July 3, 1935

CON

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

It is not necessary that there should be either a connection or a difference between what was stated at that time and what has been stated to-day. The hon. member asked for an example of how the industry could be equalized or stabilized, and I gave him the example. I did not state that it was to be operated in conjunction with the item we are now considering, by any means. If the hon. member will re-read ' what he has read already I think it will be quite clear to him that at that time I was describing a scheme that might be set up by the dairymen, and I stated that the dairymen * were considering setting up a scheme but that need not necessarily have anything to do *>

with this item.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

Then this is the position: We have enacted a law permitting the dairymen to make a levy on themselves in order to raise a fund for a certain, purpose, and to-day we are voting a million dollars of government money to be used for the same purpose. Am I right in that?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
CON

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

For a similar purpose, but not in the event of the other scheme being endorsed!.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

The minister has stated that the dairymen, have made considerable progress in working out a scheme of this kind, yet he is putting through this vote of a million dollars. If the first scheme is to be carried out, why this vote?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
CON

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

This vote is for the purpose of carrying on until the first scheme has been completed, and that will not be done for this season's make of cheese.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

I see; this is not to be repeated another year. The minister contemplates taking this million dollars, or the other fund to be raised in subsequent years in any other way, for the purpose of what he calls stabilizing the dairy industry. He proposes that if the price of butter should get out of line with world prices this fund may be used to encourage farmers to remain in the production of other kinds of dairy products instead of switching to butter?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
CON

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

No, only to the extent that there may be danger of the production of butter being such as t-o put it, for a considerable period of time, on the world market level, and so bring down the price of butter to the world market price.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

In the event of there being a danger that the price of butter will get^ out of line? I wonder what success the minister has had hitherto in estimating what is going to happen to the market price of butter. Two years ago he and his officers estimated that we were going to have a surplus of foutteT in Canada. Fearing that the surplus would depress the price below the world level he appealed to those in Canada holding large quantities of butter to export it, to dump it on the world market and pocket the loss, and some of them did so. Then as the season advanced it was found that his estimate was all wrong, that there was no surplus of butter but that we actually had a shortage, and we had to bring back some of the butter we had exported. One year ago his officers went out

and announced from the public platform that we were going to have a surplus of ten million pounds of butter in Canada, which would have a depressing effect on the market. But before many weeks passed they had to revise their estimate, and at the end of the season it was found that we had a surplus- on the market of only one million pounds. We know what success our government have had in trying to guess what would be the price of wheat; as yet we do not know wha-t it is going to cost this country. We know they cannot estimate what the price of butter is going to be or whether there is going to be too much or too little. It is just possible that under this vote the minister may take that million dollars and use it to bonus butter as against cheese when market conditions .might actually require him to bonus cheese as against butter, because it is no more possible to estimate what is goin-g to happen in the cheese market than it is to estimate what is going to happen in the butter market. Is the minister sure as to what branch of the industry he is going to give this fund to? I do not think he can be sure at all.

Now we are launching on a policy of bonusing, and we are going to. start bonusing cheese. Have the potato farmers no claim for a bonus? I am told that the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island have been throwing out their potatoes because under the marketing act the government put those potatoes at a price -which the public would not pay, so they could not sell their product. I suggest that they have a legitimate claim for a bonus. If we are going to -bonus the cheese producers we have a right also to bonus the butter -producers, the potato growers and the wheat growers. We will be here to-morrow demanding a bonus on wheat. The fishermen also have a right to a bonus; the producers of pulpwood and all other primary producers in this country have a right to a bonus. So I think we -can safely take this as our slogan, that we will have bonuses for everybody or bonuses for nobody. All these schemes the minister has in mind have the same purpose in view; that is, to raise the domestic price above the level of world prices. In that I say he is pursuing a wrong policy and as -long as he continues to -pursue that policy we are going to have unemployment, we a-re going to have relief camps and we are going to have trouble of all kinds in this country. One-third of our exportable product is exported. One-fifth of the total wealth .produced in Canada is exported. One-fifth of our people depend absolutely on the export market for their living. When you raise domestic prices

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act

above export prices you put that oner-fifth of our population in a position where they cannot sell their goods on the export market because it costs so much to produce and to live in Canada.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
?

Edward Hackett

Mr. BLACKETT:

Will the hon. member

permit a question?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB
CON
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

Great Britain abandoned

free trade because she was ill advised, and my hon. friend's leader can tell him where that advice came from.

Here is what you are endeavouring to do; You are endeavouring to raise the cost of living in this country to the point where those of the population who depend on the export market will not be able to operate their business at a profit, where ithey will not be able to stay in business, where they will not be able to buy the products of your domestic industries, and as long as that condition prevails I say you are going to have distress among the primary producers, you are going to have unemployment among the industrial workers and relief camps and all sorts of trouble. I ask the minister to abandon this policy at once and get back to the point where all our prices will be based on the prices of export commodities. Then you will be giving employment to the men in the cities, because then your primary producers will be in a position to employ these men in producing the things they want to buy.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
CON

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

If I have a clear

understanding of it, what the hon. member lias in mind as to what should be done is this: The party of which he is a member, if they are returned to power, will cancel any duty that may exist against butter coming into this country. If they state that they will not cancel the duty against butter coming into Canada then I say they have no choice, if they are assisting the 'butter industry, but (to assist the cheese industry as well. If the hon. member is conscientious in what he states, however, he simply means that if his party is returned to power he will do his utmost, and no doubt his colleagues will support him, to cancel any tariff that may exist against butter coming into this country.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

We are not going to confine our tariff reductions to butter, I can tell my hon. friend; we are going to reduce tariffs all along the line.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink

Item agreed to. Secretary of State Adjustment of war claims: Secretary of State-further amount required, $15,000.


LIB
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Certain litigation under the direction and control of the Department of Justice is being carried on in reference to reparations claims. The deputy Minister of Justice informs me that in connection with two suits now pending, Rex V. Hatfield and Logan and in re extradition of Hatfield, the sum of $15,000 will be required. This is the further amount required.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink
LIB
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

There is no reparations fund. All the funds which have been placed at the disposal of parliament have been expended. There is no' such thing as a pending reparations fund. This item is in connection with litigation arising out of what are alleged to be illegal payments made some years ago out of the reparations fund.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Permalink

Item agreed to. Expenses in connection with printing amendments to the Election Act (governor general's warrant of October 3, 1934), $20,000.


July 3, 1935