May 15, 1922

LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

It is rarely that

you can get exact parallels in this world. This is not a parallel, any more than the Japanese question is a parallel. The one deals with cows, the other with men; in the case of my hon. friend it is the Wheat Board. But in the case of the Wheat Board my hon. friends are asking for something of especial interest to themselves. If a thing is in the public interest; if the interest of an industry is locked up with the public interest, then it is good business to advocate it, and that is what I am endeavouring to do in connection with the dairying industry. An hon. member has put this note in my hand:

Oleo lessens the number of cows raised and therefore starves the soil and hurts mixed farming in general.

That is true. In the older countries of the world the people are so much concerned about the fertility of the soil that they do not use mechanical power on the land because it is non-productive of fertilizer. I had the pleasure of visiting Europe eleven or twelve years ago, and I asked the older farmers there why they did not make more use of mechanical power. They use all

kinds of animal power, even to native oxen from the Carpathian mountains, proceeding on the principle that every hoof of live stock which can be obtained and maintained should be kept on the farm. So it is with the dairying industry; every additional hoof kept on the farm results in increased fertility of the soil. I know that may not appeal to western men; the question does not affect us there as yet. In fact, our difficulty is to get our manure piles taken from the barnyard with the least possible expense, though in the older sections the fertilizer is being used on the land as it should be. But the amount of live stock in the older parts of the country will determine to what extent the fertility of the soil will be maintained and increased.

Some hon. members have had the ad-vantage of discussing this matter in the House on several different occasions. More than half the members of this Parliament are new members-I am one of them- and to those new members the subject is not a worn out one as it may be to hon. gentlemen who have been here for some time. There is an honest difference of opinion on this question. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that if we apply the brakes at all we should start with renovated butter? I am prepared to advocate the removal of the restriction in that regard, which would result in the liberation for sale in our own market, at approximately the same price as oleo,-of 1,000,000 pounds of real butter which is 100 per cent fat and has 100 per cent food content.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :

trade, in the name of heaven why shall we in Canada say we cannot trust our people to know whether or not they want oleomargarine?

I do not think there is a sound argument used from beginning to end against oleomargarine. I deny that there is competition between butter and oleomargarine. They are two distinct products, and if you provide that the oleomargarine shall be distinctly marked and labelled-and the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) showed us a sample to-day plainly marked, plainly labelled-there is no chance in the world of any one being imposed upon by getting oleomargarine in the shape of butter, unless he is very dull and wants to be imposed upon. Every shop that sells oleomargarine has to sell it labelled as such.

Oleomargarine is used by the poorer people of this country to-day. It is nonsense for my hon. friend to talk of giving them cheaper butter. We do not want cheaper butter. We want the dairyman to get a good price for their butter but inasmuch as it is a fact that many of the poorer people in this country cannot buy butter even at its moderate price to-day, surely we are not going to deny them, especially those in the cities and towns, the right to get a substitute so long as it is sold under its proper name; and in that case it cannot be a competitor with butter. I insist that they are two distinct products, and there is no real competition between them at all. _

There were many points raised by my hon. friend that I should like to speak to but I shall not enlarge upon them tonight. The whole question is this: Here is a commodity that is traded in by every country in the world except Canada. Surely there is no reason why it should not be traded in in this country, unless our people are lacking in the intelligence that we believe they possess. It is because I believe they are intelligent, because I believe they are able to know what they want and able to make a distinction, because I believe they are not going to be so easily fooled and humbugged into having oleomargarine palmed off on them as butter, that I am going to oppose the motion made by my hon. friend from Co-mox-Alberni (Mr. Neill).

I was surprised to get a certain piece of information from the Minister of Agriculture to-night. I have always understood that Canada was a dairying country. I have been down in the eastern townships of Quebec and have heard eloquent

speakers declare that there was no finer agricultural, grazing, or dairying country in the wide world than those eastern townships of the province of Quebec, but tonight I learn from my hon. friend that that is a mistake. It is a country in which the dairying interests are in such a perilous position that at any moment they may be destroyed by the butter which is being brought up from the Argentine. I have a better opinion of Canada as a dairying country than my hon. friend, but I do not want to argue that question. I simply say that oleomargarine, whatever it may have been in the old days, is now an article of commerce which every other civilized country in the world recognizes as such, and I can see no earthly reason why the Canadian citizen shall be told, in effect, that he is not intelligent enough to distinguish between oleomargarine and butter when he goes to the grocery shop.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :

The question of the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine first came up during the early days of the Union government. Previous to that time, we did not have oleomargarine in Canada, and there was a distinct pledge given at that time, when it was admitted owing to war conditions, that when the war terminated and those conditions passed, the act would cease to exist. Since that time, however, it has been extended from year to year, and some have been advocating that it should be made permanent. Among those I believe was the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I think his criticism of last year and of two years ago was that the act should not be simply extended for a year, but be made permanent.

I listened with a good deal of interest when I came into the House to-night to the address of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). I was somewhat in doubt as to just what policy the Government were going to pursue on this question, for they have undoubtedly discussed it, and as I listened to the eloquence with which the Minister of Agriculture dealt with the question I wondered if he was going to live up to the reputation he has been establishing during the last few weeks in Parliament and in the country. After listening to the hon. gentleman who is leading the Government to-night (Mr. Fielding) who, I would imagine, has given us the policy of the Government on this question, I can picture in my mind the Minister of Agriculture turning another sharp cor-

Oleomargarine

ner just about as quickly as he has turned some others during the past few days.

I do not think that the fate of agriculture or of the dairying industry depends to any great extent upon how this question is determined. We have heard the Minister of Finance refer to oleomargarine as a wholesome article of food, and point out that no one has shown it to be anything else. It is somewhat singular that although we now have a Department of Health connected with the Government, there is not a member of the Government, nor was there of the late government, who could inform this House just what constitutes oleomargarine-not one. I have asked the question repeatedly, and I have been unable to find any one who was able to give us that information. "Oh," they say, "it is manufactured under strict supervision in the abattoirs in this country, and there are a number of veterinary inspectors who are looking after this matter." But what about our Department of Health? Why are they not looking into this article of food for human consumption?

The plea has been made repeatedly in favour of oleomargarine on behalf of the children of the poor in this country. Mr. Speaker, it is on behalf of the children of the poor in this country that I am arguing here to-night against allowing oleomargarine to be imported and disposed of in this country as it has been in the past few years. It is surprising how many people you find who like to get something for nothing. Milk fat differs from all other fats in that it contains certain life-giving substances that are essential for promoting the growth of the young. It appears that an all-wise Creator has placed this substance in the milk fat of all animals, and that it is not to be found anywhere else. Yet some clever people, realizing that this is a food product absolutely essential in promoting the growth of the young, have got the idea that if they can only get some cheaper commodity and be able to dispose of it under the plea that it is a wholesome food and will take the place of butter, they are going to make a whole lot of money out of it. That is about the size and substance of the arguments in favour of oleomargarine.

The Minister of Finance says that every country in the world except Canada permits the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. I say there is no country in the world that gives these people the same privileges and freedom with regard to the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine that they have in Canada-not one. In France they will not even permit it to be sold at the same shops with dairy products. Yet in this country you find this stuff advertised in all the market reports in the dairy column. Why should that be the case? If it is not a dairy product, why should it be advertised as a dairy product in this country? They say they are going to sell oleomargarine on its merits. Then why should they be so anxious to put it up in pound prints of exactly the same size and shape as butter, and make it look like butter, and churn it in milk to give it a butter flavour? It is also mixed with butter, not only two per cent of butter, but in some cases as high as thirty-three per cent. Why should that be the case if this is a wholesome food? It is because they know it adds to the value of the article. I have spoken consistently against oleomargarine ever since it was permitted to be imported and sold in this country. It was one of the first-born children of the late Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). He has upheld the manufacture of oleo in this country; he was responsible for the enactment of regulations such as they have in no other country where this stuff is used. I will quote from these regulations and then ask you whether you think the dairyman has a grievance or not. Here is one example:

No person other than a manufacturer of oleomargarine shall mix oleomargarine and butter.

Why should the packing houses have a special right to mix oleomargarine and butter in this country? The regulations further say:

Oleomargarine shall not be manufactured in Canada in any premises used as, or connected with, a butter factory.

Now the butter manufacturer is subjected to the most stringent regulations not only by the municipal and provincial authorities, but by the federal government, in order to ensure the wholesomeness and the purity of his product and to standardize it. Notwithstanding that, the federal government grants a license to some of these packing companies, who manage to get their ear, permitting them to use highly coloured June butter-as was admitted in sworn testimony given before a committee of this House-to colour the tallow and oil and make it look more like butter. Because we have it on the strength of the sworn evidence of the manager of the Harris

Oleomargarine

Abattoir in Toronto that unless that was done the stuff would taste like tallow and the people would not buy it. Consequently these packing houses buy highly coloured June butter in order to mix with their product. The privilege was granted as a war measure and there was no complaint heard from the farmers of this country. An Order in Council was passed, under the War Measures Act, commandeering all the butter that was being manufactured in the creameries of this country from September 1, 1918, down to a certain time. Now there were twenty-five million pounds of butter in the cold storage warehouses in Canada at that time and in the hands of the oleomargarine manufacturers there were 3,622,830 pounds. The butter that was being turned out by the dairymen of Canada was commandeered, but the oleomargarine manufacturers and wholesale dealers were left in charge of their supplies.

These are some of the things I have objected to in the past; and when the hon. member for Marquette was Minister of Agriculture I directed his attention to a number of the injustices which I considered the dairymen of this country were suffering.

I have endeavoured to be consistent in this matter although I have had to criticise those with whom I was associated politically, and I intend to be consistent whether what I advocate agrees with the policy of my associates or not. Nor am I taking the stand I do because the county from which I come is interested in this matter to any great extent, because the great majority of the farmers there are purchasing their butter instead of manufacturing it, although the county is one of the most noted dairy sections in the whole Dominion. I ask hon. members whether they consider it is a good thing that an old established industry, like the dairy industry, should be jeopardized to the extent that butter making has often been in the past by reason of legislation enacted by this Parliament. For it must be remembered that the future of western Canada, as well as the East, as the Minister of Agriculture has pointed out, depends wholly upon the live stock industry. We have induced thousands of returned men to settle upon farms; yet in the fact of that certain hon. members would pass legislation to deprive these men of their means of livelihood; because that is exactly what it means.

I did not hear the arguments which were advanced early in the afternoon with

reference to this matter. But I have heard some of the reasons advanced by the manufacturers of oleomargarine for continuing this policy, such as are contained in the circulars which have been diligently sent out by them. They claim to be using Canadian products for the manufacture of oleomargarine, when the fact is they are importing most of their stuff and paying practically no duty on it at all. Let me give you some idea of the quantities brought in for eleven months of the past year; they were all the figures I could obtain at the time I received this information: Lard compound, 335,161 pounds; oleo oils imported -and the manufacturers say " Oh but look at the splendid market afforded here for the oleo oils from our beef cattle"-1,731,-005 pounds; cotton seed oil 348,583 pounds; cocoanut oil 219,132 pounds; peanut oil 125,889 pounds; butter oil-I do not know what that is; I believe it must be something of the kind that the Minister of Agriculture calls renovated butter-823,558 pounds; salt 279,634 pounds; the total of all commodities imported was 3,862,962 pounds.

These went to make up the oleomargarine which was manufactured in this country during eleven months of the past year. A slight duty was paid but 99 per cent of such duty paid during the past year has been returned to the manufacturers. The amount of such drawback allowed to the two manufacturers interested was $388,345.53. The Canadian oleomargarine manufacturers enlarge on the market their industry creates for beef fats, and other articles of the kind, in this country; but when they make such importations, as I have shown from the United States, it puts a different complexion on the matter. Their claim is not well founded. It is a deliberate attempt to introduce a system into Canada that is not in the interest of agriculture because it concedes to these people privileges that those who are engaged in agriculture do not possess.

Furthermore, these manufacturers import articles upon which there is practically no duty. There is a duty of three cents a pound on butter under the British preference and a duty of four cents a pound on butter imported from other countries. During eleven months of the past year we imported butter to the amount of 5,805,422 pounds. Of this quantity 2,036,471 pounds came from the United Kingdom under the British preference. These imports had an advantage over the butter that

Oleomargarine

came in from the United States of one cent per pound. From Australia we imported 287,724 pounds; from New Zealand 2,148,752 pounds; and from the United States 1,332,210 pounds. These are some of the things that are happening right in our own country. We are appointing trade agents, and doing everything possible to find markets for the products of this country; and yet instead of endeavouring to build up and stimulate some of the industries that are natural to, but are lagging in, Canada we are working vigorously in the opposite direction.

I am not going into these questions in detail to-night because hon. members who were in the last, and the previous parliaments, know what my views are in these respects. I must say, however, I am more than surprised that at this late date, after the extent to which this stuff has been coming into Canada, with all the facilities we have, our Health Departments are not able to give us any information as to the food value of this article. No one will contend that it can take the place of butter or butter fats, notwith-' standing the agitation which is being put on foot and which had its origin in this city of Ottawa about the time that the war was very bad; when conditions apparently justified something being done along that line fats were permitted to be utilized in this way while we had not a sufficient supply of butter. I might read some of the resolutions which have been passed by some associations in this city, although that is something which I do not like to do. I know, however, that the activities which have been shown during the past few months by certain associations throughout this country, have had their origin in this city amongst those who are not so vitally interested in agriculture as many other people in this country are. In 1919, resolutions were passed in this city, and the members of these associations endeavoured to get into touch with the various branches of these associations throughout the country so as to have them write to their member and to the Government advocating that the sale of this stuff should be legalized permanently. Let me read one resolution which was passed in Ottawa. This is taken from the Ottawa Citizen of April 14, 1919:

It was moved by Mrs. Adam Shortt and seconded by Lady Pope,

That whereas fat is an essential food for human beings, and that children deprived of it suffer not only from malnutrition in the

present, but are permanently injured in physique ; and whereas, there is not enough butter in the country to supply everybody if margarine were banished ; and whereas, butter is so high a price that thousands cannot have butter, because of the cost; and whereas, margarine is a butter substitute of equal caloric value with butter; and whereas, margarine has been allowed in the country under the War Measures Act, which comes to an end with the signing of peace ;

Therefore, be it resolved that we women of Ottawa do now appeal to this federal Government now considering child welfare, to permanently legalize margarine in Canada, in order that children may thrive and not decline and that consumers be not deprived of their legitimate right, as in other countries, to have margarine for domestic use.

And so on including arguments which have been advanced in support of oleomargarine.

Is it a wholesome article of food for children? I have in my hand some evidence to the contrary, not furnished by dairymen's associations or any one interested in dairying. Probably this has been referred to by some previous speaker, and, consequently, if I am repeating something which has been said before, it goes only to strengthen previous arguments. This reads:

When oleomargarine was admitted to Canada as a "war measure" (and subsequently continued as packer's and produce dealer's measure) the children of Canada were betrayed to an insidious, relentless enemy. Chief among thoise betrayed were the children of the lower strata, where money to buy genuine butter, might be as scarce as the inclination to spend the extra cent or two a pound for it.

There is plenty of evidence to show how insidious is the enmity of oleomargarine to childhood-how it imperceptibly stunts the growth of the child, and prevents its development, at the same time apparently providing a satisfactory and necessary food element.

The eye is deceived, but not the body. The profits accrue to the packer-manufacturers and the distributors, but a toll of under-nourishment is taken from the children who eat it, in order that these selfish profits might be made.

The city of Rochester recently had a noteworthy experience in connection with the use of butter and oleomargarine in an orphan asylum.

In this asylum the practice has been followed for years of weighing every child at regular intervals. Because of the high prices of butter, the management substituted oleomargarine on January 1, 1917, and supplied it to the children for six months. At the end of this time, results were so unsatisfactory that butter was replaced in the ration. Here are the weights of seven children over four periods of six months each:

The first six months, while butter was fed, these seven children gained 23.75 lbs.

For the next six months, while butter was still being fed, the seven children gained 44.25 lbs.

For the next six months these children were fed oleomargarine in place of butter, the diet being otherwise the same. The result was a loss of 9.5 lbs.

Oleomargarine

In the next periods, butter was again replaced, with the result that, in the following six months, the children made a gain of 56.87 lbs.

This official report from the city of Rochester is one of the strongest indictments of oleomargarine we have ever seen and it comes, not from the dairy interests, but from a city organization. The class that would stand to gain most from the suppression of oleomargarine would be the growing children.

It is on behalf of the growing children and the working people of this country, the people who are putting their good money into this spurious article, that I am speaking to-night, and not on behalf of the dairymen, because, as time goes on these people will realize that this commodity cannot take the place of butter and people of good judgment and sense will see that their children are supplied with the genuine article. In the meantime, however, is it the duty of the Government to permit this stuff to continue to be sold and not to have it inspected ? I would have thought one of the first steps that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) would have taken would have been to see that the medical authorities of the Department of Health made a proper analysis of it, so that he might have been in a position tonight to inform this House as to the true food value 'of this commodity. This has not been done, and, consequently, we do not know even yet what the food value of this article is.

I opposed it in the past because of the regulations which were enacted giving these people the freedom which they have. What right have they to purchase butter which has been manufactured under the strict regulations to which I have referred, to take it into a packing house and to mix it up with 'cottonseed oil and other vegetable fats, to churn It with milk, to go to all these pains in order to deceive the consumer and to sell it under butter's trademark, because that is what they are doing when they put it up in a package in imitation of butter? Although the wrapper may indicate that the content is oleomargarine, when it is stripped off the wrapper, when it is cut up into blocks and put on the tables of boarding houses throughout Canada, how are you going to detect it? It is said that you canot detect it from butter; that it is wholesome. It may be wholesome, but we do not know 'how wholesome it is. It is possible a grown up person would not feel the injurious effects of it; but as regards the young and growing child, never yet has anything been discovered that can take the place of the qualities that milk fat contains. People may attempt to imi-

[ Mr. Sutherland. ]

tate, and they may eventually discover something that will take the place of butter; but so far nothing has been discovered that can take the place of milk fat. Consequently you will find that some people will be anxious to put some spurious article on the market, and I contend that the poor of this country, because it is the poor and not the wealthy people who are buying this stuff, have suffered more as the result of this policy and will continue to suffer more than any one else.

No doubt other hon. members desire to speak on this, and I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House; but I want to re-emphasize the fact that dairying is not such a profitable industry as some people would like us to believe. In Ontario, dairying has been established for many years; in fact, the first cheese factory established in the Dominion of Canada was established in the Constituency which I have the honour to represent. Cheese manufacturing had its headquarters there for many years, and the town which is my home town is possibly better known in the Old Land as a result of the exportation of cheese and dairy products than any other town in the Dominion. I refer to the town of Ingersoll. The late Edwin Caswell, of Ingersoll, was one of the first exporters of cheese in this country.

During the last few years a census has been taken of the farms in the county of Oxford and also of the farms in the county of York by the provincial government with a view to establishing the actual cost of dairy products in this country, and I am going to point out very briefly the result of that census. In the county of Oxford, it was shown that the cost of producing 100 pounds of milk was $2.94, and in the county of York, it was $3.32. The price received in Oxford was $2.81 and in the county of York $2.85; or, taking everything into consideration, there was a loss of 13 cents per 100 pounds in Oxford and 40 cents per 100 pounds in York. These figures were obtained after careful investigation of upwards of 100 farms in each of these counties, an endeavour having been made to find out, by as minute an analysis as possible, what the actual cost of production was and what they were receiving in return. Now, these are some of the things that the dairymen of this country have through experience very well fixed in their minds, and when associations that have nothing to do with agriculture or dairying pass resolutions such as have been passed in this city and elsewhere, beseeching the

Oleomargarine

Government to see that this article that is manufactured by farmers is allowed to be incorporated with the cheap commodities imported duty free and turned out by these manufacturers and placed on the markets of the country, it is apparent that their chief plea is a fraud from beginning to end and should not be countenanced by any government. So long as I am engaged in any industry I shall feel that I am entitled to the same consideration that is accorded every other industry; and anyone who advocates the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine as at present permitted undoubtedly shows a contempt for dairying and agriculture generally.

I do not think that this commodity should be allowed to be sold in Canada; but certainly if you permit the sale of oleomargarine here the imported article and the commodities which go to make it up should be subject to a customs tariff just the same as other things that are imported. Furthermore, it should be manufactured and placed on the market on its merits. No attempt should be made to deceive the public by mixing it with butter and churning it in milk. I believe there are vegetable oils in the oleomargarine sold in England, which is entirely different from the commodity that is placed on the markets in this country. In some countries they do not allow oleomargarine to be put up in quantities of less than 10 pounds, whereas in Canada we allow them to put it on the market in pound prints identical in shape with dairy ' products.

Now, I have referred to a few of the objections I have to the continuance of the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. I heartily support the resolution, and I trust that the sale of this article in Canada will be prohibited. If, however, the Government do decide to permit its manufacture and importation, they should impose a tariff upon it like anything else, because it should not receive special privileges over an old-established industry like the butter industry. The fact that oleomargarine may have 25 or 30 per cent, of butter fat incorporated in it, and 15 per cent of milk, is no reason why it should be allowed to compete with genuine butter.

Let us do something at least to show that we are in sympathy with those men who are labouring under great (Difficulties at the present time;-I refer to the returned soldiers who have gone on the land. Many of these men, with the limited experience they had, have been tempted to go into dairying and the live stock industry. And

the country depends more on the butter industry than upon anything else. It is only by the manufacture of butter that we can hope to establish a successful livestock industry in Canada. I heard an hon. member the other night-I think it was my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) -bemoaning in very doleful tones the condition of the farmers in western Canada. He pointed out that the land was becoming impoverished and was producing six bushels per acre less than a few years ago. Well, what can you expect? We listened to the provincial Minister of Agriculture from Saskatchewan, Hon. Mr. Hamilton, the other day, before the committee on agriculture, endeavouring to prove the contention that we should have a wheat board in this country by the fact that the income of the average farmer in the province of Saskatchewan from a 320 acre farm was, I think, about $1,200 less than his expenses. To my amazement, the only two things the farmer had to sell were wheat and oats. It struck me that such a man was not much of a farmer. Any one can go to Saskatchewan and on fertile land grow wheat and oats as long as the land retains its fertility. But there comes a day when it will not be so responsive, and the only method of keeping the soil fertile is by going into the live-stock industry in conjunction with other farming. This has been demonstrated time and again, not only in Canada, but throughout the world. People need not think that they can go on taking from the land forever without putting something back, without exhausting its fertility. This is the chief cause of the trouble to-day. In many of the old provinces much of the land has become impoverished and it is no small task to bring it back to a state where good crops can be grown. I think it will be one of the greatest misfortunes this country has ever experienced if we follow the course advocated and pursued in the past and put all our lands under cultivation, neglecting live stock and dairying. We should develop this industry in conjunction with the cultivation of the soil. To-day it is imperative that we should establish the dairy industry on a sound basis, and we cannot hope to do so if we allow and handicaps to operate it. I therefore support the resolution.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
PRO

Thomas Alexander Crerar

Progressive

Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :

The subject matter of the resolution under consideration by the House this afternoon and evening is not by any means a new one.

Oleomargarine

Indeed, it is a hardy annual that has appeared every session since I came to the House five years ago; and I agree entirely with the view expressed by the member for South Waterloo (Mr. Euler) this afternoon when he said that he hoped we should be able on the present occasion to make a final disposition of it. I have a particular interest in this matter, Sir, because of the fact that the first job I had after I became Minister of Agriculture in 1917 was to draft the regulations-assisted, of course, by expert men in the department-covering the sale and manufacture in, and the importation into Canada, of oleomargarine. These regulations were passed at that time under the War Measures Act for the reasons stated by my hon. friend from Comox-Al-berni (Mr. Neill) this afternoon. In 1918 another Order in Council was passed extending the regulations and in some respects making them rather more stringent than before. In the autumn session of 1919, when the power of the government to act under the War Measures Act had lapsed, parliament passed legislation extending the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine for another year; in 1920 parliament considered the matter further and again extended the period for another year; the same thing happened the following year, and now in this session we are once more considering whether or not this legislation shall pass out of existence or be continued.

I am opposed to the motion of my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), and I am opposed to it for the very reason that my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) supports it. I believe I have stated before in this House that the gentlemen who believe in the principle of protection in fiscal policy could consistently believe in protection to the dairy industry in this way. I do not believe in the fiscal policy of protection, I do not believe in protection at all for that matter in trade, and consequently I am opposed to the resolution.

I agree entirely with my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), in his observations on the contribution to the discussion made by the hon. member from Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie). I submit, too, that his arguments have not been answered, and that they alone constitute sufficient reasons for this House to continue the legislation in question.

The argument of the protectionists in matters of fiscal policy is that it is necessary to build up your home industry. Our

friends who argue against the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine take exactly the same position. I am at one with -the remarks made by my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) this afternoon when he described this motion as embodying the most vicious kind of protection. And it is the most vicious kind of protection, for the reason that it not only prevents the importation of a necessary and useful article of food but it entirely prohibits its manufacture at home. If protection can go any further than that, I am at a loss to understand how it can be accomplished. .

Now, frankly, I was astonished-astonished, Mr. Speaker, is a mild word for me to use-at the speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture this evening. Why, Sir, I can throw my mind back over a number of years and recall with what eagerness I used to listen to him when he preached the sound gospel of freedom and of liberty in matters of trade, and I was amazed, indeed, I was grieved to see him haul down the flag of liberty by the most specious pleading that could be indulged in and ask for protection of the grossest form for the dairy industry. My hon. friend must surely have fallen into bad company. I hope it is only a temporary lapse, Mr. Speaker, and that he will in due time return to the true faith, which he understands as well as any man in this House.

When we come to a consideration of the merits of this question, what do we find? It has not been successfully argued, nor can it be successfully argued in this House or out of it, that oleomargarine is not a wholesome food. The whole weight of evidence shows it is a wholesome food. It is made from animal fats, excellent foods in themselves, blended with vegetable oils that are also excellent foods in themselves, and no evidence of a reliable character has been adduced to show that oleomargarine is not a suitable and valuable food product. Now, if it is a food product of value, and if it can be secured a little cheaper than the higher grades of butter, why should any one in this House or out of it seek to deprive the people of a wholesome food by absolutely prohibiting the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine? That argument cannot be successfully controverted, except as my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture tried to do this evening by the most specious pleading that could possibly be attempted.

Oleomargarine

If we take the history of this article throughout the whole civilized world we find there is not a country to-day but is using it-that permits its manufacture and sale. Now, I am convinced that if the various civilized countries are doing this, it is because oleomargarine has a food value. I have no belief in the arguments advanced that its continued importation and manufacture will destroy our dairy industry. It cannot destroy that industry. Reference was made this evening to Denmark's position in regard to oleomargarine. What was her position? It was not, as my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, stated, that Denmark has for hundreds of years been engaged in the dairy industry. If he will study the history of Denmark he will find that sixty, seventy or eighty years ago there was no peasantry in Europe more impoverished than that of Denmark, and that there was no country in Europe more backward in agriculture than Denmark.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
PRO
PRO

Thomas Alexander Crerar

Progressive

Mr. CRERAR:

If my hon. friend from

Strathcona had waited for a moment I would have satisfied his eager curiosity in that respect. Denmark built up her agriculture largely on her dairy industry. It is common knowledge that the average Danish farm is about ten acres in extent. Nowhere in the world has agriculture been carried on so intensively as in Denmark. They built up a splendid dairy industry. But if my memory serves me right, for the last thirty or thirty-five years Denmark has permitted the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine, and yet her dairy industry, now the finest in the world, has been built up alongside the competition of oleomargarine.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

Do you know of

a country outside of Canada where dairy products are permitted to be mixed with the other constituents of oleomargarine? It is not allowed in Denmark.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
PRO

Thomas Alexander Crerar

Progressive

Mr. CRERAR:

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, and I submit that that is not relevant to the particular question we are discussing. I will deal in a moment or two with the point raised by my hon. friend from South Oxford. That is the position that has been taken by Denmark in regard to the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine. There is not a country in the

world, I repeat, that has not permitted its manufacture and importation.

There is one other question: Has the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine injured our dairy industry? My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture knows that as far as the exportable dairy products of Canada are concerned they have been mainly in the form of cheese. Prior to the war Canada exported annually 180,000,000 to 200,000,000 pounds of cheese, which found its main market in Great Britain. The cheese industry was developed in Ontario and in the neighbouring province of Quebec rather than the butter industry, and it is only in comparatively recent years that the latter industry has been developed in this country. But has it withered and failed under the competition of oleomargarine? Not according to the trade figures, because I find that in the last four years the butter exports of Canada have been well up to the mark. In 1917 we exported almost 8,000,000 pounds of butter; in 1918, almost 5,000,000 pounds; in 1919, 13,500,000 pounds; in 1920,

17,500,000 pounds, and during those years we have been using oleomargarine.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
CON
PRO
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

About 9,000,000 pounds.

.Mr. CRERAR: Well, it goes up and down.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
LIB
PRO

Thomas Alexander Crerar

Progressive

Mr. CRERAR:

I have not those figures, but I have the imports of oleomargarine. In 1918, they were 2,262,000 pounds; in 1919, 4,000,000 pounds; in 1920, when we had a big export in butter, a little over 6,000,000 pounds.

There is one other point which I would like to bring to the attention of my hon. friends who support the motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-and I would like the Minister of Agriculture to give some thought to this aspect of the question. If Canada is going to develop a dairy industry, it cannot be developed on the home market alone. No industry in Canada can be developed soundly if it is dependent only upon the home market, and that is one of the reasons, Sir, why

Oleomargarine

I do not believe in protective tariffs. If, then, we are to build up our dairy industry, we must build up our exports of butter in the face of oleomargarine competition in every country in the world. Do my hon. friends who believe that the Canadian dairymen and butter producers must be protected against oleomargarine competition at home forget that they must face that competition when they get into the outside markets of the world? The whole thing is illogical, absolutely illogical and inconsistent.

I am as great a believer as any one in the possibilities of the development of the dairy industry in Canada. Our country is splendidly located in that respect. It is only a matter of time, and not a very long time, either, when our neighbours to the south of us, the great 'American Republic, will come to Canada for their foodstuffs in increasing measure. I have mentioned it to the House before, but it is a fact worth recalling again, that more than two-thirds of the 106,000,000 people that constitute the United States proper live in incorporated towns and cities, and no part of Canada is better situated to supply the densely populated portion of the United States with dairy products than Ontario and Quebec. As that population grows, as the United States becomes a food-importing country, you will have in that country the greatest and broadest possible market for the dairy products of these provinces. If that market is not sufficient, we are only a few thousand miles from Great Britain, perhaps the greatest single consumer of imported dairy products in the world.

If my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Government desire to develop this industry, I submit it cannot best be done by preventing the sale and manufacture of a useful food product that can be supplied to some of the people of Canada at a lower price than butter. But they can best do it by promoting sane methods of marketing our agricultural products, and by assisting in the development of refrigerator services in the shipment of those products to the markets of the world. These are means by which the Government can legitimately assist the development of an industry of this kind. The waste that goes on through short-sighted methods of marketing, the loss that occurs through deterioration in quality, particularly of such perishable commodities as butter and cheese, can scarcely be estimated. It was

for that reason that when I was in the Government a few years ago I urged my colleagues to undertake the erection of an up-to-date cold storage warehouse in Montreal in order that there might be provided at that great port the means whereby these perishable products could be kept in condition until they were placed in refrigerated space in ocean vessels and sent in the best possible condition to the markets of Europe. By these means, if we proceed intelligently, we can assist the dairy industry in the greatest possible way -far better and to a far greater extent than we can by attempting to stimulate artificially a market here at home by preventing the importation and sale of oleomargarine.

I am rather at a loss to know what the policy of the Government may be in respect to this matter. If I am to judge by the rather remarkable speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture this evening, I would not have very much hope that they will follow the path of wisdom in the matter. I trust however, that on a little more reflection my good friend the Minister of Agriculture will see the error of his ways. I wish just to assure the Government that if they bring in legislation at this session of Parliament providing for the importation or manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada, they will have my hearty support in that action.

Now, one thought in respect to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). I do not know to what extent butter is used in the manufacture of oleomargarine. I do lay this down: that it is the part of wisdom for the Government to see that suitable regulations are enforced for the protection of the public health; to see that only healthful ingredients enter into the manufacture of oleomargarine and that only a pure food product is imported. That is quite properly the function of government. But once you surround the manufacture and importation and sale of this article with proper safeguards, then I submit that the interests of the country will be best served by allowing it to be sold, always as oleomargarine, not as butter- let the people know what they are buying. The business interests of this country will be safeguarded in that way and a sound policy established, and, I trust, permanently followed.

Let me repeat, in closing, that I hope the Government will bring down legislation to make this thing permanent. We

Oleomargarine

do not want any special privilege to dairymen or to any one else in this country. I have full confidence that the dairymen of Canada can stand up against the competition of oleomargarine; the facts of the last five years prove that beyond any question of doubt. I am against special privilege to dairymen, just as I am against special privileges to manufacturers in the way of tariffs, and for this reason if for no other I will oppose the motion proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
CON

John Lawrence Stansell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. L. STANSELL (East Elgin) :

Mr. Speaker, it requires some degree of courage to support a resolution after it has been so vehemently denounced by my esteemed friend the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I do not profess to be the judge that he is either of sound judgment or of stupidity, but I do believe I know something about the dairy industry and the manufacture of butter. I was pleased to hear the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) inform the House that it was he who was responsible for drawing up the regulations governing the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine. If those regulations had been as carefully drawn and were as strict as those governing the sale of butter, I am not sure I would have raised my voice in protest at this time, but they were not so. I do not know in what respect my hon. friend has been associated with farming, but he confessed to the House to-night ^hat he did not know what the Canadian exports of butter were for the last year, he did not know what the imports were, and if I heard aright a question this afternoon, he did not know that a large quantity of New Zealand butter was being consumed in Canada. If that is the fact, he is not the highest authority on this subject, in my estimation.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
PRO

Thomas Alexander Crerar

Progressive

Mr. CRERAR:

If my hon. friend will permit me he is not quite doing me justice. I gave the export figures in my remarks to-night.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
CON
PRO

Thomas Alexander Crerar

Progressive

Mr. CRERAR:

Not for the present year, but those figures can be secured from the blue books in a few minutes.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
CON

John Lawrence Stansell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STANSELL:

I was referring to this year's figures. I have been very much interested in the arguments put forward here to-night and the different views expressed on this question which is of intense interest to the House and the country. It is a question that should be settled one way or the other, and I am very glad it has been approached in the way in which it has, for I believe that, as hon. members, we ought to respect each other's opinions. If this were a matter on which the arguments were all on one side it would have been settled years ago, but good arguments have been made to-night both for and against the resolution. Possibly I was most favourably impressed by the speech of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) who probably said everything that could be said against the resolution in the way of argument, and said it in a very logical and clear manner. He is quite consistent in the attitude he takes. It has been said that his arguments have not been answered here to-day. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has also put up a very strong argument for the other side, and in some respects his argument has not been answered.

I do not propose at this late hour to take up very much time in giving figures or going over ground that has already been covered by former speakers. I shall simply summarize in a brief way my views on this question. The question before the House is whether after September next the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada shall be permitted or not. I have received representations from opposing interests, and I think it is only fair in considering this subject that we should realize where requests for this legislation have come from. I do not think I can do anything fairer than to present the arguments that have been submitted on each side, because we can depend upon the interests affected to put up the strongest claims possible in support of their own argument. I think hon. members in common with myself have all received a copy of the circular issued by the Canadian Manufacturers and Importers of Oleomargarine. It is only fair that we should consider the financial investment of those who are desirous of having this privilege of manufacture and sale continued. Considerable money has undoubtedly been invested, and I have no doubt that the manufacture of oleomargarine is carried on in a clean manner, subject as it is to government inspection. It must be remembered, however, that when this investment was originally made, it was well understood that the manufacture of oleomargarine was permitted only as a war measure and the money was invested on that under-

Oleomargarine

standing, knowing the risk involved in the venture.

On the other hand, I have been asked to oppose the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in this country by the following interests: the National Dairy Council representing The Ontario Milk and Cream Producers' Association; The Dairymen's Association of Western Ontario; The Dairymen's Association of Eastern Ontario; The Dairymen's Association of the Province of Quebec; The Montreal Milk Producers' Co-operative Agricultural Association; Canadian Milk Distributors Association; Canadian Ice Cream Manufacturers' Association; The Western Canada Ice Cream Manufacturers' Association; Canadian Creamery Association; The Western Dairy Manufacturers' Executive; Milk Condensaries; The Provincial Dairymen's Association of Manitoba; The Provincial Dairymen's Association of Saskatchewan; The Provincial Dairymen's Association of Alberta; The Provincial Dairy Association of British Columbia; The Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association; The New Brunswick Dairymen's Association; The Nova Scotia Dairymen's Association; The Prince Edward Island Dairymen's Association; Milk Powder Manufacturers; the Holstein-Friesian Association of Canada; Canadian Ayrshire Breeders' Association; Canadian Jersey Cattle Club.

When such a number of organizations all over the length and breadth of Canada present their views in this way, representing the capital investment that they do, I think it is only fair that we should give reasonable consideration to their claims. If we were to consider this question from the standpoint of the money invested, I think all hon. members will agree that the investment and the labour employed in the dairying industry, is entirely out of proportion to the money invested and the labour employed in the oleomargarine business; the balance is nearly all on one side, that of dairying. It has been interesting to follow the arguments as to what extent protection enters into this question. I should like to give what in my opinion is the principle of protection. I cannot agree with some of my hon. friends to my left, who are sincere in being free traders and are opposed to the principle of protection. Possibly at some time in the future I may be able to agree with their views, but conditions at present are briefly these: We are, whether we believe in it or not, and whether we like

it or not, under a protective policy at the present time, and if I may venture into the realm of prophecy, it will be some years yet before the hopes of my hon. friends to my left are realized and this country does absolutely without protection. The very fact, as has been pointed out by some of the speakers, that this is a cold country, with climatic conditions that do not obtain elsewhere, makes it necessary in my opinion to have at least some measure of protection for our industries, to develop a home market. Now, if I understand the principle of protection, in whatever form it may dome, it is state aid granted to a certain section of our people, who, apparently, are not able to help themselves, to the extent that is advisable in the interest of the country. For the manufacturers the most natural form of protection is a protective tariff. For our friends from the west, who are not very greatly impressed with the idea of a protective tariff, the only protection that strongly appeals to them is compulsory legislation for the marketing of their product, wheat. Now I must say that I admire their beautiful inconsistency when they state that they do not believe in protection at all. But this is a particular form of protection adapted to their needs. Call it what you like; it is a form of protection adapted to meet the needs of the farmers of western Canada. I must say that I have a good deal of sympathy with the ideas put forth in support of that proposition. Nevertheless if that is the only kind of protection that is to be tolerated in Canada then my sympathy for my western friends begins to ebb very rapidly. I think it is realized that no matter in what part of Canada we may reside we have as much right to interpret the conditions there as to our own best interests, as those who reside in any other part of Canada have to interpret the conditions which affect them. Reference has 'been made to a request recently presented to the House from British Columbia. In that province they have a problem which they deem most important. I refere to the oriental problem. It has been dealt with in various ways, but in the opinion of British Columbia, exclusion or prohibition is the e'orrect solution. I am not prepared to dispute that position; the representatives from the province should know what form of protection is best adapted to the needs of British Columbia. Naturally the dairymen's associations, and the producers of milk and the other articles manufactured from it such as cheese and butter, believe in

Oleomargarine

a certain kind of protection which is adapted to their industry. I listened carefully to the manner in which this was characterized by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). He described it as a pernicious form of protection, and in so doing was ably seconded by the hon. member for Marquette. Possibly that is very nearly a correct description; but personally I must say that 1 do not like the words "protection" or "prohibition" nor the words "exclusion" or "compulsion." Nevertheless in the laws governing this country there are embodied very many of the principles that can be designated as either one or the other, we must submit to certain restrictions for the general good. Therefore, even if we apply the term protection to the dairy industry; if we go even further and call it "pernicious protection," in my opinion protection as applied to the needs of the farmer has not so often erred on the side of generosity that we cannot, in this instance, afford to give them the benefit of the doubt. If this is pernicious protection we might well afford, considering the condition of the dairy farmer at the present time, to make a little step in that direction.

Let us for a moment consider the composition and the value of this article. It must be remembered, as I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, that if I am engaged in the dairying industry and producing butter I am subjected to regulations that are very stringent. If, by any means whatever, I get more than 16 per cent of water incorporated in that butter-and I assure you, as one who spent some years in the manufacture of butter, that it is a very difficult thing to regulate-I render myself liable to the laws of the country. It is the same if I incorporate in that butter anything but pure butter fat, allowing only for the smallest fraction of impurities, such as a slight amount of mineral matter. If there is any thing beyond that I render myself liable. Yet in connection with the manufacture of oleomargarine there are no such restrictions. If it is clean it may contain any quantity of water, and almost anything else; there is no law or regulation governing it. If this article was composed entirely of materials produced in Canada, and was manufactured and sold only on its merits, I could not have the courage to rise and say a word against it. The claim has been made for oleomargarine that it consists to the extent of 75 per cent of Canadian products. That is not exactly borne out by the facts because

in a return that was asked for some time ago in this House and brought down, we were told that a total of 3,862,962 pounds of various products were brought in from foreign countries and used in the manufacture of oleomargarine-products imported practically free of duty. We have also been informed that the total quantity of oleomargarine manufactured during 1921, the latest year for which I have returns, was 3,780,000 pounds; while the quantity imported was 2,057,000 pounds. What, may I ask, is wrong about that? Just this: It is a form of competition that no other industry in this country would tolerate for one moment. We are protected, as manufacturers of butter, to the extent only of from three to four per cent of duty and possibly that advantage is wiped out entirely by the exchange rates. We are shut out entirely from the United States market by the high rates imposed on our products. Is it fair that any of our manufacturers should go to that country and import from there the raw materials they need to the extent to which they do, make that importation practically free of duty, and place their product on the market in competition with our butter, not on its own merits but so camouflaged by the addition of a portion of butter as to make it palatable and more nearly resemble the article it competes with. I am quite willing, as I believe other farmers in this country are, to admit into Canada articles that do not benefit us but may be needed for some other industry. All that we desire is a favourable consideration of the problems confronting the men who are at present engaged in the dairy industry. I am fairly conversant with the condition of that industry in Ontario and I tell you that the situation of those men is anything but rosy. I have that on the authority of some bank managers who tell me that never in their experience has the situation of the dairy farmers been so critical as it is now, and that collections are almost impossible. Surely other interests should be prepared to sacrifice a little in order to grant the protection needed for the dairy industry.

Something has been said by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) about the composition of oleomargarine and its food value for growing children. Let me tell the House that if the interests of the growing children of our country could be eliminated I am not sure that I would say anything in favour of this resolution. A large proportion of our po-

Oleomargarine

pulation, and I refer to the children, are not in a position to protect themselves in this and some other respects. In all experiments that have been made from whatever source, the results as given by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) have been found to apply, and no one has made any attempt to refute his argument. It is admitted in this pamphlet which I hold in my hand-and I think I am fair when I use it for illustration-that "growth accessories" are found in the oleo oil from which oleomargarine is prepared, and it is stated that they have been discovered in animal fats. This pamphlet does not state to what extent they have been discovered, but it goes so far as to say that they have been discovered in butter fats and animal fats. This pamphlet also states that they are present in the milk with which oleomargarine is mixed in the process of manufacture. That is correct, and that is the very method by which this gains its appeal with the consuming public, namely, by representing that it is equivalent in value to butter. If butter or milk were not used to any extent in the manufacture of oleomargarine, these "growth accessories" or vitamines would not be found to any great extent. Therefore, oleomargarine cannot he compared with butter for the use of growing children.

As regards cost, oleomargarine may be cheaper than butter; hut as regards actual food value, I am free to state that the poor man whom some hon. members seem to he so much interested in, if he would spend the same amount of money on butter and spread it a little thinner, would have more value than he would by investing the same amount of money in oleomargarine at a cheaper price. If we are to make any mistake at all, let us make that mistake on the side of protecting the children, the rising generation.

One of the main reasons advanced by practically every speaker is that other countries permit the sale and use of oleomargarine. In my opinion, that is the poorest argument of all, because I am sure we, as Canadians, are sufficiently wise to be able to take care of ourselves regardless of what other countries may do. If we look to the country to the south of us, to a certain extent at least they tolerate, lynching; but we do not tolerate it in Canada, and would not do so for one moment. We do not propose to imitate them in that or in many other things. If we look over some European countries, there are many conditions that prevail amongst their

peoples who, we are told, consume so much oleomargarine, which conditions we do not want to find amongst our Canadian people. We might take, for example, the Swiss who have no navy, and I believe in Canada we are coming dangerously near to that state of affairs. These arguments about other countries do not appeal to me. We surely can afford to stand alone if necessary.

It has been stated that this is a poor man's food. I have studied this question for some years, and I have heard the argument that you must not take away from the poor man the material that he needs for a spread on his bread when he is not in a financial condition to buy high priced butter. This argument has its appeal; but in every case where this argument has been presented to me, I have asked what the particular person advancing the argument did himself and without exception the reply is: Oh, we use butter for our family; it is just for the labouring man that we want the substitute. In this country I do not believe in two standards; conditions should be such that the labouring man should be entitled to a pure, healthy and beneficial food just as any other class in this country. It is only because of lack of information that an appeal like this carries any weight. If every family in this Canada of ours was sufficiently well informed as to the comparative merits of butter and oleomargarine there would be no sale for oleomargarine to spread on bread. Oleomargarine, has not, as I have pointed out, the particular life giving growth accessories as described in this pamphlet, that butter has. Butter also has peculiar value as a brain food. Surely hon. members have met many people who do not use sufficient butter. I do not, of course, refer to any hon. member in this House because it is quite evident that we have all been well supplied with that particular kind of diet. I am acquainted with some people who are sufficiently poor in this world's goods to come within the class spoken of and I have not been able to find that that class of people demands oleomargarine.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
CON

Charles Herbert Dickie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DICKIE:

We have been told that 3,800,000 pounds of various substances are imported into Canada for the manufacture of oleomargarine. We are also told that 3,700,000 pounds of oleomargarine were manufactured in Canada. We are told that a great deal of butter goes into this oleomargarine. How are we going to squeeze

Oleomargarine

our butter into 3,700,000 pounds of oleomargarine if we import 3,800,000 pounds of other substances which, go into the manufacture of oleomargarine?

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
CON

John Lawrence Stansell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STANSELL:

In the first place many of these materials are brought into Canada in the raw state and are refined to some extent which process would reduce their volume. I might say also in all fairness that I am giving not figures obtained from other sources which are available and which I have considered, but the figures from a pamphlet which I have in my hand supplied by the oleo interests. The figure of three million pounds odd refers to the manufacture of Canadian oleomargarine. The two million pounds odd refers to the importation, but strange as it may seem- and this is also given in this same remarkable pamphlet,- it is stated that the consumption of oleomargarine in Canada is 1,000,000 pounds per month. I do not vouch for the accuracy of these figures; they are there to speak for themselves. I cannot explain them. My contention is that when we in this Parliament as representatives of the Canadian people decide to encourage the feeding of the young and rising generation on an article of such an inferior quality to butter as oleomargarine, we are taking a step that, to say the least, is entering a road leading in the wrong direction. If we follow it to its logical conclusion it will only be a step until the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) will be justified and we shall be asked to provide a home market for this article known as filled milk which at present we do not know but which will follow after the thin edge of the wedge has been inserted in this matter. Those are the reasons advanced why we should vote for the continuation of the sale of oleomargarine, namely, because other countries permit it and because we should think so much about the poor man's family.

The reason why I support the present resolution is because under present regulations the competition is unfair and it would not be submitted to by any other manufacturing industry in this country. I trust that other industries are sufficiently fair to give to the dairy industry that much needed form of protection that this resolution will provide. In conclusion, let me say what should, in my opinion, be the duty of the representatives of the Canadian people. It should be the duty of Canada's representatives to guard and develop, not

a spineless, navyless, oleo-oiled, peasantry, but a healthy, strong, virile manhood and womanhood, able and willing to protect and perpetuate this country as a nation. And if in this way we can do something to guarantee the young and rising generation a generous supply of one of the best and most wholesome foods, then I submit we are taking a step in the right direction as legislators in this country. If I must choose, as I have to on this occasion, between the welfare of the manufacturer and importer of oleomargarine, on the one hand, and, on the other, -the Canadian dairy interests and the growth and development of a healthy rising generation, I am forced to give my decision and the benefit of the doubt to the latter; and in doing so I believe I am doing what is best in the future interests of the country.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink

May 15, 1922