PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata) : I rise to a question of privilege. In my absence, last evening, Mr. Speaker ordered that some of my statements be struck off from Hansard. I want simply to say that soon after a certain word was used, I informed Mr. Speaker that I thought it should be removed from the records. I said so because it has several altogether different meanings and there shall be no possible misinterpretation.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)

Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Is Edmond Desmarais, of Richmond, in the employ of the dominion government?
2.	If so, since when and what salary does he receive?
3.	What position does he occupy?


Mr. CAHAN:: I have inquired of each and every department of government at Ottawa and in each case I have received the reply that no person by the name of Edmond Desmarais is in the employ of that department. If the hon. gentleman could give me clearer indications of the department in which the person in question is presumed to be employed, I will make further inquiry.


COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE-QUEBEC
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Does the government intend, at an early date, to make a permanent appointment to the vacant position of collector of customs and excise for the port of Quebec?
2.	What are the names of the applicants?
3.	Have examinations been held for the said position?
4. If so: (a) on what date; (b) where; (c) who acted as examiner; (d) who were the candidates at such examinations?


Mr. BENNETT:: This question, I think, is one that should not be asked. It is covered by statutes of the country dealing with the civil service commission and appointments made thereby.
Question dropped.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. GOULET:: 1.	What was the total amount expended by
the dominion government for seed grain advances in western Canada in the years 1918, 1919, and 1920?
2.	How much of the said amount remains unpaid?
3.	Is it possible for the government to accept less than the full amount of principal and interest due on the said seed grain advances?
4.	Will the government insist upon the payment of the said seed grain advances?



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Weir (Melfort) for the second reading of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith.
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: When I previously spoke, in opening this debate, I expressed the hope that this bill would not be thrown into the realm of controversial partisan politics. I asked most sincerely for constructive suggestions with reference to the bill, suggestions that would improve it and make it more possible to effect the aim as set out in the title of the bill.
I should like to take this opportunity tc express most sincerely my appreciation of the conscientious and constructive suggestions that have been made by members on both sides of the house, which suggestions, in many instances, I believe will at least be of benefit to the measure. I left no doubt that there were great difficulties confronting the bill, and that the first year's experience with it would perhaps do more to perfect it than any further suggestions that might be made. I felt hon. members on both sides would agree that the fact that obstacles of various kinds stood in the way was not a sufficient reason why an honest attempt should not be made to solve some of these difficulties and overcome these obstacles, in order that the primary producer might reap a greater return for his efforts.
I think it is generally agreed, no matter on what points we may have differed in this debate, that there is a very great wastage in the present system of marketing primary products and that some effort should be made to avoid that wastage. I would say then, at the outset, especially because of misinterpretations that have occurred in connection with the bill, leading to the belief that established trade will be wiped out or interfered with, that this is the very opposite of the whole spirit that has led to the introduction of this bill. That means destruction, and destruction means further wastage; whereas the thing we are endeavouring to overcome is the wastage which we agree exists. Only those who have given a good deal of thought to the problems that I have mentioned and to a solution of them are really fitted to appreciate the great difficulties.
First let us consider this-and I shall not attempt to answer in each case the points made with which I disagree; I think it will save the time of the house if I do not traverse the ground I have already covered, but rather give my interpretation of the bill and at the same time, without dealing specifically with each objection taken, refer in a general way to the various types of objection taken by different members.
There are those who have stated that if our bill followed the pattern of the British
2736	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
marketing act they would support it. I do not think any hon. member who understands the British marketing act and who has an appreciation of the difficulties with which we are confronted and that we are endeavouring to solve would say that that act is adaptable to any great extent to meet our problems. In the first place the territory involved there is very small in comparison with ours; the distance limitations are quite different and their agriculture itself is not nearly so diverse as ours, so that their problems are entirely different. Further, the problem to be solved there is to assist the primary industry of a country that is chiefly an importing one, whereas our primary industry is concerned greatly with the problem of exports and of properly regulating the flow of products abroad as well as to our domestic markets.
Further, they have one parliament, not ten as we have. They are not confronted, as we are, with the question of provincial rights and other problems that have arisen by reason of the British North America Act. One of the chief principles in the British marketing act is price fixing. In this country there is a great body -of opinion that is against price fixing including even some of those hon. members who spoke freely in favour of the British act. There is also in the British legislation provision for restricted production and I maintain that restricted production is not referred to in any particular in our bill. Therefore I say that for those reasons the British marketing act which is applied to meet different conditions and different problems arising out of those conditions does not adapt itself to any great extent to solve the problems confronting us. We have considered our problems and have endeavoured after study to produce a bill that, when passed, will enable us to set up machinery that we think will meet the peculiar needs and overcome the special difficulties with which we have to contend in Canada in the marketing of our primary products. In so far as certain principles that we have found it necessary to adopt are the same as those appearing in the British act, we have taken advantage of them because to a certain extent they have been tried out and been found successful.
The first difficulty that confronted us in attacking our problems was the limited jurisdiction of the. federal government as a result of provincial rights as laid down in the British North America Act. I think hon. members who will earnestly study the bill with a desire to see the best in it will agree with me that in it there is nothing that will conflict in any way with the British North America Act. The whole bill is based on a spirit of cooperation

to fill that need which I believe the great majority of the Canadian people feel, irrespective of the province in which they live, namely, to create a more economical system for marketing the products of our primary producers. In that connection, because of the flexibility that has been forced upon us in any bill we introduce, I believe we are sound in the first principle I have enunciated, I hope, more clearly than I evidently did when I last spoke,-namely, to put the power for the regulation of the marketing of the products of the primary producers into the hands of the primary producers themselves in so far as they give evidence that they are anxious to have that power to handle the regulation of the marketing of their own products as shown by the extent to which they are prepared to organize to do this. In this connection they may use their own cooperative organizations or established channels of trade. I believe there is in this country a great body of opinion in favour of cooperative marketing, while there are others who are in favour of marketing by what hds become known as private enterprise. In this regard I am reminded of a statement made by a noted Anglican divine of Toronto whose church I used to attend regularly when I was at the university, He was discussing the question of church bazaars. My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) says that I must be careful on this question. This Anglican divine said in reference to churoh bazaars that he did not believe the men of his congregation were any more anxious to be taken in in the name of the Lord than in any other way. I think many farmers and producers in this country are not particularly anxious who markets their products as long as they receive the greatest returns from them and the work is done efficiently. In connection with marketing I believe healthy competition is essential but there must be no monopoly.
The basis of this bill is that a representative body of producers will submit a scheme that they have carefully thought out and in which they are interested in a way that no one else is, for the marketing of their primary products. Some hon. members have suggested that if we had stated1 in the bill that there should 'be a poll and that if producers representing seventy-five per cent of the production voted in favour of a particular scheme and authority would be given for the other twenty-five per cent to be forced in, they would support the bill. Due to the different problems that we have in the marketing of primary products in Canada it is not possible to insert such a provision. For

Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
example, let us take one of the simplest of the primary products-apples. The problem of marketing apples in Nova Scotia is different from that in Ontario and also from that in British Columbia. In Nova Scotia for the crop year 1933-34 eighty-nine per cent of the apples were exported, so that their major problem is one of export. In Ontario only thirty-seven per cent of their apples were exported, so that their problem is chiefly a domestic one. In British Columbia some forty-seven per cent of their apples were exported; their problem therefore is pretty well divided 'between domestic and export marketing. That is one instance, but I could give a large number, showing why we do not consider that we should fix any limitation as to how this scheme shall be brought into effect, lest by such definition we should make it inadaptable to different conditions in regard to different products in different parts of the country. Further, it has been left open in order that bodies of producers may meet their provincial government, submit their scheme to them, and if the provincial government thinks well of the scheme and allows them to form a local board with the powers given in this bill, or perhaps with different powers, we can if necessary use that board as our agent under the Dominion Marketing Act. The basis of the bill is to put powers into the hands of the producers themselves, in so far as they indicate through their own organization that they wish it, and thus there will be no conflict with provincial rights. For these reasons I believe it is sound policy to leave the provisions as flexible as they are. Hon. members have suggested the possibility that the local board, to take the extreme case stated by one hon. member, might consist of a number of Chinese laundrymen. I do not know whether there is anything in our legislation setting up the railway commission to prevent Chinese laundrymen, if they were British subjects, from being appointed to it, and it is just as rational to expect that they would be appointed to it as to this board. The clause here is very clear; it has been referred to by so many members of the opposition that I think it well to read it. I quote section 5, subsection 5:
(5) Every scheme as approved shall state,
(g) the number of persons who shall comprise the local board and the basis of their selection.
That is, the group of producers in their scheme must state the nature of the board that is to handle the scheme that they propose. I know that in some branches of the industry they feel that the board should consist entirely of producers; others are very
decided that there should be producer representation, and representation from the trade that is vitally interested in the marketing of that product, and also that consumers should be represented. But the primary object of this bill is to give power to the producers even to the extent of recommending and setting out the manner in which the board is to be appointed.
The second principle of the bill is that power shall be taken to investigate the spread, using the term in the general and popular definition. What we have in mind is this. Here is a product and here is the consumer, and the cost of getting the product from the producer to the consumer is the spread. Therefore power is taken to ensure if necessaiy that there shall be no unfair profit taken, no unfair manipulation in this process that takes place, to increase unduly the cost between the time the product leaves the producer and the time it reaches the consumer. To meet that situation, if a small group of producers wish to organize solely for the production of the best quality product in uniform supply, they will be assured of that protection and of efficient marketing of their product. I do not think any hon. member can object to either of those two principles, namely, first, giving into the hands of the producer the power to handle his own product, and second, assuring for the protection of both producer and consumer that there shall not be any artificial manipulation by people who made no contribution either towards the production or towards the rational, honest marketing of the product.
Then in the third place we have taken power under this act to limit, if necessary, imports and exports. I do not think that any one can take objection to that. We have had instances which I would like to cite to the house, but because they are connected with individuals closely associated with members of the house I shall not do so. I shall be glad, however, to show to any hon. member a description, for instance, of one shipment of cattle to the old country within the last few months that had a very damaging effect on the reputation of our cattle. It is almost unbelievable that such a shipment should have been made. I feel that it would have been in the interest of the producer himself had he been prohibited from exporting them, and it certainly would have been a benefit to all other live stock producers of Canada who wished to avail themselves of the market for our cattle in the United Kingdom to take the best advantage of that market by sending their best quality products.
2738	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
Certain amendments have been prepared that will be submitted in connection with this bill-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Weir: -not to change the principle of the bill in any way but to clarify certain points such as that referred to by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) and I believe the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). It was my understanding that these matters were taken care of in the bill as it stands-I think I would have no difficulty in proving to anyone that they are- but it is felt advisable that this clarification should be made. The amendments are ready and will be brought down when the bill is before the committee.
I have dealt in a general way with the criticisms that have been levelled against the bill; first the objection that the producers lose control, that control is taken out of their hands and put into the hands of whoever may be appointed to the boards; second, the objection to the type of board that may be set up. I think one hon. member mentioned that it might consist of about fifteen old decrepit politicians. I could not help but be struck with the thought, when he was speaking, that he had in his mind a very definite picture of the man he thought capable of being chairman of this board if it were in his power to set it up. But I feel that his opportunity in that direction will be very slight. I believe he is better qualified, if I may use the illustration, to use a little pick to scratch the mortar out of a standing building, hoping it will fall down and be destroyed, rather than to take any constructive step in the erection of a building. As I have said before, the purpose of this bill is construction, not destruction, and I am sure hon. members will agree that people of that type should not look for any position on the board.
I have dealt so far with criticisms repeated by various hon. members opposite. I should like for the few minutes remaining at my disposal to deal with some specific criticisms raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). In fifteen different places in his speech he referred to the principle of this bill as being restriction of production. In one place he is very emphatic that that is the chief principle of the bill. I would not for an instant suggest that the right hon. gentleman did not in his own mind understand that to be a fundamental principle, but I maintain that nowhere in this bill is restriction of production mentioned. It is simply for the purpose of regulating the products going on the market. The right

hon. gentleman stated that producers had to be licensed. He spoke in favour of orderly marketing, and in his amendment put himself on record as favouring it. What orderly marketing could we have of any product in this country if we did not know the quantity of that product that was to be placed on the market in any given time? The only way in which that information can be obtained is for the producers to submit what they expect to produce, the acreage seeded, the number of head of live stock and so on. That work is done now by various branches of the agricultural industry that have approached us already with schemes they wish set up, under which they undertake to license producers of their own product for the very reason that it is impossible for this government to have any orderly marketing unless they have some knowledge of the volume of the product that is to come forward. That is their own suggestion.
In this connection I should like to say in passing that every branch of the industry that has approached us has asked only that it be allowed to stand on its own feet. But these are the branches already organized. They do not wish any money from the consolidated revenue fund, but there are other branches of the industry that are not so thoroughly organized, and we feel that it is necessary, in order to tide them over until they can organize for orderly marketing, to insert some provision in this bill so that such branches may be looked after in the meantime. That is the only reason for that provision in the bill to which a number of hon. members have objected. Many branches of the industry are so upset that they are not in a position to organize at once, perhaps because of the number of people involved or the area covered by that particular branch, and those branches are in the greatest need of assistance. We also feel that conditions may arise in the future, as they have arisen in the past, which will make it highly desirable for us to extend sufficient assistance, under the powers we have taken by this bill, in the marketing of that particular product in order to make such marketing profitable where otherwise it would be conducted at a loss. That is one of the chief reasons why some of the power taken under this bill may seem excessive though I do not consider that power excessive at all. We are simply applying what are recognized as sound principles in successful enterprise in this country.
The least that we as a government and as
members of parliament, irrespective of party, can do is to use the resources of the country

Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
tvhere necessary to assist the primary producers. In that connection I would say that if any persons attempted, by means of the machinery set up under this bill, to revolutionize the entire marketing system of the dominion in a month, in six months or in a year, undoubtedly they would do a great deal more harm than good, but we do feel that it is necessary to have this power, which will be used as any sane man would use it and as we, in our heart of hearts, all agree that it should be used, irrespective of the opposition that has been raised.
A further argument used by the right hon. leader of the opposition was that this bill took away the rights of parliament, that there was too much compulsion in it, and in his amendment he stated that he was unalterably opposed to compulsory legislation. I think perhaps the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) has answered that argument in a better way than I could answer it, and in a way which must impress the right hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Melville cited the compulsion that was necessary to enforce the policy in regard to bovine tuberculosis and the testing of cattle. I think there was almost civil war in Nova Scotia when that policy was first enforced, but now there are no further complaints wherever it is applied. I believe it is one of the most constructive policies we have ever had in connection with our live stock industry. I believe the hon. member for Melville stated further that they had proceeded even without order in council to prevent cattle from being shipped out of this country.
Hon. members on this side of the house have spoken at length and have cited the legislation of a compulsory nature introduced by the right hon. gentleman when he was in power. One cannot but feel that this objection or criticism was raised not from the standpoint of merit but rather for effect. The right hon. gentleman referred to the Magna Charta and said that this bill affected the rights received by the people under the provisions of the Magna Charta. I am sure I was not the only hon. member in the house who wondered, when the right hon. gentleman made that statement, if he could have been transported, with the attitude of mind that he has exhibited towards this bill, back to Runnymede on that fine May day in 1215, whether he would have been on the side of the barons or on the side of the king. The barons were spreading authority; they were delegating it to a place where it never had been delegated before. Further in this connection I might ask the right hon. gentleman if there ever has been a session of parliament in Canada since confederation during which parliament did not delegate authority to bodies outside parliament.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit that while this bill is a long way from being perfect-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear


Robert Weir: I greatly appreciate the fact that only two hon. gentlemen opposite applauded that remark; it is the highest compliment that could be paid to the intelligence exhibited across the way. This bill can be perfected only through experience and the overcoming of obstacles, which will indicate what changes should be made in the bill.
I close my remarks, Mr. Speaker, with a further appeal for constructive suggestion when the bill is in committee. I had thought, following the suggestion of hon. members of different parties, that it might be well to refer this bill to the agriculture committee or to a subcommittee of that committee, but as time is the chief essence, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has put himself on record as being unalterably opposed to it, and as it has been stated that the official opposition will fight this bill to the last ditch, I feel- and I regret it-that there would be little gain in wasting the time of any committee if the bill is to be fought out in the house clause by clause and phrase by phrase.


Mr. STEVENS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Beaubien	Hurtubise
Blair	Jacobs
Bothwell	Jean
Boucher	King. Mackenzie
Boulanger	Lapointe
Bradette	Mackenzie
Brown	(Vancouver Centr
Butcher	MacMillan
Cardin	(Mackenzie)
Casgrain	McPhee
Denis	Marcil
Deslauriers	Mercier (Laurier-
Desrochers	Outremont)
Dubois	Mercier (St. Henri)
Duff	Moore (Ontario)
Dumaine	Munn
Elliott	Parent
Factor	Perras
Fafard	Raymond
Fiset, Sir Eugene	Rennie
Fontaine	Rheaume
Fournier	Rinfret
Fraser (North-	Roberge
umberland, 0.)	St-Pere
Gershaw	Seguin
Girouard	Taylor
Golding	Thauvette
Goulet	Totzke
Gray	Urquhart
Hall	Veniot
Hanson (Skeena)	Weir (Macdonald)
Howden	Young-60.


Mr. SHORT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: I was paired with the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BAKER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McDADE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. JONES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McGIRBON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOYES:: I was paired with the hon.
member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Marketing Act


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson,). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SENN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOWEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BEYNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HOWE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HOWARD:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Shaver): Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. FOULIOT:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. FERLAND (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CHEVRIER (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. F. T. SHAVER (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) announced himself as being paired with the hon. member for Stormont, which is incorrect. I voted.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I should have said that
I was paired with the hon. member for Gren-ville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman).
Mr. WEIR (Melfort) moved that the house go into committee on the bill.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with the bill may I say that I believe this would be the opportune time for me to express my great disappointment in the fact that the government seems to have denied parliament one-half of the facilities usually employed to improve, add to or take away from the provisions of a bill. As hon. members know, in addition to discussion in committee of the whole there are in all major agricultural bills standing committees on agriculture and in other cases special committees. If there ever was a bill which came before this house-I cannot hear myself talking.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: If ever there was
an agricultural bill which was entitled to all parliamentary facilities for careful examination, certainly it must be this bill. Yet at the very outset it would appear that the government has so little confidence in its own bill that it has refused parliament the use of one-half of the facilities provided to afford discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Still the hon. member
voted for it.


William Richard Motherwell: Did I say onehalf? If I did, I was away out, because I should have said that two-thirds of the facilities have been denied us. The committee on agriculture is supposed to know something about agriculture; yet the government refuses to refer the bill to that committee. Secondly I take the ground-and I believe it is well taken-that at least two-thirds of the facilities afforded by parliament, facilities which date back possibly as far as confederation, have been deliberately denied us. I was greatly disappointed in the speech of my good friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), because it would appear as though he intended to put this legislation through in some hole-in-the-corner manner when witnesses cannot be called and heard. Everyone recognizes that day by day the House of Commons is becoming more and more the parliamentary and political cockpit of Canada. Is that not a fact? And yet my good friend the minister is inviting this cockpit amicably to amend this bill, detract from it or add to it. How can we hope for a miracle like that to happen? In my pristine simplicity I thought the Minister of Agri-
Marketing Act

culture was inviting us to improve this bill and thanking all of us who had been fortunate enough to contribute something constructive to the debate, and then we were told that there would be only two major amendments made to this bill, giving effect to the suggestions made by my hon. friend from Yale (Mr. Stirling) and by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid). I took that to be the meaning of the minister's remarks.
The Minister of Agriculture has now given us his refusal to refer this bill to the agriculture committee and I look now to the Prime Minister to show cause why this bill is being treated so outrageously different from all the other agricultural bills that have been presented to this house. You see, Mr. Chairman, I am getting fussed up myself. This is not the way to promote good fellowship or unanimity with regard to the bill. The bill is thrown into the cockpit, and the cocks are starting to fight. I find my own feathers getting up at the indignity that is being heaped on agriculture by denying the committee on agriculture which is supposed to know the most about agriculture, the opportunity of helping this bill along. To throw the bill into this cockpit makes the minister's invitation nothing but a hollow mockery. He hopes that there will be constructive suggestions and no controversy. How are we going to escape controversy where we have been having it all along? A committee of the whole is identical with the whole house. It comprises the whole house unless some special or select committee is sitting at the same time. I cannot understand how the hon. gentlemen comprising the government can take this action on a bill which they claim is most important, and deny to this bill those facilities which all the smaller agricultural bills which have been brought before parliament this session have been afforded. There have been four or five submitted, and all of them went to the committee on agriculture. I have the privilege of sitting on that committee, and there was not a voice in that committee raised as loudly as mine is now. I hope that mine is not raised harshly even yet, and I hope that it will not be before I am through.
I am confident that the work of the house would be facilitated by this bill being sent to the committee on agriculture. It is true that the bill could be debated in the house again after coming from the committee. The committee on agriculture has not the last word. The committee of the whole house has the last word on all bills that come before parliament. Yet we are denying our com-

mittee on agriculture the right of looking into this bill.
Why, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has a little wee bill, not as long as my finger, dealing with just one little controversial question and one non-eontro-versial question, and while it is not in the Department of Agriculture at all-for as the house knows the department is a sort of dual-headed proposition, and the other head is the Minister of Trade and Commerce-he submitted his little wee bill to the committee on agriculture without any urging at all. While I opposed the bill I took the ground that we should let it go through on the second reading inasmuch as the minister was going to afford the best facilities for amending it before the committee on agriculture where we could have witnesses. I supported the second reading of that bill just as I supported the second reading of this bill, and yet this great bill which has been ballyhooed all across the country has been denied the facilities that were afforded to that other little wee bill and to all the other agricultural bills that were brought down this session.
I cannot reconcile the lip professions of the ministry with their actual practice in what they are doing now, and I should be delighted if the Prime Minister would give any logical reason why this bill is being denied the opportunity of being changed for the better in the committee on agriculture that would not apply to any of the other four bills that have been sent to the committee this session.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I should like to back up what has just been said with regard to this bill going to the committee on agriculture or to some special committee. We in this corner asked for that when the matter was under discussion before the second reading. We felt it would be highly desirable that expert witnesses might be called who could give their assistance in elaborating and perhaps modifying some of the clauses of this bill. The Minister of Agriculture a few moments ago told us that the reason this bill did not go to (the committee on agriculture was that it would be fought bitterly by the agriculture committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


An hon. MEMBER:: By the leader of the opposition.


Mr. ERNST:: Surely it is not an agricultural bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well then, the reason it did not go to the committee on agriculture, according to the minister, was that it

Marketing Act
would be fought by the leader of the opposition. There are members in this corner supporting this bill and prepared to support it, and I do not think it is fair to them to disregard entirely their earnest request that this bill should go to a committee where it can be thoroughly considered, with the assistance of experts. We cannot do it here.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: I would point out to hon. gentlemen who have urged that this bill should not have been sent to committee of the whole house that the proper time to have made those objections was on the motion to submit the bill to committee of the whole.


Hugh Guthrie: And the discussion now is simply reflecting on the action of the house.


William Richard Motherwell: I have never pretended yet to know much about the rules; the less you know about them I think the better. But I have been reading up May for another purpose, and I find there that if you want to raise a question of this kind you raise it immediately on going into committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point exactly. This house without a single dissenting voice accepted the motion unanimously, a few moments ago, to go into committee of the whole house on this bill. Nobody raised his voice against it-not a single soul.


John Vallance: Cannot the motion be rescinded?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is not going to be rescinded because the house unanimously accepted the motion to go into committee of the whole, and that is where we are now.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I submit that the Prime Minister is entirely incorrect. The motion was to submit the bill forthwith to committee of the whole house. Now either on the title of the bill or on the preamble we can have a general discussion in committee and move to rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again. Once the committee rises and reports progress, the Prime Minister or the minister can immediately move that this bill be referred to the committee on agriculture. So I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the procedure of my hon. friends on this side is absolutely correct.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Even if my right hon. friend was correct in his interpretation of the rule, when there is a strong feeling and a demand from all sections of the house, even
from members who supported the second reading, that the bill should be sent to the committee on agriculture, surely my right hon. friend, even if he had to give his consent, should not refuse sending this bill to that committee instead of having it discussed here by committee of the whole house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only difficulty is that a majority of this house has decided that the bill should be submitted to committee of the whole house. That has been decided; it is not competent under our rules to question that decision, and that is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is doing.
What the hon. member for Vancouver Centre says is an entirely different thing. It is entirely competent, of course, to have a general discussion before a clause has been passed, but the discussion must be relevant to the subject matter of the bill, and not to the motion that has been adopted by the house to submit the bill to committee of the whole house. The discussion must not be with respect to the procedure which has already been adopted by unanimous action of the house. Inasmuch as the Minister of Agriculture made his statement before the vote was taken and the hon. member for Melville voted for the bill, I take it when he says that to submit the bill to committee of the whole house indicates a lack of confidence in the measure, that he was really voting want of confidence in himself-a wholly unusual practice in this parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: This is his reward.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact, on
this side of the house we do not hold out rewards to those who support us. That is the difference between us and hon. gentlemen opposite. This is not one of those classical cases in which rewards are held out to those who desert their principles, of which we have had striking examples in times past. But we are not mercenaries on this side of the house. We are not mercenaries.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the Winnipeg speech again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, we are not.


Ernest Lapointe: Neither mercenaries nor judases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I doubt not, from observations I have heard, that something of that sort was the opinion entertained of the hon. member for Melville by some of his associates, but I think it is wholly unwarranted. He did it on principle. The hon. gentleman from Vancouver Centre has, I
Marketing Act

think, correctly stated the position. But, not to enter into a discussion as to the soundness of the act which the house has just unanimously taken, if there is a desire to rescind that action there are, in our practice, appropriate measures provided to meet the situation. For the moment however the government is of the opinion that in view of the action taken by the official opposition, this is not a measure to be referred to any committee other than the committee of the whole house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The Prime Minister has referred to the action of the official opposition-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was on my feet when someone interrupted with a point of order.


William Gordon Ernst: Go ahead; you are leading the opposition anyway.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: He is leader of your party.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is leading the Socialist party.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope the Prime Minister will not insist on a technicality. As a matter of fact, those of us in this corner find it extremely difficult to catch motions that are being put at the other end. It was not until the hon. member for Melville was half way through his speech that order was sufficiently restored to enable us to learn what it was all about. It may be true that, technically, a motion was passed with regard to referring the matter to a committee, but the hon. member for Melville took the opportunity of raising the larger question and I thought it well to state our position with regard to the whole question. If I am not altogether out of order, I should hope that the government would reconsider its decision and allow this matter to go either to the committee on agriculture or to a special committee.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Make a motion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know that this is the place for me to move such a motion, if the Prime Minister insists on the technicality.


Mr. NEILL:: Move that the committee rise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister is not insisting on a technicality; he is merely pointing out that the rules that have been settled by the house for the conduct of debate must be observed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Replying to
what my right hon. friend has said, namely, that the action of the official opposition was responsible for the government's decision not to allow this measure to go before a select committee, may I remind the Prime Minister that when the bill was introduced the opposition sought very diligently to ascertain from the government whether they would not permit the bill to go to the select standing committee on agriculture, or some special committee, and it was only because the Prime Minister so strongly took the position that it would not go either to the select committee on agriculture or to any other committee that we on this side felt bound to take the firm stand which in the circumstances, we were of the opinion we ought to take to the principles underlying some of the provisions of the bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. gentlemen will look at what I said at the time the Minister of Finance introduced the bill with respect to the central bank, they will observe that I then stated that inasmuch as the minister had said that the question of the ownership of shares and control was an open question to be fully discussed in committee, we would not oppose the second reading of the measure. Could we have received from the government a similar assurance with respect to certain of the provisions of this measure, there would not have been the opposition to the second reading there necessarily was, because of certain principles which are embodied in the measure as it stands. It was because the government would give no such assurance that we were obliged to construe as final the principles of the bill as set forth in the clauses which I quoted when speaking on the second reading.
Apart from this, may I direct the attention of the committee to what has taken place thus far. A number of speeches have been made on the second reading. At a cursory glance, I find that of those who have spoken there have been nineteen Conservatives. There were quite a number of speakers from the Labour party, the C.C:F. and the Socialist group in the far corner, and they should be added to the Conservative number in accounting for the time consumed on the second reading also, because of the common attitude assumed towards the bill by the new Tory-Socialist alliance. From this side of the house there were only seventeen in all who spoke on the second reading of the measure. May I add this further word by way simply of refuting what the Minister of Agriculture has

Marketing Act
said as to the opposition seeking in any way to protract the proceedings. There is a great difference between standing for your principles, asserting and maintaining your position, and endeavouring to protract proceedings indefinitely. I stand within hearing of members of my own party when I say that a week ago to-day, at a party caucus, I expressed the view that there was nothing to be gained at all by protracting discussion on this, or indeed on any measure at present before the house, and I counselled expedition in the matter of getting through the legislation of the session. I said that I believed, because of pending provincial elections, there was a deliberate plan on the government's part to keep the House of Commons in session a very considerable length of time, and I did not think we should lend ourselves to anything of that kind. As regards, therefore, the Prime Minister's statement that the action of the opposition is in any way responsible for his not permitting the measure to go to a committee, he is entirely in the wrong in making any such statement. The proper procedure would have been at the outset for the government to have expressed its intention to send this bill to a select committee; and, I repeat, had it not been that the government expressed a diametrically opposite intention, and given us to understand that the bill would be discussed only in committee of the whole house, and not be referred to a select committee, where the principle underlying its general provisions might be fully discussed, our attitude in regard to the second reading would, as a matter of course, have been different.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the country will be delighted now to have heard wihat was said in caucus of the Liberal party for the purpose of determining what public action should be taken, for otherwise we should not have known what the attitude of the right hon. gentleman and his party was or is. It is pleasing now to know, in a secondhand way, that a week ago they desired to save the country from any knowledge of the great struggle between John and the Barons and of the difficulties which Alfred experienced in cooking the cakes, and things of that kind. But there is one thing that is very apparent, and that is that when the amendment was moved by the right hon. gentleman for his party it was an amendment that tried to be on both sides of the question. It reminded one of that Pilgrim who in his progress met Mr. Facing-Both-Ways. That is exactly what was done here: the amendment approved the principle of the bill and then denounced it. But in accordance with the rules of parliament
it was ruled out of order, and instead of facing both ways we have had to face one way with the result that there has been a majority of sixty against the opposition, led by the former Minister of Agriculture in the administration of the right hon. gentleman. This bill, we know now, has been talked to for one solid week by the opposition because the government indicated that it was to go to committee of the whole house. The right hon. gentleman tells us that it is because we said at the beginning that it was to go to committee of the whole house that he has taken a week to discuss it. That being so, it is clear that it should no longer be considered as being open to go to a select committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Most of the week was taken up by the right hon. gentleman's own friends.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The list is there.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nineteen against
thirty-five.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the right hon. gentleman will measure the columns I think he will find that his statement is quite incorrect, for my memory is that he himself spoke about two hours, which represents the length of time allowed by the rules of the house for four average speeches. So that if you measure the columns you will see that his statement is hardly correct. But this is what I was going to point out. The leader of the opposition says to-day that had it not been for the statement made on the introduction of the bill, or early in its progress, that the bill was to go to committee of the whole house, all this long week might have been saved. Inasmuch as the week has been lost, and the discussions have taken place, it is obvious that the bill should not go to a select committee but should remain where it was said it would go. That is the logic of the position. It means that. Therefore, a week having now been taken and full opportunity having been had to discuss the whole matter, the penalty of course is that we shall proceed rapidly with the bill now that the week has already been exhausted in a discussion of it and the sending of it to a select or standing committee is wholly unnecessary. If the right hon. gentleman's observations do not mean that, they mean nothing. Therefore I think we have disposed of the matter by the statement made by the right hon. gentleman on behalf of his party. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) said on behalf of his party that they would support the bill. They did not support it for any love of this government or this party; they did so because
Marketing Act

they thought it was sound policy for the benefit of their constituents. If they have any observations to make, it has been pointed out that they have the fullest opportunity to offer amendments in committee of the whole house. I am wholly against the bill going to a select or standing committee because it is not the class of bill that should go.


Mr. HANBURY:: Is the right hon. member afraid of outside evidence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The kind of evidence
mentioned by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, outside or inside evidence, is the kind of evidence on which he is a standing authority.


Wilfred Hanbury: That is your stock joke.


Mr BENNETT:: We are neither building a hotel at Vancouver nor extending the construction of steamships on the Pacific slope. That is the inside side of it. The outside side of it is this: we are afraid neither of discussion nor of amendments nor of hopeful outlook on the part of hon. members opposite with respect to their opposition to this legislation. But there is one thing we do say: This is not the sort of bill that in England would be sent to a committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is obvious; this bill involves a principle that the house has accepted after a great struggle, just as the Home Rule bill was accepted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Minster of Agriculture said that the situation n England was different from what it is here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite different. There
ivould not be such a long time lost on the second reading; the guillotine would have fallen on the second day. That being so, the question of principle having been voted upon, the official opposition having declared that they will fight this bill strenuously to the end, and the right hon. gentleman speaking for the major opposition in the house having said that last week's discussion took place solely because of the fact that the bill was to go to a committee of the whole house-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say anything of the kind. Last week's discussion was in large part by hon. members opposite and last week was taken up, as the right hon. gentleman knows, to a certain extent in discussing other matters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should have said: He told caucus that.


Ernest Lapointe: Very clever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not clever; it is a fact. But I would say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this is the kind of legislation that, the principle of it having been adopted by the house, the measure itself is really an effort to give effect to that principle. Any amendments or suggestions may be offered in committee of the whole. The minister himself has a large number of amendments to offer that, we believe, will expedite the passage of the bill in order that it may become available for use in this country as soon as possible.
The hon. member for Melville referred to four bills that went to the committee on agriculture. But they were all subjects of an entirely different character from this


William Richard Motherwell: What?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Garnet wheat.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not through yet and there were four other bills in addition to that.	_


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a matter of an entirely different character, whether it is thought desirable to separate garnet from number two wheat and make it a different grade.


William Richard Motherwell: That was not one of the four; that was a supplementary one, by another minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was another one that was even less important except from an administrative standpoint and questions of administration have usually gone to the committee on agriculture; questions of principle are settled here in the house. During the next few weeks there will be considered by the house a large number of bills that will be in exactly the same category. There is the bill regarding companies which will be considered by committee of the whole; there is a bill respecting elections which will also be considered by committee of the whole and there are other bills of the same character.


William Richard Motherwell: I have already today made one record, that is of voting for a government measure on the second reading regardless of its Conservative origin. I am going to make another one now by speaking on a point of order, something I have never done before. If I may be permitted to wander away from it as much as other speakers have done, I may get anywhere. To begin with, I may say that no later than to-day, anticipating that the Prime Minister might act up in this way in regard to this matter, I sought the best authority of the house to find out what to do in case the Prime Minister refused

Marketing Act
me or anybody else the right to talk on the question of submitting the bill to the committee on agriculture instead of dealing with it here first. I was told that I could not raise the question on a motion that was not on the order paper; that the time to raise it was now when it was raised. That is all I know and it is the justification I have for introducing the matter when I did. Therefore neither the Prime Minister nor anybody else has shown me any overwhelming reason that we should not discuss the question now. Anything that one wants to say at the beginning of a new estimate, any general observation, is usually made on the first item called. The same with this bill. See how I am progressing in the matter of a point of order! If the government wants to take advantage of this quibble it may do so, but it is getting off on the wrong foot at the very beginning of the debate. I will ask the house: Have any hon. members ever asked themselves the question whether it was for love of party or for love of agriculture I gave my vote to-day? That is a fair question.


An hon. MEMBER:: For love of agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: If it was for love of agriculture, then that is what I am standing up for now-the right for the bill to be submitted not to a committee on banking or a committee on railways but to a committee on agriculture.	.


Mr. MOORE (Ontario):: I am inclined to disagree with the hon. member for Melville. I doubt whether this is an agricultural bill. It involves principles that extend very far beyond agriculture and if it is to go to a committee I suggest that it go to a select committee of the house.


John Vallance: Mr. Chairman, have
you decided what to do?
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	MacDonald,
Cape Breton): Yes, I have decided that this discussion is entirely out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is
before the committee at present?
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	MacDonald,
Cape Breton): Section one.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has it
been read?
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	MacDonald,
Cape Breton):	No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then the whole discussion is out of order.
On section 1-Short title.


John Vallance: I have a few remarks
to make on the title of this bill which reads:
This act may be cited as the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934.
This government says that it is. Is this really a natural products marketing bill? I say that it is not a marketing bill. I would like to join with those who have objected and I think I am right in making the statements I now make. When the Minister introduced the resolution on which this bill is based, I asked him whether it was the intention to send the bill to a select or a standing committee, the committee on agriculture. He refused to answer. The question was answered later on by the Prime Minister who said that it would not be and when the right hon. gentleman ranted this afternoon about the attitude of the leader of the opposition, the latter pointed out that if this bill had been left in the same position and had received from the government the same courteous treatment that the central bank bill did, it would not have been necessary to have a vote on it to-day. It was pointed out definitely at that time. I am one of those who object most strenuously. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), we have had four bills submitted to us. The Prime Minister said that there was no principle involved; he indicated, at least to me, that only unimportant bills are sent to the agriculture committee. There was a bill that he dealt with himself, concerning garnet wheat, it came before the agriculture committee. If the ramifications of this bill are what some people would lead us to believe, and if such a large percentage of the Canadian people are going to be affected, why was not opportunity afforded them to make representations before the committee as has been done on former occasions? Therefore, with the hon. member for Melville, I register my protest.


An hon. MEMBER:: You both talk alike, it is all the same.


Mr. VENIOT:: Before section 1, the title, is adopted. I wish to say that I agree with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) that this bill affects not alone the farming industry of Canada. Dealing with natural products, it also affects the great fishing industry. While I do not desire at the present moment to discuss the merits of the bill I do wish to raise my voice on behalf of the fishing industry of the province in which I live. If this bill is to be dealt with only in committee of the whole, then I say the interests of the fishing industry in the maritime provinces, and

Marketing Act

especially in the province from which I come, will not be properly represented. There are perhaps only one or two hon. members in this house who are competent to lay before the committee of the whole house the effect this bill will have upon that industry. Had the Minister of Agriculture in introducing the bill stated that he was prepared to have it go before the agriculture committee I would have objected because my opinion was then and is now that a bill of this nature, having the title that it has, should not go before a committee on agriculture, composed for the most part of gentlemen who know nothing about the fishing industry of the dominion. It should go before a special committee consisting of representatives of the agricultural and other primary producers. It is for that reason that I voted against a second reading of the bill, because in going before the committee of the whole house justice cannot be done to an industry which I consider of scarcely less importance than agriculture. While I do know a good deal about the fishing industry I am not prepared as a member of this house to demonstrate the detrimental effects of the bill upon it, and discuss with the fulness of knowledge that is desirable certain sections of this bill which I claim will if adopted do great injustice to that industry. It may be said, move an amendment. when you come to these sections. But, Mr. Chairman, while I do know a great deal about fishing, I am not competent to move an amendment to clauses which I consider will do great injustice and harm to my people, without having fuller opportunity of discussing it with them. This bill should be discussed before a special committee where these men could be heard as witnesses, and having had the bill explained to them they could then decide whether or not certain provisions would have a detrimental effect on .heir industry. I refer to section 4 in passing, i do not intend to discuss its merits, but just to give the reasons why I cannot accept clause 1 at the present time. The section refers to regulations and to registration. That provision alone, if made effective without this committee having had opportunity to benefit from the information that they could get from the fishing industry, would damn the industry in the province of New Brunswick.


William Richard Motherwell: The Prime Minister recited the number of acts that had come to this house from the Minister of Agriculture this year, and I have recalled to my memory at least four. There was the Destructive Insect and Pest Act, the Dairy Industry Act, the Live Stock Products Act, and the Fruit

Act; and in addition the Minister of Trade and Commerce submitted one amending the Grain Act. Now I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that you mean to gag this committee in discussing this question. We want to have a bill that will be satisfactory to those whom we all endeavour and desire to serve-not to conduct a ringside fight here. We have had enough of that. We cannot do our best legislatively by being treated the way this government is treating the opposition at this time and not only the opposition but the agricultural industry of all Canada. If you want to rub my fur the wrong way just be unfair to that great industry, to which I owe my very life and being and soul and everything. And that is what is being done. There are only a few of the ministers left here. I see that the Prime Minister has retired to his lair and the rest of them do not look quite so furious. There is the acting leader of the government looking as meek as Moses, and the Minister of Finance who is always at least half decent. I am quite sure that if he and the Minister of Agriculture had the decision of the question this bill would be over in the agriculture committee in five minutes. What sort of way is this for the Prime Minister to treat his Minister of Agriculture, after going through all the agonies and labour pains of producing this marketing baby, then to be refused permission even to refer it to the committee specially set up by parliament to deal with such matters? At the first session we were here in 1930 it is true the Prime Minister chaperoned all the estimates and all the bills and all of everything for all of his colleagues, but surely they are not still in leading strings so that the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. gentleman now leading this house cannot decide even now to refer it to the agriculture committee. If right now there were a vote of the members present, with whips off, no doubt two-thirds or three-quarters would vote for submitting it and doing the right thing at the right time in the way it has always been done. I have not had as long experience in parliament as some, but I shall soon have been here twelve years, and never before have I known a departure from the orthodox plan of submitting bills relating to agricultural matters to the agriculture committee, unless it were some little correction, dotting an i or changing a word or something of that nature. My good friend the Minister of Agriculture has not had one bill this year that he did not submit to the agriculture committee, and only one or two very unimportant ones since he took charge. I invite and if need be demand that one of the ministers in charge give some reason why all the facilities afforded by

Marketing Act
parliamentary procedure should be denied to this bill and not to the other four referred to. The Prime Minister referred to the bill regarding garnet wheat, as if that were evidence of any kind to establish anything that was now under discussion, and then he disappeared. I do not want to be unreasonable, because after all apparently we have to submit to the brute majority of this house and make the best of this committee, but you see now, Mr. Chairman, what that means, an hour and more of useless toil and talk already.


Mr. RHODES:: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word merely on the question of procedure. We will leave aside for the moment the question of whether this bill ought properly to go to a special committee or to any committee of a special nature or whether it ought to go to the committee of the whole. We will deal purely with the question of procedure. May I point out that this committee of the whole is itself a creature of and is set up by the House of Commons-


William Richard Motherwell: So is the other
committee on agriculture.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -and the House of Commons is the only place where it can be decided as to what matters should be referred to committees. It is not competent for a committee which is a creature of the house to tell the house itself what it shall do. Leaving aside any technical questions it seems to me the matter is obvious upon its face, so I submit that it is not competent for this committee to discuss whether or not the house was wise in submitting to it the measure now under consideration.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The house can do anything.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is exactly the point
I am making, and the house has referred the bill to this committee. It seems to me that if at a later stage the question should be raised in the house that is something else, but certainly it is not competent for a committee to quarrel with the instructions it has received from the house. It would not be competent for this committee to determine that a bill before it should have been sent to a special committee of the house. It seems to m? the question is not arguable and that we are only wasting time in a fruitless discussion on a question of procedure which cannot be determined.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: Cannot the committee decline jurisdiction?
74726-174J


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, the committee is a
creature of the house and must obey the instructions of the house.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What if the committee says the house was wrong in referring this bill to it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not competent for
the committee to say so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Surely my hon. friend will agree that once we have resolved ourselves into committee of the whole and have started to consider the title of any bill, as we are considering the title of this bill at the moment, any member of the committee may discuss the procedure that has led us to the consideration of the bill. Then, as a result of the attitude adopted by the members, and as a result of the feeling of the committee of the whole, a minister of the crown or any private member of this committee is perfectly within his or her rights in moving that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Then the house immediately becomes seized of this bill and the minister leading the government can resolve as to the future conduct in connection with it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I point out to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that if the committee should rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, which is quite within its competence, the notation which would appear upon the journals of the house is this: "House again in committee" on such and such a bill. Then ipso facto, without debate and without discussion, Mr. Speaker must leave the chair when that order is called by the clerk at the table.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
minister can move that the order be deleted from the journals.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: So far as the procedure is concerned with regard to the reference of the bill to this committee, we are no further ahead. I come back to my original point, leaving aside the question of the merits of the suggestion that the bill should be considered by a special committee. At the moment I am not discussing whether or not this bill should go to another committee; I say it is not competent for this committee to make any determination in the matter and therefore the discussion, quite apart from being out of order, is fruitless and can serve no purpose in the end.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not catch any answer to my question. I asked what argu-
275U
Marketing Act

ments could be advanced for denying this bill the privilege of being considered by the agriculture committee that could not be advanced with regard to the bills I mentioned. What arguments has the Minister of Finance as to why that should not be done? He did not answer that question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not overlook it; I did not pretend to discuss it. The Prime Minister gave his reasons and there is no need for me to repeat what he has said.


William Richard Motherwell: Then I take that as an admission that the minister has no such arguments, and there are none except to refer to the absent Prime Minister. The acting leader of the government is an old statesman, not in years but in service. He is looking up authorities now. I wish he would not bother answering something else that I am not asking, but would advance any possible arguments there may be as to why this bill should be denied the right to go to the agriculture committee.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: All I can say is that I do not think this is the place to discuss that question. The Minister of Finance explained the matter very fully. If the hon. member wished to raise a question of that kind he should have done so in the house. Let us suppose this committee were unanimous in the idea that this bill should go to a special committee. We would have no power to commit the bill to any committee; that could not be done here at all. Therefore I submit to the hon. gentleman that he is raising the question at the wrong time. We are in committee of the whole, as the Minister of Finance explained so lucidly. He is a former Speaker of the house, one of the best we ever had; he understands the rules very well, and I submit that we should go on with this bill. It is perfectly competent for the opposition to raise this question in some other way, if they choose to do so, when we are in the house. I have forgotten the exact rule, but I suppose they can move to rescind the order if they wish. There may be ways in which they can take up the matter in the house, but they cannot do it here. Therefore I ask hon. gentlemen to go on with the bill in the meantime and discuss the different clauses as they come up, because we are only wasting our time when we talk here of whether or not this bill should go to a special committee. We could not decide it, even if we would.


William Richard Motherwell: I thank my hon.
friend; that was something in the nature of an answer, but is this not the committee of

the whole house? If the question has to be submitted to the house are we not here now? That answer was not much better than the answer given by the Minister of Finance. Hon. gentlemen opposite have no arguments to advance; that is the whole trouble. They are just muffing it and bluffing it. I hold up both hands when my hon. friend says this is no place to discuss the bill; we know this is no place to discuss this involved and intricate question. We are making no progress here and won't.


George Halsey Perley: I am sure my
hon. friend does not wish to refer inaccurately to what I have said.


William Richard Motherwell: You know my
infirmity as to hearing.


George Halsey Perley: Quite so. I did not say this committee was not the place to discuss the bill itself; this is the place where it should be discussed. I said this was not the place to discuss the question of whether the bill should be referred to a special committee or to the agriculture committee, because we are not competent to decide that matter even if we would.
My hon. friend from Gloucester also made some remarks to which I should like to refer while I am on my feet. He says he did not know enough about the fisheries question to discuss it in this house, and he wants the bill referred to a special committee. All the members of this house have a right to take part in the discussions of this committee, and a special one could only be set up from the members of this bouse; therefore the members of the committee would not know anything more about the fisheries question than the hon. member for Gloucester says he knows.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Surely witnesses
could foe called.


George Halsey Perley: That is another thing.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is what you are
afraid of.


George Halsey Perley: The chief whip
of the opposition thinks we are afraid of something, but he makes a mistake; we are not afraid of anything, even of the hon. gentleman himself. We do not think this is a matter which should be discussed outside, but one which should be considered in committee of the whole. As the Prime Minister has said, we feel that this is a proper measure for the consideration of the whole house, and that is why we are here.

Marketing Act


William Richard Motherwell: The acting Prime Minister has been very reasonable in the tenor of his remarks, anyway. As to whether or not he has been as reasonable in his logic,
I have grave doubts. Let me assure him however, that if this bill is referred to the committee on agriculture, so far as I am concerned it will come away from that committee just the same as did another bill equally controversial and equally delicate, namely the Grain Act of 1929 and 1930. It then went through committee of the whole house in less than half an hour. After it had passed through the committee on agriculture, and the subcommittee, scarcely a word was found necessary in this chamber. I am as confident as I can be that if the government wishes to have unanimity in connection with this marketing bill, especially when it becomes operative, and does not wish to have one-half of the country on one side and the other half on the other-our friends to the left standing in this instance with us-it should take the best and logical course, the one which would bring about this desired end. The deliberation thus far in this committee is an example of what will happen between now and the time the bill passes through the entire committee stage. I am under no obligation to keep the peace, other than observe the Speaker's rulings, if we are not given access to the committee on agriculture. But if we are given that committee I shall use my best endeavours to have the bill passed without controversy, as was done on the one occasion referred to and can be done again. Have I played fair with the minister? I ask that question of the Minister of Agriculture, and if he were here I would ask it also of the Prime Minister. Up to this stage have I played fair? I think the minister will agree that I have, and I freely admit that he has also played fair with me thus far. To the other ministers I would say: Give the Minister of Agriculture the right to determine this matter. He has laboured strenuously to get the bill to the present stage; I know what he must have gone through. Imagine the combination which got together to prepare this bill-the Secretary of State and the Minister of Finance 1 Just imagine it. In their general Tory make-up and temperament they are about as much like the bill as night is like daylight. I compliment the Minister of Agriculture, and I say he deserves some recognition because of his heroic efforts thus far.
Apart from any little jest we may have there is a big principle involved. The first industry of Canada, agriculture, is being discriminated against by not referring this marketing bill to the committee on agriculture, that is the point. And do not make any mistake about it, I will ring those changes, and fight this rank injustice high and low throughout the country. Then, Mr. Chairman, if it were not for your good nature you would be putting the gag on us even now. Why cannot someone move that the committee rise and report progress and refer this bill to the agriculture committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You could do it.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no use of us over here doing it. What good would it do if the hon. member for Vancouver Centre made the motion, or in fact any other hon. member on this side of the house? Will not some member of the ministry move that the committee rise and report progress, and that Bill No. 51 be referred to the committee on agriculture?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That would be better.


William Richard Motherwell: If the Minister of Agriculture has a reasonably free hand, and I have taken a free hand I think the first step will be taken to ensure that a satisfactory bill will come back to this house, and go through it just like smoke. Of course we must secure the approval and assistance of all others to accomplish this.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I do not think we are justified in assuming that this marketing bill deals with agriculture alone.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We said
so.


Murray MacLaren: It does not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Our
amendment said so.


Murray MacLaren: This bill goes beyond
matters relating to agriculture.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just as
the opposition amendment stated.


Murray MacLaren: Under this measure
matters relating to fisheries may be considered, just the same as those affecting agriculture.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Then, why not appoint
a special committee?


Murray MacLaren: I agree that agriculture
will be the major-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Victim-
Marketing Act


Murray MacLaren: -industry considered.
I must urge, however, that more than agriculture will be considered. No doubt fish and other natural products will come within the provisions of the bill. The committee on agriculture does not deal with fisheries.


William Richard Motherwell: Let them sit in.
We will make the hon. member an honorary member of the committee.


Murray MacLaren: The bill involves so
many natural products that, to my mind, the committee of the whole seems to be the proper body to act.


Mr. MARCIL:: No doubt once the bill
has been referred to the committee of the whole house, the committee can only refer it back to the house. In the circumstances the house itself must decide whether the bill shall be discussed by committee of the whole, the committee on agriculture or any other body.
I believe there is a general feeling throughout the country that something should be done not only for agriculture but for other industries. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) moved to appoint a special committee to inquire into price spreads the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg (Mr. Ernst) suggested that fisheries should be inquired into, and I immediately supported his suggestion. I am sorry to say that up to the present time the price spreads committee have not considered fisheries. I should like to be informed as to what position that industry is in at the present time. I think the whole house would be in a better position to legislate thoroughly if it had before it the report of the price spreads committee. Evidently this bill merely follows in the footsteps of the other committee, a committee which has not yet made a final report. Why should we not have that report before us before taking action in this matter? Last week the chamber of commerce of Montreal sent out a circular suggesting about twenty-four amendments to the bill. The president of the board of trade, Mr. Magor, speaking on the radio only two or three days ago, condemned the bill in toto, as it now stands. In their amendment the official opposition have declared, in a word, that they would favour a marketing board, under certain conditions, but not under the conditions proposed at the present time. In the last paragraph of his speech the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that this was merely a project, and that he was willing and anxious to secure any suggestions or amendments which might be offered. The same statement

was made this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture.
'Of course, a majority has been recorded in favour of second reading of the bill. Evidently this was one of the largest majorities the government has had since taking office. They take the responsibility, and the people will hold them responsible. I believe, however, that in the interests of the industries they wish to protect they should deal properly with this bill, and we would be in a much better position to deal with it after receiving the report of the price spreads committee. Speaking for the great number of fishermen in my constituency I say that we have not all the information we should have for a full discussion. We are putting the cart before the horse; under ordinary circumstances the title is the last matter to be discussed. After a bill is given third reading a motion is made that the bill be passed and that the title be as on the order paper, or that the title be changed. As the point of order raised by the hon. member for Melville has been decided, I shall not discuss the ruling. I must say, however, that we have not the information we should have to deal properly with this matter, and I urge that the bill be referred to the committee on agriculture so as to give those who have an interest in the matter, those who are competent to speak, and leaders in trade and in all branches of industry, an opportunity to make certain suggestions which might be incorporated in the bill for the general benefit of the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before we are asked further to consider this title I think we ought to hear from the Minister of Agriculture.


George Halsey Perley: We are not on the title. We are on section 1.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are on the title. Section 1 is the short title-this act may be cited as the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934. That is the section that has been called by the chairman. I say we should hear from the Minister of Agriculture in virtue of which of its provisions this bill is entitled to be called a marketing bill. That raises the whole question we have been discussing on the second reading with relation to the principle of the bill. I say to the minister that I believe that those who have given study to this measure, and are really interested in a marketing measure, hold the view that this bill as drafted is not a marketing bill at all, in the sense in which that term is commonly understood, that it is a bill making provision for regulating

Marketing Act
boards, either local boards or a federal board, or the governor in council that will tell the present marketeers when and where they may buy and sell their products. But it does not go further than that. I would like the minister to point out to the committee wherein the expectations of those who believe the government are providing them with state marketing facilities are likely to be realized. The Prime Minister has endeavoured to have it appear that the principle of this bill was state marketing. We have taken precisely the opposite view, that within the provisions of this bill you cannot find a section that sets out any system of state marketing of products. You have a central board and make provision for a lot of local boards for the purpose of saying who may produce and how much they may produce, and who can sell or offer to sell, and who cannot produce or sell, and other provisions of the kind, but you have not within the four corners of this bill any provision for a board that is going to assist in marketing the natural products of this country as producers have been led to believe is the case. If the minister will just tell us where the provisions are that make this a marketing bill, as marketing is understood by those who are interested in having their natural products sold abroad through the assistance of the state, we may perhaps determine whether or not even its short title is justified.


Robert Weir: The fundamental principle of the bill is the regulation of marketing, and that has to do with marketing; there is no doubt of that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The regulation of production and sale.


Robert Weir: Not the regulation of production but the regulation of marketing. There is also in the bill a clause that states that the dominion marketing board has power to buy and sell and to name an agent to buy and sell, which is marketing.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I just want to make this practical observation. I think we have wasted enough time in quibbling as to whether this bill should go to committee of the whole house or to a special committee. I voted for the second reading because I believe in the fundamental principle of the bill, but I would point out to the government that the keystone of the arch of this bill is whether you can get the various producers to cooperate with the policy, and I think they have a right to be heard. It is an old axiom and a true one that coercion sows the seeds of its own destruction. From that viewpoint alone I think it would be
.good policy on the part of the government to give the people who are most interested in this legislation an opportunity to be heard before a special committee of this house. I think that would be the sensible position to take notwithstanding that, perhaps through some misunderstanding of the procedure of this house, opportunity was not taken of the advantage when the motion to go into committee of the whole was moved, to make the objections which are now being made by the opposition.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want
to support what has just been said by my hon. friend from East Hamilton. When the resolution on which this bill was founded was first introduced I asked the minister this question:
Is it the intention to send the bill to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization?
Mr. Weir (Melfort): That still has to be decided.
I agree with what has been said before. Whether rightly or wrongly, earlier in the proceedings we moved an amendment believing conscientiously that the principle of this bill is not confined to marketing, and the amendment that was moved at that time plainly and explicitly so stated, that this bill not only affects agriculture-and this is where I have to differ with my hon. friend from Melville-but affects the products mentioned by my hon. friend from Gloucester, and affects mining, lumbering, the whole trade and commerce of the nation. It takes most sweeping powers over the trade and commerce of the nation. That is why I find myself wholeheartedly in support of the attitude adopted by my hon. friend from East Hamilton that this bill should go before a select standing committee of this house. The amendment that we moved set up what I am trying to convey to this committee now, that the principle of this bill goes far beyond the principle of agricultural marketing. Our belief that this bill should now go to a select standing committee of this house is quite consistent with the views we expressed in that amendment.
In speaking to a point of order the other day I stated that I would personally support marketing legislation such as I understood was being asked for by the producers of British Columbia, and I was referring particularly to the producers of fruit and of milk and dairy products in British Columbia. I still say that this is not the bill that has been asked for by those producers. I agree with my hon. friend from East Hamilton that these producers, whether they are from
Marketing Act

British Columbia or other parts of Canada, should be given the opportunity of appearing before some committee of this house to voice their approval or disapproval of the sections and clauses of this bill. Then I venture to say that when the bill comes back from the committee on agriculture we shall find a great measure of unanimity in our expressions of opinion in regard thereto.


Mr. TURNBULL:: Mr. Chairman, it seems terribly hard to map in advance a plan that will suit hon. gentlemen opposite because no matter what plan is advanced there is always a reason for opposing it. It does not matter if their reason for opposing it is the same to-day as yesterday. In fact, if it is different all the better.
On the second of February, on a motion of the Prime Minister to establish a committee of this house to inquire into mass buying and price spreads, a committee which has been set up and has taken a great mass of evidence, the right hon. leader of the opposition made some remarks which I have here.


Charles Marcil: If that committee has not presented its report the hon. gentleman cannot discuss it.


Franklin White Turnbull: I am not going to discuss it.


Charles Marcil: Nor can the hon. gentleman cite any evidence given before the committee.


Franklin White Turnbull: I am not going to. If hon. gentlemen will possess their souls in patience they can raise their points of order when there is reason. I am reading from the remarks made by the right hon. leader of the opposition on the motion for that committee, as reported at page 190 of Hansard. He said:
The motion indicates that there is to be an inquiry-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. gentleman is out of order, Mr. Chairman, in referring to a previous debate of this session. I ask for your ruling.


Franklin White Turnbull: I will agree, Mr. Chairman, with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, that I may not read from a debate of this session, but there is no reason why I cannot refer to it. I will say this: The leader of the opposition at that time took the position that there was no necessity for a committee to inquire into these things, that we all knew what the conditions were.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend is purporting to repeat what I said, I tell him right now that I made no statement

of the kind. I said that I thoroughly believed in an investigation, and I pointed out that there were facilities under the Combines Act for making many of these inquiries. There is no doubt in the world that the position I took was in favour of the fullest investigation on any matter of public interest.


Franklin White Turnbull: If the right hon. gentleman questions my statement I ask the permission of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to read what he said.


Charles Marcil: The hon. gentleman cannot refer to a previous debate of this session.


Franklin White Turnbull: What he did say was that what the country was interested in was not so much further inquiry-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, section 293 of the rules says that no member can refer to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion.


Finlay MacDonald: That is perfectly right.


Franklin White Turnbull: I quite understand the very earnest desire of hon. gentlemen opposite-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To keep the rules.


Franklin White Turnbull: -to invoke the rules for the purpose of preventing their inconsistencies being, shown to the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is out of order in imputing motives to other members.


Franklin White Turnbull: But the fact is that on a previous occasion the opposition took the view, with respect to an important commission, that inquiry was not necessary at all but that what the country wanted was action in regard to a matter everyone knew about.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is ignoring your ruling in referring to a matter which you have decided shall not be discussed.


Finlay MacDonald: The rule is that no member must:
-refer to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion.


Franklin White Turnbull: With regard to the matter at present under discussion, the producers referred to by my hon. friend from East Hamilton will have every opportunity of having their interests considered when the boards are being set up and when there is a

Marketing Act
concrete plan to be presented. Moreover, the producers themselves will present that plan and they will be the ones who will initiate it. Their opportunities to be heard are there. This is only an enabling bill to make it possible for certain machinery to be set up, and to adopt recommendations that may be made by producer organizations with regard to the boards to handle the marketing of their products. I fail to see why it should be necessary to have a lot of witnesses come before parliament and dilate at 'length on the question whether or not we should pass enabling legislation to provide for the setting up of the boards. This bill does not set up the boards, though it empowers the minister under certain circumstances to do so. Why we should have witnesses to inquire as to whether the producers should be allowed to set up boards is another question, but there should be no question in committee as to what the nature of the boards should be.


Finlay MacDonald: I have already ruled that this discussion is entirely out of order. I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the clause under consideration.


William Henry Moore: Before proceeding to the examination of section 1 may I ask the minister whether he has information to furnish this committee as to the results of similar legislation throughout the world. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester. I think we should cooperate with the minister and the government in turning out a workmanlike act, but personally I feel that I am an incompetent workman. Now, this is not new legislation; there are other acts of the same sort throughout the world; they have existed for years. Is the minister in a position to provide us with information regarding the results of such legislation? It seems to me that we ought to have that information before us. If there ever was a good illustration of the evils of government intervention in business it is our position to-day, proceeding as we are to discuss a measure of this importance without having proper information before us. We are entitled to have that information. Perhaps it will be recalled that, speaking on the general principle of the bill, I urged that the government should have a mandate. That apparently they think they do not require. Now, however, I urge that the minister and the government, before we proceed to work out the details of the bill, should inform us as to what has happened under similar legislation throughout the world.


Robert Weir: Perhaps the hon.
gentleman will realize the magnitude of the question he has asked, because in his speech in the debate he referred I believe to a cotton monopoly, to coffee, sugar and a number of other marketing schemes of that sort. I suggest that it is not very complimentary to imply that we did not give any thought to the different marketing schemes that have been in vogue and to the question whether or not they have been satisfactory. A great deal of consideration has been given to different marketing schemes, but before we could attribute to any particular phase of any marketing act the failure of that act we should have to be in possession of complete information regarding all the conditions to which the working out of the act was subject. For example, suppose we had two cars, one black and one green, the black car with a velocity twice that of the green car: we could not say that the difference in velocity was due to the particular quality of blackness in one of the cars. That was the principle that appealed to me with regard to the hon. member's speech the other day, the precision with which he spoke and the evidence he gave that he had studied this question, as indicated by his ability to pick one thing out of each act and generalize on this particular, instead of coming to his conclusion after placing before us each part of any act and showing that it was that one factor on which he hitched the failure of the act.
With reference to this bill, we shall be glad to give throughout the discussion information with regard to the various acts that have been passed; but I think the hon. gentleman will agree that it is unfair to expect anyone to give a complete analysis of each of these acts and to indicate all the conditions under which it has operated. We cannot be expected to say to what particular element in any act failure, if there has been failure, is attributable. We have studied the conditions under which various acts have operated but they are so different from the obstacles which we are trying to overcome that we do not think any of these acts are altogether applicable.
The bon. member for East Hamilton thought it would be a gain to have witnesses brought forward to give their opinion regarding this bill. As the hon. member for Regina has pointed out however, the producers, whether of agricultural commodities or of the products of sea or lake or forest, will themselves put forward a scheme which they regard as satisfactory, and no other scheme will be forced upon them. I feel,
Marketing Act

with the hon. member for Gloucester and others who have spoken, that the field covered, so far as products are concerned, is so wide that it would be impossible for us to have expert information regarding each of these industries. But surely this committee, composed as it is of members chosen from their constituencies by a majority of the people, and living in those constituencies, must know better than anyone else the conditions of the industries, the work and the needs of the people. For example, I believe that the hon. member for New Westminster knows quite well the desires of the people in his constituency with reference to the marketing of their products. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre stated that he did not believe this bill was the one asked for by the fruit growers of the Okanagan and the milk producers of Fraser river valley. All I can say is this, that we have been in consultation with different representatives from those various organizations, and it is my understanding that this bill, properly and sanely applied, will meet what they are asking for, and it cannot be applied unless they ask for it.


Alan Webster Neill: What about clause 9?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What about clause 9, the power of the minister?


Robert Weir: Clause 9 does not mean that any board will be set up in opposition to the wishes of an industry; no person would be absurd enough to think it would.


Wilfred Hanbury: Why not restrict it, then?


Robert Weir: When I was interrupted I was stating that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre can learn from the industries in British Columbia, whether the fruit growers of the Okanagan or the Fraser river valley milk producers, what their objections are to this bill. Copies have been sent out to those organizations; they have had ample time to discuss and investigate fully the provisions of the bill and they have made submissions to us with reference to it. I maintain that under the original draft of the bill they can- do everything they have asked for to meet their needs, but because |here is a difference of opinion as to the meaning of the wording I have, as I stated before, prepared amendments to clarify those clauses but in no way to make any radical changes in the principle of the bill itself. Therefore I repeat that because of the wide range covered in the bill and the impossibility of calling expert evidence from far afield, it would be better to

have the bill considered in committee of the whole, especially when we should, I think, do ourselves the credit of admitting that any hon. member should be conversant with conditions in his own constituency. Speaking for myself I think I am conversant with the conditions and the needs of the people in the constituency of Melfort in the Carrot river valley. If not, I can easily make myself aware of what their desires are.
I will admit I gave serious consideration to the advisability of submitting the bill to the committee on agriculture, but the very discussion we have had here is, I think, one of the best reasons we could have for continuing the discussion in this committee where everyone will have an opportunity of expressing his opinion; he can bring forward any objections that the industry in his constituency raises and I am quite sure the hon. member for Vancouver Centre can put the objections of his constituents before this committee just as ably if not a good deal more so, than the growers or the members of the industry concerned themselves can do before the committee on agriculture.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
said, I think, he had some amendments he was going to submit. I would ask him whether he would not consider placing them on Hansard before the committee rises this afternoon so they would then be available to members for further consideration.


Robert Weir: My understanding
is that the procedure is to read in the amendments as we come to them clause by clause. I have stated their general effect; it is clarification of the principle. For example, I have an amendment to make clearer-at least there are people who feel this is done by the amendment-the relation that exists between the local board and any power it may have to use funds from the consolidated revenue fund. We also make clearer the fact that pooling is covered in the bill. I had thought that was included under the scheme submitted because no limitation was put on that scheme, that is that representative growers may submit a plan in their scheme asking that a poll be held. That I naturally thought would have been one of the first things under certain conditions that the minister, whether provincial or federal, would be asked for, to decide whether it was sufficiently representative. Another matter that is cleared up is that the organized producers can market their products where they decide, when they decide, in what manner they decide, through what agency they decide and also the means by which the

Marketing Act
marketing of their products will be done, that is whether it will be on a pooling basis and whether there will be an initial payment or otherwise.


William Henry Moore: I am very sorry
if the minister thought in what I said on this matter I had carefully selected instances of failure.


Robert Weir: I did not mean to
infer that.


William Henry Moore: May I ask
whether the minister would like me just to outline briefly some of the measures of this sort that have failed so that we may have the evidence before the committee and the committee or members of it may make inquiries if they care to do so? In Australia the minister knows there are two commodities referred to marketing boards that are federal. One is an export control board for dried vine fruit or raisins. Windett, in Producer and Trader, at page 123, writing of the results, said:
From the various forms of assistance -which it receives, it must be concluded that the dried fruit export trade cannot stand on its own feet, and is in a less sound competitive position than is the fresh fruit trade.
And fresh fruit is not marketed in the same way.
The other matter is canned fruits. On canned fruits the state government of Victoria has already guaranteed 750,000 Australian pounds and the commonwealth government has expended some 890,000 Australian pounds. During the eight years ending 1932, production of tinned peaches, pears and apricots has on the whole been satisfactory, but the increase in the export trade has taken place at the cost of decline in the domestic consumption.
The other day I referred to legislation of this sort in Queensland and I shall not refer to it again.
I should like to take New South Wales and the experience in that state. I might say that the original marketing act was introduced in 1927; that is some years ago. They have had experience. Originally a majority of two-thirds of the producers was required. Votes were taken and the majorities were not secured. Provision was then made for reduction of fifty per cent. They excepted wool and wheat and dried fruits. They included eggs, rice and honey. Rut in August, 1932, a plebiscite of the honey-producers was taken and by a majority of 527 to 147 they voted in favour of abolishing the honey marketing board. Ballots have been taken to include wheat, butter, millet and stone
fruits, and have been rejected. Since 1928, four plebiscites of the wheat growers have been taken to bring wheat under a compulsory pool, and in each instance the producers voted against the compulsory pool.
I wonder if I may briefly and rapidly run over some European experiences. In Bulgaria a price fixing and tax relief scheme was brought in in 1931. Prices were fixed above world parity, with the consequence that you had an increase, naturally, I presume, in the production of grain in Bulgaria. The government found it awkward to pay the compensations that were required, and that are referred to in this bill, so it issued certificates instead of money. Then the certificates lost their value, and in July, 1932, the monopoly bureau was abolished. Now I have not the information to go into these matters thoroughly. I am honestly desirous of having the government furnish us with fuller information than any individual member can secure. I have already made reference to coffee. You will recall that Brazil since 1905 has been trying through state intervention to bring about a stabilization of prices. Action was taken in the first instance by the state of Sao Paolo. What was the result? Other states in Brazil began to grow coffee, because it was profitable. Then other countries throughout the world were attracted to the industry, by reason of the artificial price. Finally the federal government had to intervene to abolish the state monopoly, and then as we know they had revolution in Sao Paolo.
In Chile, an act very similar to this bill was brought in in 1930. Bounties were to be raised by taxes on wheat and oats processed there, and on malt used by brewers, and by import duties on sheep and cattle. Then deficiency payments were to be made to the producers. It is interesting to note that apples were included; when exported they were subsidized, to the extent of four pesos per box. Then Chile ran out of money and the producers could not be paid. There was dissatisfaction, and finally revolution.
Mr. Chairman, I was not in favour of referring this bill to the agriculture committee. I quite agree with the Prime Minister and the government that this bill should be considered by committee of the whole house, because it involves not merely a marketing measure, it involves principles that affect the stability and the political life of the country.
Then I wish to refer to sugar. The minister knows that since the year 1925 and even before that attempts were made in a very vigorous way, to set up market monopolies
Marketing Act

in sugar. He knows also that in 1931 at Brussels the brightest and best minds in the sugar industry of the world got together. I tell the minister there could have been no failure in the Brussels convention if the principle were right. They had had years and years of experience in trying to evade what the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day called the shibboleth of demand and supply. These countries, Cuba, Java, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and Belgium were parties to the agreement, representing ninety per cent of the world's export trade in sugar, and before the end of the year Peru and Jugoslavia joined. The countries lived up to their agreement. There were grievous reductions in acreage, and vast armies of men thrown out of work, because that is a consequence of reduction in acreage. Then you had revolution in Cuba, a decline in the consumption of sugar, and no increase in price. I would have the minister remember that. There is an explanation, which I shall give in a short time. In June, 1932, the price of sugar declined to an all time low of 0-57 cent a pound duty free in New York. You had reduced acreage, reduced consumption and reduced price.
I shall not go extensively into the condition in Germany. There are many parallels. In connection with cheese the marketing board or the government provided that a fixed percentage of domestic cheese should be used in certain products, that butter should be mixed with margarine, that alcohol distilled from home grown vegetable and cereal products should be mixed with gasoline. They had a very rigorous marketing law and production law in regard to the growth of tobacco.
Then you have to face the working out of this measure. Only landowners who were given licences could market, and you had charges of favouritism in the issue of these licences. It was alleged that the bigger landowners got licences and the men with small holdings received no licences and were left with their crops on their hands. This is not a new measure, Mr. Chairman, it is a very old one. There is nothing new about it. Greece has been attempting to regulate the marketing of currants since the beginning of the century. She did it first through a currant bank; in 1904 the currant bank failed. Then they established a privileged company. That privileged company I take it was something of the sort that it is proposed to establish here, because it tried to be cooperative. And when the chanter of the privileged company expired in 1925 the [Mr. W. H. Moore.l
government refused to renew its monopoly, on the ground that the company had not improved the economic position of the domestic currant industry during the twenty years of its activity. I should like to have the minister bring us up to date with regard to that matter, because I want to do a workmanlike job in reference to this bill or none at all. I know this, that recently the government of Greece issued an order providing that every time a man buys two loaves of white bread he must buy one of currant bread.
May I ask the minister to give us information also with regard to a similar proposition in Latvia, in regard to the flax industry, in 1919. Provision was made for the licensing of flax growers and mills, for the collection of funds from domestic users and distribution on the export trade. At first it was very profitable; I understand that the government received a considerable Tevenue, but then the turn came; the government had to borrow funds from the bank, and later the government became somewhat embarrassed. I should like further information on that subject. Surely we are entitled to know something more than the wishes of our constituents in this matter; we are entitled to know how far measures of this sort have been tried and particularly to what extent they have succeeded or failed.
In the Netherlands-and I must say that I have a very great respect for legislation in the Netherlands, where they have, perhaps as clearly as any country in the world, respected what my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce apparently fails to respect, that is the law of supply and demand-they were driven in 1932, as apparently this government has been driven with the best intentions in the world, to devise marketing acts. Among others there was an act called the hog central control act, which contained the usual provision for stabilization and everything that was to be done to increase prices, but what happened? When that board took over the marketing of bacon the hog population of the Netherlands was 2,735,000. Within a few months they ordered a reduction to 2,000,000 and the last information I have is that the Dutch government has ordered a further reduction to 1,800,000, and there has been no increase in price.
We ought to study these matters, Mr. Chairman, for another reason. We can get some details as to how these things work out.


Robert Weir: May I make a suggestion? I have listened with great interest to what the hon. member has said-

Tax on Gold-Mr. Bennett


William Henry Moore: I have not finished.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman continue his observations later and let the committee rise? I desire to make a short statement before six o'clock.


William Henry Moore: I shall be delighted to comply with the request of the Prime Minister.


Robert Weir: That is what I was about to say. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Alan Webster Neill: Might I suggest to the minister that the amendments be published in the votes and proceedings so that we may be able to consider them intelligently? When they are read by a chairman whom we cannot half hear it means a great deal of unnecessary debate, and members talk about something they do not understand. If we could see the amendments in print I am sure it would shorten the discussion.
Progress reported.



TAX ON GOLD


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with the permission
of the house I should like to make a short statement before we adjourn. In view of the general misunderstanding that apparently has arisen regarding the tax imposed on gold by the budget delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) a few days ago I think it desirable to make a statement which will clarify the situation.
The minister indicated that it was essential for him to raise by taxation approximately the amount of revenue lost by reducing the tax on sugar to one cent per pound, and he stated that he proposed to obtain from the gold producing companies that sum, which would be imposed in the budget for the current year.
The government of the province of Ontario protested against the imposition of the tax; Hon. Charles McCrea, Minister of Mines, has been in Ottawa for several days. In some quarters it was asserted that such a tax was an infringement upon the taxing powers of the provinces. I think that view may be disregarded, inasmuch as clause 3 of section 91 of the British North America Act provides that the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation. The Ontario government further suggested
that the tax imposed in the manner indicated was in the nature of a royalty, which it was submitted could be imposed only by the province. For the reasons stated this contention could not be accepted. Mr. McCrea, as the Minister of Mines for Ontario, arranged that representatives of the gold mining interests of that province and others should meet the Minister of Finance and myself. The representatives of the gold producing companies expressed their willingness to assist in any reasonable way the government of Canada in balancing its budget, but pointed out that they were already subjected to very heavy taxation. We then pointed out that the price of gold for the year 1932 had averaged over $23 per ounce while the statutory price was only $20.67 per ounce, the added price being attributable, mainly or wholly, during that year to the premium on American money in Canada. In 1933 the average price received by the gold producers was $28.72 per ounce, which represented an average of $8.05 per ounce more than the statutory price of $20.67 per ounce. During the early months of the year the price received was less than $28, but when the president of the United States announced that the republic would buy all new gold at a price of $35 per ounce the result was that since that date the price of gold has approximated $35 per ounce.
The present premium on the price of gold is an unearned increment arising out of economic conditions and the monetary action taken by the United States of America as well as by the Dominion of Canada. We therefore indicated that, rather than have any question of provincial rights or royalties at issue between the dominion and the provinces, or any foundation being afforded for the suggestion that the dominion was interfering in the field of provincial taxation, we would substitute for the proposals of the minister a tax on the unearned increment of 25 cents out of every dollar received from the sale of gold by dividend paying companies in excess of the statutory price of $20.67 per ounce until May 31, 1935, and, in view of the high tax thus imposed, permit the corporation income tax paid by the dividend producing companies in 1934 to be credited against the tax on the unearned increment and thus avoid the charge that the government was imposing double taxation on the gold industry. The second question alluded to the low grade ore found in large quantities throughout Canada and the development of which the present high price of gold had greatly stimulated, resulting in great activity in prospecting the employment of large

Tax on Gold-Mr. Bennett
numbers of people, and expenditures of large sums of money. With respect to low grade properties no special tax will be imposed until they become dividend producing properties, nor will the tax be imposed upon any company that was not paying dividends prior to the first of January, 1933, and which is now paying dividends. In no event is it proposed to tax unearned increment arising from the sale of gold when the price is $30 or less, as stated by the minister.
It will be a matter of satisfaction to the house and to the country to know that when we met the representatives of the gold producing mines and indicated to them clearly why the tax was imposed they expressed a most sympathetic appreciation of the financial situation, and although the large dividend paying mines, few in number, must pay the tax, they accepted the proposed method of paying twenty-five cents on the dollar of the premium payable on gold as not unfair. The tax does not in any event contemplate the taxation of the production of placer mines.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister a question which arises out of the statement he has just read? He has referred to the representations made by the Minister of Mines for Ontario. I observe in the press that representations were made to the government by the provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Quebec. Were those representations not considered? May I ask him further whether any representations were made by his own Minister of Mines?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the questions the right hon. gentleman has asked, may I say that the only formal presentation of the case for the provinces was made by the Hon. Charles McCrea. There were statements appearing in the press, but they were directed to the populace and not to the government, and it cannot be said therefore that we received any forma! representations, except as indicated. The federal Minister of Mines expressed his opinion, as did all other members of the council, with respect to the matters affected. May I thank the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) for affording me the opportunity to make this statement before six o'clock.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the Prime Minister indicate how the revenue raised under the proposed tax would compare with that under the first arrangement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difference would be very small, depending entirely upon two factors. One would be the price at which gold
[Mr. Bennett.1
was sold, as I have indicated, which would determine of course the extent of the unearned increment, and secondly the extent to which gold was produced. If the gold is produced to the extent it was last year, or thereabouts, it is only a matter of arithmetic to point out to the hon. member that if the price was $35 the difference between $20.67 and $35 is $14.33. One-fourth of that is about, as will be observed, $3.58, whereas ten per cent of $35 is $3.50, which is less. The difficulty is that with respect to the lower grade properties it might be the taxation of a deficit, and therefore they are eliminated, which may mean some loss to revenue, but to that extent only.


Wilfred Hanbury: Before the Prime Minister takes his seat may I say that I did not understand thoroughly the statement he made. Is it possible that the taxation on unearned increment will be greater than the income tax in all cases, or whether the tax will be a larger amount, whichever it may be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I need hardly say that that question cannot arise1, but that in no event can the income tax-12^ per cent of 50 per cent of the profits, which is the income tax against gold companies-amount to anything of that sort. A computation by the manager of one of the largest mines indicates payments under this plan of about $1,600,000 as against a slightly lesser sum under the other plan. But it will be observed that as this applies only to dividend paying properties it is obvious there may be a diminution of the revenue because there is no tax to be taken unless and until they are dividend paying properties, and if the price of gold falls to $30 an ounce there will be no revenue at all.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Thursday, May 3, 1934