John MILLAR

MILLAR, John

Personal Data

Party
Liberal Progressive
Constituency
Qu'Appelle (Saskatchewan)
Birth Date
March 19, 1866
Deceased Date
May 15, 1950
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Millar_(Canadian_politician)
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=a1744cb8-5f98-47d2-80e0-a977df75578a&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer, teacher

Parliamentary Career

December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
PRO
  Qu'Appelle (Saskatchewan)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
PRO
  Qu'Appelle (Saskatchewan)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
LIB-PRO
  Qu'Appelle (Saskatchewan)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 174)


April 11, 1930

Mr. MILLAR:

Is this service rendered in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Full View Permalink

March 27, 1930

Mr. MILLAR:

I am pleased to answer my hon. friend. I think the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) in his address made the point very clear. When there is a large export surplus it is impossible to increase the price by protection. As long as you can keep production below demand you can protect and benefit the producer of that commodity. But the main argument from this side of the house that I have listened to, and the argument that I stand by, is that in the matter of production it will be easy indeed by reducing consumption and increasing production to have an exportable surplus. I may add another remark: when there is a surplus for export you can protect those producing only if you have control of the output. Take fruit in the United States: the Americans export about seven per cent of their apples; with control they can get rid of that surplus of seven per cent at a slight loss or perhaps at bare cost; which enables them by reducing the home supply to bring that supply below the demand, and then they can protect the apple growing industry and raise

the price of the 93 per cent above export price.

I think that is a sound argument. I believe one reason why the producers of butter in Canada cannot be benefited by protection is simply that they have not got control of their output, and I do not see how they can get it, for they are too scattered. They are unlike the manufacturers of agricultural implements who are comparatively few in number and can get together on a gentleman's agreement, and so control their output, selling their small surplus abroad at a slight loss or at a small profit and then compelling the home market to pay a higher price. But that is not the case with the wheat grower, and it is quite evident that with a large surplus it is utterly impossible to benefit the producer of wheat by protection.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY AMENDMENTS TO MOTION OP MINISTER OP FINANCE FOR COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink

March 27, 1930

Mr. MILLAR:

Would that be a lasting benefit?

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY AMENDMENTS TO MOTION OP MINISTER OP FINANCE FOR COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink

March 27, 1930

Mr. MILLAR:

That is hardly an answer. Would the benefit last even a few years? Would it not immediately be wiped out by increased production and reduced consumption?

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY AMENDMENTS TO MOTION OP MINISTER OP FINANCE FOR COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink

March 27, 1930

Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):

We

have heard at considerable length during this debate as to what the various dairymen's associations think about this matter, but we have not heard enough about what the dairymen themselves, those actually engaged in the business, think about it. I wish to place on Hansard the statement of a prominent dairyman of Saskatchewan, but before doing so I would refer to a report of the dairymen's association of Manitoba, held in the city of Winnipeg on the 6th of February last. Mr. P. E. Reid, dairy commissioner of Saskatchewan, delivered an address before the association, and from a Winnipeg Free Press correspondent's report, I quote:

Saskatchewan, last year produced an exportable surplus of dairy products, i.e., exported outside of the province; that it was useless to expect the farmer to milk cows if he could make more and easier money in any other branch of farming.

The same correspondent states that in the addresses delivered by Doctor Marker, of Alberta, and Mr. Gibson, of Manitoba, there was no reference to the Australian treaty one way or the other. That is rather significant. This correspondent says that they stressed the necessity of quality and quantity production, and by inference one could assume that they were not worrying about markets, and profitable markets, if we improved our quality and increased our production. The correspondent goes on to say:

These convention resolutions do not mean so much as some people would imagine.

I also wish to quote part of a letter written by Mr. Henry Thompson, a prominent dairy farmer of Fairlight, Saskatchewan, for twenty-two years, and a member of the dairymen's association. He says:

I am very much of the opinion that if this protection was r estored it would not benefit the producers one iota. Our biggest difficulty right along, as I find it, is that manufacturers are taking too much of the cream off the bowls right along, particularly here in Saskatchewan. They have played the same game for two or three years, to my knowledge. At the conventions they have worked a scheme to have a similar resolution put over each time.

In another part of his letter he says:

Concerning the joint dairy association, held in the Saskatchewan hotel, Regina, two years ago, for about six weeks or so previous to this convention the price paid for this grade was 45 cents per pound f.o.b. Regina, but the price was dropped 3 cents to the producers, and in conversation with a prominent creamery manager of one of the city creameries, he stated to me a short while after, that there was no local cause to warrant that drop in price, as really their supply for that grade of cream was not equal to demand, and they personally could have advanced the price to 50 cents and give the producers the benefit, without hurting themselves in the least, and that they were able to pay over 10 per cent dividend that same year.

In describing the manner in which these dairy conventions are manipulated, Mr. Thompson says:

When we greenhorns have sat and listened for some considerable time to these wonderful orations, and in rather an abrupt and blunt manner suggest that we do not accept these framed resolutions, as they have thus been prepared and cooked for us, it appears a bit funny, but the chairman begins to fidget and looks at his watch and reminds us there are other speakers yet to come, and, "I am afraid we will have to curtail this discussion. I am awfully sorry."

That is the way a prominent dairyman of Saskatchewan looks upon those resolutions on this question of protection on butter; stereotyped resolutions "prepared and cooked" for them.

I would refer to the reference made 'by the member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae) to the attitude taken towards the Australian treaty by a prominent manufacturer. He said the manufacturers were behind the demand of the dairymen's association. I am not surprised at that in the least. The question in my mind is this: Which way did he reason; did

he reason that in a short time the price of butter in Canada-provided the duty were increased to four cents a pound, thus bringing about increased production and reduced consumption-would be brought down to an export basis all the year round, and his workers would get cheaper butter than at present? Was that part of his reasoning? I think perhaps it was. Another reason probably is this, that by supporting the dairymen's association the manufacturers were allying themselves with those who are supposed to be representing the farmers, and they were gaining strength and support for their own efforts in getting protection for the manufacturing industry.

I listened with considerable interest to the addresses, particularly those from hon. members immediately across the floor. I found that in many respects their reasoning was sound but their conclusions were faulty. Take for instance the reasoning of the member for Red

Australian Treaty-Mr. Coote

Deer (Mr. Speakman); it was very logical, very clear, but he came to the conclusion that the tiny speck of advantage that might accrue to the farmer temporarily was well worth his support. That is just where I differ with him. Whether the principle of protection is involved matters not to me, but I think my friends in that corner of the house made a mistake in changing their attitude in regard to protection for the farmer. As representatives of farming constituencies they have, I think, made a mistake in allying themselves with those who would have protection; for I believe it would cost the farmer a great deal more than the benefit he would receive. The benefits from protection, as the member for Red Deer pointed out, would be very small indeed, and I am inclined to think those benefits would be lost in a very, very short time. After that the price of butter-and that is the commodity around which most of this discussion has centred-would in all probability be less to the producer than it is now. He would be selling his butter all the year round on an export basis, whereas now in the winter months he is receiving a higher price than the export price. It has been pointed out several times that he is receiving two cents a pound more than producers in the United States, and they are in a highly protected country. I will not detain the house longer.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY AMENDMENTS TO MOTION OP MINISTER OP FINANCE FOR COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink