 1 or No. 2 northern ,to Great Britain, and it may be a little bit off the grade when it gets there, but there is no such thing as the government making good the discrepancy. That is not right. The idea is that, as near as humanly possible to make a grade by physical eye test, that is done, and if you keep it uniform and up to that, that is all the buyer on the other side expects. Every time, however,-and there is where the penalty comes in whether it be butter or wheat-every time a consignment goes over a little off in grade, that induces the buyer to bid less than he would otherwise because he knows he is getting an inferior article. The more we keep up to the standard the better and steadier will be the bid on the other side.


Mr. SPENCE:: There seems to be a difference between the department and the shippers of cheese as to the interpretation _of the law. The hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Thompson) says you cannot ship cheese to the Old Country unless it is matured. The minister says you can ship it when it is two weeks old. Why endanger the cheese shipping industry by allowing shippers to ship before it is properly matured? The hon. gentleman says that is the law.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no law insisting on that.


David Spence: There is no law insisting on the people holding cheese until it is properly cured?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


David Spence: Then the department is
using very bad judgment, because you should not endanger the business of the country by allowing cheese not properly matured to go out.


William Richard Motherwell: We thought we were doing very well to get it started. We have inserted the thin end of the wedge, and got the principle of grading cheese fixed. We propose to tighten it up where it is weak. After thirty or forty years of grading western grain you will find, after the Grain Act comes down, there will be some amendments. If that be so in the case of a system that has been in vogue for over a quarter of a century, it is not to be wondered at if after two years we find it necessary to iron out some of the shortcomings in the present grading system. What we have at present is as stringent as the people will submit to at the outset. When the bill comes down I

think we shall be able to satisfy the hon. member as to the length of time the cheese should remain either on the shelf or in storage before it is graded.


David Spence: So far as I know, there
is always a 'good market for Canadian cheese in Great Britain and I think the minister ought to bring down a law this session to compel the producers to hold their cheese until it is properly matured. There is no particular objection to having another law, for God knows we have had hundreds of laws enacted in this House since I have been here.


William Richard Motherwell: I was asked a
question as to certain changes and I referred to them. It is not usual to anticipate legislation.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: When we are preparing for
the development of our dairy industry, particularly from the standpoint of our access to the foreign market, it is well that all our Standards should be raised at the earliest possible date so as to enable us to meet the keen competition of other countries. New Zealand by a strict grading system in butter, and in cheese particularly, shows signs of outstripping us in the British market, notwithstanding that we had a reputation of being the greatest cheese exporting country in the world two or three years ago. Since that time New Zealand has come into the market with a more uniformly reliable article and has been able to outstrip us in Great Britain. The minister at the earliest possible moment should take such steps as would enable us to compete with such countries as New Zealand, Australia, Denmark and other places supplying the British market to-day. We all know what excellent results have attended the grading of eggs, and if we adopted in the case of butter and cheese regulations similar to those that are in force in the grading of eggs I am- sure our position would be greatly improved and we should be able to compete with other countries with greater success. We should pay particular attention to the home market and supply that market with such goods as would keep out competition from the outside. We have conditions that are favourable to the production not only of dairy products but of all varieties of farm produce, and with such advantages as we possess we should be able at least to keep out of the home market the foreign competition which otherwise would work to our great disadvantage. This can be done if we go about it in the right way.


John Wilfred Kennedy: Are our exports of butter shipped in boxes bearing the grade marks?

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, and we rather encourage the idea of putting on a private mark or brand as well.


John Wilfred Kennedy: All our butter shipments dlo not go to the British market as Canadian butter; some have private brands?


William Richard Motherwell: Some exporters
like to retain the private brand, which they consider valuable on account of its association with the reputation they have built up. But they must have our brand in any case.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the nature of your brand?


William Richard Motherwell: We have a number.


Robert Forke: I am extremely well pleased to hear the ex-minister (Mr. Tolmie) say that it is possible to keep out foreign products by the excellency of the home product.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Has the minister any information regarding the condition of the British butter market to-day? Are we being supplanted by Denmark, Australia and some of these other countries?


William Richard Motherwell: So far as the
British market is concerned, Canada is hardly known as a butter producing country. We exported all told last year 21,000,000 pounds of butter, a negligible percentage of which went to Great Britain. The odd times that we appear on the British market with butter suggest the "on again off again" idea, and we are never able to build up a line of customers who look forward with any expectancy to further shipments of Canadian butter. Someone has estimated that at the present time we supply Great Britain with 11 pounds of every 100 pounds of butter she buys. Fortunately for us, especially for those portions of Canada that have not made a specialty of producing the higher quality of butter, it is not until our season of production is over that Australia and New Zealand come on the same market with us, so that we do not come into immediate competition with them. But there is a real danger nevertheless. I have told the dairymen of Ontario and Quebec more than once that unless they improved the quality of their butter, the first thing they knew, Australia and New Zealand dairymen would be opening warehouses in Toronto, Montreal and other large centres and offering their goods to the Canadians. I do not know that this would be an unmixed evil at all, but it would be a rather strong commentary on the quality of our home made butter if Australia could do such a thing successfully. I have already indicated that 16
there is an improvement in sight, and so long as we are improving there is no use scolding too much. Ontario has taken the bit in her teeth and has taken the first required step towards better results by providing for a good raw product through the grading of cream. Certain educational work remains to be done in the improvement of dairying conditions and so on, but if we get our raw product in good condition we can then insist on the manufacturers turning out a good article. As regards the condition of the market in Great Britain, I have not looked up the exact details lately, but there is a feeling in the air that because dairying has stood up better than any other branch of agriculture since the war it is worth pursuing, and the natural tendency is for more people to engage in it. Even in dilapidated Russia there is an immense activity in increased butter production. I am not sounding any note of warning that there is going to be any glut of good dairy products, but there will be a glut of second-and third-rate goods which will be seeking a market. There will never be a glut of first-class dairy products, and that is one other incentive to us to speed up the improvement of our quality as quickly as possible. Certainly every country that can go in for dairying at all succesfully is going to engage more and more in this branch of agriculture. The prairie provinces were never thought to be good dairy countries, but they have increased their output of creamery butter this year some
10,000,000 pounds. I may observe here that our cheese showed marked improvement last year and I am safe in saying that it vies with the best Australian cheese; in fact, the best [DOT]Canadian cheese is away better than the best Australian product. Unfortunately, however, because of small factories, and one thing and another, there is an absence of uniformity so that the quality is not on the whole what it [DOT]ought to be. What the Britisher wants in addition to quality is uniformity; he detests having to make adjustments with his customer. Consequently this uniformity will be helped considerably when the consolidation bill is 'enacted in the Ontario House, this being one [DOT]of our principal cheese exporting provinces. Making the factories larger will also help towards uniformity.


Henry Elvins Spencer: From what provinces were the 21,000,000 pounds of butter exported to Great Britain?


William Richard Motherwell: Most of it came
from the middle western provinces. A great deal of what the western provinces shipped in the early part of the year went to the

S uppl y-A gri culture

United States, about 5,000,000 pounds. A demand sprang up there, as well as in England, for unsalted butter, and the Moose Jaw creamery took a large contract from the States. Quebec and the middle western provinces have been the chief contributors to the export trade; very little has been sent from this province; and I do not think that at any time in recent years the home production has met the domestic demand in the Maritime provinces.


Donald Sutherland: What quantity of
butter was imported last year, and from what countries? And in what way will the proposed treaty with Australia affect the tariff on dairy products?


William Richard Motherwell: My recollection is
that we imported about 3,000,000 pounds. Did my hon. friend mean from the United States?


Donald Sutherland: And from other
countries as well.


William Richard Motherwell: Three million
pounds is my recollection, but we will have the exact figures in a moment. I do not know what my hon. friend wants me to say as to the effect of the tariff. Of course the higher the tariff the less the importation.


Donald Sutherland: I was referring to
the proposed treaty with Australia:	How
would it affect dairy products?


William Richard Motherwell: The preferential
tariff is not in force yet; when it is it will be the same as New Zealand's, which for a number of years has been three cents a pound.


Robert Forke: I suppose the minister is
aware that a large amount of cream is also shipped into the United States from Quebec?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Robert Forke: In Missisquoi county all
the cream cans I saw were billed to the United States.


William Richard Motherwell: In spite of the duty an enormous amount of cream, equal to about
16,000,000 pounds of butter, was exported to the United States last year.


Mr. BIRD:: It seems to me that a dollar
spent on putting the industry on a rational basis would be worth $10 spent upon tinkering with details, even if they are important details such as the grading of butter. In the three prairie provinces the dairying industry is gradually being placed on a cooperative basis. A quarter of a million dollars is a lot of money to spend on this industry 
if it is being frittered away on details. It should be applied to placing the industry on a parity with the industry in New Zealand, Denmark and other countries, where it is organized through and through, which gives them the advantage of the world's markets. I am wondering if the department is doing anything in an active way to encourage the placing of the industry in this country on a co-operative basis. I do not think it should be left to the efforts of the people themselves to put such an important national industry on a footing where it would be able to compete successfully in other countries. I should like to hear that the department is doing something to this end.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon. friend has put his finger on the most important phase of the question that has been discussed so far. In the past co-operation has been left largely to the provinces. Some of the creameries have co-operated by consolidating themselves into a single organization. In Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, cooperation has been featured, principally in production. We are doing everything we can do from the federal standpoint to help the industry, but having nine provinces to deal with means that we have to be careful not to trespass on the provincial sphere of action. At present conventions are being held all over the Dominion, and our Mr. Wilson, who was asked by the Dairy Council to come over from Great Britain and impart the latest information on the requirements of the British market and to point out where we are falling down, has been addressing these conventions. He has been devoting his addresses to telling the people what other countries are doing. It may come as a surprise to hon. members to learn that in Russia the Soviet government have in operation over five thousand creameries under a system of co-operation, dealing directly with large import houses in Great Britain. We are also pointing out in a suggestive way that until we have a pool handling over half the dairy product of Canada and delivering it on the British market at regular intervals, we are going to be at a serious disadvantage. At present our shipments are haphazard. Some of our packing companies, however, send their products over regularly. We should have regular sailings for both butter and cheese, and this cannot be done without some kind of organization among the various provinces. It is imperative that it be done if we are to get the best results, and we are doing everything we can to encourage such action without actually intruding on the provincial field. If we had

Supply-Agriculture
complete control here I would feel like taking the necessary steps in our own department to effect the required organization, but I do not think we could do it simply by mild co-operation with the provinces, with whom the question primarily rests. The Dairy branch has completed the preparation of statistics indicating what tonnage would be necessary to take care of the dairy products of Canada for the British market, how much space would be required and how frequent the sailing ought to be to meet the needs of the trade on the other side. These statistics are available for whoever wishes to take advantage of them. Experience proves that regular sailings are necessary, otherwise customers will be lost and trade will have to be built up over again. I would thank the hon. member (Mr. Bird) for any suggestion as to how we can arrange this without invading the field of the provinces. Undoubtedly the time has come when we should do that, and we will be delighted to do it when the conditions permit.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Has the minister any information as to the quantity of butter which was imported last year from New Zealand?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Or from Australia?


William Richard Motherwell: No, I have just the totals.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is the duty on cheese
affected by the proposed treaty with Australia?


William Richard Motherwell: We get practically no cheese from Australia, with the exception of fancy cheeses.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is there or is there not a provision in the treaty with regard to cheese?


William Richard Motherwell: My recollection is that it is not mentioned among the preferred articles. Butter is.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In respect to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Forke) with regard to the protection of agricultural products, I am a firm believer in maintaining the high standard of these products which now prevails throughout this country. We are quite able to compete where things are equal, but we should not be compelled to compete where climatic conditions are not the same; to compete with the product of districts where the cattle can be kept out during practically the whole of the winter period while we have to feed for six months; to compete on an 16J
even basis with those countries where labour is much cheaper than it is here. Therefore I believe that we need a certain amount of protection even for our dairy and other agricultural products. I want to put myself clearly on record in that regard: I think we should have the same tariff on agricultural products coming into this country as is applied to agricultural products going into the United States. With regard to this dairy representative in London, does he secure information that had not been previously obtained through the dairy commissioner, and if so what is it?


William Richard Motherwell: I shall be pleased to give my hon. friend the full information when that vote comes up. As to his reference to tariff on agricultural products, if he can give us any assurance that the housekeepers of Canada are prepared to pay a little bit more for their eggs and for their butter, then I shall be ready to give his suggestions at least sympathetic consideration.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: If the housekeepers of
Canada had the experience with American eggs that I have had, they would be glad to be rid of them altogether. What progress has been made in the development of the fancy cheese industry in Canada, and about what is the value of the product now?


William Richard Motherwell: We have not the figures, but I believe the industry is being developed in a number of places in Quebec. I do not know whether you would call kraft cheese a fancy cheese, but its production is rapidly growing and it seems to appeal to the popular taste.


John Wilfred Kennedy: What is it made of?


William Richard Motherwell: It is a mixture of Cheddar cheese with cream and, I think, some milk.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it renovated?


William Richard Motherwell: No, I do not think it is renovated. It cannot be very bad, because it tastes good.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Does it contain cottonseed oil?


William Richard Motherwell: No, the law forbids that. It is entirely cream and milk fat.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is the minister quite sure about that? Has an analysis been made by his analyst?


William Richard Motherwell: We have had no complaints with regard to it that I know of.
Supply-Agriculture


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Are we making any Lim-burger ot Roquefort or Camembert cheese in Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, some Roquefort is made in Quebec.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister said a moment ago that the duty on butter from Australia was being made the same as that on butter from New Zealand. Under what trade arrangement does New Zealand have the benefit of a preference now?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend will have to ask somebody else, because it was under some arrangement made, I believe, before this government came into power. We are giving to Australia the same terms, which means 25 per cent off; the regular tariff of 4 *,cats is reduced to 3 cents in both cases.
Mr. -LADNER:	It is rather an important
matter, and one, I would imagine, that the minister would be acquainted with, in a superficial way at all events. Surely he knows whether or not we have a treaty with New Zealand. I have never heard of one myself.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: It must be some kind of
preference arrangement by which New Zealand has that advantage.


William Richard Motherwell: I can only conjecture what they went on. I know that this has gone on for the last three years, and I do not think my hon. friend's party is very much struck on preferential tariffs so I think it must have gone on for the ten or twelve years before that; it must have gone on quite a while.


Mr. BRETHEN:: I believe it was done
under Sir George Foster.


William Richard Motherwell: I am delighted to
learn that the treaty was arranged by Sir George Foster.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What are the terms of the treaty?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister as a
matter of fact know whether there is any treaty or not?	[DOT]


William Richard Motherwell: I do know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a treaty?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend will find himself mistaken.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not carry
these treaties around with me, Mr. Chairman, but I know as a matter of fact there is a treaty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to ask the
minister if he has during the recess reconsidered his harsh and altogether unwarranted attitude towards the production of oleomargarine.


William Richard Motherwell: I have often congratulated myself that we have knocked it out; and that is the only extent to which I have reconsidered it. I think the dairy industry is to be congratulated that it was knocked out. I have never considered the matter with the idea of being less harsh about it for I hold exactly the same views I did before, except that probably they are a little stronger. If we had not dealt with oleomargarine then, I do not think the time would ever have come, for once it had become properly established it would have been hard to get rid of it; that has been the experience of other countries.


John Wilfred Kennedy: I want to revert to a remark the minister made some time ago in reply to a suggestion of mine. He said that one reason why the department was not considering the grading of dairy products for home consumption was that there was no demand for it. I would like to .ask who is going to make the demand? V7ho does he expect, will make it?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, my hon.
friend.


John Wilfred Kennedy: If the minister will accede to my demands he will proceed immediately to set about it.


William Richard Motherwell: I have a high
opinion of my hon. friend's judgment in the matter.


John Wilfred Kennedy: I know the minister is desirous of raising the standard of Canada's dairy products. Now our only hope in the foreign market is by having not only a high standard, but a uniformly high standard, and I think the only way to secure uniformity is by grading our dairy products, and by buying according to the grade. That is, to my mind, the most important factor in the whole business, and not the elimination of the small factory as the minister seems to think. During the summer of 1924 the factories throughout eastern Ontario produced 94 per cent of No. 1 cheese, and better, that is cheese grading No. 1 and Special. In that area there are a great number of very small factories. I personally know some of these factories that

Supply-A griculture
have produced as high as 99 per cent of No. 1 cheese, and better. I am not advocating anything in the way of assisting to maintain the small factories, for I rather think that is an unimportant consideration; I think they will eliminate themselves in time. To me the all important consideration is to have our dairy products uniformly graded, and I would most earnestly impress on the minister the necessity of grading these products for home consumption as well as for export, for the reasons I have already given.
I would also suggest to him, if he is bringing down legislation for the improvement of the standard of dairy products, that he consider the advisability of establishing a standard for ice cream. That is an important dairy product and an important article of diet, and its consumption in this country is increasing. I would recommend to the minister that he establish a certain standard of ice cream. That is important, because I think a great deal of the ice cream that is offered for sale to-day should have the word "cream" eliminated from its name. It is very patent that much of it is not ice cream at all.
On the question of fancy cheese, the hon. member for Victoria very properly asked the minister about the analysis of kraft cheese. Now with all due deference to the Minister of Agriculture, I would suggest to him that he look into the manufacture of kraft cheese, because I fear he will find there is a great deal in it besides butter fat and other dairy products. I do not wish to make any statement as to what he will find in it, but I would like his department to investigate it; I think that is important.


William Richard Motherwell: With regard to the two questions my hon. friend has raised, as to the grading of all butter manufactured in Canada, it is estimated it would take three or four more graders to do that work. In addition to that, without having any estimate, but judging from the number of inspectors we have to employ to look after the grading of other dairy products, from fifteen to twenty inspectors would be required to see that the law was enforced. That would mean an addition of nearly twenty to my staff for that service. I think maybe that would be money well spent, but there is a tremendous popular feeling throughout the country to-day in favour of keeping the civil service either stationary or cutting it down. I do not know that we should arbitrarily comply with that sentiment, but as long as it is there, we cannot disregard it entirely. Since I have had the honour of being in this House, every time there has been an increase in my staff I have been adversely criticised. If there is any way
of making omelettes without breaking eggs I would be glad to find it out; if there is any way of increasing our services of this kind without increasing our staff, I would be delighted to find it out. I think possibly we will have to reach my hon. friend's conclusion no matter what the public say regarding an increase of the civil service staff connected with agriculture, for as a matter of fact a progressive Department of Agriculture cannot stand still if it does its duty. But I am circumscribed to some extent by money limitations and by public sentiment in the matter of these new activities. Out in the western provinces you have no such circumscribing limitations. Agriculture is paramount there, and anything you do on behalf of it, if it does increase your staff, goes. But it is a little different down here.
With regard to ice cream, for some reason which I do not exactly know, that comes under rny colleague the Minister of Health, and my memory is that he has worked out some standard, stipulating a certain percentage of butter fat in the ice cream. In reading some speeches recently made at the conventions I distinctly recall Mr. D'Arcy Scott indicating that this reform had been brought about; but that matter comes under the Department of Public Health.


James Arthurs: The hon. minister has not answered so far as I have heard, the question asked regarding the treaty with New Zealand which may or may not come in conflict with one now proposed with Australia. The hon. gentleman should have all these facts at his fingertips and should be able to answer that question at once. In what respect does the present treaty with New Zealand conflict with the Australian treaty in the matter of dairy products?


William Richard Motherwell: The idea is to
give Australia the same preference that was accorded to New Zealand, I do not know how many years ago.


James Arthurs: What is the preference
to New Zealand now?


William Richard Motherwell: It is three cents a pound as against four cents in the general tariff. That is 25 per cent, I presume. When the new treaty becomes effective the same rates will be applicable to Australia. I do not happen to have the treaties here, and a discussion on them would more properly arise when the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce are before the House, or when the treaty itself is being considered. The later treaty is not law yet; I know there has been a treaty with New Zealand for a number of years.
Supply-Agriculture


Leon Johnson Ladner: A direct treaty between
Canada and New Zealand?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, certainly.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I doubt it.


Donald Sutherland: The minister pictures a very gloomy outlook for the future when he predicts that the day will come when city stores in this province will be selling butter from New Zealand or Australia. Does he think that the new arrangement with Australia which reduced the tariff on butter is going to bring that about? Is that the object the minister has in view? Is it his intention to bring foreign products into this country in order to reduce the cost of living? Is that what he is aiming at? If what the minister predicts is likely to happen, I cannot imagine why a reduction of the duty should be made in this particular case.


William Richard Motherwell: I am only responsible for the treaty in an indirect sense but of course I take my share of responsibility. However, I want to point out to my hon. friend that if you desire to make a treaty with another country you must give as well as take. You must give something in return for the concessions you receive; you cannot have it all your own way. We have obtained substantial concessions for the entry of certain of our products into their market and we had to offset those concessions to some extent. In the province of Saskatchewan when we were just merely starting the dairy industry we were able to go into British Columbia with our butter and compete successfully with New Zealand. There is nothing to be afraid about; there is only a certain time of the year when the competition has to be met. If there is cause for fear there is one remedy to be applied, and that is to make better butter in Canada. It is not because there is a shortage in Canada that we get importations of New Zealand butter. There used to be a time during the winter season when there was an insufficient local production in Canada, and consequently there were importations of butter from New Zealand, not only into British Columbia but as far east as Montreal. I question very much whether any importations from New Zealand go that far east to-day. That is simply because winter dairying has increased so much that we have local production for the whole twelve months of the year. If there was danger of antipodean butter years ago it is much less to-day, as a result of winter dairying on the one hand and the improved quality of our product on the other. But that improved quality must continue or else there will be 
a danger of imports coming in. There has been a danger-not so acute to-day as it was a short time ago-of Australia unloading some of her products, but the danger has been minimized by the improvement in the quality of our own products. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) wants to know if I am encouraging the dairy industry when I am lowering the duty on Australian butter. The duty on Australian butter will be the same as it has been for a number of years past on New Zealand butter without, as far as I am able to learn, any detrimental effects to Canada.


James Arthurs: Does the minister mean
to say that treaties have been negotiated under which certain concessions have been extended to Australia and New Zealand without his knowledge?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


James Arthurs: The minister's explanation would almost create that impression.


William Richard Motherwell: Not at all. I am not Minister of Trade and Commerce. I acquiesce in the treaty as a member of the government of Canada and hold myself responsible for it. But there is a difference between consenting to a treaty and originating it. The campaign against "oleo" originated with my department; that was an entirely different matter. The negotiation of a trade treaty comes directly under the Minister of Finance or .the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Of course I am jointly responsible for anything that is done in connection with it. It is not done without my knowledge or I would not be able to tell my hon. friend (Mr. Arthurs) that there is such a treaty with Australia, and that there has been one in force with New Zealand for mam/ years.


James Arthurs: Will the minister give us the terms of the treaty with Australia so far as they relate to butter and other dairy products?


William Richard Motherwell: I made the statement about twelve or fifteen times; I do not think it is necessary to repeat it once again.


Arthur Edward Ross: I should like to ask the minister if the expenditure last year i9 greater or less than the expenditure for the year before?


William Richard Motherwell: It is going to be pretty close.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In British Columbia, and other important parts of Canada, a very strong protest is developing in connection with the egg business. The duty on eggs entering the

Supply-Agriculture
United States is eight cents, and on eggs imported into Canada three cents. Are eggs covered by this treaty, and if so to what extent is this country affected?


William Richard Motherwell: Is that the question?


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is the question.


William Richard Motherwell: Speaking from memory I do not think eggs are affected, but if my hon. friend waits until the live stock vote is being considered the question of eggs will be dealt with.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Live stock?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: You have got to put eggs somewhere, and as matters now stand they come under "live stock." In the meantime I will have my deputy look the matter up and see if eggs are included in the articles affected by the Australian treaty. After all is said and done, I think eggs might more properly come under live stock than under dairying.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why not under the fruit industry?


Thomas Henry Thompson: I see a grant of $3,000 to the National Dairy Council. I should like to know how many directors there are in that organization and how those directors are elected?


William Richard Motherwell: All the provinces
are represented, my recollection is there are about fifteen directors.


Thomas Henry Thompson: How are those directors elected. I know some gentlemen who have been directors for years and they do not even know themselves how they came to be elected.


William Richard Motherwell: We have provincial associations and each association has t-fie right to elect a certain number of directors numbering, I think in the case of smaller provinces, one. I also think the dealers in Montreal have representatives on the board; in fact all branches of the industry are represented.


Donald Sutherland: Would the minister supply us after recess with some information as to how these men are appointed? I know there is a feeling in many places that the dairy council does not represent the dairy industry at all. If the minister would bring down this information I think it would be of considerable interest. I should also like to
have the details with regard to the imports and exports of the dairy products to which we have been referring this afternoon, and the countries from which these importations have been made. Probably the minister could also furnish us with some information as to our exports of cheese since the system of grading has been put into effect. I should like to know how these exports compare with the exports during the years prior to the adoption of the grading system.


William Richard Motherwell: The exports of
cheese last year were over 120,000,000 pounds and it has increased in quality very substantially under the grading system. The improvement in the grade is about 6 per cent.


Donald Sutherland: How does it compare with the exports for eight or ten years previously?


William Richard Motherwell: A little more, a
slight increase, about 2,000,000 pounds over last year.


Thomas Henry Thompson: Would the minister
give us the name of the secretary of the National Dairy Association, and tell us what salary he received.


William Richard Motherwell: The officers of that association are not under us. I think I indicated already that the Provincial Dairymen's Association appointed the directors to the central council, and they in turn appoint their own secretary and pay his salary. They set the salary. I do not know what it is.


Arthur Meighen: Who is the secretary?


William Richard Motherwell: D'Arcy Scott.


Thomas Henry Thompson: Is this gentleman in
the employ of the government, or has he been for the last three years?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think he
is in the employ of the government now.


Thomas Henry Thompson: Has he been for the
last three years?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh yes, I think he was.


Thomas Henry Thompson: During the 1921 campaign he was very active for the Liberal party in my riding. He was acting in the capacity of organizer, or posed as such, in my riding in the interests of the Liberal party. He enjoyed the prestige of being secretary of the National Dairy Council.


William Richard Motherwell: He never was in
my employ. I think he was retained as counsel in the grain inquiry, but his sendees in that respect ceased some time ago.
Supply-Agriculture


Arthur Meighen: Is he on the payroll
still?


William Richard Motherwell: I think not.


Arthur Meighen: It is just another way
of doing it.


Donald Sutherland: What is the grant
of S3,000 to be devoted to? It says "for the National Dairy Council." If the council is appointed by the association for the various provinces why do they not provide for this? How is this to be divided up? Or is it for some specific purpose?


William Richard Motherwell: It is for the general activities. We have had this vote in the estimates every year, the same as the horticultural vote. We recognize that it is a useful organization by giving a grant to help to defray their cost of operations, their educational activities and their travelling expenses. The Canadian Horticultural Council receives a large grant in the miscellaneous items. I think I explained when my hon. friend was out of the chamber that, instead of being included in the miscellaneous items as in other years, it is included in the vote with which it is associated. But we have to mention it or we cannot pay it.


James Arthurs: Is it not true the present secretary of the dairy council was formerly a member of the railway commission?


William Richard Motherwell: I think so.


James Arthurs: And carried his dairy
calves in private cars?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know anything about that.


Thomas Henry Thompson: Would you give us
some information of the benefits derived from this association?


William Richard Motherwell: I will after recess.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I want to impress upon the minister the necessity for a better grading system in the export of butter than we have had in the past. I understood the minister to say this afternoon that we would get a better grading system as soon as we asked for it. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but the matter was pressed in the House very strongly last session and the minister took a sympathetic attitude towards it; he gave us to understand that the people in the eastern provinces were 
not, however, prepared to submit to further regulations. This is a question on which we in the prairie provinces at least feel that we have a serious grievance. We have in those three provinces a cream grading system which prevents rancid or over-ripe cream from entering into the manufacture of butter at all. That means that we do produce a better grade of butter than is produced generally speaking in the eastern provinces. I was glad to hear this afternoon that Ontario is contemplating the same system. The point is this, that in the Old Country the butter from the prairie provinces, although it takes better than the product from the eastern provinces, is at a disadvantage inasmuch as the whole supply from this country is known commercially as Canadian butter. Naturally our butter is lowered to the general standard of all the other Canadian butter. A customer in England may buy a pound of Canadian butter to-day and find it perfectly good, but he goes back to-morrow and buys another pound of Canadian butter which is a little stale, and the consequence is that all Canadian butter is condemned. The customer, therefore, buys the New Zealand product which has been standardized to such an extent that one always knows what one gets. We should try to bring our system up to the exact standard of the New Zealand system. This is imperative if we are to compete with the New Zealand producer in the Old Country; otherwise we shall lose that market altogether. An examination of the figures shows that in 1922 we sold Great Britain 17,000,000 pounds of butter which dropped in 1923 to 4,000,000 pounds; 1 was glad to see that the figures had gone up a little during the past year, our sale having risen to 15,000,000. But we are not holding our own in the British market, which after all is the only market we have. In the face of the contracting market our production is expanding steadily, and if we examine the figures for the prairies provinces we shall find an enormous increase of butter in that part of the Dominion. In 1923 we produced 39,000,000 pounds and that has increased to 47,607,000 pounds in 1924. Going back over the table for the last six or eight years, we find the production steadily increasing and the prospects are that it will continue to increase in the future. So that in the face of a contracting market we are producing far more than we can consume at home.
I was rather surprised to hear the minister say this afternoon that we may face a serious slump in the butter market, and he spoke about the possibility of New Zealand and Australian butter being sold in Canada. Per-

Supply-Aqricidture
haps some of that butter is sold here to-day, but not to any great extent; and we can prevent the sale of foreign butter by properly meeting the situation. I am not particularly alarmed about the possibility of New Zealand or Australian butter being sold in the home market in competition with our own. At any rate, if that happens the fault will be our own for not producing the right article. But what I am vitally concerned about is the question whether we shall hold our own in the British market, which is almost the only market we have to-day. Whereas we sold to Great Britain 15,000,000 pounds this year, we sold to the United States only 2,761,000 pounds, while to our third best customer, Germany, we sold 862,000 pounds. After all, therefore, Great Britain is_ the market we must look to; and to hold it we must bring our product strictly up to the New Zealand standard. The standard may be very arbitrary, and no doubt we shall have to submit to rigid regulations; but if we desire to hold our own we must be prepared to stand by these regulations.
My hon. friend (Mr. Tolmie) spoke this afternoon about the difficulties, indeed the impossibility, of competing with New Zealand.
I am not prepared to admit that it is at all impossible for us to compete with New Zealand; I believe that we can compete with that country. I would refer the committee to the report on dairying in New Zealand and Australia, by Dr. Ruddick, the Cold Storage Commissioner, in dealing with this very question of competition with New Zealand. He pointed out that while there were certain factors that favoured New Zealand, such as climatic conditions and the fact that cattle could graze throughout the year, there were some other respects in which we had a distinct advantage over New Zealand. Among these factors he mentions the following.
(a) greater experience in breeding and handling dairy
C3(b) a more profitable use of the by-products of the dairy, such as skim-milk and whey;
(c)	lower cost of manufacturing cheese and butter;
(d)	nearness to market and lower cost of marketing;
(e)	the existence of what is probably the best competitive primary dairy market in the world at Montreal ;	_
(f)	a well-established and economical export business ;
(g)	an established reputation for cheese; and
(h)	excellent dairy schools and systems of field instruction.
In addition, we have certain other distinct advantages, more particularly in the prairie provinces. While the New Zealander is grazing his dairy cattle on land costing anywhere from $500 to $1,000 per acre, we have very
cheap land, and in a great many districts we can graze our cattle on wild land on which we do not even pay taxes. I for one am not prepared to admit that under equal marketing conditions New Zealand has any advantages over us at all; indeed, I believe that W'e have advantages over New Zealand. It is only a few shears ago that the government of that country was sending men to Canada to study our conditions and to find out how we were making butter; they even took men from here to teach them how we were producing butter. But they have improved on us, and while Canada has, Rip Van- Winkle like, been asleep for a great many years, New Zealand has steadily marched ahead. It seems to me we must wake up, we must take note of these conditions and proceed to meet them, or else be prepared to lose the British market.
The expansion of this industry is reflected in the prices. In 1922 the average price for creamery butter in Canada was 56 cents a pound; in 1923 it dropped to 35 cents; and in 1924-the figures are not available yet^-I understand they will work out at about 31 to 32 cents a pound. The possibilities are that next year there will be a still further drop in price. In fact when I left Saskatchewan about ten days ago butter was selling in country stores at 20 cents a pound, something hitherto unheard of ait. this time of the year. I would again impress on the minister the necessity of doing something to enable us to get a standardized article on the British market, an article that will be a guarantee to the British consumer that whether he wants a poor grade or a good grade he can depend upon getting it day in and day out at a uniform quality. It is not so much a case cf producing a better article as a standardized article, an article of such uniform quality that the consumer will know wfiat he may expect to get. I should like to quote further from this report of Mr. Ruddick's in which he points out what we must do in order to hold the export market:
There must be keener appreciation of the supreme importance of quality.
Then he says:
The universal grading and more frequent deliveries of cream for butler making, and the proper maturing of cheese in suitable temperatures before shipment, should be put into effect as soon as possible.
I think this point of proper maturing was raised by one of the hon. members on my right this afternoon-the importance and necessity of the proper maturing of cheese before shipping. Again Mr. Ruddick states:
There must be the fullest co-operation between all the elements that make up the dairying industry in
Supply-A griculture

Canada. Private or selfish interest must not be allowed to stand in the way of any impiovement that has for its object the general good of the industry. The making of butter and cheese should be recognized as an im. portant manufacturing business, which it is, and should be treated accordingly.
In the Manitoba Free Press of January 27, 1925, Dr. Grisd'ale, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, is quoted as follows:
Canada had to depend upon her export market for success, the speaker explained, and to do it successfully she needed uniformity, quantity and quality. In defence of this order of importance he said that if a commodity were uniform, plentiful and cheap enough, it would sell on the British market, quality being a very valuable third. Grading helped all these things in more or less obvious manner.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if we are going to hold this market at all the situation must be dealt with immediately, because production is increasing to such an extent that people in the west are beginning to be discouraged, and if there is a still further slump in butter prices I know just what will happen. We have been doing a good deal to stimulate the dairy interest, we have been trying from one end of the country to the other to encourage our people to go into mixed farming, particularly in the prairie provinces. Hon. members all over the House have been pointing out to us repeatedly the necessity of mixed farming in the west. I want to remind them now that we are in mixed farming on the prairies to-day to a greater extent than are the farmers in the eastern provinces. A study of the trade figures will show that we are producing per farm more dairy products to-day than any of the other provinces. And yet you are continually telling us to go into mixed farming as a cure-all for our troubles. We want your assistance if we are going to continue this mixed farming, because with, the slump in the value of wheat and other grains we have had to fall back on the dairy industry; but with the prices dropping as they are to-day and our market contracting something must be done to maintain our position. The cream grading system in Ontario and the western provinces is helping to that extent, but if over-ripe or rancid cream is used in the manufacture of butter in the other provinces, it means that that butter manufactured from it will go with ours to the Old Country as Canadian butter, and will lower the general standard of the whole commodity. I should like to have some assurance from the minister that before this session is over he will do something to try and improve this grading system and put it on a uniform basis.


William Richard Motherwell: Before referring to the statements made by the hon. membei who has just sat down (Mr. Campbell), 1 will answer a number of questions which were asked before we rose for dinner, answers to which we did not have ready at that time. The National Dairy Council was organized late in 1918 or early in 1919, and D'Arcy Scott has been its secretary since its inception. The board of directors consists of some forty members, representing almost every dairy, milk, ice cream and allied organization from one end of Canada to the other. The executive council consists of the president, Mr. Stonehouse, of Toronto; the vice-president, Mr. Joseph Calder, of Moose Jaw. The directors include Mr. W. W. Prevey of Edmonton, Mr. R. J. Underwood of Saskatoon, Mr. O. N. Andreason of Humboldt, Mr. G. N. Torell of Winnipeg, Mr. R. M. Player of Walkerton, Ontario, Mr. W. F. Kay, M.P., of Phillipsburg, Quebec, and Mr. A. H. Cutten, of Lower Truro, Nova Scotia.
I find the amount of butter imported last year was only about half of the figure I gave. From recollection I stated three million pounds, but I find that the actual figures are 1,296,709 pounds from New Zealand, 165,801 pounds from the United States, and-rathei strange to say,-94,228 from the United Kingdom. Sometimes both eggs and butter, for various trade reasons, are returned from the United Kingdom, but it is very rarely that the market makes this profitable.
Kraft cheese has been analyzed very carefully and found to carry no adulteration, so I can allay the fears of my hon. friend from Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy). I know he likes that brand of cheese, but it is so good and so reasonable in price that naturally he came to the conclusion there must be something the matter with it. Well, I was under the same impression, but I find by our analysis that it is all right. We have no statistics with regard to the quantities of fancy grades of cheese that are made in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: When did the government start paying the $3,000?


William Richard Motherwell: From the beginning I understand. The estimates were ready when we came into office and we simply continued the amount as it wras.


Arthur Meighen: It does not appear in last year's estimates.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, under miscellaneous. Mr. Scott was the secretary when this government came into power and I understand that he was the secretary from its

Supply-Agriculture
inception, so that there has been no change in that respect. Evidently the dairymen think Mr. Scott a good secretary, otherwise they would not retain his services so long. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) misunderstood me when he said I promised a better grading system when the people demanded it. I did not intend to say that, and I do not think I did say it. I told the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy) that we would extend the system of grading for export to the product for home consumption as soon as there was a reasonable demand for it. The market reports show that a considerable quantity of butter is voluntarily graded in Canada even now. We grade at Montreal anything that presents itself for grading, whether it is for consumption in the home market or for export, but the grading is not compulsory with respect to home consumption as it is in the other. A certain amount of latitude must be allowed in connection with internal commercial transactions; it may not be desirable to hamper them with a grading system. You can even buy seed grain or oats from your neighbour without any requirement as to grading. It is only when you are selling to some one at a distance, to whom you cannot talk, that it is desirable to proceed on that basis. According to the market reports in the Montreal Gazette No. 1 butter is quoted at so much, No. 1 cheese at so much, and so on, which shows that the grading is recognized as applied to the product for home consumption. If we made it compulsory it might be' found very vexatious in the case of small transactions, which could not be carried out unless the grading requirement had been complied with. That is not the idea of a grading system.


Milton Neil Campbell: I had particular reference to grading for export, not for home consumption.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not hear my hon. friend make any suggestion in the matter. I gathered he was somewhat doubtful about the quality of the butter in eastern Canada compared with that of western Canada, but he should be generous and not rub that in too much. I think they are all conscious of it down here, that they have been a little slow in getting their grading system perfected. But they are under way now; legislation is before the provincial legislature at Toronto and we look for better things. We adopted that at the beginning as a basis, without any knowledge of dairying at all. Probably we did not know any better; we did not know any other way. We simply took to it naturally as a duck takes to water.


Donald Sutherland: Does the minister confirm the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Campbell) that the standard of Ontario butter is very much lower than that of the other provinces?
Mr.MOTHERWELL: Of course; I thought every hon. gentleman knew that.


Donald Sutherland: According to the
statement of the Department of Agriculture with regard to pasteurized butter, graded, from all the provinces, Ontario is pretty near the top of the list, with a rating of 82.3 per cent. Saskatchewan, the province from which the hon. member (Mr. Campbell) comes, is rated at 65.4-quite a difference in favour of Ontario, notwithstanding the efforts of the minister and other hon. members to make it appear that the standard of butter in Ontario is very low. I grant you that much of the butter consumed in Ontario is low grade, because much of it is imported into the province. According to this statement the rating of the Maritime provinces is the highest; Manitoba comes next with 85 per cent, Ontario next with 83.2 per cent and Quebec next with 82.4 per cent.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend has evidently not been watching carefully the lists of prize winners at the various fairs, including the Royal and the Canadian National exposition. He has not observed how many trophies and how much jewelry have been carried off by Ontario and the eastern provinces during the last three or four years as compared with the west. At least three-quarters of the prizes went to the prairie provinces.


Donald Sutherland: Is the committee to infer that this statement issued by the Department of Agriculture is not correct?


William Richard Motherwell: It must be right if it came from there, but I am drawing my hon. friend's attention to the other phase of it.


Donald Sutherland: The department says that Ontario is almost at the top of the list.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Our average is the best. They had some specials.


Milton Neil Campbell: I did not wish to reflect upon the quality of Ontario butter. I am eating it here every day and find it excellent. But due to a lack of a cream grading system some of the butter, which may be excellent when it is eaten fresh, is stale or a little rancid by the time it reaches the Old Country, and this is not the case with the other butter. I think I quoted from an Old Coun-
Supply-Agriculture

try paper last year in which it was pointed out that the quality of the butter from the prairie provinces was very much higher than that from the eastern provinces, due to this very fact. Suppose 75 per cent or over 80 or 90 per cent even of the Ontario butter was a little above the standard of that of the prairie provinces, yet the fact that the remainder of it was a little below standard, due to these particular causes, would have a tendency to bring the whole grade of the butter down. I am not complaining so much of the quality of the butter as of a lack of standardization, because standardization is what we need in the Old Country. The minister made the remark that I failed to put forward any suggestion. The suggestion I made was that we bring our grading regulations up to the same standard as that of New Zealand. The minister admitted last year that the people of western Canada were prepared to accept that standard, but he said that the people of eastern Canada were not prepared for such drastic regulations. Drastic or not, it seems to me we must deal with that situation. It is not a matter for any geographical discriminations at all. We must get Canadian butter, regardless of where it is made, whether it is made in Quebec, Ontario or in the prairie provinces, on a standardized basis, so that any man buying that butter in London, whether he wants a cheap or a dear article will know that he can come back the next day, the next week and the next year and get that very same quality of butter. That is what we want.


William Richard Motherwell: We have that, I
think. The standard of our grades is not only the same all over Canada, but it is as near as we can get to the New Zealand standard, because we recognize we have to compete with them.


Mr. CARROLL:: I have not heard any very sound reason given by the minister for the inclusion of this item of $3,000 for the National Dairy Council. The last reason I have heard given for it was that the late government had been used to putting this item in the estimates. I cannot say that that appealed to me as a very strong reason.
If the National Dairy Council are going to get this $3,000, there are other basic industries in this country who will be approaching this government for a grant, and with just an equal right. For example, we have the Miners' Union in Nova Scotia and in Alberta; we have the Fishermen's Union on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts; we have the steel workers' unions; and each one of them is just as much 
entitled to a grant of $3,000 a year for the purpose of placing their propaganda before this country as is the dairy council. These dairymen are a splendid class of men, and they are doing a great deal for their special industry, but I do not see why this government should pick out this particular industry of all the basic industries of this country, and hand them $3,000 a year. I think the minister should reconsider this vote of $3,000. The last time on which I knew the National Dairy Council to be very active in this country was when they were by their propaganda and organization opposing the wishes of about half the population of this country, and I suppose they were using part of this $3,000 on their propaganda. Personally I am against this vote of $3,000, first for the reason that if we are going to subsidize an industry of this kind we should subsidize industries all around and give every organization in this country that is doing equally well for the industries it represents a similar grant, and secondly for the reason that I do not think the National Dairy Council are using this $3,000 in the interests of dairying or of the dairymen.


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) has cast some reflections on the late government because of an item in the estimates of $3,000. Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to call his attention to the fact that in the years 1918, 1919 and 1920 the votes for this particular item amounted to the sum of $155,000, and the vote this year amounts to $230,000. This Minister of Agriculture of ours is some little spender. Now let me point out to the Home where some of the money goes. One item alone in the Auditor General's report for the year just closed, 1924, shows $82,000 going for salaries for officials and their expenses right here in Ottawa, outside of civil government. Compare that with a total vote during the years 1919 and 1920 of $155,000. Besides this expenditure of $80,000 odd for employees here in the central place, where the officials are right beside the minister, there are all sorts of other expenses, ias you will find if you examine the Auditor General's report. There are banquets to delegates, all sorts of expenses for people coming in and going away from here running up to $5,000 in the case of some items. It seems to me if the member who has just spoken (Mr. Carroll) has such regard for an item of $3,000, he had better look into the expenditures a little closer and check up some of these other items.


William F. Carroll: I made a very good
start.

Supply-Agriculture
Mr. CHAPLINI agree with my hon. friend in respect to the 83,000 item. I will vote for the exclusion of it.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member
for Lincoln thinks we are spending too much on inspection-


James Dew Chaplin: Not on inspection.


William Richard Motherwell: -and the hon.
member for Glengarry thinks we do not spend enough, so I assume we have struck the happy medium and are spending just about right.


James Dew Chaplin: I am not making any
reference to inspection. I am kicking about banquets and the other stuff.


Mr. LEADER:: Mr. Chairman, I am mighty glad I have found a recruit. I brought up items of this nature in the House last year and pointed out where it was possible to save much money by controlling our expenditure on banquets, entertainments and so forth. I hesitated about introducing this matter before six o'clock when the minister and in fact all the members of the House seemed to be in good humour. I see an item here in the Auditor General's report which I shall read to the House not only for the benefit of hon. members but of all those who read the newspapers and Hansard. This was a banquet given to some delegates who attended a convention here in the year 1924. It reads:
Chateau Laurier, banquet to delegates attending- Dairy Convention at Ottawa, 87 dinners, $174.00; Cigars, etc., $22.50.
This was only one of the smaller banquets, but it ran away with money that is being charged up to the taxpayers of this country annually. One does not need to blame this government alone for expenditures of this sort, for you can go back for years and find that previous governments have done likewise. I want as a representative of the people here to protest against this unwarranted and unjustifiable expenditure of public money.


William Richard Motherwell: Maybe when my
hon. friend knows the circumstances associated with these so-called banquets he may be willing to support the expenditure. Quite frequently we call conferences representing various branches of agriculture to Ottawa to discuss various questions before we take action. When we do that we pay their expenses here. Having called them together, we have a right to pay at least part of their expenses. If they had looked after themselves at that particular meal, I do not know how much it would have cost them, perhaps
two or three dollars a plate if it was at the Chateau, but as we had them all together and could call the feast ourselves, we could do it for about $1.50 a plate.


George Perry Graham: Wholesale rates.


Thomas Henry Thompson: Before six o'clock I
asked what was the salary paid to the secretary of the National Dairy Council. Is the minister prepared to answer that question now?


William Richard Motherwell: Inasmuch as we do not pay the shot, I have not made any inquiry. I do not know what he is paid.


Thomas Henry Thompson: I would judge from the report that they were paying him pretty well. If the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Leader) had read a little further down in the accounts he would have found an item of 85,013.45 for the travelling expenses of the delegates attending the dairy conference at Ottawa.


William Richard Motherwell: They did good work.


Thomas Henry Thompson: Now for one I am absolutely opposed to the vote for this purpose. I think it is needless. We have the secretary of the National Dairy Council drawing a very large salary. He is a lawyer in the city of Ottawa who has been paid a very considerable amount, by this government during the past two years, and he is a very useful man at election time to the government; he has been out on the 6tump campaigning for them. I repeat that I am absolutely opposed to the voting of this 83,000, and I want to put myself on record to that effect.


William Richard Motherwell: May I point out that this vote is $3,000 smaller as compared with last year. Last year there was the same amout as this year, plus an item of $3,000 in miscellaneous expenditure for the secretary of the National Dairy Council. The smaller amount to be voted this year takes care of the general activities of the department and also meets the contribution to the dairy council. Consequently the vote is less by $3,000 than it was last year, there is no doubt about that.


Donald Sutherland: For how many years has the vote for this purpose been included in the estimates?


William Richard Motherwell: I know it was there When we came into power, and my information is that it has appeared from the very inception of the organization. The reason I mentioned Mr. Scott was because some hon. member made some suggestion as to Mr. 254	. COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture
Scott's alleged conduct in apparently wanting to associate himself with this government. I merely wish to say that Mr. Scott was there from the beginning of the organization, and that we had nothing to do with his appointment or the paying of his salary.


Donald Sutherland: I want to protest against the lack of activity on the part of the dairy council; I am afraid they are a useless body. I think it has been amply demonstrated to the minister that the dairy products of Ontario are rated very much lower than those of any other province. On the other hand the records of the department show quite the contrary, and if the minister does not take steps to correct the impression that has been left on the House he will assume quite a responsibility.
With regard to cheese I notice that the same statement issued by the department over which the minister presides shows that Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island- those are the only three concerned I presume, there is not very much cheese shipped from western Canada-are rated very high. Eighty-three per cent of the cheese from Ontario was graded as first. In the province of Quebec the grading was 68 per cent, and in Prince Edward Island 62 per cent. Then, as I pointed out before, in the matter of butter Ontario, out of all the provinces mentioned, is rated as third. The Maritimes come first with a rating of 89.4 per cent; Manitoba is second with 85 per cent; Ontario is ranked as third with 83.2 per cent and the other provinces are rated considerably lower than that. This statement showing, I believe, what is absolutely correct-because the officials of the department I know are competent and would not issue a statement if it was not correct-is significant. I know there has been an attempt made for a considerable time past to make it appear that dairy products from the province of Ontario are very inferior to those produced in many of the other provinces. As a matter of fact I know that a good deal of inferior butter finds its way into Ontario as a result of the low tariff existing in this country. The minister foresees the time when stores in Toronto and other cities will be selling imported butter from Australia and New Zealand, and yet he informs the House that he is a party to a trade arrangement with Australia under which the tariff on imports of dairy products from those countries will be still further reduced. It is a well known fact that much inferior butter has been imported into Canada. The minister to-day stated that inspectors are being sent 
throughout Canada, who find that considerable adulteration is taking place. I think it is up to the minister to inform us who the parties are who are adulterating dairy products, butter for instance, and where they are located. That is a most important thing for the people to know. If these parties are located in Ontario we would like to know it. If they are permitted to indulge in such practices I can only say the officials are not doing their duty. Nearly one-third of this vote is for the payment of officials-which does not include the salaries paid to the regular officials of the department under the head of civil government-and that is a considerable amount. When you find an item of $82,276 for officials in connection with this department surely it is not too muvh to ask that the act with respect to the adulteration of dairy products should be enforced and enforced to the very limit. If the minister wants to leave the impression on our minds that there is a considerable amount of adulteration going on, that cocoanut oil is being mixed with butter, and that the guilty parties are being found out, he ought to inform us how many cases of the kind have come under the notice of his officials and where the offenders are located.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think it would be quite fair to disclose the name of the creamery that has been charged with adulterating its butter. I understand from my deputy that the matter is under investigation now, and until we are absolutely sure as to the marking on the boxes, and that all the evidence points to that particular creamery, I would not like to publish the names for fear of doing an injustice to that concern. But I can tell my hon. friend that we are certainly getting after those who violate the law with respect to the adulteration of dairy products; there is no question about it. And we are instituting prosecutions. Sometimes it takes considerable time, there is a good deal of delay, there are adjournments and appeals, and other causes of delay. Nevertheless the government is instituting a prosecution, and we generally get results when the parlies are guilty. With respect to the matter of grading, if it will make my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) feel a little better I would draw his attention to the manner in which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has sized up the situation. He has said that there is no question but that the average in Ontario and the east, particularly the Maritime provinces, is higher than in the west. There is no question about that, but it is also true that the three prairie

Supply-Agriculture
provinces carried off the great bulk of the prizes at the great daily exhibitions throughout Canada. However, I will accept our own figures that the average of the grading in the east is higher than in the west.


James Dew Chaplin: What was the amount of
exportations of butter to Great Britain last year?


William Richard Motherwell: It was 21,000,000
pounds.


James Dew Chaplin: According to the report
I have, we shipped 4,000,000 pounds of butter. The minister before six o'clock told us at was 15,000,000 pounds, and now he says it was 21,000,000.


William Richard Motherwell: I have the figure
here, seven million dollars


James Dew Chaplin: I asked for pounds.


William Richard Motherwell: I can give the hon. gentleman both.


James Dew Chaplin: Before recess the minister said we shipped to Great Britain 15,000,000 pounds of butter. According to the trade returns of 1924, we shipped to Great Britain
4.371.000	pounds. I should like to know where the discrepancy comes in.


Milton Neil Campbell: I have the statement
of the Bureau of Statistics. This shows that the amount of butter we shipped to the United Kingdom in 1924 was 15,236,000 pounds.


William Richard Motherwell: Does the hon.
member want more than one year?


James Dew Chaplin: I am referring to the last
year.


William Richard Motherwell: We shipped out of the country 21,676,038 pounds.


James Dew Chaplin: That is the total export.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: The Trade of
Canada for 1924 shows the total exports were
13.648.000	pounds. In the exports to the United Kingdom there was a decrease of 75 per cent in the quantity of butter exported from the amount exported the year before. In 1923 there were exported 17,527,407 pounds, and in 1924 there were exported 4,371,197 pounds. Surely there must be some explanation for this tremendous discrepancy.


William Richard Motherwell: What is the hon.
gentleman quoting from?


Donald Sutherland: The Trade of Canada for 1924, published by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Milton Neil Campbell: I have before me the
figures prepared by the Bureau of Statistics which show the shipments of butter to the United Kingdom for 1922 to be 17,000,000 pounds; for 1923 4,000,000 pounds and for 1924, 15,000,000 pounds. I may say this is for the calendar year and not for the fiscal year. That may be where the difference occurs.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
what there is involved in this.


Donald Sutherland: There is something
involved in the fact that the fiscal year ending March 31 shows a falling off of about 75 per cent in our exports of butter to the United Kingdom.


William Richard Motherwell: The inference is
that the butter being better we eat more of it at home.


Donald Sutherland: The minister tried
to convey the idea that there was a good deal of adulteration taking place in the manufacture of butter, and upon being asked how many cases of this kind have been detected, who the parties are and where they are located, it narrows down apparently to the case of one creamery, and he does not think it would be well to divulge the name. I think the minister is doing a great deal to discredit the standard of our dairy products, if he wishes to convey that idea. When asked to specify he does not think it would be advisable to mention the particular creamery that has been engaged in this work. I hope I have not misconstrued the minister's statement, or at least I hope it is narrowed down to one instance.	.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon.
friend overlooks the fact that I said there was just one case where it had been traced to a creamery-


Donald Sutherland: Exactly.


William Richard Motherwell: -where it had been exported and traced back to a creamery, and we are in course of investigating that further before we will be justified in coming to the conclusion that it is the guilty party.
From April 1, 1924, to January 9 p.m. 22,	1925, 75 convictions were
secured by inspectors in connection with which fines amounting to $4,686.10 were imposed. Of these convictions 43 were on account of excess water in butter; six were on account of short weight prints of butter; 25 on account of butter containing foreign fat and one on account of inferior curds hav-
Supply-Agriculture

mg been placed in the centre of cheese. The principal prosecutions have been on account of putting too much moisture into the butter, and there has been a substantial number of prosecutions.


Donald Sutherland: Does the minister
say there were twenty-five cases of foreign
fat being mixed with the butter?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, whatever I
have read.


Donald Sutherland: This is the most
important feature of the -whole matter, because it is well known that a great deal of this adulteration has been going on, and if there are twenty-five instances of foreign matter being mixed with butter in this country, it is not any wonder that our butter has a poor reputation.


William Richard Motherwell: Only one case for
export.


Donald Sutherland: I am speaking of
the butter for home consumption. The people of this country are entitled to as good butter as the people of the Old Country.


William Richard Motherwell: No question about
that, but you were talking of spoiling our market.


Donald Sutherland: Yes, exactly; we
have a home market, which is a most valuable market, and we should encourage our people to use more dairy products than they are using, but if you are going to permit inferior butter to be brought in and mixed -with our butter and put on the market, then you will destroy 'our reputation for butter among the people of the country.


William Richard Motherwell: What does the hon. member suggest we should do?


Donald Sutherland: I am amazed to
find that with 25 cases of infractions the fines only amount to four thousand odd.


William Richard Motherwell: We do not impose the fines. The magistrate or judge imposes them.


Donald Sutherland: If the fines are not commensurate with the offence, I think it would be well for the minister to inform the House as to the names of the parties who have been mixing foreign matter with the butter, and tell us where they are located. It is too important a matter to be passed over lightly. This has been going on for a considerable time, and it is time a stop was

put to it, and penalties imposed which would be sufficient to prevent it occurring again. The most effective way I believe at present of dealing with it is to let the country know who these parties are and where they are located; then you will be able to trace the matter and get the facts.


William Richard Motherwell: In the act we are
drafting we are proposing to increase the fines. We find that both the judges and magistrates in their judgment impose fines which are pretty close to the minimum. I hope that the proposal which will be found in the new bill that I forecast before dinner will meet with the hearty approval and support of my hon. friend.


James Dew Chaplin: Were these individuals
breaking any law?


William Richard Motherwell: Well,	rather.


James Dew Chaplin: Then why should one
lawbreaker be immune from publicity and not another?


William Richard Motherwell: There	are usually
newspaper men around who give the necessary publicity.


James Dew Chaplin: I understood from the
minister a moment ago that these cases were not made public.


William Richard Motherwell: There was no publicity in the creamery case because there was no conviction; the party was only under suspicion.


James Dew Chaplin: I see no reason why the minister should not make the whole thing public before the committee.


William Richard Motherwell: This is not a private police court.


Donald Sutherland: The minister has
evidently given the creamery manufacturers a pretty clean bill of health.


William Richard Motherwell: If the hon. member (Mr. Chaplin) will ask for a return the names will be given him.


James Dew Chaplin: In connection with -this
item there was in the estimates in 1923 a sum of $175,000 and the item has grown year by year. I protest that it is time for this government to practise somewhat the economy about which they are boasting. The officials of this department are consuming too much money and it is time to stop this sort of thing. Here is a good opportunity for economy. The importations of butter are increasing while the exportations are on the decline, and yet the expenses of this department are going up.

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: I have already
pointed out that we have taken on the additional work of the grading system which in itself costs $75,000 in round numbers; and if we are to carry out the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Kennedy, Glengarry) which is not without merit, that will mean another $75,000 for the compulsory grading of the product for home consumption. Now, it is obvious that if you get a new service you must incur a greater expenditure.


Donald Sutherland: The minister has informed us that 25 fines were imposed for the mixing of foreign matter with butter. We were also led to believe that the creamery manufacturers in the country were not doing just as they should. The matter narrows itself down to this, that there is one creamery merely under suspicion without any conviction registered against it. It is possible that this creamery may have been a little careless, without having offended intentionally. But the fact is that in 25 instances foreign matter was mixed with butter, and in those cases there were convictions. Were these all individual cases, or were any of the 25 fines imposed on the same parties a second or third time?


William Richard Motherwell: Those 25 represent so many different parties I understand.


Donald Sutherland: I have for a number of years back, even before the present government came into power, taken a strong stand against the adulteration of butter, and that was one of the reasons I objected to the manufacture of oleomargarine; I did not approve of the manner in which the manufacturers of this commodity were permitted to bring material into this country without a tariff and mix it with other stuff and offer it to the public for sale. And until we take steps to see that the Dairy Standards Act is applied to all parties and to all dairy products put on the market we shall have a good deal of this inferior stuff offered the public, to the ruin of our reputation for wholesome produce I am ready to admit that you will find a great deal of this in the province of Ontario. Dairy produce is one of the things the value of which as a foodstuff the people of Canada have absolutely overlooked notwithstanding the high cost of living. If a great deal more dairy produce were used instead of so much of these inferior articles people would be healthier and they would be better satisfied, and until we see to it that no adulteration takes place we shall not have a desirable state of affairs. With the army of officials which we have at the present time there is no excuse for this condition continuing. If 17



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
the minister, in the bill that is to be introduced, will see that a penalty is imposed which will be so drastic that no one will attempt anything of the kind, the effect I have no doubt will be salutary. But that does not preclude the possibility of this cheap article being imported into the country and placed on the market where no standard applies to such importations. There is no standard' in the case of this stuff that is brought into the country, although there is a standard of grading in the case of the butter we export. You can import an inferior article which is subject to no system of grading and do anything you like with it, but when it comes to exporting local produce you are confronted with a system of standardization. The people at home are therefore suffering as a result of the regulations; we are doing everything possible to protect the health of the people abroad while we are doing nothing to protect those at home.
William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member, I take it then, is in favour of extending the grading system to all products, both imported and exported, alike?


Donald Sutherland: I am not very enthusiastic for a grading system. I have expressed myself with regard to this matter many times in this House, and I repeat now that I believe in competition wherever it is possible. I do not believe in too much nursing legislation; I do not think that we ought to do for people what they know a great deal more about than we do. This has been brought out by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Thompson) in regard to the cheese graded by Montreal as No. 1 and sent to the Old Country where it was sold as a lower grade. The minister asks, who has the authority over there to set aside our grading?


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say that.


Donald Sutherland: I misunderstood
the minister then. The statement made by the hon. member was that cheese had been shipped in this way and the minister took exception to the purchaser over there designating the article a lower grade than that which had been fixed by his officials.


William Richard Motherwell: It is a matter of
judgment on both sides.


Donald Sutherland: Well, there is one
thing certain, and that is that the purchaser knows what he wants and will pay according to the quality of the article. When you coddle people too much and do not allow their judgment full play you destroy it, just as the native faculties of a man atrophy



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
through disuse. I am not one of those who favour a good deal of the grading that is being done by the Department of Agriculture in another direction. Eggs for local consumption are graded in this country to-day, and eggs graded as No. 1 may be placed in a shop window where the sun can get at them through the glass and in twenty-four hours they are in such a state that they ought to be graded No. 3. People in that case have to exercise their own judgment, but the dealer might say that the eggs having been graded No. 1 he was not responsible for their condition. We have too many government officials in the country to-day. The minister is creating a whole army of unnecessary officials in connection with many branches of the Department of Agriculture and that this practice is having no good effect is borne out by the evidence which we have in the exports of produce of this kind-a falling off of 75 per cent in our butter exports last year compared with the year before. Is that a desirable state of affairs?
William Richard Motherwell: Our cheese shipments have increased.


Donald Sutherland: I believe our cheese shipments have been higher in years gone by. The possibilities along this line are very great indeed. I know considerable dissatisfaction exists to-day because of the fact that cheese has to 'be shipped from the factory to some grading centre, where it is graded by people who do not come in contact with the manufacturer. If the grading was done at the factory, the manufacturer would know why his butter was not given first grade and would take immedate steps to remedy the defect. As it is to-day, he finds weeks afterwards, maybe months, that his product is graded as No. 2 or No. 3, he is at a loss to understand this lower grading, and very often blames the official, although it may not be his fault at all. The minister informed us this afternoon that grading for western Ontario was done at London.


William Richard Motherwell: Part of the time.


Donald Sutherland: In the oldest cheesemaking district in the Dominion we find that grading takes place only part of the time. I believe the next grading station is at Belleville?


William Richard Motherwell: Toronto and Belleville.


Donald Sutherland: Frequently it is
weeks, yes I guess many weeks sometimes, before the manufacturer of the cheese knows just exactly how it is graded.


William Richard Motherwell: A triplicate copy
of the certificate is sent immediately to the manufacturer and all other parties concerned.


Donald Sutherland: Is the cheese graded immediately it is received or after it has been in the cold storage plant for some time?


William Richard Motherwell: If we adopted my
hon. friend's suggestion of grading cheese at its point of manufacture, we would have to employ three or four times as many graders at a corresponding expense, and the work would not be done as satisfactorily because it would lend itself to all kinds of switching of certificates once the grading goes out of the hands of the cold storage authorities.


Donald Sutherland: Well, Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that wiith all our facilities for teaching people how to make cheese and butter those who are engaged in cheesemaking should be taught in the dairy schools how to manufacture an article of the quality most in demand.


William Richard Motherwell: That is a provincial matter.


Donald Sutherland: Yes it is; and now
the government steps in and says, " No, we are not concerned about who makes the cheese, but we will see that it is graded, and if when the cheese reaches the Old Country it is found to be of a lower grade the dealer must lose the difference in price, and we are not prepared to stand behind our grade." Is that fair?


William Richard Motherwell: Do you know any
country where the system of grading is different?


Donald Sutherland: I am speaking of
the practice here, and I am pointing out that it would be much more satisfactory and desirable to instruct our cheese manufacturers how to make a high-grade article. Let there be some competition along this line, and it will be unnecessary to have such an army of officials, whose activities are bound to have an irritating effect upon those engaged in the industry. If I were a manufacturer of cheese I would prefer the old practice under which the buyer attended our cheese markets and bought on grade, and if the cheese was a low grade the fact was pointed out to the man in the factory. To-day under the present system of grading the man in the factory may not know for some considerable time how his cheese has been graded, and naturally he is very much dissatisfied if he finds that it has

Supply-Agriculture
been given a lower grade than that which he considered its quality entitled it to receive. I am afraid no improvement has taken place under present methods.
Mr. WARlNER:	I think a great deal of
benefit should result from this discussion, but I should very much dislike to see the -item cut down. From my knowledge of the dairy business I am convinced that Canada depends a great deal upon its development, and I am glad that the government is active in promoting the industry. But I also feel that some of the criticism to-night has been timely. I would not oppose the grading of our butter for home consumption, but I have not studied this question so -much as I have the necessity of securing uniformity of grade for our export butter. Our home -market is good, but we cannot get -rich by selling to ourselves; we must export our surplus to bring money into the country. The prosperous condition of the dairy -industry in my part of the country has helped people to carry on, and many of them are doing quite well in the business. The hon. member for Mackenzie (MY Campbell) has dealt in detail with the subject of grading. As I pointed out last session, our disadvantage in respect of export trade as compared, for instance, with New Zealand, is that we have a limited federal jurisdiction and cannot encroach on the provincial field. I realize there is difficulty in securing export control by federal legislation, but if we could secure such control I am confident it would be better for us. My own province of Alberta has been improving grades until it has established a good reputation for its butter on the Old Country market. With respect to the 13,000 grant to the National Dairy Council, I do not stand for subsidies and bonuses more than other members of the House.
Ordinarily we are not supposed to ask for bonuses, but I know so well what the National Dairy Council have been doing that I think this $3,000 is well placed when it is put in their hands to help promote the dairy business in Canada. There seems to be some question as to how the National Dairy Council is formed. I know that in our province there are different sections of the dairy association: -the -producers' section have a representative an-d the manufacturers have theirs, the work, however, being that of one organization. I do not care to stir up the oleomargarine question, which has been referred to several times to-night, because I think it is dead; at any rate I hope it is. The National Dairy Council did much to bring about the defeat of oleomargarine in Canada; 17i
in fact, they were perhaps one of the chief factors in the fight. When we think of the work that the National Dairy Council has been doing for agriculture and for dairying we should not make mountains out of mole hills in regard to this vote of $3,000. It has 'been a great source of satisfaction to me that the present government have been as favourable as they have to the development of the dairy business. They may have made mistakes, but people who -do not make mistakes do not do much else. I have myseLf on several occasions suggested remedies for defects in the regulations or in the laws and I -believe we can improve them. If we try to help the government in -the improvement of laws and in the development of the dairy business we will get much further than if we simply find fault with everything they are doing. I am not trying to defend the government, because I think they are able to defend themselves; but we cannot afford to cripple the dairy business in order to get back a-t any political group or any political -party that is in power. We slhoulld deal with this matter on its merits; we should not allow prejudice of any kind to interfere with the building up of the dairy business. I am sorry -to hear that the export has fallen off; I am at a loss to know why. I am sorry also -to hear that so much butter has been imported. Some few years ago a dairy -concern that I was interested in was called upon to compete with the New Zealand butter on the Pacific coast. The New Zealand butter got established at that time among those who cared for a lightly salted butter and we had some trouble to get a butter that would Compete with it, mostly on account of its carrying so little salt rather than being of better quality otherwise. It was not that there was not enough or as good butter in Canada, but the butter th-at came from New Zealand was different from ours. However, I -think we have largely overcome that. Let us help the government to remedy the defects connected with the handling of our dairy products and their sale in th-e export market. Let us do the best we can and let us not depend on the government to -pass a law in -order to make us do good work and to produce clean, sweet-butter and cheese. We should not expect -the government to do it all; we -can do a whole lot ourselves.


Milton Neil Campbell: For the information of
the hon. member (Mr. Sutherland) I would like to read a clipping from the London Grocer dealing with the question of butter. It is as follows:
The present season-
Supply-Agriculture

This refers to the season of 1923.
-has witnessed an unusually heavy import of Canadian butter. In a general way the butter from the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta proved superior to the article produced in the eastern provinces, and commanded a higher price. This goes to show the value of united effort as exemplified by co-operation between the creameries and the provincial governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and these provinces have very efficient systems of government grading.
I understood the minister to say that the regulations for the export grading of butter were the same in New Zealand as in Canada; am I right in that?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, as near as
possible.


Milton Neil Campbell: Then I am inclined to
think they cannot be very well carried out. Judging from information I have had from private sources, from people who have been in the Old Country and have bought New Zealand as well as Canadian butter, and also from articles in the Old Country papers, I am convinced that our butter is not grading up to the standard. I do not refer to quality so much as to standard; it is not equal to that of New Zealand. This is a matter that should be thoroughly looked into. I have talked to a great many people during the last two years who have been in the Old Country and I am assured by them all that they cannot depend on the standard quality of Canadian butter being maintained. Would the minister give us some particulars with regard to the two sets of regulations, New Zealand and Canadian? The last information I had was that they were very different.


William Richard Motherwell: Even though the
standards may be identical, it does not follow that the butters are identical. New Zealand may score higher on the same standard than we do, and thus produce a most acceptable butter. It may be in the salting; it may be in the texture. They cater more to the Old Country market than we do. We depend almost entirely on the home market; we do not strive after the foreign market to the same extent that Australia and New Zealand do.


Milton Neil Campbell: These essential qualities should, it seems to me, be provided for in the regulations-the salting, the flavour, and so on. Surely if the regulations are to be effective at all these things must be provided for. The question is a very important one. Nothing should be left undone to bring our butter up to the same standard as that of New Zealand.
fMr. Campbell.]


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
does not see the distinction. We can put on paper what we like as a standard, but that does not make the butter; the quality depends upon the person who makes the butter. Australia and New Zealand seem to make butter that is more acceptable on the market to which we also send ours; they seem to comply with the standard requirements better than we do, and they get a better price. Here are the standards for grades of creamery butter in Canada. We have not the Australian Standard, but it is largely the same. I may say Dr. Ruddick was over in New Zealand and Australia a little over a year ago, and he got the very last word on dairy production there. About twenty years ago he assisted in laying the foundations of the dairy industry in New Zealand himself, and his work has been carried on there by another Canadian who succeeded him. The standards are as follows:



STANDARDS I OR GRADES OF CREAMERY BUTTER

[Stage Direction]
Scale of points for scoring butter
Points
Flavour	 45
Texture	 15
Incorporation of moisture	 10
Colour	 10
Salting	 10
Packing	   10
Total	 100
Then it goes on to define what flavour means:
Flavour means fine, sweet, mild and clean. Texture firm, close, smooth and waxy.
And so on. If my hon. friend was abetter butter maker than I am, he would come nearer to that ideal. I am less competent, further away from that ideal than he is, but the standard is the same for us both. He merely succeeds in obtaining a higher score than I do. He may get 99 out of 100, and I may get 95, but we are both aiming at the same standard.
Milton Neil Campbell: Should not the regulations be fixed so as to make it a different grade if a higher figure is reached? Suppose one scores higher than 45 in flavour for No. 1, should he not get some special grade? Surely there is some way of getting around that.


Mr. GOULD:: I should like to ask the minister if in his opinion it was the good quality of our butter which caused the United States to put a duty of 8 cents a pound against it, and if so, why is it necessary to spend this huge sum to further increase the quality of our butter.

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: I think the action taken by the United States was simply in conformity with the general policy of their government. The farm bloc there have a little different idea of protection from the farm bloc in this House. They wanted to protect butter, so they put a duty of 8 cents against it. I do not think it was because of the special quality of our butter, but just on the general principle of keeping it out. I have another definition here of what the different grades call for.
Special grade butter must be made from properly pasteurized cream, showing no reaction by Storch test, total score 94 and over. Minimum score for flavour 41.
First grade of butter, total score 92, and under 94; minimum score for flavour, 39.
It goes on with the rest of the grades in the same way. The specifications for the different grades are set out just as are the specifications for the first three grades of wheat, for instance, with which my hon. friends are familiar. The statute fixes what shall constitute the first three grades of wheat, and the four commercial grades are determined by the Standards Board. These grades are applied in just the same way.


Oliver Robert Gould: Is one individual capable
of inspecting cheese, butter and eggs, or have you three sets of officials for grading these three products?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand the
same graders will grade both butter and cheese, but not eggs. There is nothing to hinder them from grading eggs also, but it is not practical for the grader to take on too many duties.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is anything being done
by the department to encourage our trade in butter with Germany? This year we shipped to Germany 862,000 pounds of butter; she is now our third best customer. I understand there are opportunities for a very large development of that trade there. I wonder if the department is doing anything to encourage it.


William Richard Motherwell: That is a matter
for the Department of Trade and Commerce. We are exporting so little butter compared with our total production that we have no difficulty in finding a market for it in Great Britain, but as a matter of fact I did not know that any of our butter was going to Germany. I do not know that it. would hurt if more butter did go; I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to. Our butter will seek whatever market is the best.


Milton Neil Campbell: It will not always seek it if there is not some effort behind it upon the part of the department. What I am concerned about is the rate at which our butter production is expanding. The minister knows the history of the butter industry in western Canada. I am concerned as to the outlet. When we look at the figures here, we find that the United Kingdom is increasing her consumption of butter every year. This year there is an increase of 6,000,000 pounds over that of last year in her consumption, and last year showed a very considerable increase over the preceding year; in fact, I believe that for ten years the consumption of butter in the United Kingdom has been steadily increasing, and yet we do not seem to be holding our own in that market. It seems to me there is something wrong, and if these regulations of ours are the same as those of New England it must be that they are not as strictly enforced. There appears to be something lacking. I have been assured by people from the Old Country that our butter cannot be depended upon to be always up to the same level like New Zealand butter.


William Richard Motherwell: For fear a wrong
impression has been left I want to repeat that a man who puts poor butter on the market may well be concerned as to the future price he will get, but the man with good goods need never fear that he will not get a good price for his product. There is always a bigger demand for high class dairy products than the supply.


Donald Sutherland: Has butter which is imported into this country to be graded?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
is not compulsory, but it is inspected. I think my hon. friend is under the impression that poor butter is being imported and is used for diluting our better butter. We have no knowledge of that. The adulteration is invariably done with some of these oils, such as cocoanut oil.


Donald Sutherland: The question I
asked w*as as to whether it was necessary to have this butter which is imported graded.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Donald Sutherland: It is not compulsory to have this imported butter graded, but it is compulsory if you are going to export butter to have it graded, regardless of what the demand may be abroad. With regard to ice cream, which has become quite an important branch of the dairy business on account of the dairy products entering into it,
Supply-Agriculture

the last report I have been able to get shows that for 1923 the value of the ice cream was $7,473,144, and that 89,809,600 pounds of milk went into its manufacture. If the minister is anxious to have an efficient and uniform system of grading let him turn his attention to the ice cream which is sold. A great deal of it is called ice cream, and I venture to say there is not a particle of cream in the mixture; that is well known.


William Richard Motherwell: I answered that
point earlier in the evening by saying that ice cream is under the Department of Health. Speaking from memory I think there is provision as to the amount of butter fat which it must contain, but the matter does not come under my department.


Donald Sutherland: It might, I presume, come under the Ontario Temperance Act. I can scarcely understand how the minister can contend that this should come under the Department of Health.


William Richard Motherwell: I	do not make
such a contention; the matter simply happens to be just there.


Donald Sutherland: I think the minister, in view of the fact that 89,000,000 pounds of milk go into the manufacture of ice cream and that he is at the head of this particular branch of the department, ought to take steps to assume control of the matter.


William Richard Motherwell: I have troubles
enough without borrowing any more.


Donald Sutherland: There is no commodity to-day on the market which is such a deception on the public as ice cream, a great deal of water, powder and other ingredients being mixed together and frozen. The fact that it is frozen is perhaps one of the few safeguards about it. The large quantity of milk I have mentioned goes into its manufacture, but if some steps were taken to ensure the purity of ice cream the amount of milk might be doubled.


William Richard Motherwell: I agree with my
hon. friend entirely. I may say, however, that I think some grading was done last year by the Department of Health. There is no question but that there is a lot of spurious stuff called ice cream.


Donald Sutherland: The minister thinks the matter is under the Department of Health.


William Richard Motherwell: I said I thought it had been graded last year. I know it is under the Department of Health,


Donald Sutherland: All I can say is
it is a most remarkable place to have it.


William Richard Motherwell: I agree with you.


Thomas Henry Thompson: I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Sutherland) as to the desirability of grading cheese in the factory. Representing, as I do, a dairy section I may say that we have had grading for a great number of years. The grading was done in the factory and gave entire satisfaction. Let me point out further that the dairymen took the matter up and sent a petition to the Minister of Agriculture asking for the grading to be done in the factory. The Eastern Dairymen's Association met in the city of Belleville and there was an attendance of some three or four hundred delegates. A vote on grading in the factory was taken, and there was a unanimous expression of opinion in its favour. The minister was represented there by Mr. Duncan Marshall, and he informed the dairymen that he would convey their views to the minister. A deputation was also appointed which went down to Ottawa and urged upon the minister that grading be done in the factory. The minister says it is impracticable to do this but in view of my extended experience I disagree with him. I know that a grader can grade three counties. The grading is practically done in the first two days of the week, and the grader has virtually the rest of the week to himself, so there is nothing to hinder him from driving around and inspecting the product of the factories. There would be an educational feature about doing it that way. The grader could explain where the defects in the cheese lay, and those defects could be more quickly remedied. At the present time the cheese are sent to Montreal, and the minister says a certificate comes right back. Well, it takes a few days for the cheese to arrive there and a week elapses, sometimes two weeks, before the certificates come back. I know this for a fact. I see a great many certificates and I know what I am talking about. In the meantime the maker has made perhaps a few thousand dollars worth of inferior cheese before the certificates have been returned. If the cheese were graded in the factory and defects were discovered an inspector could get there and recommend remedial measures at once. The minister asked the hon. member for South Oxford what other countries guarantee the grading. I want to say that no other country, to my knowledge, ships in just the same way that Canada does.	It is true that
grading is in force in New Zealand, but regrading is done and the purchaser does not

Supply-Agriculture
have to bear the loss. The minister has referred to the conditions in New Zealand being superior to ours. With that I do not agree; I believe we have the best known system in the whole world to-day. The cheese are bought in Canada, and the farmer gets his money the very day of the sale. At any rate this is the system in central Ontario; I cannot speak with so much certainty as to the practice farther east. Cheese from New Zealand is consigned to firms in the Old Country and is dumped on the market. Quite often a lot of New Zealand cheese is dumped on the market at once, with detrimental results to Canadian cheese, and a reduction in price.
I reiterate my request that some explanation should be given with respect to the vote of $3,000 for the National Dairy Council. The minister has not yet given one word of explanation as to what is to be done with this money. Outside of this particular vote, thousands of dollars have been spent in entertainment and the payment of expenses, but no details have been vouchsafed as to what the council did last year.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


Donald Sutherland: Surely the minister can give the information asked for as to what this $3,000 is for. Who is going to receive the money, that is what we would like to know?


William Richard Motherwell: I have already
answered the question.


Donald Sutherland: As a rule the details of disbursements from the public treasury appear in the Auditor General's report. In this way it can be ascertained who received a particular sum of money. What the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Thompson) wants to know is, who is going to receive this $3,000.


William Richard Motherwell: The National Dairy Council.


Donald Sutherland: What are they going to do with it?


William Richard Motherwell: It is intended to pay the cost of educational work in which the council are engaged throughout the Dominion.


Donald Sutherland: Last year we paid the travelling expenses of the delegates of this association, and several hundreds of dollars additional were incurred in entertaining
them when they arrived here. I do not believe the minister gave us more than one-half of the names of the members of this association.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right. I
thought it would be tiresome. I have them all here.


Donald Sutherland: Would the minister inform the House who appoints the members of the National Dairy Council, and how they are appointed?


William Richard Motherwell: By the various
dairy bodies throughout Canada, about twenty. The associations are as follows:
The British Columbia Dairymen's Association, The Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association, The Alberta Dairymen's Association, The Saskatchewan Dairymen's Association, The Western Canada Ice Cream Manufacturers' Association, The Manitoba Dairymen's Association, The Eastern Ontario Dairymen's Association, The Ontario Milk and Cream Produce Association, The Canadian Creamery Association, The Canadian Ice Cream Manufacturers' Association The Milk Producers' Interests, The Condensed Milk Interests, The Canadian Milk Distributor's Association, The Quebec Dairymen's Association, The Montreal Milk Producers Association, The New Brunswick Dairymen United, The Dairymen's Association of Nova Scotia, The Prince Edward Island Dairymen's Association, The Holstein Friesian Association of Canada, The Canadian Ayreshire Breeding Association, The Canadian Jersey Cattle Club.
And then follows the executive which I read earlier in the evening.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In view of the large grant which the Canadian National Dairy Council receives, does the minister approve of the action of its secretary in taking an active part in electioneering work while holding office?


William Richard Motherwell: I was not aware
that he did so. I suppose he has a right to exercise his franchise, even if he is a member of the association. We have nothing to do with appointing him or paying him. I do not control him in any way. Here are about twenty organizations without political predilections that I know of. They appoint Mr. Scott as their secretary. I do not know what we have to do with his political 10 p.m. activities, admitting that he does exercise these activities. I do not know that he does. He is responsible to these organizations who have appointed him and pay him, and if he has gone wrong they can call him to account.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is there any renovated
butter being manufactured in Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: Not that I know of.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What becomes of the rancid butter that is unfit to eat.
Suppl y-Agricult ure


William Richard Motherwell: I think it is shipped to the Old Country and the United States.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: For renovating purposes?


William Richard Motherwell: It is more a blending process, melting it down. In the United States I think it is renovated as well.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: And what is the average yield of the dairy cow in Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: About four thousand pounds.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What improvement have they made in the last three or four years?


William Richard Motherwell: It is very hard to tell. I think it is by a generous computation that we credit them with four thousand pounds. I had an estimate of the general increase and I think it was about 10 per cent. I question very much whether it is over four thousand yet. As a matter of fact a great deal of it must have been below four thousand to make the average an even four thousand. It is improving a little bit.


Donald Sutherland: Is cow testing still being carried on?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, under the Live Stock Act.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In view of the great importance of increasing the average yield of the cows of the country, with a view to cheapening the cost of production of dairy products, what steps is the department taking at the present time to improve the quality of our cattle?


William Richard Motherwell: I think that is really provincial work. In some of the provinces they have been engaged at it for some years, -Saskatchewan, for instance. Where the other provinces will not take it up we deal with it. Apparently some of the provinces are not alive to the importance of it. My hon. friend has struck the weak spot in our dairy industry-the low product per cow. It is astonishing how many boarders are kept in our herds. The matter should be taken up by the provinces. Some of the provinces, to their credit, have taken it up, and others are gradually taking it up and where they do not take it up we handle it.


Donald Sutherland: Would the minister be consistent, fix the standard of production for the cow and appoint inspectors to go round and see that the standard is lived up to? The minister has pointed out that these dairymen's associations appoint the members of the dairy council. The minister knows very

well that the dairymen's associations are not really dairymen. They are the dealers who are engaged in purchasing and handling dairy products. As far as Ontario is concerned I think that is the case.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the hon.
member is wrong.


Donald Sutherland: In the dairymen's
associations I think you will find the majority are engaged in that business, and they are anxious that this grading should take place, just as the packing house people are anxious that the department should undertake the grading of their hogs. This is well known. There is no more excuse for the government stepping in and grading the hogs that are sold on the market than there is for grading anything else. The packing houses should purchase the hogs according to the grade, just as they do beef animals, and it is just as reasonable to fix a standard for beef animals and compel them to be graded as it is to grade hogs. The packers could do this work, and they have no one to blame but themselves if the standard of pork in this country is not as high as it should be. They could pay the price the hog was worth, just the same as they could in the case of a beef animal, and yet the department are not grading these animals. They are not grading the butter which comes into this country, but they are grading the eggs that are laid, and there is no possibility of adulterating an egg. It is in a case which defies anyone to put any mixture into it. It is simply a matter of sizes and quality. It is one of the simplest questions that could possibly be dealt with, and I question if those who are purchasing eggs for use in their homes know a small egg when they see it. If the minister wanted to do something that would satisfy the full demands of the public, he would compel people to sell eggs according to their weight. But to appoint an army of graders and put them loose on the country and disturb conditions by the threatening attitude they are assuming to-day will do much to discredit the egg business in the country, and if it continues I question whether the government will not be forced to drop the system which they have adopted. They have people going round through the country at this time threatening that if the eggs are not sold according to grade the producers are going to be prosecuted immediately. They are not going to tolerate it any longer. What is the result to-day? No. 1 eggs of the highest standard are being sold as No. 2, because in this way they can avoid the penalty, and consequently eggs that should sell for a higher

Supply-Agriculture
price are being sold at a lower price. The consumer has to go and purchase the grade of eggs, and as a result is paying more than he should for those eggs. It is an unnecessarily aggravating restriction that I believe is going to do much to create dissatisfaction in this country. And this army of officials who have been turned loose on the country are the biggest menace we have.. The people of the country are intelligent, and we have schools to educate them to do things as they should be done. But when it comes to the National Dairy Council, I believe that a more useless body does not exist in the country, notwithstanding what others may say to the contrary. I believe I know what I am talking about when I make that statement. Now, it is only a short time ago since the minister altered the standard with regard to hog grading, raising the maximum weight by 10 pounds; and after the people had been compelled to accept a lower price during all that time it had been in effect the admission is made that it was all wrong. So that the people have had to suffer a loss at the hands of the department without being reimbursed. For the 10 pounds per hog they were forced to take a lower price. I put a question on the order paper last session to ascertain whether the department would reimburse them; for undoubtedly they have suffered at the hands of the department. The department admits that it was wrong so that the whole thing was merely an experiment, and now the minister is out with his egg-graders and is experimenting along this line. I am sure that this new experiment will work to the injury of both producer and consumer, because after eggs have passed through all these different processes of grading, entailing an additional expense, they will cost the consumer so much that he will be inclined to do with less of them. And if the producer is forced to sell his eggs as seconds to avoid anything of this kind he certainly will not receive as much as he formerly got for his produce.


William Richard Motherwell: I would point out
that we are discussing the dairy vote and I am afraid the hon. gentleman is off his eggs.


Donald Sutherland: I was making a
comparison between the different systems which the minister is developing and which are all along the same line. There is a National Dairy Council, and that was the matter that wias under discussion; and the minister apparently does not know where the money is going. In view of the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Thompson) that Mr. Scott, the secretary of the association, and the present organizer of the Liberal party, had both been
in his constituency talking to the people there, and had both been getting their money out of the Department of Agriculture, voted by the people, I think the hon. member is justified in suspecting that some of the money will find its way into the pockets of some of those who have been stumping for the government. We have been deceived in this respect before and it is quite possible that the same thing can happen again. I remember one night questioning an item in the minister's estimates and it was allowed to go through without an explanation, the committee being misled. Afterwards the minister absolutely refused to go back to it; he thought it was very clever to have got the item through that way and he laughed about it. A similar item has not appeared in the estimates since.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know what the hon. member is referring to.


Donald Sutherland: I made it clear; I
mentioned two names of men whom I had been discussing. One is now under discussion, the other having been discussed on that occasion.


Oliver Robert Gould: I was wondering if the minister would not concentrate on the Old Country market for butter. The British people are the greatest consumers of our exportable surplus of some 15,500,000 pounds. The minister might be living in Liverpool or in London and might secure to-day five pounds of Canadian butter bearing the Canadian brand with all the necessary qualifications. He would find this butter perfectly satisfactory, and going back to-morrow he would be unable to get more of it, simply because we could not export enough. The 15,000,000 pounds which we export to Great Britain will provide one-third of a pound per capita for the people of the Old Country, so that we are making a big noise about .nothing. My contention is that we should concentrate on the British market which will prove of considerable importance to us as our exports increase. We are doing good business on the British market and I do not think we should make any special effort to invade other countries. When my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) was speaking of eggs he said that this article went through so many processes that the price was increased so that the purchaser was bound to use less and less of it. I would remind him of the fact that they will use still less owing to the tariff. When we seek to enter the German market or any other market for that matter where they compete successfully with us, the moment we produce an extra No. 1 quality the people of that particular country will treat us in the same way as the United States have
Supply-Agriculture

treated us, by putting on a tariff against us. What benefit, therefore, shall we derive from developing that market? I argue for concentration on the British market; we get in free of duty, and our activities should be confined to that field.


Thomas Henry Thompson: Is the Finch cheese and creamery factory run as a commercial proposition or for experimental purposes?


William Richard Motherwell: It was started as
a demonstration about twelve years ago to prove that a large factory with a large turnover could produce butter and cheese more cheaply than could a small factory. One would not think that this would require any demonstration but apparently it does, because 90 per cent of the factories are too small to afford the payment of good manufacturers. You do not, therefore, get- the best results under such conditions. Having demonstrated that fact by statistics and results we feel that the work has been completed and have sold the building. We hope to take up similar work in Quebec later on.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What were the results of
the demonstration, in dollars and cents.


William Richard Motherwell: The patrons themselves would be better able to answer that question; the fact that we could not take care of the large numbers who wanted to take advantage of the facilities is sufficient proof of the success of the undertaking. The patrons of that dairy station were charged regular rates for manufacture. They received in premiums over and above the average price, as much as $18,000 in a year; and during the period of government operation they received over $100,000 in premiums just because the factory was equipped to make butter and cheese and sell milk or cream to the best market. A good deal of the product was sent either to Montreal or to the American market, according to where the greater advantage lay. The factory was able to show satisfactory results inasmuch as there was a large turnover. The supply of milk increased from 2,069,000 pounds in 1912, the first year of operation, to 11,500,000 pounds in 1924. This, I think, will show the popularity of the institution as well as demonstrate the fact that a large turnover makes for the reduction of overhead per pound. The revenue received from the Finch dairy station, together with the sale price, exceeds the total expenditure on the establishment. Thus the dairy branch has had the advantage of practical experience in operating a large factory at no cost to the government whatever, and the farmers in the locality have received over $100,000 more than

they would have received had they continued to operate the two small factories which were combined to make the Finch dairy station. I think this work was started under one of my predecessors, the Hon. Martin Burrell, and I wish to compliment him on the outcome of the demonstration.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why did not the minister
continue the good work if it was so profitable?


William Richard Motherwell: Because the demonstration has been completed. The present government of Ontario has taken the cue to some extent from the successful operation of that factory, and is bringing in legislation to consolidate the small factories and encourage the construction of larger factories. So I think our work was justified.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Who bought that factory?


William Richard Motherwell: The business in the district is becoming almost entirely confined to the cream trade; therefore it 'is difficult to carry on work in connection with butter and cheese. The station had become so large and cumbersome, and the demonstration had been so successful that we could not make it more so. The patrons to-day are shipping their cream in large quantities to both the United States and the Montreal market, and the business to-day is a purely commercial proposition.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Are the patrons deprived
of the advantages which the government provided at the dairy station?


William Richard Motherwell: The patrons were
in favour of selling the factory, and we gave them the first opportunity to buy it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Who bought it?


William Richard Motherwell: The Canadian Milk Products Company, at $25,000. We got back all our expenditure-made the experiment for nothing.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What capital investment
did the government make?


William Richard Motherwell: About $20,000.
Additions were made to the station from time to time as the business grew.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Was $20,000 the original
capital ?


William Richard Motherwell: No, it cost originally about $15,000.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does this vote include any money expended upon the Finch dairy station?

Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: No.


George Newcombe Gordon: Then the discussion is
not in order.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Mr. Chairman, my inquiry a short time ago with regard to the butter fat yield of cows in Canada was prompted by a question I asked a very prominent creamery man in a certain province during last summer.
I was astounded to learn from him that the average yield of the cows supplying his creamery was only 90 pounds of butter fat during the year, indicating that he could hardly be carrying on dairying at a profit, and the absolute necessity of adopting such methods as would improve the quality of his cattle at the earliest possible date. Is the minister still continuing the policy of distributing pure bred dairy sires?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, we are.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is the minister doing anything in connection with advance registration work of pure bred dairy sires?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, we are working in co-operation with the provincial organizations. We had a conference at which we discussed the question of advance registration of breeding animals. I forget what stage it has reached, but I know the proposal was very popular among the breeders, and it was taken to be an absolute requisite that if a buyer was to get value for his money he must know the production of the animal and its strain. I understand that the different breed associations are now engaged in discussing the teTms under which animals will be admitted to advance registration.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: You have not got the
standard settled yet?


William Richard Motherwell: I think not.


Thomas Henry Thompson: What was the item
last year in the estimates for the Finch dairy station, and is there an increased appropriation this year?


William Richard Motherwell: No vote has ever
appeared in the estimates for the Finch factory. It was simply a subheading under the general vote.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have before me the
Auditor General's report in which there is an item for the Finch creamery of $15,096.06, with the details specified, then an item for refrigeration of cars, followed by the general item, making a total of $226,000. Compared with the estimates for this year the figures in the report are lower.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the hon.
gentleman means that last year we had the cost of administering the Finch factory; this year we have not.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Then the estimates should be that much lower this year, but they are not.


William Richard Motherwell: We hope for a
little expansion in certain other activities. If we have the money we will probably start a similar institution somewhere in the province of Quebec, giving the same demonstration in that old province as we did in Ontario.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I would suggest to the
minister in all seriousness that there should be no further expansion of capital expenditure except where it is absolutely imperative. The country is burdened with taxation that' is invidious in comparison with the taxation of other countries and is faced with railway deficits. Surely the minister and his colleagues understand the temper of the people. I should hardly think that in contemplation of an electoral campaign, which certain events seem to point to, the government would expect to receive popular approval of any expansion of capital expenditure. As a matter of fact the estimates do not disclose any serious effort on the part of the government to practise that rigid economy which the public and many hon. members believe should be practised in these very serious times, and I am surprised that the minister should speak of expansion of capital expenditure in such casual terms without offering any explanation.


William Richard Motherwell: I will speak when
my hon. friend is through. We cannot both be standing up at the same time.


Leon Johnson Ladner: We do not seem to be,
either.


William Richard Motherwell: No, and I do not
intend that we shall be.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister has plenty
of chances to stand up. The trouble is that he does not speak to the point, but around it. I do not think we have had the information to which we are entitled. I have referred to the Auditor General's report and the decided increase involved in the estimates of this year. The minister says that is expansion, but what it covers the committee is at a loss to understand.


William Richard Motherwell: Now that my hon. friend has sat down I will stand up. Yes, it is quite explainable. If I understand my hon. friend aright, he thinks we should stand still and not expand.
Supply-A gricul ture


Leon Johnson Ladner: No:


William Richard Motherwell: Is that the idea,
that we should not expand in any particular?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I think -expenditures should be cut down.


William Richard Motherwell: In dairying? I
had not heard that note struck; on the contrary, I have had complaints from practical dairymen opposite me that we should extend our activities. I would like to meet all hands, but when two views are diametrically opposed I cannot meet both.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not want the minister to misrepresent my statement.


William Richard Motherwell: It has always been the intention of -the department that when the Finch demonstration was over we would transfer those activities to another province and give them- the same advantage. Possibly when we are through with Quebec we may, if necessary, go on to the Maritime provinces. This kind of thing is needed very badly, especially in the two older provinces where there are such a large number of small creameries and factories. As to the Finch factory, I have shown that we got back our $25,000 plus 1100,000 to the patrons over and above what they would have got if we had not carried on this experiment. That looks to me like good business, and we might well continue the work.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I wish to correct the minister when he throws out the inference that I suggested any standstill policy. The minister speaks of expansion, but he does not tell us what that expansion is to consist of.


William Richard Motherwell: I have done that.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I have not heard it yet,
and I do not think other hon. members have. This discussion originated out of the minister's statement that a little margin was being provided for expansion, but we do not know what the expansion is to consist of.


William Richard Motherwell: I must be a very
poor explainer. I said we hoped to establish a similar demonstration in the province of Quebec now that the work had been completed at Finch.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is provision made for that in these estimates?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What is the plan the minister has in mind?


William Richard Motherwell: To repeat in
another province the experiment we carried out in Finch.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is the place selected?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What plans have been
formulated?


William Richard Motherwell: We shall be able
to proceed on the basis of our experience at Finch. We have not yet determined where the factory will be located. I suppose we will have to follow the precedent established in Ontario by starting where three or four factories already exist, and dispose of them in some way. There is no use in starting on that until we know whether we get the vote through.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The province is selected,
the nature of the factory is determined. What further plans has the government formulated?


William Richard Motherwell: The same as at
Finch, except that we will build the factory all at once, not in pieces as we had to do before we knew what size would work to the best advantage.


Donald Sutherland: The	minister has
now given out information, after a long series of questions, that he might well have given at the outset.


William Richard Motherwell: I	have given it
three or four times already.


Donald Sutherland: The	minister has
not given it three or four times, unless within the last five minutes, so far as the transfer of the creamery at Finch is concerned. I think I have followed the proceedings tonight pretty closely, and until the hon. member (Mr. Ladner) brought the matter up I was under the impression from the statement made by the minister a little while ago that this amount was being dropped out of the estimates. Now we are informed that it is the intention to open up the plant in another place. A few minutes ago I asked with regard to the cow testing and was informed that that came under the live stock branch. Last year some $24,500 was expended for this purpose, under the item we are now passing for dairying. The minister informs the committee now that this passes into another item of the estimates. Here is a reduction of nearly $25,000 for cow testing, and another, I do not know how much, in connection with the Finch creamery, which indicates that there has been an increase of between $30,000 and $40,000 in the estimates under this head for this year. The committee would like to know what this increase is for. The items are entirely different from what they were last year if $25,000

Supply-Agriculture
for cow testing is taken out and the amount for the Finch creamery is also taken out. Does the minister propose to make up this increase in government officials? Nearly one-third of the amount last year was for that purpose. If he will tell us what the increase is for he will save a lot of unnecessary discussion.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend heard the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) and two or three others raise a point as to the advisability of making our grading system uniform. I explained that we had partly adopted the provincial system and that we hoped to make that uniform. Then we have the Bacteriological office, and the new station we contemplate establishing in the province of Quebec. That is what we have iD view.


Donald Sutherland: What will be the
estimated cost of these three activities?


William Richard Motherwell: Seventy-five thousand dollars is about what it costs for the grading now. The factory similar to that at Finch will cost in the neighbourhood of $25,000 if the same kind of building is put up. Possibly by putting it up all at one time we will save enough to offset the increased cost ol construction compared with that of twelve years ago. The cost of the Bacteriological office will be about $5,000.


Donald Sutherland: The minister evidently is going to withdraw the last of the experimental farm stations from the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario in the past has been carrying on practically all of this work with the exception of the central farm here at Ottawa, which is for the whole Dominion, while the province of Quebec is simply dotted with experimental farm stations and demonstration farms, and now they are going to receive another one, for $25,000 of this item is to establish a school in the province of Quebec. I think it would only have been fair that the minister should have advised the committee of this when he introduced his estimates. He proposes to take this station out of the province of Ontario and put it over in the province of Quebec, where they have already lots of them, and which province is receiving ten times the amount, yes more than that, for experimental work that the province of Ontario has been receiving. The province of Ontario has been doing this work itself and paying for it out of its own provincial estimates, while the other provinces have been coming to the federal government and getting them to carry
on this work for them. Now we learn that the province of Ontario is to be punished for something, and that somebody else is going to be rewarded for something, because I cannot see any other justification for it than that. The minister has not explained why this is being done.
With regard to cow testing, there was an item of $25,000 in the Auditor General's report last year which was paid out of this vote. The minister now quietly informs the committee that this is going to be placed under the Live Stock branch and will not come out [DOT]of this item at all. Consequently there is $25,000 there. We are also given to understand that this item is to pay for a whole lot more graders than we have had in the past- govtemment officials by the score, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the minister says, "Oh, we have not got a chance to expand. Vote us more money, and we will appoint another army of officials, and that will make farming prosperous."
The minister admits to-night that the exports of butter from this country to the Old Land last year decreased by 75 per cent over the year before. Surely this is enough to condemn the system which is in evidence everywhere in this country at the present time. I would like to ask the minister what amount will be required for the payment of these additional graders to whom he has referred.


William Richard Motherwell: It just depends on whether we take the views of the hon. member for Glengarry and go ahead and grade all the butter, or whether we take the views of the hon. member for South Oxford and just chew the fat. It will cost about $15,000 altogether.


Donald Sutherland: The minister has a very clear idea as to what he intends to do when he comes before this House with his estimates. It all depends upon what the hon. member for so-and-so or somebody else thinks about it. He will take the views of this member and that, and strike a happy medium finally, but at the present time he is in the woods. He does not know where he is, or where he is going to land. This is a new way of bringing estimates before the House. I think the minister is almost unique in that respect, and if we are going to have all the estimates dealt with in this way, we are going to have a considerable lot of time taken up dealing with them. The minister is going to find out before he spends this money what are the views of so-and-so. Evidently he understands what are the views of the
Supply-Agriculture

people of the province of Quebec with regard to the creamery which is now situated at Finch in Ontario. He thinks they are more entitled to it than the people of Ontario. Would the minister tell us whose views he is agreeing with when he does that? Is he agreeing with some hon. member of this House who has expressed the view that that should be done?
The minister knows perfectly well that the federal government are conducting practically all the experimental farm work in the province of Quebec; they have half a dozen experimental farms there, and a dozen, demonstration farms maintained by the federal government, and I do not think there is a single one in the province of Ontario, with the exception of the one on the Transcontinental at Kapuskasing, and a small tobacco farm of forty acres at Harrow. That is the extent of the experimental work this government is doing in the province of Ontario. In spite of all the apparent discrimination against this province in the past, matters are now going to be worse because the station at Finch is to be transferred to the province of Quebec. The minister says that if he agrees with the hon. member for so-and-so he is going to spend some of this money for graders of some kind, and all the committee is supposed to do is vote this sum blindly, and let the minister do with it just as he pleases. That is practically the policy the minister is adopting on this the first item in his estimates. Why does not the minister frankly and straightforwardly inform the committee what he proposes to do with this money instead of our having to drag the information out of him as we have had to do to-night? At this late stage of the debate on this one item we are now informed what he intends to do with a part of it, but as to the other part he has not yet decided. All we are expected to do is to vote the money, and if he agrees with the hon. member from some place or other he will do so-and-so, and if not he will do something else. Surely that is no system upon which to base a request for this committee to pass an estimate. The minister should know what he proposes doing with this money if we vote it. It is not his money; it is not ours; it is the money of the people of this country; they will be taxed for it and have to pay it out of their pockets, and they are entitled to know what is going to be done with it.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I would like to know what is the cost of transporting butter from Calgary by way of the Panama canal to Liverpool, and by way of Montreal to Liverpool;

also the cost from New Zealand to Liverpool, and the cost from the Argentine Republic to Liverpool.


William Richard Motherwell: I have not the
figures here. Some of the western butter goes by way of the Panama canal, and some by way of Montreal. It just depends on what kind of despatch they can get. Shippers by way of the Panama canal have had some difficulty owing to the butter contracting a fruity taste as a result of shipping it with oranges. I do not know whether that is going to deter the butter from going that way at all. A lot of shippers in Alberta I think prefer shipping by way of the Panama canal. That route attracts butter as far east as Regina sometimes. I do not think there is much difference in the rates. It depends on how long they can afford to wait. If the market is rising they do not like to ship by way of the Panama canal, and if they want to get to the market before it drops the butter will go by Montreal, because that route is quicker. We have not got the different freight rates here, but there is not very much difference.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In the Auditor-General's
report under the heading of Dairy, showing how the estimates of last year were spent, is an item "Extension of Markets." Is provision made for extension of markets this year, and if so how much?


William Richard Motherwell: I may say, in connection with the extension of markets estimate in case it should be thought we are seeking for markets in Europe and scattering our activities to an unnecessary degree, the expenditure is largely devoted to securing market quotations and sending them round to the farmers and the various dairy organizations and creameries, so as to keep them posted in regard to the actual condition of the market. Then we will be able to know exactly what they are getting-whether they are getting the market price or not.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister again misses the point; that was not my question. If I may submit, my question was not about scattering activities around. My question was whether provision is made in these estimates for the extension of markets as found in the expenditures of last year amounting to $28,000.


William Richard Motherwell: I am having it
looked up.


Donald Sutherland: Will the minister
assure the committee that the expenditure for cow testing is being taken out of this item?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.

Supply-Agriculture


Leon Johnson Ladner: No, Mr. Chairman, we
must have an answer.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think we have in the departmental accounts subdivisions to correspond with those which appear in the Auditor General's report, but the services are the same. Sometimes they change these heads and subheads from what they are in our own report. I find here "cargo inspection". That means at Montreal, or wherever the products are shipped from, and on the other side on arrival, just to look after the difficulties occasioned by storage in proximity to something that is objectionable; to see that the product is packed tightly and not shaken around in transit as it would be if
not packed properly. Now	let me	give some
details:	Salaries	
	1925-26	1924-25
Five cargo inspectors 	$ 7.675	$ 7,675One cargo inspector at Halifax.	2,047	2,047Five cargo inspectors in the United Kingdom	10,235	10,235
That deals with the report on the condition of the wares when they arrive there. That is how we got the information about the condition of the cheese boxes when they arrived in England. Sometimes the information comes from our cargo inspectors, and sometimes from visitors who happen to be around
the docks at the time of the	arrival:	
	1925-26	1924-25
Incidentals	$500	$ 500Repairs to thermographs.. .. ,.	298	298Travelling expenses to St. John and Portland	800	1,000Then it is carried forward $25,434:	Investigator for weighing of buttei and cheese	
. ..	$1,800	$1,785Travelling expenses	900	900Dairy market reports	1.800	1,740Travelling expenses	347	347Telegrams	600	600Cables	113	528Quite frequently we get cables as	well as
telegrams in order to keep up the requirements for information in the interest of those who have goods to sell. Formerly our dairymen were largely in the dark, or else they were put to considerable expense individually to get this information. We get it at the cost of one message. Then it is sometimes distributed either by telephone or telegram. I think in some instances it is done by radio. I saw one message that Dr. Ruddick sent over the radio.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is not the information I was asking for. There is an item in the Auditor General's report for last year which is:
Salaries and expenses of officials. $28,009.19.
The items which the minister was reading are the items under an entirely different paragraph known as "general expenses," and in the Auditor General's report a detailed list of expenditures appears. Does not the department follow a somewhat similar principle in arranging their estimates so that comparisons can be made between this year and last year?


William Richard Motherwell: These are the same services.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What do they amount to?


William Richard Motherwell: Under the headings I have just read out, 159,090. The items are not necessarily identical with those in the Auditor General's report. I should not like to take the responsibility for the entries in that report because items are sometimes consolidated or the statement abbreviated for the sake of convenience and a general statement made covering the whole of the items I have just read.


Leon Johnson Ladner: There is quite a difference between $59,000 and $28,000.


William Richard Motherwell: I think it is likely
that one of those amounts covers a larger field of activity. Are there any refrigerator activities included in the item about which my hon. friend is asking? Exclusive of refrigerator activities the amount is $30,990. I was including the refrigerator car service, and the icing of butter cars. The creamery cold storage bonus is also included in this item, so that I was including more under that heading than should have been included. Concluding with the salary of one market report inspector and travelling expenses, telegrams and cables, the item stands at $30,990.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If the item of $42,000 is
deducted-*


George Newcombe Gordon: That is not in this
vote, the minister says.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Chairman, I am making a comparison between the estimates of last year and those of this year, and I think it is perfectly in order to refer to these items. I say if the deduction is made of $42,000 and of $15,000 you have a total reduction of $57,-
000.	So that this year's estimate should actually be $57,000 less than last year, or else there are expansions which, with the exception of the one we have already discovered, have not been disclosed. I would ask the minister if there are any other expansions beyond the one he has disclosed which is to be made in the province of Quebec.
Supply-Agriculture


William Richard Motherwell: My figuring is that we have just about enough money to take care of the expansions that I have already enumerated. The vote will merely see us through and there will be nothing over for that purpose this year.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The question I asked
was: Are there any other expansions?


William Richard Motherwell: No, we have no
more. I think my hon. friend's estimate of the amount is not quite correct. Our first estimate was $24,000.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I beg to correct the minister on that. The actual expenditure out of last year's estimate acording to the Auditor General's report for cow testing was $41,915.14 -and if you add that-


William Richard Motherwell: I think that was
the year before.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Certainly, that is exactly
the point-the year before. The estimates of the year before and this year are exactly identical, $230,000. The minister informs the committee that the cow-testing appropriation is not included this year, that it is to be added to some other item; so that really this item has increased this year from $230,000 to $271,000, and if you take the Finch creamery which formed part of the $230,000 of last year, and add this year, you have your estimates increased from $230,000 to $287,000. That is what it comes down to. My point is this: if $28,000 is disclosed in the expenditure for the new factory in Quebec, what does the other expenditure consist of, or is there some other expenditure?


William Richard Motherwell: I cannot follow the hon. gentleman's figuring, but I know we will use all this money before the end of the fiscal year in the activities I have mentioned, in connection with the Finch factory and other services. We did not do any cow testing last year under the dairy vote, so that my hon. friend's computation in regard to the $41,000 is quite wrong. There was nothing spent under this same vote of last year.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister deny
the authenticity of the Auditor General's report?


Mr. MOTHERY ELL:: That is two years ago.


Donald Sutherland: No, it was 1924.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know
what the hon. member has before him. I know what I have here. There was no cow testing under this vote.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What I want to know is
whether, apart from this one expansion we have heard about, you will give us your word there is no other expansion.


William Richard Motherwell: I have mentioned
the three expansions; the bac-11 p.m. teriological office here, the establishment of a new dairy station, and the additional graders.


Donald Sutherland: How much was
paid out last year for bonuses to creameries.


William Richard Motherwell: You mean bonuses
to cold storages. There is a small bonus of $100 for the purpose of putting in creamery cold storages. I think the maximum is $100. The amount paid in 1924-25 was $2,700, for the purpose of supplying ice cold storage for temporary purposes.


Donald Sutherland: Could you inform
the committee how much was paid out the year before?


William Richard Motherwell: We have not got
it just now.


Donald Sutherland: Where were the
creameries located which received the bonuses last year? I do not mean the individuals but the number in each province which received the bonus.


William Richard Motherwell: There was $2,700
provided. That would be $100 apiece for 27 creameries. They are distributed all over the country. If my hon. friend wants the exact location we will foe able to get it for him. We have not got it now.


Donald Sutherland: It appears to me
the minister is asking us to blindly vote a lot of this money without very much information. Now taking the last report available, the Auditor General's statement for the year ending March 31, 1924, I find $8,000 paid out in bonuses, and with the exception of $100 paid in Alberta, it was all paid in one province. This was the province of Quebec; and yet the minister is going to transfer the station from the province of Ontario and place it in the province of Quebec. Why does he not present to the committee a detailed statement as to what he intends to use this money for? Would it not be more satisfactory to inform the committee why he requires the money, instead of putting it under the head of dairying? We would know how much of it was going for the payment of officials, what they were supposed to be doing, and how much would be paid for bonuses and anything of that nature. As it is there is just a blank note of so many hundred thousand dollars

Supply-Agriculture
under the head of dairying and that is a very misleading word when it covers such a wide range of expenditures. We have $5,000 for bringing the members of the National Dairy Council here to Ottawa, several hundred dollars for entertaining them and expenses of this kind, and the minister says, "Oh, but we must expand." The appointment of officials apparently is his idea of expansion. If the minister would undertake to present a detailed statement before the committee as to what amount was intended for each branch of the department under the head of dairying it would facilitate matters very much, and I would suggest that the committee rise and that the minister present us with a report of that nature when the matter comes before the House again.


William Richard Motherwell: The applicants for this bonus receive it when they comply with the conditions under which it is given. When the construction of a cold storage is made according to the specification the bonus of $100 is paid. A large number applied this year and some were held over because we were afraid our vote would be exhausted before the end of the year, but none of those who comply with the conditions are refused. Rather than run short of money eight or nine applications have been held over. They are the ones we naturally expect to give the bonus to next year. We expect there will be thirty-five in all, and that will clear up all the applications. No one is refused so long as he complies with the conditions.


Donald Sutherland: It is quite clear the minister had an estimate and he was afraid his estimate would be exhausted. Why not let the committee know what the estimate is? After he strikes an estimate as to what is required for these different branches under the head of dairying, why not inform the committee what the estimate is? It is apparent from the minister's last statement that he was afraid last year his estimate would be exceeded. The committee was not informed as to what the amount of that estimate was. Why should a committee of this House not know what the minister proposes to do with the money?


William Richard Motherwell: I think the hon.
gentleman has gone far enough in trying to make a case out of nothing. I have already indicated that $2,700 was spent last year on 27 of these cold storages and that we held over eight or nine applications. Either I have lost the faculty of explaining or my hon. friend has lost the faculty of understanding, because I have gone over the matter several times. The hon. gentleman seems to be magnifying 18
things and is raising his voice simply to leave the impression that something is being withheld. There is no desire whatever to do anything of the kind.


Donald Sutherland: It seems difficult to understand what the minister means. It is quite evident that he has had an estimate for this work and was afraid it would be exceeded. What was his estimate for last year? He has told us the amount that was paid out and he says that nine or ten applications were held over. And the year before $8,000 was paid out. What was his estimate the year before? Why not present a detailed statement giving all the facts so that we may know where we are? It is only fair that this information should be supplied.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not understand what the hon. member wants. We are discussing an estimate of $3,500 for 35 creameries at $100 each.


Donald Sutherland: Why could the minister not give that information before?


George Perry Graham: He did half a dozen times.


Donald Sutherland: Why should we have to extort the information in this way?


George Perry Graham: Since I came into the
House seven minutes ago the minister has made the same explanation three times.


Donald Sutherland: I venture to say this matter has not been before the committee more than five minutes. According to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) himself, it is only seven minutes ago since the matter was brought up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cold Storage Warehouses, $30,00C.
Mr. WOODS:: This is a small item for the cold storage facilities of this country. The organized farmers of Ontario at least are developing a co-operative market and a pooling system, and in order to carry out the enterprise successfully it is necessary to have adequate cold storage facilities. There are certain seasons of the year when there is over-production in butter and eggs and so forth, including fruit as well, and there are other seasons when there is a light production, not enough to satisfy the demand. At these times there is a scarcity, with the result that prices increase. In overcoming the difficulty cold storage facilities would prove of considerable advantage, and it would help to some extent to relieve the situation to which the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has referred, namely, the importation of eggs and butter of an inferior quality at

Supply-Agriculture

certain periods of the year. If we had suitable cold storage facilities to take care of our products and enable us to put them on the market as the demand occurred it would help the situation remarkably, and would level up not only prices during the whole year round, but the quality of the produce as well; that is to say, there would be a uniform quality. I believe it would be wise for the minister to go into the cold storage question more fully. While we are anxious to cut down expenses so far as we possibly can, there are many other items which in my opinion might better stand a reduction, with more beneficial results. But certainly we should encourage the establishment of cold storage facilities in the country.


David Spence: Is it proposed this year
to encourage the establishment of more cold storages by a system of bonusing up to a certain percentage, as in the past? Further, is it intended to retain the Montreal cold storage?


William Richard Motherwell: 
Arthur Meighen: Is nobody to-night going to point to this estimate as providing instruments of oppression of the masses? It is not very many years since this cold storage vote was denounced as only providing means for rich profiteers to withhold the food of the

people from consumption. I do not hear any voices along that line now. Has there been any change of policy in connection with cold storage warehouses ?


William Richard Motherwell: No. We tried to
make a change but we could not get the bill through the upper chamber.


Arthur Meighen: What was the change?


William Richard Motherwell: We were trying to
confine cold storage to co-operative activities.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister observed that cold storage warehouses are used as engines of oppression and profiteering?


William Richard Motherwell: They have been
charged with that, but I have not taken a great deal of stock in the charge. The cold storage activities I had in mind were those of men who were co-operating and giving service to their own members.


Arthur Meighen: Surely the minister would
not ask us to vote money to help him oppress the consuming masses 1


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think my
right hon. friend takes much stock in that charge himself.


Arthur Meighen: I never did. I was not
guilty; I am calling it to the attention of those who were. The minister has not noticed that cold storage warehouses were used for that purpose at all?


William Richard Motherwell: I think there was a great deal of exaggeration, and a great deal of wrong was done to those services by the charge he has referred to.


Arthur Meighen: So do I.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not heard very often to-day, due to the fact that the people begin to understand the question.


Arthur Meighen: I hope the minister did
not take part in that denunciation.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Arthur Meighen: And I hope his remarks now will silence those who did.


William Richard Motherwell: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: Item 49-


Arthur Meighen: Are we going to sit here all night?
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.

Select Standing Committees
Wednesday, February 18, 1925