May 15, 1922 (14th Parliament, 1st Session)


Alan Webster Neill



No; that is the first suggestion I have heard of any further restriction. Reason No. 13:
Over 1,000,000 pounds a month are now consumed in Canada-proof of its acceptability.
That is 12,000,000 pounds a year, is it not? And yet last year the government returns shows that the total amount imported and manufactured-not consumed-was
only 3,200,000 pounds odd. Yet the manufacturers make the bare, bald statement in order to pervert the minds of the readers of this pamphlet that over 1,000,000 pounds a month is being consumed. An argument based on grounds so far removed from the facts is calculated to discredit many more of the arguments contained in this pamphlet, for it is always safe to judge the unknown by the known. Further on there is this statement:
Provision should be made to protect the public from fraud in connection with oleomargarine and all other products.
It is too costly, and they know it cannot be done.
No legislation should limit the legitimate manufacture and sale of oleomargarine.
I may say that no legislation should limit the manufacture of jemmies and other house-'breaking tools; but their manufacture is forbidden by law. But what are you going to do with them if their manufacture is legitimate? What are you going to do with oleomargarine when it is manufactured? You are going to use it for an illegal purpose-to palm it off as butter.
It is in common use in Australia, New Zealand and the United States.
This is in deep, bold, black letters. That is only one-third true and two-thirds false. It is not in common use in Australia, it is in use to only a limited extent; and it is not in use in New Zealand at all. It is not forbidden, but it is not in use. I suppose it can be said that it is in common use in some parts of the United States. They tell you what oleomargarine is made of:
1. Oleo Oil-
They tell you how nice oleo oil is, but they do not tell you whether 22 per cent or 44 per cent comprises the ingredient.
2. Neutral-lard,-
They do not say whether it is 6 per cent or 48 per cent which contains lard. The third ingredient is milk. They say:
Milk-the fats are churned with milk un^er the most rigid sanitary inspection.

But they do not tell you how much milk is used. You can guess at it.
4. Butter-finest creamery butter containing no artificial colour is used.
Dairy butter is not good enough for them, only the "finest creamery butter containing no artificial colour is used." "It contains no artificial colouring." That is where I got my information about Canadian butter containing no artificial colour-" ing. If my statement is incorrect, it is only one more misstatement contained in this pamphlet. Let me tell you what they say in another part of this propaganda. They are talking about oleomargarine, and they say:
The whole is churned in milk and a small percentage of butter is used by some makers.
This is not my propaganda, it is not even Hansard, it is by the same people, the Canadian manufacturers of oleomargarine. They say, "a small percentage of butter is used by some makers." But here they get busy and say, "the finest creamery butter containing no artificial colour is used." "Some" butter is used by "some" people.
We find that these products are mixed together and churned. No Sir, they are not churned, because I take again the word of the manufacturers here. The products are mulsified, they are made into an emulsion, the same as in the manufacture of soap- the process is identical, and the result is very little different. Churning is a process by which you draw out of something, such as milk, butter fat. You could churn this stuff until doomsday and you would not produce any more satisfactory stuff than you put into it. They say that the whole mixture is made
-into a palatable form from those fats, which, although quite wholesome, could not otherwise be used as a spread-for-bread.
It must be palatable if, as stated, it is "like eating lard." Then we find this statement in regard to food value:
The British government a few years ago made tests of the calorie value of oleomargarine, and, as a result, they adopted it for use in government institutions.
But, Mr. Speaker, we know that British margarine is very superior to the Canadian or American product. It is made under strict regulations and has to conform to a high standard. If they found it of so high a standard why did not they quote the tests imposed by the British Government? The manufacturers of oleomargarine are

not modest. They would have quoted the blue, book, but they do not. They say:
The British government found it highly satisfactory.
Further on we find the following:
Tests of the energy-value of oleomargarine made recently by a competent authority resulted interestingly. Calorific value in separate fats showed many brands averaged 3,710 calories per pound.
But they do not tell you who the "competent authority" is. Would it not have been a good thing to tell you who made those tests? We also find the following:
Oleomargarine should sell under its own name and on its own merits. It should not be allowed to trade on the name of any other product.
Absolutely correct. I say, "amen" with all my heart. Neither let it trade upon the appearance, taste or colour of butter. Let it sell on its own basis as a cooking article. We are told further on:
Oleomargarine came into existence because of a shortage of palatable, edible fats and oleomargarine has thrived because the production of these has never kept pace with the growth of population.
The production of butter fats in Canada has more than kept pace with the growth of population, and oleomargarine cannot be said to be "thriving" when its consumption dropped from 14,000,000 pounds to
3,000,000 pounds in four years. I think that is an exaggeration, to say the best of it. Later on we find quotations from various gentlemen, from worthy and admirable members of parliament who made certain remarks in the House last year on this subject, and extracts are given from Hansard. But, curiously enough, all these gentlemen quoted are speaking in favour of oleomargarine-Mr. Michael Clark of Red Deer and four other hon. gentlemen. But why did the manufacturers not say that thirty-five pages of Hansard are full of the remarks of people who are not in favour of oleomargarine? Why did he not tell you, if he wanted to put it fairly and honestly, that the government of the day, strongly entrenched as they were with a good majority behind them, could have put through any bill they liked? It was brought down in the form of a bill in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, and when that hon. gentleman introduced it he said: We are going to pass this bill. But the pressure was so great, exerted as it was by members on both sides who were united in objection to the measure, that the minister rose in his place and

said: Boys, we will pull it out, if you will only be good, and we will put it in for one year only. So he withdrew his hill in deference to the measure of opposition that developed in the House, though he could have put it through if he had liked. That is a fair statement of the facts in that connection.
Now, I wish to quote one more passage from this pamphlet, and it is the gem of the whole collection. They wind up with the production of opinions by experts. You all know that you can get an expert's opinion on almost anything; you can get one medical man to swear that a man is insane and you can get another to swear that he is not in'sane. This pamphlet, this propaganda, quotes four experts-all, no doulbt, very estimable men. Here is one of them:
Dr. H. W. Wiley, the noted pure food authority of the United States government, in 1900-
That was eleven years ago, wasn't it?
-testified before the Agricultural Committee.
I do not know what committee is referred to. He testifies as follows:
In all my extensive analysis of butterine or oleomargarine, nothing objectionable or deleterious to health has ever been found, and oleomargarine, as made to-day, is pure, palatable and more nutritious than butter.
The most extravagant assertion otf the maker of this dope is out-Heroded by this one-that oleomargarine is "more nutritious than butter." Now, I will give you Mr. Wiley's comments on this same subject as quoted in the House and found on Hansard at page 934. The name is given in this case as "Dr. Harvey Wiley"; in the pamphlet from which T have just quoted it is given as "H. W. Wiley"; I assume that the same man is referred to. I quote from page 934 of Hansard as follows:
Dr. Harvey Wiley stated in a recent issue of Good "As far as I am concerned, I should never give my children nut margarine, oleomargarine, or any other margarine, as a substitute for butter. Butter contains a vital principle necessary to the growth of children which none of its substitutes possess. I should never give children nor grown persons in my family food products containing a, preservative such as benzoate of soda.
I wonder which remark was made first; has the mountain come to Mahomet, or Mahomet to the mountain? That, I think, Will cast some doubt upon the evidence of experts, when you find them saying a certain thing at one time and quite another thing-as is alleged-at another. Now, when witnesses in a court of law are proved to be incredible on several important
points, their evidence is thrown out on all points. You often hear a judge say: I do not believe that witness; I have found him so incorrect on so many points; he may be trying to tell the truth but he is evidently unable to do it. We will give our friends the benefit of the doubt; we will say this propaganda was formulated in ignorance- perhaps it was; at any rate, I submit that it is not worthy of credence. I submit that I have produced evidence that will commend itself to the judgment of hon. members, and, with the facts which will be brought out by other hon. gentlemen more conversant with the technical branches of the 'subject than I am, will convince the House that we ought to keep faith with the farmers and go back to the conditions as they existed in the year 1917.

Full View