The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

"He probably received less than 60 cents per hundredweight for this sur-- plus milk, and I submit the Minister has no adequate inspection that he can assure my friend that the milk' did not go for human consumption. The Premier stated the other day that, this regulation was submittsd to, and approved by, the Producers' Association. The Producers' Association tells me that this is not the casc, and your Dlrector'{ of Dairying stated in the Agriculture! Committee that the wording in the regulations in regzard to surplus milk was not the same as when submitted to the producers, and I am informed this applies to other parts of the regu-- lations as well. Altogether, not count-- ing the $5 this man lost for 8 cents per hundredweight deducted for 3.2 test, the deductions from his statement of $126.83 were $40.93, leaving his net amount $85.90. I demand again that 'Lhe dairies must treat all milk received as regular contract milk, unless the producers are informed before they | ship it that a certain quant.ty will be regarded as surplus. Sursly this is fair, ' and I further say that where the regu-- lations make it so greatly to the ad-- vantage of the dairies to underread a test, the Minister cannot possibly put on enough inspectors to satisfy the pro-- ducers that they are receiving a fair test. The Prime Minister rather repre-- sented me as objecting to a system whereby a producer sending 3.5 milk, should receive more than one sending 3 per cent. This is not so. I approve of such action, but I do say the standard for buying should be the same as for selling. and figure your dlfierentlall from that." Praiss for Mr. Doherty. "I admit it is debatable to what ex-- tent the Provincial Department of Agri-- culture could influence these forcign markets, but in this connection we re-- cail the effects of Hon. Manning Doherty's effort in lifting the British cattle embargo. The Minister is now sending men east and west to attempti to re--establish marksts lost since 1923, and is active in attempting to re-- e--tablish Ontario producers in our own home markets, but I repeat this belated activity of the Minister and department is the strong>st condemnation of the seven years lethargy and stagnation which has characterized this depart-- ment, and has been responsible in no small measure for the loss of markets at home and abroad. "Now, I approve of the Minister's action in encouraging and aiding the establishment of seed--cleaning plants. This was the strong recommendation of my friend from Grey, Mr. Taylor, be-- fore the Agriculture Committee last year, and when the Minister carries out our recommendations he won't go far wrong. But I do not yet forgive nor forget the fact that it was the present Minister who brought into effect on Jan. 1, 1931, the regulations under t.hey Milk Act which have been so unfair to the producer. I have been deluged with protes's against the regulations from producers since I brought this maiter to your attention two weeks ago. As an example, yesterday a shipper brought me his statement for January, the first month under the new regula-- tions. To begin with, they only allowed him 3.2 per cent. butterfat test, this from the same herd under exact'y simi-- lar conditions that has always run from 3.17 to 3.9 per cent. This lowers his price from 2.20 per hundredweight to 2.12 per hundredweight. In spite of the fact that he had two or three days a week holdbacks, they make a further deduction for surplus milk. This was mik which ine paid 50 cents per hun-- dreaweight to have hauled to Toronto, and had absclutely no intimation that it would be treated in any way other than regular contract milk, but which the vegulation No. 5 allows the dairy company to do. Difference in Wording Alleged. At some length Mr. Nixon reiterated The Premier felt that all members, especially representatives of agricultural sections, should co--operate in efforts to improve conditions. He felt that Mr. Oliver should withdraw his amend-- ment. "But, if not," he added, "then I welcome the co--operation of the House in voting it down." The value of farm produce in Ontario had increased from $420,000,000 in 1923 to $500,000,000 in 1929. "No msan con-- tribution to the wealth of the Prov-- ince," the Premier remarked. "There is a temptation on the part of rural rep-- resentatives to bemoan agricultural conditions. It does not behoove public men to advertise unsatisfactory condi-- tions which are really only a part of world--wide conditions and beyond the power of any one to change." his stand against the gun license, his! remarks taking the identical course of an interview which he gave to The Globe on the question two weeks ago. Welcomes Suggestions. In the seven years of the Conseryv-- ative Administration there had beson a 40 per ccent. increass in contriputions to agricuitural services. Says Value Increased. Farquhar K. Oliver (U.FP.O., Grey Ssouth) bore the brunt of the Premier's attack. Reforring to Mr. Oliver's amendment, Mr. Henry declared: "He should have asked his fairy godmother representing the same constituency in the Dominion House to put the sub-- stancse of the amendment in the form of a resolution and present it to the Federal Ministers of Agriculture and Trade and Commerce." Forsign mar-- kets wore primarily a responsibility of the Dominion Government rather than the Provincial. But Ontario had been stenping into the Federal fiecld in the matter of developing foreign trade, es-- pecially in the qusstion of marketing fruit. mont should 'establish and maintain' foreign markets?" The farmers, he affirmed, were not the only people who would like to have the problem of high overhead solved. Complain'ng that the amendment was not comprehensive in dealing with the goneral agricultural situation, the Premier exclaimed: "When was it ever thought or suggested that this Govern-- Premier Henry stated that the Gov-- etnmont had no thought of adopting regulations that would reduce the school grants. Regarding the complaint of high taxation, he declared that the Government simply supplies the serv-- ices that the people desired; if they did not want such services they would not have to pay for them. "The farm loans operated by the Dominion Government call for a 6' per cent. rate of interest," said Pre-- mier Henry, referring to the suggestion that the Agricultural Development Toard should reduce its interest ra'e "I want to accept the hand of co-- operation extended by the Leader of the Liberal group in dealing with remedies for the agricultural situation," said Premier Henry. Constructive sug-- gestions, he continued, would be wei-- comed. on farm loans. "We charge only 3 % per cent. We have only 1.6 per cent of the total money loaned in reserve. While a reserve of $500,000 looks large, it is very little when it is considered that the loans amount to $30,000,009 " the Council might be influenced to ask for a stay in operations on a certain higchway. "While the member said that the Council was unanimously opposed to more pavements, it voted nine to four in favor of the completion of this road this year," said the Premier. For Ottawa, He Cla'ms. The Premier severely -- criticized Thomas K. Slack (Progressive, Duf-- ferin) for statements to the effect that the Dufferin County Council was unanimously opposed to further pave-- ment of highways in the county. "I always take it that members of the House say only what they know to be a fact," he observed. He read a letter from the Warden of the county, in which the statement was made that arc.k td Liquor Board Chairman Not to Testify, Says | Premier "WETS" IN MCHIGAN NOT TO HEAR DRAYTON a Detroit paper that Sir Henry Drayton would be chief speaker on behalf of the wet forces seeking an amendment to the Michigan Constitution to permit the sale of liquor was given by Premier Henry in the Legislature yesterday. "Sir Henry Drayton has not accepted, and will not accept, the invitation to speak at the hearing in Michigan," Premier Henry averred. He went fur-- ther, and stated that Sir Henry would not appear as a witness regarding Gov-- ernment--control conditions anywhere outside the Province without the con-- sent of the Government. Sir Henry had given evidence at an inquiry con-- ducted in Washington on conditions obtaining in Ontario. On that occasion, the Premier pointed out, Sir Henry had followed another citizen of this Province who had given evidence at the same inquiry. He was evidently referring to Hon E. C. Drury. The matter was brought up in the House by William Newman (Liberal, Victoria North), who quoted a report that Sir Henry would testify in Michi-- gan. Dcefinite contradiction of a report in