They make it on the same principle. They put in a supply of ice, they send their children to be instructed in Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
the manufacture and they have their butter made in exactly the same way as it is made in the co-operative factories. But when they bring that butter to the market they are offered a price perhaps from two to four cents below that of creamery butter. The purchaser will tell them it is only dairy butter and will refer them to the prices in the daily papers, showing creamery butter so many cents a pound higher than dairy. 1 do not see why we should put an embargo on the individual farmer, when he is prepared to adopt the modern methods and make butter exactly as it is made in the large creameries, using care and intelligence in carrying out the process and making an article equal in quality with the other, so far as an expert can determine. By this Bill, we are going to put a stigma on that butter and reduce it in price as compared, it_ may be, with butter made by the same process on the farm alongside his own.
It seems to me that some way out of the difficulty might be found by the hon. minister. It is clear that it is going to be a difficult matter to define creamery so as to include all creamery butter and exclude the product of private dairies. The point on which the hon. member for East Grey has based his amendment is the use of the creamery separator. Of course, the cream separator is used in all creameries ; but I hardly think that one would undertake to define the whole process of the manufacture of creamery butter as the use of the cream separator in separating the dream from the milk. That would not satisfactorily define the creamery process, which involves the use of milk in such large quantities that it can be used as soon as it has reached the proper point of ripening. In a private dairy, the milk must be accumulated and the churning must be delayed so long that it is impossible to make butter of the gilt-edge quality that is turned out from the creamery. It has occurred to hie, and I offer it as a suggestion to the hon. minister, that, possibly, the difficulty might be got over by making another grade. Instead of separating all into creamery and dairy, it would be better to recognize the efforts put forth by the farmers in procuring modern appliances and making butter by the best process, so that, in some instances, it is quite equal to the creamery butter. A second-class might be made called 'private creamery' or 'small creamery.' This would provide for the product of comparatively small dairies in which the creamery process is used as nearly as it can be reached by the small farmers.
The hon. minister would have us define creamery butter as that made in a place where the milk of not less than fifty cows is used. In order to make it correct, it would be better that the term ' creamery ' should be defined as a process deserving the name, and give them two classes of creamery butter, one the co-opera-
tive and the other the private creamery butter. This would define it exactly as it is. The manufacture is by the same process as that used in the co-operative creamery, and it deserves the name ' creamery ' as much as the other though fewer cows may be used. While X am on my feet, I would like to ask the hon. minister the meaning of the term ' cow ' in the Bill. The hon. minister bases this upon fifty cows, does he mean fifty head, or does he mean fifty times so much milk. In the management of our butter and cheese factories throughout the country the term ' cow ' has been known and understood as 3,000 pounds of milk. That has been the term used and understood for forty years.
X think the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) has probably come the nearest to the mark of any of the speakers in providing for the classification of butter. As an hon. member pointed out, it would not pay to run a creamery where you had the milk of less than fifty cows, that is what is known as a creamery. Clause (d) says that creamery butter means butter which is manufactured in a creamery. As has been pointed out, there are many farmers in the country who have not more than from twenty to forty cows. Under these circumstances, that class of people would be very well protected by calling their places private creameries. It is true, as the hon. member for East Gery (Mr. Sproule) has pointed out, that there are not only hundreds, but thousands of cream separators in use throughout this country. The milk is taken warm from the cow, and the cream is extracted by separators, and that cream is precisely of the same quality as is used in the larger creamery. But probably there may not be enough cream for that day's churning, hence it is held over till the next day, the result being that the cream thus held over, while it is very good, is not exactly the same as cream from the large creamery, which is manufactured on the day it is separated. I had the pleasure of going into a dairy last year, where I think they had an output of about 500 pounds of butter a week. It was beautiful butter, I had the pleasure of tasting it, and I am sure it was as nice as any creamery butter could be. But to my mind you could not designate that as a butter factory, or creamery. It seems to me there should be a sharp distinction drawn between the two, and that it would not be at all detrimental to the dairy interests if dairy butter were described as butter which is manufactured in a dairy. I am sure there is not a member of this House who wishes in any way to detract from the reputation of dairy butter. I have been ^buying dairy butter for probably twenty-five years, over the counter in my store, dealing with farmers and their wives nearly all my life. Under these circumstances, I have purchased a great deal of butter, and I have noticed during
the last few years, say the last ten or fifteen years, a very material advance in the quality of butter produced by the farmers. There are many dairies in our section which are up-to-date, and have nearly all the requirements of a creamery, and turn out a magnificent article which goes direct to the large centres for consumption. Those people should be protected by making, as the member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) suggests, another class of butter called home creamery, or private creamery butter.
I come from a dairy county and know some thing about butter making. I quite agree with the members who think there ought to be a third class established. If that were done, I think that to constitute a butter factory the number of cows should be raised very much higher than it is in the Bill. Those who know' anything about butter making know that you cannot run a creamery with fifty cows, nor even with 200 cows, that is, a profitable creamery. With anything less than 300 cows you cannot run a satisfactory creamery, because the apparatus is somewhat expensive, and you have to keep a first-class butter maker, and pay all the expenses you would in connection with a larger factory. I would suggest that if a third class were made, called a private creamery, for private creamery butter, you should raise the standard of the number of cows which would constitute a creamery or a butter factory. I quite agree with the member for Ontario (Mr. Ross) when he says that the quality of butter that we get from the farmers has very much improved. I thought the hon. gentleman was treading upon dangerous ground when he suggested there might have been a time when every farmer's wife and daughter did not make first-class butter, because with most farmers' wives and daughters it is a very tender subject for anybody to suggest that the butter they bring into a store is not the very best that was ever brought into the market. But I appreciate the difficulties of making a difference between creamery and dairy butter. My own experience is that probably those who buy these articles put a little too high a premium on the creamery butter as compared with the dairy butter. I myself have used dairy butter for the last fifteen years, and I prefer it to any creamery butter that I ever used, and have got it from the same man for all that time.
No, we make better butter in Canada than they do across the line. I think the suggestion for a third class is a very good one, and I would suggest, in defining what a creamery is that it should mean a place where the milk of at least 200 cows is made into butter; then fix another class between dairy and creamery butter.
I can scarcely agree with my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) in suggesting a second class for butter, because it strikes me that would tend rather to deteriorate the grade of butter manufactured by a creamery not coming under the purview of this Bill. It would be calling the second grade of butter an inferior grade, and in consequence of which it would bring in the market a smaller price, and would be prejudicial to the smaller butter factories that manufacture butter of as good a quality as that made in the larger creameries. The same method is employed for the manufacture of creamery butter not coming under this Act, only it is made in smaller quantities. The same appliances are used, and the article produced is of a quality equally as good as that made by a first class creamery. Now, I agree with my hon. friend from Bast Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) who placed the matter very clearly. He said that where the cream is transferred from the farm to the creamery, some distance away it is injured in transit, and would not be as good as that which was made more directly at home into butter. I think that is reasonable, and I feel that we should give encouragement to the smaller manufacturers, and in no way put them at a disadvantage in the market by a clause in this Bill discriminating between dairy butter and creamery butter, which would seem to question whether the butter they produce is first class, by describing it as a second grade, and which would mean a second class price, an inferior price, while the third grade would mean a still lower price. I think that would affect materially these smaller industries that are now being encouraged in various parts of this Dominion. In my own county we are now introducing cream separators, which are making butter equal to anything that can be made in any part of Canada. We are beginning to export. That grade of butter, I fear, if placed on the market and called anything else than creamery butter, would bring a lesser price, and those who are manufacturing it would suffer a loss. Therefore, I cannot exactly agree with my hon. friend from Pictou in having butter graded as one, two and three.
This is a case, I think, where every tub should sit upon its own bottom, where creamery butter should be marked creamery butter, and dairy butter should be marked dairy butter. There is one thing we have to look to, and that is the foreign market for Canadian butter. We cannot 4>e too careful about the quality of the butter that we prepare for the market. It is a fact that the butter which comes from New Zealand brings from 2s. 6d. to 3s. sterling more than the butter which is exported from Canada. New Zealand butter comes next to Danish butter in the London market, and unless we look sharp and see that we prepare our
butter carefully, our trade will suffer. It is very essential to pay attention to the kind of packages in which the batter is sent. They say that the packages in which the butter from New Zealand comes, helps as much to sell the butter as the quality of the butter itself. There is no doubt that there has been a great improvement made in the quality of dairy butter as compared with what it was in my early days. What would be considered good butter for the table then would scarcely be used in the kitchen to-day. We are getting very particular about our tastes. Our tastes have improved and we want high class butter for our table and good butter for our cooking. I have packed a great deal of butter for myself, and I have seen it packed for other people when I was serving my apprenticeship in other shops, and my experience was that the farmers, or the farmers' wives and daughters, prepared better butter for their own table generally than they would think of sending to the shops for sale.
I am not afraid of calling a spade a spade, or of telling the truth when it is necessary to tell it. I think it would be a great mistake if we were to attempt to brand dairy butter in the same way as butter manufactured in a creamery. The great object we should have in view is to maintain the quality of our butter for the export trade. As to what we consume ourselves, we can manage that pretty well and suit ourselves as to what kind and quality of butter we like.
Considerable good, I think, will come out of this discussion. I am glad to see, while there has been a certain amount of criticism of the provisions of this Bill, and of this clause, there does not seem to me to be any unanimity as to what substitute shall be adopted. I appreciate very fully what my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) a few minutes ago said, and I do not know that I could add much to it, as to the good work which the creamery system has done for the dairy and butter interests of Canada. Anybody who is at all familar with the butter trade, knows how co-operative work in creameries has added to the trade and profits of the dairymen of the country.