It is rather important that we have not got a figure of any sort to go on. On the occasion of the Second Reading, I mentioned that one of the items likely to enter very largely into the cost incurred in connection with these relief schemes was cement, and it has been conveyed to me by some people interested in the cement company that my remarks were unfair. They were, briefly, that the company had paid 10 per cent., that the directors were well paid, that there was ample provision made for depreciation, and that there was a hidden fund amounting—I was reported as having said, and I believe I did say—to about 1/- per cwt. on cement. It is obvious, on consideration, that it was 1/- a ton I had in mind, assuming that there was any such thing, because 1/- per cwt. would represent a very large sum—£1 per ton.
It is fair to say of the company that it did not pay dividends for the first year—it could not because it was not working—but in respect of its first five months' working, it paid 4 per cent., with a very large sum to depreciation and a considerable sum off the preliminary expenses. In the second year, it paid 10 per cent., made a fairly large allocation to depreciation, and paid a sum practically equivalent to more than 50 per cent. of the dividend off the preliminary expenses. If the Government's policy in respect of profits is to be interpreted in the light of the report of the Prices Commission into the Pigs and Bacon business, the standard should be 7 per cent. Here we have 10 per cent. being paid, on a monopoly. I think it is unreasonable. It is held by some people that the profits would not allow of any material reduction in the price. So far as the hidden sum is concerned, there was a sum, because it is mentioned by the directors themselves, in some statements, that foreign cement is now to be charged for at a higher rate, by reason of the fact that funds over which they had some control were not now available in respect of that. Those funds must have come from some source; they must have come from the profits of the firm. There is scarcely any Minister in the State who should be more concerned with the cost of cement than the Minister for Local Government. According to the information which I have received, the Minister for Industry and Commerce exercises some sort of supervisory—if not control—observation over this firm, and it is a strange thing that one set of business men are limited to 7 per cent. while others can have 10 per cent. and over it.
I take it that, under this Bill, the Minister for Local Government is charged with providing employment. Normally, it is not his business; it does not enter into the scope of the scheme of local government that if should be. I take it that, if he is going to enter into anything of that sort, it should be his desire and his duty to see that the kind of work which is going to be undertaken will be of a constructive character as far as possible. On looking through the Bill, one comes to the conclusion that there is nothing else in mind but roads and road making. There are opportunities for spending money in a very constructive manner in this country. The very Department in question has such work within its scope, sewerage, waterworks, housing, and so on.
The desirability and the necessity in these times of getting value for money should be paramount to the mind of the Minister, perhaps more than any other Minister in the State, because in the last seven or eight years the rates of practically every local authority in the country have advanced, and advanced considerably. It may be urged that the people are getting extra services. The question of our ability to pay for the extra services depends very largely on what our production is, and it appears from any and every examination that can be made of the economy of this country, in the last eight or ten years particularly, that if we are to expect any real improvement in our economic position it is to the agricultural industry we must turn our attention.
Practically the only term that is employed in connection with this particular Bill, other than roads, is "works of public utility". It does appear to me that there are opportunities which might be availed of in the course of the operation of this Bill, to improve the productive capacity of the country in respect of the agricultural industry, mainly as regards drainage, and I should say also in respect of the extension of the electricity undertaking to farmers in quite a number of districts throughout the country. In one of the provinces of Canada, the province of Ontario, something like 50,000 fanners are at present being supplied with electricity. There the scheme has been extended on the basis of the provinces paying 50 per cent. of the costs. Quite a number of publications have been issued in connection with it. It is hoped that an additional 30,000 or 40,000 farmers will be enabled to get their farms connected with the supply of electricity during the next couple of years. Generally speaking, in no other country than America, North and South, has there been such an extension of the use of electricity for farming purposes, with corresponding advantages.
Taking this particular measure, which is a costly one—according to the accounts which the Minister gave us on the last day the sum of money which is being expended is in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000—it is very desirable that we should get some value out of the expenditure of such a huge sum of money. Merely having additional roads, better footpaths and so on is no advantage; the straightening of corners and all that sort of thing may have its advantages, but it does not add in any way to the wealth and productivity of the country. It is held in quite a number of these publications which I have mentioned that there are many advantages in connection with the use of electricity for farming purposes; that those various rays have a vitamin or stimulative character; that egg production is increased; that they have utilised the power for chopping food stuffs; that they have utilised it for packing silos; that they have utilised it for making the agricultural life of the country more attractive, and for endeavouring to stop the trek from the land into the city.
That is one of the problems with which the Minister and the Government have been faced during the last eight or ten years. The fact that people are leaving the land and coming into the city makes the problem of dealing with unemployment a very much more serious, a very much more difficult, and a very much more expensive one. If it were possible to have a plan for making the land more attractive for those who are on it, if we could only do that by improving their living conditions and improving their conditions of prosperity, it is possible that very much more useful work would be accomplished than can be measured in terms of £ s. d. It is unfortunate that the Minister or the Government cannot tell us what sum of money is in mind in connection with this particular measure. From all accounts, it is in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000, and it would be most unfortunate if, after this measure had been operating for a year, we had nothing of a really constructive character to show for the expenditure of such a huge sum of money. It may be that I have taxed your patience somewhat——