I could not state that off-hand. Of course, we have in the department the details of every application that comes in, but I have not obtained the figures by provinces. I think there again the great bulk of the applications would come from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Speaking from memory and subject to correction which, perhaps Professor Robertson can give me, the greater number of applications lately have come from Quebec. There are more creameries in the province of Quebec, in proportion to the population, than in the province of Ontario. Ontario has taken a great lead in cheese production, but in butter production, I think Quebec has rather taken the lead, at least in the number of factories and the proportional amount of butter produced. I have just received a memorandum from Professor Robertson, saying that, so far as the exports are concerned, about three-quarters come from Quebec and about one-quarter comes from Ontario. And the bonuses to creameries are in about the same proportion.
I could not give that in more than round figures. I think about three-quarters of the amount paid in bonuses goes to Quebec. The statement I gave a moment ago indicated how much had been given in bonuses last year.
If the hon. minister will turn to pages D-65 and 66 of the Auditor General's Report, he will find that almost $6,000 was paid to Quebec and only $500 to Ontario. That is not in the proportion stated by the hon. minister.
There are two circumstances that may help lo explain that. It may be that Ontario has not applied for so many bonuses, or it may be that Ontario applied earlier in the carrying out of this arrangement. The first year's bonus is $50 for each creamery, and the Second and third years' bonuses $25 each. If a hundred factories applied from Quebec this year, they would get $50 each, a total of $5,000; if, last year, a hundred had applied from Ontario, this year they would receive only the second year's 'bonus, $25 each, a total of $2,000. I have not analysed the applications or payments, and so am stating simply a suppositious case. The arrangement is that every creamery that applies and fulfils the conditions gets the bonus.
The minister does not understand me. The persons controlling a number of buildings here and there have been getting first and second bonuses and will receive third bonuses this year. A few persons receive the bonuses rather than the country generally, as I understand it.
Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) does not understand the object of the bonus system. The object is to secure that at every creamery there shall be a refrigerator. ' I do not think that it matters in the least degree to Canada whether ten creameries that receive bonuses belong to one man or to ten men. We know that in some sections of the country, some men with busi-
ness capacity ancl enterprise have established a large number of cheese factories or a large number of creameries. These men would get bonuses on a number of creameries, yet every individual who asks for a bonus and complies with the conditions receives it; and it is as easy for the owner of one creamery to comply with the conditions for one building as for'the owner of ten to comply with the conditions for ten buildings. The bonus is given to the factory, not to the individual.
What is the reason tire export of butter fell off so much in 1901 from what it was in 1900 ? There seems to be a discrepancy there at which I am rather surprised, because the hon. minister seems to be doing a good deal to promote the butter industry.
The figures the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) refers to. are for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1901. The butter production for that fiscal year was smaller in consequence of the price of cheese. We have a certain amount of milk in Canada to be made up into butter or cheese. Some seasons a larger proportion is made into butter and some seasons a larger proportion is made into cheese. It happened that the season for the calendar year 1900 opened very well for cheese, and, during that calendar year there was a very much larger quantity of milk made into cheese than there was [DOT] made into butter. The year before, the butter export had been very large. The result was that, in the fiscal year commencing 1st July, 1900, and ending 30th June, 1901, there was less butter produced for export than there had been for the year before. The conditions, however, apparently, have changed a little, and last calendar year, the year just closed, we had a much larger export of butter. In this last calendar year-we sometimes reckon butter and cheese production and exports by the season, and then in the Trade and Navigation Returns they are entered by the fiscal year-in the season of 1901 again there was a much greater production of butter, as a matter of fact, about $5,000,000 worth in round figures, was exported. During the season of 1900 there was much less exported; during the season of 1899 there was about $5,000,000 worth of butter exported. I think the explanation is that the factorymen and the patrons thought that season that cheese was going to sell rather better than butter. As my hon. friend will notice, this last calendar year in which, as I have pointed out, there was a great increase in the butter exports, there was a very decided decrease of cheese exports.
I understand that, and it was a* complicated work to prepare the figures, because the season's make is in the calender year, and the export of it comes very nearly in the fiscal year. There is not a great deal of butter, as a rule, exported during the early months of the navigation of the St. Lawrence. The export of butter made in a given calender year does not begin to any great extent until after the first of July, it therefore goes into the fiscal year following.
I notice, however, that in the last fiscal year the article of butter, so much aided by the government, shows a very much reduced amount of export, and the article of cheese, that was not assisted by the government, showed an increased export, showing that the government's assistance made no difference.