LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OF QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: Might I ask the Prime Minister if the Hon. Mr. Patenaude has been named lieutenant-governor of Quebec?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: His Excellency the Governor General has approved of the appointment of the Hon. E. L. Patenaude as lieutenant-governor of the province of Quebec.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: A few days ago the hon.
member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) asked a question with regard to the purchase by the Canadian National Railways of some land in Winnipeg, at Fort Rouge. The hon. member made some statements which were rather startling, and I promised that I would make immediate inquiries and see what were the facts, since I had not heard of the matter before. His first statement was:
It is now rumoured, firstly, that an excessive price was paid for these properties-
May I point out that these properties were bought in 1927, 1928 and 1929, and I quite agree that probably the prices were excessive. Then the hon. member said:
-that the expenses in connection with the handling of them were padded to a very decided extent-

I cannot answer that statement, but I am asking for a further report. Then the hon. member added:
-that rents are collected on the properties that are not turned in to the railway at all in some instances, and that greater rents are collected than are turned in to the railway.
That is a pretty serious matter, and again I cannot make any statement at the moment, but inquiries are being made. The railway did buy properties in the years mentioned, according to my information, for the purpose of extending their yards, wdiich has not been done except to a very small extent. They bought the properties through a firm named Harris & Chisholm, who get five per cent for the collection of rents. An employee of Harris & Chisholm, whose name I do not care to give because he may not be guilty and I do not think I should label him as guilty, is said to be short in his returns to the extent of some $500. According to the statement given me the railway would appear to be wondering if they were to lose the $500, but I should think it would be Harris & Chisholm who would lose the money if their agent collected it and failed to turn it in. However, I shall endeavour to secure further information and furnish it to the hon. gentleman later.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: I
made it quite clear that this was in the nature of a rumour and not a definite statement. The rumour was to that effect.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Weir (Mel-fort) 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.
Mr. J. H. MYERS (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last evening I WR3 discussing the bill before the house in general terms and was about to express the opinion that the farmers of Canada have been looking for just such legislation for some considerable time. I am glad that my opinion in this regard was supported last evening by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luch-kovich) in the very admirable address which he presented to the house.
Let me say that when this bill was presented, in view of the fact that hon. gentlemen

Marketing Act-Mr. Myers
opposite had been asking for a number of years for just such legislation in order to alleviate the condition of the farmers of Canada, I hoped that the bill would receive unanimous support and would be passed through the house with the least possible delay. I am afraid, however, that the opposition that has been expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite will have a tendency to divide the opinions of the farmers themselves on this question. I think unanimity in regard to this bill should have been shown here and should have been carried right through the farming districts of Canada.
In the few minutes at my disposal I propose to answer some of the criticisms that have been directed to certain clauses of the bill under consideration. A considerable amount of discussion and doubt seems to have arisen with regard to subsection (c) of section 4, which reads:
to compensate any person for loss sustained by exporting, storing or withholding from the market any product pursuant to any determination or order of the board;
I think it was the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) who made the remark last night that this meant that the farmers or producers themselves were to be compensated for any produce they were asked to withhold from the market. That is not my understanding of this subsection; my understanding is that when there appears to be a visible surplus of any commodity on the markets of Canada that would have a tendency to depress or lower the domestic market, certain dealers or exporters might be asked either to withhold a portion of this commodity from the market or to take a certain amount of that commodity off the market and export it to some other country. If they suffered a loss through such transaction then they would be compensated to the amount of their loss under the power granted by this act. Then there has been some discussion with regard to subsection (e):
to assist by grant or loan the construction or operation of facilities for preserving, storing, or conditioning the regulated product and to assist research work relating to the marketing of such product;
The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) seems to have almost an undue amount of imagination; he reads into this clause power to establish sawmills, flour mills, bakeries, canning factories, tobacco plants, breweries and distilleries. I would not object very much to the last two, but I see no reason why the hon. member should fear the construction of all these plants under the authority of subsection (e) of section 4. In my opinion under this subsection the board 74726-160
would have power to establish certain curing houses or storehouses that might be of great advantage in the marketing of some of our farm products, such as cheese. I am very sorry, as a farmer, that our position in regard to cheese is not as good as it was several years ago. The manufacture and sale of cheese in Canada has been more or less on the decline for a number of years, while the production of butter has markedly increased. I believe the Department of Agriculture might well devote their energies to fostering the manufacture of more cheese in Canada, especially in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Under this subsection they would have power to establish curing houses in Canada or elsewhere, as might be thought best, in order that our cheese might be properly cured before being placed on the British market. It is well known that Canadian cheese goes almost directly from the factory to the trade. As a matter of fact I believe that is the reason for some of the unpopularity of Canadian cheese at the present time. The market for our product is largely in Great Britain. We know that the consumers over there want a well cured and uniform product. Under this subsection arrangements might be made for the procuring of storehouses which could be used for the proper curing of our cheese. During the time required to effect the maturing the board would have the power to provide the necessary money to pay the farmers for the milk consumed in the production of the cheese. The same suggestion might be applied in connection with the erection of potato warehouses in my own province. In Prince Edward Island there is only a very short period in the fall of the year, before the frost sets in, during which we may market the major portion of our crop. A number of the business men, shippers and farmers of that province, backed by our board of trade have been asking both the local and provincial governments to assist in the erection of proper storage warehouses in order that we might be able to hold our potato crop for a longer period.
The hon. member for Weyburn has referred to paragraph (f) of subsection 1, section 4, which reads as follows:
(f) To reqxiire any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses and occupations with the board. . . .
And so on. The hon. member seems to take great exception to the word "register" and, at a later point, the word "licence." My interpretation is that the first part of that clause refers to the producer, and the last part to those engaged in the trade, or in the handling and marketing of the commodities.



Marketing Act-Mr. Myers
May I say to the hon. member that there always comes a time when you have to register your men; you have to count heads and see where you stand. A short time ago I heard about a Newfoundland sea captain who had to accomplish a certain piece of work in connection with which he was not making very great headway. The crew were down in the forecastle. The captain went to the companionway and said, " How many of you are down there?" They said, "Three of us." He said, " Well, come up here, the half of you." I believe that principle applies as well to this legislation.
For the information of the hon. member for Weyburn let me say that since 1920 in the Potato Growers Association of Prince Edward Island we have been numbered, we have been counted and we have been registered, licensed, or whatever name you wish to apply. Not only that, but we have paid and continue to pay an annual fee of $2 into our association for that very privilege of being registered or numbered. It could not be otherwise. How could any board or the secretary of any organization or marketing association intelligently conduct its business unless he knew the number of growers or producers for whom he had to provide. That procedure is absolutely necessary. Not only do we have to register, but we have to record the number of acres of potatoes under cultivation in the year under review, and we are living through it. I say no harm can come from that clause. The same applies to shipping clubs. In the province of Prince Edward Island we have a number of clubs whose duty it is to ship hogs. Not only do the members have to register once a year, but every time they wish to sell hogs they have to record their names and the number of hogs they wish to export.
Then, the hon. member for Weyburn took exception to paragraph (g)-
To require full information relating to the production and marketing of the natural product from all persons engaged therein and to require periodic returns to be made by such persons, and inspect the books and premises of such persons.
Let me say right here that the hon. member ought to have an opportunity of going into some of our packing houses and cold storage plants, and inspecting their books so that he might be able to ascertain the spread between the price received by the producer for the goods he puts into those plants, and the price that the consumer pays for the same goods when they come out. Last night the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) referred-and not quite correctly-to what

the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) said when speaking about this matter. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi did not object to the grading regulations; on the contrary he said he approved of them. He did voice the objection, however, that when the farmers begin to produce in the spring of the year the prices for eggs and butter invariably go down. Those commodities are put into cold storage by the owners of the plants, and kept in storage during the summer months. Then in the fall of the year when the supply from the farms begins to slacken off the storage supplies are put on the market. If one were to judge by the price the consumer has to pay he would never know it was the same article that had been put into the plants earlier in the year. What is true of eggs and butter is equally true of hogs.
May I say a word or two about a matter which has always caused me a great deal of annoyance. Hon. members who till the soil, as I do, and know anything about the management of farms know that there are two principal seasons in the year in which farmers market their hogs, namely the fall and the spring. Almost invariably for as many years past as I care to remember-and more-during times when great numbers of hogs are offered on the market the price has dropped. Then, again, during the summer and midwinter seasons, when few if any hogs are offering for sale, the prices will go up sky high. To my mind one of the functions of the marketing board established by this legislation would be to see to it that no such fluctuation could take place. The hon. member for Weyburn would do well to examine the books of these companies in order to ascertain whether or not the farmers are getting a square deal.
This legislation is to receive the sanction of local legislatures throughout the dominion, and the sanction of those engaged in the particular industries affected by it. The legislature of the province of Prince Edward Island for a long time has been looking for some such bill as the one now before us. While the local legislature of that province was in session, despite the fact that this bill had not passed the federal house, it passed the necessary legislation. As a result that province is now engaged in setting up a marketing board to cooperate with the central marketing board, and they are in great hopes that the central board may be established in time to look after this year's crop.
At this point may I read what an influential Liberal representative in the province of Prince Edward Island said about the marketing board legislation:

Marketing Act-Mr. Myers
Mr. LePage said that he had been looking forward to some relief for the farmers. He could see great benefit could accrue from this legislation. The bill is now before the dominion parliament, and after it has been passed there, there would be a better opportunity for knowing more about it. He had suggested such legislation and was glad to know it was being introduced at this time. After receiving an anonymous letter similar to that received by Mr. J. A. MacDonald and which was signed "Association nf Independent Potato Shippers" he was more than ever convinced that there is need of a marketing board to control prices. The farmers have been suffering for a number of years through their products being handled by speculators and not receiving sufficient prices for them.
Mr. LePage said that Canada controls the lobster supply of the world. He saw great possibilities in the lobster industry through cooperative marketing once the prices were controlled. If Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island were not quoting different prices, we might be getting $30 in place of $20 now through the marketing board. The price to the fishermen might also be controlled, so that they would receive more for their catch.
Ninety-five per cent of the beef raised in Canada is consumed in Canada, but the farmers are not getting the price they should receive. The meat industry is in the hands of a few big packers. There is something wrong when pork is selling on the street at 9 cents a pound, and yet bacon is selling at 30 cents. The same is true of fish. Though codfish is selling at 10 cents a pound in the city, yet on the shore about 20 miles from here, it only brings from one to two cents. Here is where a marketing board may prove of great benefit.
I would like to say a word or two with reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). That hon. member was dealing with the wheat situation and I gathered from his observations that he was opposed to the bill all the way through. I do not know very much about the marketing of wheat. It is possible that this bill might not operate as successfully in the marketing of wheat as in the marketing of some other commodities but I would just 'ike to ask the hon. member for South Battle-ford, and other farmer members on the other side who have spoken in opposition to this bill, whether, in view of the fact that they do not know of a certainty just how this bill will work out, they are prepared at the present time to return home to their farmer friends in western Canada and take upon their shoulders the responsibility of advising them to have nothing to do with the present marketing bill. That is the question they will be called upon to answer when they meet their constituents, and it is the one which they must answer if they wish to be known as the representatives of the people and those who have the best interest of their people at heart.
74726-160 J
The hon. member made one or two remarks to which I take a good deal of exception-I am sorry he is not in his seat, because X always like to be able to look at a man when I am talking to him. Speaking of wheat growing and the marketing of wheat in western ' Canada, he made this astonishing statement:
I am one of those who favour the setting up of a marketing organization that will take delivery of all the wheat and then Canada can do what she chooses with it. We should not ask the grower to bear this burden; I do not think it is fair.
Then he continues:
I still say that if Canada wishes to control and regulate wheat she should take the responsibility of financing the whole operation.
Any man who would put before the House of Commons a proposal that the federal government take over-which means buying-the entire crop of western wheat and then find a market for it and stand or fall by their operation, surely cannot be serious. Only a short time ago the same hon. gentleman spoke in very disparaging terms of what was done by the government during the past two sessions in order to stimulate and improve the marketing of western wheat. I remember that his criticism of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and Mr. McFarland who were engaged in this work, was very strong. Now he comes forward with the statement that the dominion government should take upon its shoulders the responsibility of marketing the whole western crop.
I will not take up any further time. I might just say this, that I listened with amazement to the two-hour speech delivered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day. He spoke on just three points: the independence of parliament, the constitutional issue and the Magna Charta. I wonder what the farmers out in the fields of Canada care at present about the Magna Charta or the constitution or the independence of parliament; they are more concerned with the marketing of their farm products.


Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary's) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I followed closely and with much interest most of the speeches delivered on this measure. No doubt the house is unanimous in recognizing that it is expedient, owing to the difficult times we are experiencing, to improve certain methods in our trade. The point on which we disagree is the scheme that the government wishes to impose so to attain its purpose.

Marketing Act-Mr. Deslauriers
I make it a rule to respect the views of my colleagues and all those with whom I differ of opinion. I intend in the course of my remarks to follow this principle. However, I shall point out to the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Myers), who has just preceded me in this debate, that I do not entirely agree with his views on certain phases of the bill, especially, when he contends that the prerogatives of provinces are not threatened by this legislation. No doubt, he refers to section 11, which reads as follows:
The Board may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, exercise any power conferred upon it by or pursuant to provincial legislation with reference to the marketing of a natural product.
The board may exercise any power conferred upon it by a provincial legislation. The section does not state that it should but that it may; it will therefore be optional for this board to exercise the powers conferred upon it by provincial legislation. The section adds that this board may moreover exercise "any power under the authority of this legislation in connection with the marketing of a natural product, I am not a lawyer, however, I think that this section implies that this board may exercise all the powers conferred by a province; however, on the other hand, that it is perfectly free not to exercise them or set them aside and exercise those authorized by this section 11 under the act.
Furthermore, if the press has well interpreted the statement of the hon. Prime Minister of Quebec, whose standing as a legal authority is well known, one may note that his views certainly agree with the comments I have just made.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) seemed quite astonished, last evening, to find that the Liberal party opposed this measure and he could not understand our attitude. He spoke jokingly and ridiculed the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) as regards his arguments from a constitutional viewpoint. I thought that my hon. friend seemed quite pleased last evening, when he delivered his speech. He probably had reason to be because it referred to a radical measure and, as a member of the C.C.F., that pleased him very much. On the other hand, we are not obliged to share his views and the reason we oppose this bill, at present, is because we are the pioneers of this American continent, we were born in Canada, we have but one country, Canada, our history is dear to us, we possess institutions which are equally dear to us and we have a constitution that we wish to safe-[Mr. Deslauriers.!
guard. We also have traditions which we do not want to foresake for new principles such as those that are advocated by our friends on the extreme left. At all events, if the hon. member for Vegreville will only, at the next election, consult his French Canadian constituents who usually support him and repeat to them what he stated as regards this bill, they will know how to act and jyill give him a full measure of justice.
In perusing, sir, this legislation known as "An Act to improve the methods and practices involved in the marketing of national products, 1934," I feared at any moment to come across some expression with a Russian consonance, so much I found that this piece of legislation was remote from all British practice. We must, on the second reading of this bill, confine ourselves to the principle of the bill. I heard it said in the house that this bill contained not one principle but three. I think that there is a very important one involved and it is easily discovered.
To all purposes the government wishes to upset the authority such as constituted in this country and destroy one's liberty as well as commercial freedom.
The apparent purpose, improvement on the methods in practice for marketing the Canadian natural products for exportation, an improvement which we recognize as necessary, becomes of minor importance and cannot be the principle of this measure if the government persists in following this procedure rather than proceed by placing an item in the estimates and by cooperating with the provinces.
To allow the government to build up an allpowerful board having its elbow room in the public treasury without the authority of parliament, a board responsible to no one, which would have the right, without consulting any one, to legislate, monopolize, reward, licence, indemnify, expend, discount, exempt, possess, destroy, punish and even throw people in gaol, that is no more a principle. Organize boards of all kinds, shake up a whole army of officials whose number is unlimited and at a salary determined by themselves-


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: Informers.


Hermas Deslauriers: -it is simply an abuse of power which, in certain countries would probably result in civil war. And should we somewhat consult history, we shall easily find examples where these improper legislations brought the downfall of crowns. Even in our own country, hardly a century ago, owing to quite a similar legislation the

Marketing Act-Mr. Deslauriers
people of this country took up arms and were thanked by a responsible government' which the Liberal party upholds to-day.


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: You are not in earnest ?


Hermas Deslauriers: Should this bill be enacted in its present form, we shall witness the rights of parliament, of the representatives of the people, usurped, the liberty of the nation and commerce encroached upon and provincial prerogatives despised.
We note in section 3 that the governor in council shall establish a dominion board of organization which they wdll set up as they think fit and fix whatever salaries they please. Such legislation could, perhaps, be understood under a government like the present one in Germany or like the government under Mussolini, in Italy, or again like the one under Stalin, in Russia, but not under a responsible British government like ours. The representatives of the people have a right to know who shall form part of this board, how many persons will it comprise, moreover it is a special prerogative of parliament to vote all salaries.
Subsection 5 of section 3 stipulates that the board may, with the approval of the governor in council, employ such technical, professional and other officers as the board may deem necessary or desirable and grant them salaries as may be fixed by the board without being authorized by parliament, just as if it were a matter of urgency, when we already have a National Research Bureau paid by authority of parliament. This arbitrary provision constitutes a dangerous abuse of power which may have an entirely different result than that of improving trade and, I think, it is our duty to point out this fact to the public.
Subsection 6 of the same section grants to this all powerful board the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of real and personal property or destroy them if it so desires and make the governor in council foot the bill. By subsection 9 of the same section the governor in council completes its powers by assuming the right to pay to this board all such sums of money as may be deemed necessary for the purpose of this act and this out of the consolidated* revenue fund, without consulting parliament whose duty is to check up the administration of public funds derived from the taxes levied on the people.
Section 9 of this act constitutes, perhaps, the provision which calls for the most severe criticism. Without any petition from any board, association, group of producers already
established, without any complaint on their part, on the minister's owm initiative, should a friend complain that the local board or any group of farmers-for instance "l'Union Catholique des cultivateurs de Montmorency" -is an impediment to the trade of certain products, this section authorizes the minister to introduce a bill for the marketing of this product; the governor in council may approve of such a scheme and authorize the board to administer such scheme through any agency or council which it may establish itself-no doubt, friends will be remembered- and remain in force as long as the board deems fit. This is a section which is directly contrary to the views of the hon. member for Queens. By this section the minister in charge of the administration of the act, may, on his own initiative, appoint a board entirely foreign to the organizations of the district where he will enforce the act and even if the provinces protested, I think that such protests would be disregarded.
Bearing in mind human weakness, it is possible that the minister has been misinformed, that only one side of the question has been explained to him and thus the public will be exposed to a grave injustice, moreover, this bill might serve the most deplorable purpose without the people being able to protect themselves. That is what may be termed, so to speak, an unwarranted authority.
In section 4, subsection 1, it is stated that this board shall have power to regulate the time and place of marketing the regulated product. As we are well aware through the Economic Conference agreements, at Ottawa, that the desire of this government is to promote the British Empire's interests, Canada is thus assured of an imperial boom, without precedent, and a strong reaffirmation of what the entire world deplores, economic nationalism.
Paragraph (b) of this subsection 1 empowers this board to exempt any person from conforming to the ruling as regards a natural product. This opens the door to the worst abuses, and we may expect friends to take advantage of such an opportunity to make a small fortune while their neighbours watch them becoming wealthy at their own expense.
Paragraph (f) empowers this board to require a licence from all producers regardless of his importance. We must, therefore, admit that numerous boards and officials will be appointed, et cetera, to annoy the farmers accustomed to living like little kings in their own domain. This paragraph is far from fostering the back-to-the-land movement because liberty which is dear to all, especially, to the

Marketing Act-Mr. Deslauriers
farmers, will be replaced by slavery and might even lead to the gaol. Under the circumstances private enterprise must be greatly decreased.
The idea of improving the conditions of supply and demand-an unalterable principle of commerce-is accepted by all and no one will criticize the government for such a laudable endeavour. The proposal to improve certain trade methods is not a new one. The United Kingdom which possesses the genius of business to a high degree, also possesses an organization known as the British Marketing Board, an institution organized with the greatest circumspection so as not to harm the rights of any one and protect all interests, producers, salesmen and consumers-


Mr. BARBETTE (Translation):: That is
what we also intend to do.
Mr. DESLAURIERS (Translation)	-an
organization worked out by parliament, according to all the rules and regulations of the constitutions and which entirely eliminates all irregularities and criticism, inspires trust and encourages all those interested. Why did this government not proceed likewise and why has it not introduced a similar bill to that of Great Britain with which, no doubt, they are acquainted? In such a democratic country as Canada, the government has no excuse to introduce this bill. At a time when every person of sound mind are requested to oppose systems with subversive and radical notions which endeavour to take root among us, why does the government, in the interest of peace, order and good government, introduce an incoherent and autocratic bill, setting aside the rights of parliament, throwing overboard our constitution, our statutes and endeavour to enact a measure which should only find a place in Russia.
If the government did not proceed as did Great Britain when establishing its marketing board, the reason is that in Great Britain, statesmen who govern the country respect their constitution, while in Canada our rulers, in introducing this bill, have given proof of an entirely different attitude. The Prime Minister himself, states that our constitution shoidd be amended. May it please Heaven that it be not in the sense of the bill under consideration, because it would be better to begin immediately to disrupt confederation.
It is absolutely unreasonable for the government to request the representatives of the people to approve an act granting the governor in council powers which they cannot forsake according to their oath of office and the constitution of this country. This bill

would grant to the government, already in possession of a signature in blank, the powers of an absolute dictator. It is most unreasonable to request the members to help in undermining their parliamentary rights, in destroying the constitution and to place in the hands of one man the destinies of the whole nation. If that is not sovietism, I wonder in what way this bill differs. In fact should this bill be enacted in its present form, we shall witness throughout the country the organization of dominion marketing boards, local boards, investigating commissions, agencies and subagencies, composed of persons paid by the government from the consolidated revenue funds, indemnifying those who are friendly and presenting accounts to be paid by the public treasury on orders issued by the governor in council.
Moreover, we shall find that this staff will assume all prerogatives pertaining to provincial authorities, regulate the work of the people, like in Moscow, regulate production, take possession of it and market it, while the people will be powerless to prevent them doing so. The people will always be in danger of being ruined by a ridiculous and heavy fine or even thrown in gaol. Why not have added exile, as in Russia!
We shall witness the greatest abuses. It cannot be otherwise. These dictators under the plea of doing their duty, will have on hand licences to grant to any one, with conditions attached-that is sure to happen- they will enslave a whole nation to favour profiteers, political followers, they may even organize rackets worthy of the city of Chicago. That is where this section of exemption may lead us. While a friend is granted the privilege to squeeze a market, accumulate a fortune, his neighbour will not be permitted to market the fruit of his labours.
We shall surely see malignant, envious men, suing their neighbour through spite. Will not the country in which we live produce such a state of chaos, when the destinies of a whole nation are in the hands of one man, of a governor in council?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Are you opposed to the principle of the bill?


Hermas Deslauriers: We may, without exaggeration, state that the bill is not British but Soviet in its conception, and that, by this act, the government endeavours to follow Hitler's policy.
I find it impossible to lend my support to this bill, in its present form. I am fully aware that my constituents have not placed their trust in me in order to sacrifice what they

Marketing Act-Mr. Willis
cherish the most, their freedom of action so worthily won by them and so generously granted by the mother country. If this act is put into force as the government's majority intends to do, we shall soon hear of protests throughout the country. We shall preach patience, at present. Conscious of having accomplished our duty, it is on behalf of the infringed liberty of the individual, on behalf of our history, constitution and despised parliamentary rights that we request the people to tell us what they think of this government.
On the other hand, should the government wish to submit to us a measure based on the British Marketing Board, I shall be the first to support it.
Mr. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Souris): Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I desire to address myself to the measure now before parliament, namely, the natural products marketing bill. However, before doing so I desire to give if possible the background of the bill now before the house. I desire to do this because this bill emanated not from any master mind in this assembly but from the producers in different parts of Canada. The first conference called was the producers' marketing conference which was held in Regina on July 27 and 28, 1933. Among others, there were represented at that conference the Southern Alberta Dairy Pool, the Manitoba Vegetable Growers' Cooperative, the Canadian Poultry Pool, the Regina Live Stock Pool, the Canadian Horticultural Council, the Fraser Valley milk producers, the Saskatchewan Dairy Association, the National Dairy Council, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Wheat Pool, the Cooperative Marketing Board, the federal Department of Agriculture, and the federal Department of Trade and Commerce. That conference passed the following resolution:
Be it resolved that this body of producers representative of the major agricultural activities of western Canada, request the hon. the federal Minister of Agriculture to forthwith proceed with the preparation of a farm products marketing measure, which will be available to and adequate for the needs of the producers of all agricultural products in any part of Canada.
Following that conference, another conference met in Toronto on November 28, 1933. At this conference were represented Cooperative Federee de Quebec, the Montreal Milk Producers Association, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers, Ontario Cheese Patrons Association, United Dairymen's Association, Ontario Milk Producers' Association, Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture, Prince Edward Island Potato Growers, New Brunswick Fruit
Growers and Potato Growers, Ontario Growers' Market Council and the Horticultural Council of Canada.
Following those two meetings of the producers, at which there were represented practically every producers' association in Canada, we have before parliament the present bill for the consideration of this house. The measure we are now discussing proposes in my opinion three things: First, to ensure orderly marketing and thereby better prices; secondly, to prevent manipulation and exploitation; and thirdly, to provide machinery for removing from the local market any surplus which would tend to reduce the price. These I think are purposes with which we ought all to be in accord. It does not provide for restriction of production; it does not provide for pricefixing. It will be necessary in the discussion of the measure for me to quote certain clauses from the bill owing to the fact that criticism has been levelled against them in a very unfair manner in some instances.
I think it would be wise if I were to quote now section 3:
The governor in council may establish a board to be known as the dominion marketing board to regulate the marketing of natural products as hereinafter provided.
' Subsequently the measure sets out that there shall be local boards, and in subsection 9 of section 3 we have this very important clause:
The governor in council may from time to time authorize payment to the board, out of the consolidated revenue fund, of such sums of money as may be necessary for the purposes of this act.
Against subsection 9 there is directed the Liberal opposition of the country. They say it is an infringement of the rights of parliament. You, Mr. Speaker, in your place, have heard this argument a thousand times in this house since 1930, and in support of the argument that the rights of parliament are being infringed we have cited to us Magna Charta, King John and all history back for a thousand years. So retroactive has the present opposition become that its best arguments are drawn from at least a thousand years ago. Subsection 9 is intended to ensure early operation of the act and also to avoid delay, and another argument to which I shall pay attention later on will prove that Toryism now resides on the left of the Speaker. This expenditure is desired because otherwise the act itself would not come into operation. Largely, the present measure is the creature of the producers' associations of this country, but in order that they may operate it becomes
Marketing Act-Mr. Willis

necessary that the federal government, for a time at least, should make such expenditures as will enable them to commence.
Then I would quote section 4, against which many arguments have been advanced. That section provides:
The board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power-
(a) to regulate the time and place of marketing the regulated product, and to determine the manner of distribution and the quantity and quality or grade of the regulated product that shall be marketed by any person at any time, and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade or quality.
The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) particularly advanced what I should say was a very clever argument in regard to this limitation. He was of the opinion that quality might very well be regulated but not quantity. I should like to direct his attention particularly to the fact that for the purposes of any orderly marketing there must be regulation of the quantity of quality if there is any regulation at all. That is to say, if there were thrown on the market a large quantity of lower grades it would have the effect of defeating the purpose of the bill which is now before us. For instance, in the marketing of hogs it would be absolutely necessary that you limit the quantity of quality. This section fits in very well with whatever quota systems we may have similar to under the Ottawa agreement whereby we market hogs in the old country. It makes for uniformity of quality; it makes for uniformity of delivery; and it makes for compensation for intelligent effort on behalf of the producers of the country. In fact, it is placed here, I should say, for the purpose of fulfilling our part in the present world system of obtaining markets. The section itself is for the purpose of giving power to the producer to market his own product in the best possible way.
I come next to subsection (j) of section 4, against which much criticism has been levelled. That subsection provides that the board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power:
to cooperate with any marketing board or agency established under the law of any province to regulate the marketing of any natural product of such province and to act conjointly with any such provincial board' or agency.
There was certain criticism advanced in regard to this clause on the ground that it might impinge on provincial rights. But in regard to the question of provincial rights itself, this clause would not become opera-
tive unless the producers of the particular province desired to come within the four corners of its enactment.
I was greatly surprised at the very rabid criticisms directed against this government with respect to this particular measure, but I found no criticism directed against the governments of the different provinces who have themselves put through similar legislation. It is strange that all the blame should be heaped upon this government, hon. gentlemen forgetting entirely again the fact that the purpose of this is largely enabling legislation, in order that the producers and farmers of the country may be enabled to do that which they desire to do. In other words, if the producers desire it, if the provinces desire it, then they cannot all be wrong, and it seems to me that if we follow their desires, then anyone who tries to obstruct the legislation must be said to be doing it for a purpose which is not in the interests of the people whom they represent.
I would refer next to section 5, which reads:
A representative number of persons engaged in the production and marketing or the production or marketing of a natural product may petition the governor in council . . .
And then the petition is referred to the board, following which the minister may, if he sees fit, recommend and give his approval. In addition to that, we find that before any scheme is approved the governor in council shall be satisfied:
that the principal market for the natural product is outside the province of production: or that some part of the product produced may be exported.
That is to say this legislation is directed to the benefit of export trade. In view of the arguments advanced by the opposition that export trade is very desirable but nothing has been done in regard to it, I am again surprised that they should oppose this measure.
Then I should like to refer to certain sections of the bill which hon. members opposite consider too drastic, particularly section 7:
(1)	Every local board established hereunder shall continue to have authority to exercise its powers until such time as the governor in council withdraws such authority.
(2)	A representative number of the persons operating under a scheme approved under section five of this act may petition the minister to revoke the scheme.
Hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), say that this is too drastic. May I point out first that the governor in council may withdraw his authority at any time, which makes the provision elastic to an extreme degree

Marketing Act-Mr. Willis
and capable of being quickly changed. Those who are detrimentally affected may themselves ask that it be changed; so that the legislation is perhaps as elastic and susceptible to change as any legislation which ever came before this house.
Criticism is directed particularly to section 9, which, it is said, involves bureaucratic interference from above. The section reads:
Notwithstanding that no petition in relation to any natural product has been filed, the minister may, if he is satisfied that the trade and commerce in the said product is injuriously affected by the lack of a local board to regulate such product, at any time propose a scheme for the marketing of such product, and the governor in council may approve of such scheme and authorize the board to administer such scheme directly or through any agency which it may establish. Such scheme shall continue in force until terminated by the governor in council.
That is to say, even though there may not be a complete petition by producers the power is given to the minister himself to take a hand. Anyone who understands the cooperative movement in Canada will realize that at times there must necessarily come a deadlock; due perhaps to personal views, sectional views, provincial views. Then by section 9 a scheme may be implemented by the minister in charge for that purpose. I cannot see why that section is not desirable, to give to the minister power that he may exercise in his own discretion, if and when there is a deadlock, an impasse, if and when it becomes impossible for the different schemes of the producers to be all aligned, the corners all trimmed and an effective scheme put in action.


Mr. NEILL:: Will the hon. member allow me a question? Does section 9 say that the minister's arbitrary action shall be conditional upon a deadlock?


Mr. WILLIS:: No, certainly not. That makes no difference whatever. It merely gives the power to the minister. It is not going to say that on Tuesdays he may exercise it but not on Thursdays.


Alan Webster Neill: Any old time he likes.


Errick French Willis: Any old time he likes he may exercise it for the benefit of the producer. It has been said that too much discretion is given to the minister in this regard. The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) I think made that argument, and made it very well. Also it is argued that there is a degree of compulsory cooperation. There is no motive, no reason why the minister in exercising his discretion should do anything which is not for the benefit of the producer.
Remember that the minister himself belongs to a party, to a government. He is always open to public criticism which may damn him and the political party and the government to which he belongs; therefore I say there is no motive which would impel the minister to take any action not for the benefit of the producers. But it is very necessary that if the producers themselves cannot move there should be some provision in the act under which the minister himself can exercise some power in order to bring their efforts to a successful conclusion.
It has been said that the British act is preferable. That was said by many members of the opposition, including the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). I cannot see a parallel between the British act and any act which might be brought into force in this dominion, for the reason that in Great Britain they have no question of provincial jurisdiction. Here we are giving enabling legislation to such associations, such provincial governments as may care to use it. Therefore there cannot logically be any real comparison between the provisions of the British act, where there is direct administration by the government, and enabling legislation in this parliament which may or may not be used, depending upon the wishes of the producers.
Then criticism is directed against section 12, which gives power to restrict imports and exports. The section reads:
(1)	The governor in council may, by order or regulation published in the Canada Gazette, restrict the importation into Canada of any natural product which enters Canada in competition with a regulated product, and the governor in council shall have power to make regulations to provide for the licensing by the minister of importers, or otherwise to enforce any order made hereunder.
(2)	The governor in council may, by order or regulation published in the Canada Gazette-
(a)	provide that any natural product shall not be exported from Canada without a licence;
(b)	prescribe the forms of such licences, the terms and conditions thereof and the persons who shall have authority to issue the same;
The section further indicates that penalties may be imposed. Imports particularly are to be restricted, because we desire to retain the home market for those products. The people whose products were concerned, who held conferences in regard to this matter, represented producers of poultry, honey, live stock, milk, fruit, vegetables, maple products, and in addition the western wheat pools had what you might call a sitting brief.
Marketing Act-Mr. Willis

Again criticism is made that under this bill we are delegating powers which we should not delegate, infringing upon the rights of parliament; and they bring in the dear old argument of Magna Charta and King John. Again the poor old gentleman is disturbed and brought out of his tomb to support an attempt in the Canadian parliament to frustrate the efforts of the producers to get a marketing bill. Delegation of powers, I have heard men of the legal profession make eloquent speeches in this house on that subject. What do we delegate to the legal profession? We delegate to the legal profession rights of life and death over all its citizens; yet forsooth we should not delegate to experts in marketing the products of d.his country any powers whereby they may assist the producer, powers which conceivably were exercised by parliament. There must always be delegation of power by this parliament; indeed, I think it is the general opinion throughout Canada that if this parliament delegated a little more of its powers to people who are experts, instead of having so much political discussion in this house, the people of Canada would be much happier. These measures are necessary of course in order that we may have complete control of exports, in order that we may fulfil our obligations in regard to national quotas. Ten years ago, fifteen years ago, this measure might not have been necessary, but at the present time, due to the system by which world trade is carried on, it becomes an immediate necessity. And you must necessarily have provision for a penalty, in order to make effective the will of the people, to protect these producers against themselves.
Finally we have criticism against section 16, which reads:
(1) The minister may, at the request of the board or upon his own initiative authorize an nvestigation into the cost of production, prices, spread, trade practices, methods of financing, management, policies, grading, transportation ind other matters in relation to the production and marketing, adaptation for safe, processing ar conversion of any natural product.
In addition to that the minister may also require persons engaged in the production or marketing, adaption for sale, processing or conversion of a natural product to submit at regular intervals or at any stated time, information demanded by the minister in connection with the matters referred to in the previous subsection. That is to say, if hon. gentlemen opposite desire that we shall not implement what has been brought out by what is known as the Stevens inquiry, of course they do not desire these provisions,

but so far as the man on the street is concerned this meets a great need in connection with control. The general criticism offered by the opposition in regard to this section is that the consumer is not protected. May I point out, sir, that under this section while the consumer is not protected the price spread is dealt with; therefore the cost to the consumer is brought closer to that which the producer receives. We desire now that the producer shall receive more; by doing the one we also do the other. So far as the consumer is concerned, if he pays only slightly more than the producer receives then you are bound to have prosperity for the producers and for the country itself. So, with regard to the argument concerning the consumer, I would say it has no merit whatever.
When we come to the other sections of the act we find that they are not of great importance and that very little criticism has been directed against them. Generally speaking, however, I should like to know whether in reality the opposition are satisfied with present conditions. If they are, they have well indicated their feeling during this debate. If they are not satisfied with present conditions with regard to the producer they have not suggested any measure by which the producer may be put in a better position. What alternatives do they suggest if they do not accept the marketing bill now before the house? I notice that one hon. gentleman, my good friend from Humboldt (Mr. Totzke), began to quote Mr. W. A. Landreth of the Canadian poultry pool, but he quoted only a heading. Strangely enough, while that very estimable gentleman could see very little good in this government previously, he is endorsing the present measure and his cooperative, together with others, were the people who met at the original conference and drafted the original resolution. So I suggest to the hon. member for Humboldt that it might not be wise to quote Mr. Landreth in support of his argument.
The fact that this measure is strenuously opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite is a splendid feature, I think. If this were a measure without teeth probably it would be allowed to slide through, but since hon. gentlemen opposite realize that the general cooperative movement throughout Canada desires this measure, they feel it necessary to fight the measure even as they fight the C.C.F. movement. In other words, they fight those things which are dangerous to their cause, hence the present opposition. We may well ask if they intend to oppose the second

Marketing Act-Mr. Willis
reading of this bill and the general principle of a marketing board in Canada. If they do so of course the country will know them by their acts. If they oppose the second reading of the bill they oppose the principle of the bill, but they have offered no definite alternative, so their policy is just as unknown as their policy in regard to tariffs. That question has been dragged into this discussion quite frequently. It is strange that the opposition should oppose the marketing bill without suggesting an alternative. It is strange that the opposition should say the tariffs of this country are too high without stating what tariffs are too high. I ask them if, when they come into power, they will take off the 25 cent tariff on corn and thereby re-elect me, or if they will not? We want a few details in regard to this tariff question as we do in regard to their marketing proposals. Hon. members opposite say they are going to change the tariff. What changes do they intend to make, and on what articles? Hon. members back of me ask if they intend to change the tariff on furniture, and I think that is important. Personally, however, I am more interested in barley, corn and butter. Will the tariffs on these articles be changed? If so, let us and the electors know, because we do not want to slide into power again on butter. Perhaps if we could* get an announcement of their policy, however, we might do so.
I think if the opposition desire to be fair they should also criticize the provinces, since they have put through legislation in connection with this marketing bill. I should be delighted to hear the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) and the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) criticize Premier Bracken in this connection. They assisted him in his campaign, but he has put through implementing legislation in regard to marketing, so to be consistent I think they should criticize him as well. The present measure is to implement the desires of the producers of this country. It does not restrict production. It is said that it is a radical move; of course it is, and more power to the government.


Mr. HEAPS:: Come over here.


Errick French Willis: It is a radical move to aid the producers, and that is what is needed. We have heard a good deal about the liberty of this parliament, but what we desire is the liberty of the producer to control his product.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the people of this country could step into this house they would see which party in this
country is the stand-pat party; they would see where the reactionaries are. They would see where what is known as Toryism takes its stand. I find that according to the dictionary a Tory is one who is opposed to changes in the constitution. The head of the Conservative party in this country has stated already that our constitution should be amended, and I suppose hon. members opposite will be against that, as usual. So I should say Mr. Speaker, that in the great valley of depression to your left lies the Toryism of this country. And lest hon. members opposite should think I make that statement because of prejudice I should like to quote an outstanding authority, the leading Liberal journal in this city. I read the first paragraph of the leading editorial of April 25, 1934 of the Ottawa Citizen:
There is nothing easier in Canadian politics than to sit on the opposition side in judgment of the government. The greatest opportunity for criticism is provided by the budget speech of the minister of finance. It is an opportunity also, however, for the leading financial critic to show where the opposition has any more hopeful policy to put forward. Never before in any Canadian parliament have there been such opportunities as in the years since 1930. but this official opposition has been more conservative than the government. It is simply a negative factor in parliament, offering neither light nor leadership in Canada's most critical period of economic readjustment.
I should. like to quote also the conclusion of the editorial, what you might call the obituary:
The results of the government's deflation policy are to be seen everywhere in the general conditions of Canadian business. The opposition's negative record in this parliament has made it appear that the Liberals would have done no better. Nor is there reason to believe that they will go much further than this government when they do come back into office. Unless the next elections bring a more radical element into the Liberal party, Canada will apparently continue to trail along behind the more enterprising political democracies, where the Liberals are not too conservative to explore new paths.
That, Mr. Speaker, I think would be a good note on which to conclude.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member was
not in order in reading a newspaper article referring to a proceeding now before the house, and I suggest that this be struck out of the record; in fact that will be the direction to Hansard.


Errick French Willis: With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, I did look up the rule previously and I held the opinion the editorial was just general comment. On several occasions I
Marketing Act-Mr. Willis

have heard similar editorials read in this house. It does not refer to a particular proceeding in this house at this time, but it is merely general comment in regard to it. It does not reflect on the house, any proceedings of the house or any member of the house. While I am a junior member, I know I have heard similar editorials read in this chamber, time and again.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If so, it did not establish a precedent.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Mr. Speaker, if I have your permission I should like to speak to the point of order. Just prior to the time the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) began speaking we were looking up the procedure, and we found that the thirteenth edition of May does not lay down any rule prohibiting the reading of comments upon the policies of a party. The comments in the editorial read by my hon. friend are comments upon the policies of a party in this House of Commons. It does seem to me that for that reason the hon. member was quite correct in reading from the editorial in question. I make these observations, Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to your ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I shall look into the
material of the editorial, and if I find any reason for modifying my opinion I shall let the house know.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising this afternoon to take part in the debate is to answer certain references made by the. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the group in this corner of the house, to which I have the honour of belonging. A great part of the two hour speech delivered by the right hon. leader of the opposition was taken up with a criticism of the action of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) as well as the actions of other hon. members sitting in this section of the house. So, if to-day I devote most of my time to an attempt to answer some of the right hon. gentleman's observations I do so because I am a member of the group to which he referred. He spent so 'much time criticizing what he considered to be our stand in regard to this bill that perhaps it would be but right and proper that I should answer his observations.
First of all he claimed that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had practically swallowed the Conservative party, because that party had introduced legislation favourable to the C.C.F. Later, he claimed that the government had spread a net into which the

hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and hon. members associated with him had wandered, with the result that at this time they had almost become allied to the Conservative party. However despite the fact that those may be the feelings of the leader of the opposition I believe he is entirely mistaken in the motives he has imputed, which on this occasion will prompt us to support the bill under discussion.
If I had to summarize under three headings the objections which the Liberal leader and- I am not sure about this-perhaps the Liberal party, have to this legislation, I should place them as follows: In the first place they claim that the bill takes away from parliament the rights it possesses and delegates many of its powers to another body over which we may have no control. Then they state the measure is subversive of our judiciary, that it is unconstitutional, and that it destroys the liberty of the subject which was founded on the Magna Charta. With regard to the last contention may I say that the liberty of the British subject was not founded on the Magna Charta, although that document is a milestone in the history of Great Britain. At the time King John was having troubles and disputes with the nobility of Great Britain, the difficulties amounted to only a squabble between the barons of that day and the king. If we want to know something about the fight for liberty of the British subject we have to come to a period much later in British history, to a point nearing the end of the eighteenth century or the beginning of the nineteenth. However, I do not wish to enter at this time into a discussion of that aspect of the matter.
Then, the second objection was to the effect that the measure limits production and trade, and the third objection was to the licensing of industry. I presume if the government would remove those three objections from the bill, quite possibly the official opposition would support it.


James Langstaff Bowman: No danger.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then the right hon. gentleman spoke about the unconstitutional aspects of the bill. To me that was a most extraordinary argument. In this bill we have a measure introduced in the usual way in the House of Commons, and one which I presume will in the usual way be passed by parliament. But this bill which has been presented to parliament in the proper manner is branded by the leader of the opposition as unconstitutional. Then, may I go farther. The right hon. gentleman has spoken about the rights of the individual and infringements

Marketing Act-Mr. Heaps
upon individual liberty. Perhaps his terms are hardly correct, because the individual has only those rights or liberties which, under the law of the times, are regarded as being in the general interests of the community as a whole. To-day no man in this parliament or outside of it can do anything he pleases. He cannot go out and knock down a man he may meet on the street, he cannot legally steal. Our laws are full of offences which a man must not commit. I say that Canada would 'be in a state almost amounting to anarchy if we had to carry out to their ultimate conclusion the ideas presented by the leader of the opposition.
Then he urged that an individual has a right to the fruits of his own labour. To a certain extent that may be true. Further, I do not think anything in the act will take away from one's own labour the benefits he may derive from producing commodities for the general well being of the state. But I look at the state of affairs in Canada and ask myself, " What are the fruits of one's labour at the present time." I would suggest that the right hon. leader of the opposition should attend before the Stevens inquiry into price spreads so that he might ascertain what the fruits of one's labour amount to. Farmers have appeared before that committee, and time and again have stated that for the fruits of their labour they are receiving far less by way of monetary return than they actually put into the production of the commodities they have offered for sale.
Then I think of the fruits of the labour of those men and women who work in factories and workshops. Again the evidence before the Stevens committee indicates that in some Canadian factories men are working for as low as ten cents an hour. Women are working in the factories of eastern Canada, and possibly some in the west, for from $2 to S3 per week. Those, Mr. Speaker, are in these days the fruits of one's labour. Then, may I go a little farther? What about the half million unemployed about whom the leader of the opposition spoke in this house not so very long ago? WThat fruits have they derived from their labours? All they have before them is the opportunity of going around hunting for the elusive job, with probably no prospects of being able to find anything which will earn for them a decent livelihood.
I turn for a moment to discuss an aspect of the objection of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in regard to what he termed parliamentary control. May I read this extract from a small handbook issued by
the Liberal party in 1921; this is part of the platform of the Liberal party in that year:
Restoration of the control of the executive by parliament, and of parliament, by the people through a discontinuance of government by order in council and a just franchise and its exercise under free conditions.
I am quite in accord with that sentiment as expressed in that platform of the Liberal party, and would like to see it carried out to its utmost limit. But let us for a moment see how it was carried out during the few years that followed 1921. In 1927 there were given away by orders in council some of the most important natural resources of this country; in that way there was given away practically the Beauharnois enterprise, for without the order in council of the federal government there could have been no development of Beauharnois.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: What part of the
natural resources of Canada were given away by this government in connection with Beauharnois?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am criticizing the actions and attitude of the leader of the opposition. During the major part of his speech he turned towards this corner and criticized it. In the second place he was decrying government by order in council, and I am just trying to find out what his actions were as compared with the principle laid down by the party to which the hon. gentleman belongs.
May I go further? In 1927 there was signed by every hon. member from Manitoba a round robin objecting to giving away to a private corporation the Seven Sisters power development, comprising, I believe, speaking offhand, about one hundred thousand horse power. In spite of the fact that there was the objection of every Liberal member from Manitoba as well as of those in this corner of the house, the then government by order in council actually gave away those natural resources of the country to a private corporation. That is my objection to government by orders in council.
We are told that this measure will take away from parliament control that it already exercises. I am going to argue that it does the very reverse of what the leader of the opposition and my hon. friends of the Liberal party claim it does, for the very obvious reason that at present parliament has no control whatever over the production and distribution even of those commodities which are enumerated in Bill No. 51. If, then, we have no power either to regulate or to control the production and distribution of the com-
Marketing Act-Mr. Heaps

modities named in the bill, how can we take away from parliament something that we do not now possess? According to the bill there will be created certain boards, certain commissions, which will have control. Who has control at the present time of this production? It is in the hands of private individuals who have made such an awful mess of the production and distribution of those commodities that to-day it is incumbent upon parliament to do something to bring order out of chaos. We have at present to choose between two alternatives-control or chaos. If we have to choose between those two I choose control and leave the other to my hon. friends to my right. We in this corner of the house want the Canadian people to have control over the industrial and commercial life of the dominion in the same way as they have control over other matters, and I believe the measure now before the house is a step in that direction.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Does the hon. member include agricultural life?


Abraham Albert Heaps: When I speak of industrial life I regard agriculture as an industry.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: What control is there to-day?


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is to-day no real control in regard to agriculture, and the fact that it is in its present chaotic condition has compelled agriculturists from all parts of the dominion to urge upon this central body, parliament, that something be done to lift them out of the rut in which they now find themselves. If that is not done, may I ask my hon. friends to my immediate right: What is going to be the alternative? Can agriculture continue to exist the way it is being carried on at present? Everybody admits that is almost impossible; therefore there is only one alternative, and that is proper government control and regulation. We have to choose also between government or cabinet and private control as we have it at present, and I will choose government control even though it may delegate some of those powers to a body as yet unnamed. I do not know why my hon. friends to my right are so afraid of a committee or commission that is to be appointed to administer these matters. In fact there is a great deal of confusion of thought in the minds of Liberals on this question; they are confusing the administration of the affairs of the country with the legislative functions of parliament. The party should be able to distinguish between what is legislative and what is administrative. In the administration of such a measure as a
{.Mr. Heaps. 1
marketing act we are compelled to delegate fairly wide powers to a body which has the administration of such legislation under its jurisdiction. We have passed similar laws galore in the house. Even to-day we have handed over to the trustees of the Canadian National Railways enormous powers in connection with the running of the national system. Who objects to that? I remember very well many hon. members on the Liberal side of the house time and time again rising in their places and saying: We are giving and have given to the directors of the national railway system a completely free hand without any interference from the government. Nevertheless the expenditure of that railway is approximately two-thirds of the expenditure of the federal government.
I believe the functions of administration and of legislation should be kept separate. I for one am prepared to entrust to the proper administrative officials of the government power to administer the laws of the country as they should be administered, that is in the most efficient and sympathetic way possible. It is the function of parliament to create the legislative machinery and to see that the laws enacted here are properly carried out by the officials whom we may appoint. Even though we may appoint these boards to function in the way we want, we still do not lose control over them, because each year parliament has a right to inquire into every phase of their activities. May I go further? In every act of parliament that is passed by the house, if we have power to create boards, . we have also power to unmake them, so if they are not functioning as we want them to, parliament has the power in its own hands and the remedy if it desires to exercise it.
Further, may I point to the many boards at present functioning in this country with very wide powers? Let me refer, for example, to the workmen's compensation boards that we have throughout the dominion. Throughout all the years that those workmen's compensation acts have been in effect, has any complaint been made in regard to their administration? There are compulsory features in our workmen's compensation laws. The employer is compelled to insure his employees against accident. Another important feature is the fact that these laws take away from the individual the right of appeal to the courts of the country. Have we ever had any complaint from any source whatsoever about the compulsory features of these laws? Have we ever had any complaint about the fact that the individual is denied the right of appeal to the courts? It is the very reverse;

Marketing Act-Mr. Heaps
experience has taught us that these laws are in the general interests of the community and of those whom they are intended to protect and benefit. We have other forms of restrictive legislation. We have the minimum wage laws under which the state says to the employers of labour: You shall pay to the individual a certain fixed minimum rate of pay. The employer may object and may think he is being deprived of the opportunity of making a free contract with the individual, but under these laws he is compelled to pay to that individual a certain minimum rate of pay. If he does not pay that rate, very often he is brought before the courts and fined. Certain rights are taken away by administrative action; they are taken away not directly by parliament but by the law which has been enacted by parliament, which is administered by certain officials appointed by the government, and which are regarded as in the country's interest.
There are many laws under which the individual is deprived of what he may regard as his own rights. I cannot go on the streets of Ottawa and drive an automobile unless I have a licence. If I have a licence and drive on the streets I may come to an intersection and find a red light against me. Much as I would like to go past that red light, I am regulated and controlled by the municipal laws and I must stop. I must drive on certain sides of the street. If I do not obey these laws then I may be brought into court and fined. Going beyond that, an individual may commit the whole nation to war without the consent of parliament. This is what happened in 1914. While I do not agree with such action, I am pointing out what is an actual fact. A former government broke off trade relations between this and another country either by order in council or by the act of a cabinet minister. I refer to the action taken in 1927 when the government broke off trade relations with Russia. Parliament had nothing to do with that matter. When a budget is introduced into this house it becomes effective the moment it is delivered. Parliament has no say except to criticize what is already an accomplished fact. The administration of our income tax and excise laws put enormous powers into the hands of the administrators, and yet no objection is raised to the power vested in these officials. This parliament could never become an effective machine for administering the laws of the country. This is why we appoint such boards as the railway commission. Who would ever dream of this house creating a freight structure
for the dominion? We have also harbour commissions and many other boards which I would enumerate had I the time.
Objection has been made to the licensing of industries. We do a great deal of licensing at the present time. We grant charters to the banks, to the railways and to the insurance companies. We lease water powers. The amount of licensing done in this country is amazing. Only the other day I received a little manual from the city of Winnipeg which shows the amount of licensing done there. The city of Winnipeg issues 151 different licences to individuals and industries within the city. What applies to the city of Winnipeg applies equally well to practically every other municipality in the dominion. We license abattoirs, hotels, theatres, circuses, taxi drivers and so on.


An hon. MEMBER:: And dogs.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Even dogs, as an hon. member remarked. Under this measure industries are to be licensed by federal rather than municipal authority, and we hear a big complaint made in the house that if this is done it will be the end of everything. I claim that so far as the licensing and control features of the present bill are concerned, they are merely an extension of what has been done in the dominion for many years past.
I should like to leave this aspect of the bill and state why I believe this legislation has become necessary. To-day we are living in a completely different era from that of twenty or thirty years ago. Conditions have changed considerably during the past two or three decades. We are now living in an age of contracting capitalism as compared to the age of expanding capitalism in which we lived a few years ago. It has become necessary for governments to recognize the fact that export markets are not what they were years ago. Each country in the world now finds it comparatively easy to produce goods; all nations want to be more or less on an export basis; most nations cannot find export markets and refuse to accept imports. The result is the piling up of tremendous surpluses of commodities in all parts of the world. So far as industrial and commercial activities are concerned, the nations find themselves in a complete state of chaos. In my humble opinion, this has not been brought about by tariffs. If there were no tariffs I believe that we would still be faced with this great glut of commodities. This condition can be cured by increasing the purchasing power of the great masses of the people which in turn will
Marketing Act-Mr. Heaps

have the effect of increasing the consumptive opportunities which are at present denied to them. One of the great problems which governments have to face at the present time is how to deal with this glut. In these days the individual has very little chance against the trusts and the huge combines. I should like to make a short quotation from a very interesting book as follows:
Much of this weakness of liberalism has been due to obsolete historical associations. Liberalism has been too long associated with laissez-faire, a negative and outworn attitude- it must now become positive. The old individualism is meaningless in a world of giant corporations, of ramifying combinations, and of national economic systems. It spells no longer either liberty or strength or social welfare. In practice liberalism has broken away from these old formulas, has in truth helped to demolish them, but in doctrine it has never fully emancipated itself. That is seen, for example, in the history of English Liberalism. English statesmen from the time of Gladstone have been apt to use old slogans for new policies as though the measures of national conservation, insurance and protection, which they introduced, were merely a continuation of the old Factory Acts. When they did not use the language of tradition, like Asquith, they used that of opportunism, like Lloyd George. The Fabians did in the name of socialism what should be done in the name of liberalism. They formulated principles and decisive doctrines and showed their application. On this side of the Atlantic liberalism has been still less expressive. In a period of expanding populations and developing resources, in a period when the law of unearned increment triumphed over the law of diminishing returns, there was no great incentive to such expression. But now the situation has changed and the necessity has arisen; liberalism must rise with it.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the hon.
gentleman reading from?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will tell you in a moment. It goes on to say:
Those so-called Liberals who refuse to advance one step should go where they belong. They have no business in the Liberal party. They should join their natural associates, the Conservatives.
I have been quoting from a book entitled The Liberal Way, published in September, 1933, and I have been giving the views of Professor Maclver, who is very well known to Liberals of this house-as my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) says, one of {heir brain trust.


Mr. YOUNG:: We don't keep a brain trust.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: No, that
is clear.


Errick French Willis: The writer is mistaken m
one detail only.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Let me go further and quote from the same book, The Liberal Way:
A study of the politics of most countries will show one problem at least which they have in common-the effort to relate economic activity to government.
That is the very reverse of what the present Liberal party are doing in this house. The leader of the opposition objects to this bill because, he claims, it will increase the functions of government, and so long as the Liberal party object to increasing the functions of government they must naturally be opposed to any marketing bill, whether it be this or any other. To proceed with the quotation:
We have already acquired a useful perspective in this matter: we need not wait for the historians of the future to tell us that the last generation is marked chiefly by the struggle;- not over yet-between two functions-politics and economics. In the nineteenth century there was little risk of a clash between the two. Politics left economic activity largely in private hands and was concerned with other things. But gradually the state has been forced to turn its attention to the economic field. Economics, in fact, has wooed politics now for decades, endeavouring with difficulty to break down an habitual indifference. Early approaches took place in England when the great program of social legislation was launched before the war. The process has been more than one of "wooing" in other countries. There has been a forced marriage between economics and politics in Russia. In the United States, since the new administration has assumed office, it is clear that a new form of alliance between these two is probable.
How totally different this is from the attitude of the Liberal party towards this bill- and here I have been quoting from the preface to the book, written by the Hon. Vincent Massey. I will let his statement, as it appears in the book, stand side by side with the declaration of the Liberal party in this house. It will have been observed that the final statement of Mr. Vincent Massey has reference to what was happening in the United States and, strange as it may seem, although the opposition to-day claim that they are opposed to increasing the functions of government-that can be found in the remarks of the leader of the opposition- in another booklet published by the Liberal party entitled Industry and Humanity, circulated by the National Liberal Federation of Canada, they are practically taking the whole credit for the N.R.A. in the United States. If the opposition want to take credit for the N.R.A. in the United States I suggest that they read this particular pamphlet-I have not the time now to quote from it- because in that country the functions of state

Marketing Act-Mr. Heaps
are being increased enormously, more than anything that is contained in the legislation introduced by the present government. On the one hand we have the Liberal party saying that they are totally opposed to increasing the functions of the state, while on the other hand they distribute hundreds of thousands of pieces of literature throughout the country, trying to link up the Liberal party here with the N.R.A. in the United States, virtually declaring that the party is the father of what is taking place there. It is difficult to know which of the two to choose.
Perhaps I might say a word with reference to what is taking place in the United States. At times I have expressed a great deal of sympathy with as well as admiration for the way in which the President of the United States is attempting to deal with the problems with which that country is faced. At least he is making an effort to get his country out of the economic chaos in which it finds itself at the present time. I am not however so hopeful of success as perhaps a good many people are, for in the United States they are attempting to carry on two different forms of economic principles within the confines of the country. They are trying to build up a great cooperative system within the competitive system, and sooner or later one must give way to the other; either the cooperative effort must triumph over the competitive or the competitive must triumph over the cooperative. Which will ultimately triumph I am not in a position to say, but it appears to me at present that the old order may prevail in the end over the cooperative efforts that are now being made.
I wanted to have a few words to say with regard to the Liberal amendment which has been submitted as an alternative to the bill now before us. I have had some difficulty in getting at the meaning of the Liberal amendment. Though it has been ruled out of order, I think it is well worth while my quoting a few words of it. My knowledge of the English language may not be as perfect as I should like it to be, and therefore it is difficult for me to interpret the meaning of the amendment, which reads:
This house, while prepared to support legislation for assisting the orderly marketing of natural products, is unalterably opposed to the enactment of any compulsory measure which delegates to unnamed and undetermined individuals, groups or organizations, sweeping powers over the production and trade and commerce of the nation. . . .
I am wondering, if the names of those who
are to have the powers in question were in-74726-161
serted in the bill, whether the Liberal party would support this legislation. Or, on the other hand, am I to infer from this that they are totally opposed to any form of market control or to the compulsory features of the bill? I am inclined to think it was an amendment designed to be capable of interpretation according to the wishes of those who interpreted it. It really had no particular meaning, but was facing both ways. There has been a great deal of talk about the magna charta of almost one thousand years ago, which no doubt in its own time served a very useful purpose. But I think the time has come when there ought to be a new magna charta, not for the barons as of old but for the common people of the Dominion of Canada. That magna charta is long overdue. When we see conditions in this country as they were just a couple of months ago, with about one and a quarter million people on relief; when we find that at the present time there are approximately half a million people out of work, it surely is time we gave to that vast number of our people some real hope that the future is going to be a little brighter than the past has been. To-day there is in this country very little of that economic freedom which my hon. friends to my right say we possess. What economic freedom is there for the mass of the people? Is it the freedom for that half million to go and look for a job which does not exist? Is it the freedom for that one and a quarter million to obtain their daily relief from the public authorities? Is it that freedom which the small storekeeper has, who from month to month can hardly keep his head above water?
I think the time must come when this parliament has got to take cognizance of these conditions. We cannot do anything by adopting that ostrich-like attitude of digging our heads into the sand and attempting not to see what is going on all around us. The whole commercial and industrial life of Canada is in a state of chaos, and if we are going to get out of the chaotic condition in which we find ourselves there is only one body in this dominion that can set about it with any effectiveness. We cannot leave it to private enterprise; if private enterprise could get us out of the present rut it would have done it long ago, because it is not to the advantage of private enterprise to have conditions continue as they are. Therefore there is only one authority capable of doing anything, and that is the state. At lass! the government of this country, representing the whole dominion, have decided to take hold of and control the situation in regard to one very important

2540	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Heaps
aspect of our national life. They have decided to assume control of and to regulate the marketing of the products of agriculture, of the field and of the forest. Because I believe that the step the government have taken, speaking in a general way, is in the right direction, I intend to vote for this measure. While I intend to vote for it, I am also in favour of submitting the bill to the agriculture committee, where certain features of it may be thoroughly explored, where we may have before us expert opinion, as is not possible before a committee of the whole house. After the bill has received second reading, I hope it may go to that committee for that full and open deliberation which may perhaps lead to improvements in respect to certain details of the measure.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) was addressing the house he quoted from a newspaper. I said that in my opinion it was not in accordance with the rules of the house to do so. I have since examined the article he quoted, and I find that he was quite within his rights.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: The natural products marketing bill that we are now considering has been so well received in the country, and particularly in that part of the province of Saskatchewan that I have the honour to serve, that I hardly thought it would be necessary for me to say anything upon the bill at this time. But after listening to some hon. members opposite, particularly those from that province who spoke, labouring long and hard to place a wrong interpretation upon this bill and to show that the people of Saskatchewan are not behind it, I think it necessary for me to say a few words, and to inform the house that the reports I am getting from Saskatchewan-and I am receiving letters daily-are to the effect that it has been very favourably received there.
The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) covered the ground so thoroughly in his review of the events leading up to the framing of this bill and its introduction in the house that it is hardly necessary for me to say anything in that respect. I might just add that all the organizations he quoted,-the pool, the cooperative organizations, and even the grain trade in western Canada,-are favouring and supporting this bill. I have talked with many of the heads and representatives of these organizations and they have so expressed themselves to me.
There are, I think, certain features that we can agree on. From the discussion I think it is quite evident that we agree on the main IMr. Heaps.]
principles of the bill. I think we are agreed that markets for the primary products are what we need, and that such markets shall be stable, orderly and regulated. The bill before the house is designed to secure that, to regulate in an orderly way the flow of primary products into whatever markets we may have, whether domestic or export. So that the main principles of the bill have been agreed upon, I need only deal with the matter in a general way.
The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and many of the hon. members behind him, particularly those from the west, in trying to put a wrong interpretation on the bill or speaking with respect to the regulations and the powers that the boards may have, have gone far afield to get an argument. They have been setting up men of straw in order to knock them down. We have heard the criticism that there is restriction. I say that in this bill there is no restriction of production as they have tried to make out. All governments have to pass regulatory acts; many such could be cited. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) cited many acts that this parliament has passed which are regulating acts. Certainly all countries have passed acts for the regulation of trade and commerce. We could even quote the empire agreements passed in this house. Certain regulations were set up with respect to quotas and the marketing of our products, and in regard to imports and exports. Then we have, as already cited in this debate, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, and many European countries all putting up tariffs, giving bonuses to their producers, and regulating and assisting their trade. This has not taken place only since 1930, or since this government came into office, but goes back even to 1927, 1925 and 1923, it started under the regime of the late government. The reason why the foreign governments to which I have referred took these steps I am not going to discuss. On hundreds of occasions in this house we have heard the reasons given. I do not care whether it was because of fear or because they wished to become self-sustaining; I do not care who is to blame because these countries took certain steps by way of setting up tariffs and restricting trade. What I am concerned with is the fact that a situation is facing this country and this government with respect to marketing. Everyone knows that to-day it is more difficult to market our primary products than it ever has been, due to the circumstances I have mentioned, and everyone knows that a small percentage of our products regulates

Marketing Act-Mr. Heaps
the price at which the remainder is sold. I think the times warrant a change in our system. The world has changed, particularly with regard to international trade; we have quotas, bonuses, tariffs and so on. We must not sit still and do nothing, as hon. gentlemen opposite did when they were in office; the marketing of our primary products and the protection of our producers in order to see that they get fair prices are problems which must be dealt with.
It has been stated that this act is socialistic or radical in its nature. I do not care what may be said with respect to the act or the party that has introduced it;. I say it is plain that the Conservative party intend to take such action as they think will be of some benefit to the producers of this country. Mass production has brought about many difficulties and is perhaps the greatest single reason for this act, and I think the evidence that has been given before the committee investigating price spreads and mass buying proves conclusively that it is time we took some action. The other day I attended a meeting of that committee and heard evidence to the effect that from three to five per cent of the cattle coming to the Toronto market regulates the price for the remaining ninety-five or ninety-seven per cent. Under this act the board that will be set up will have power to go on that market and take away the surplus and do as they see fit with it. They may dump it into lake Ontario; they may export it at a loss; they may turn it back to the vat and make fertilizer out of it, and the loss will be made good from the consolidated revenue fund of this dominion. Similar evidence has been brought out with regard to our poultry, our fruit and our dairy products. When the minister introduced this bill he told us what happened last fall and winter with regard to dairy products; he stated that a very small percentage of our primary products regulates the price of the remainder of the products which are consumed at home. Under this act that situation can be dealt with.
Now let us consider the bill. In my opinion it has three underlying principles. The first is the power to create boards to regulate and handle the primary products. In other words, in cooperation with the producers these boards will give the producers some say in the selling of their goods and the carrying on of their own business. In the second place the bill provides for the cooperation of provincial authorities or boards with the federal authority or board so that the producer shall not be exploited and prices manipulated to his disad-74726-161J
vantage. In other words, enabling legislation is to be passed by the provinces which will allow these boards to work together so that the producer may not be exploited. In the third place the bill gives power to investigate and regulate, and there is provision that any loss sustained may be made good from the revenues of this country.
The real purpose of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is to make it possible for the primary producers to receive fair remuneration for their products so that they may obtain a decent living and a profit as a result of their labour. In other words it will lay the corner stone of a new foundation for agriculture. Speaking in Regina on October 19, 1930, the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) said that a new foundation had to be laid for agriculture if the country was to be saved, and I think this bill is the cornerstone of that foundation. Yesterday the hon. member for Melville quoted a speech which he delivered in this house on May 13, 1932, in which he dealt with the condition of agriculture and said there had to be practically a new start made. In that speech the hon. gentleman advocated something in the nature of this bill, and I want to congratulate the hon. member for the stand he has taken. He has been fair and reasonable on this occasion, and I think perhaps on many other occasions he has tried to be fair when we did not give him credit for it. The hon. member is going to support the second reading of this bill, and the objections he has taken to it are of a minor nature which may be overcome when we are in committee. I commend the hon. gentleman for having taken his stand in opposition to his leader.
It is very amusing, Mr. Speaker, to hear the opposition speak so glibly of wider markets. I make the statement, which I do not think can be challenegd, that no government ever did less to secure new markets or hold existing markets, or to take appropriate steps when they saw markets slipping away-as hon. gentlemen opposite must have seen from 1921 to 1930-than the government headed by the right hon. leader of the opposition, this champion of wider markets. I have before me a list of agricultural products that we export to the United States, which will be found at page 454 of the Commercial Intelligence Journal of March 24 of this year. In the first column are set out forty-three commodities; in the last three columns are shown the tariffs on those commodities entering the United States. In the third to the last column are the rates in the year 1921 on forty-three articles, twenty-five of which were on the free list. In the second
2542	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
column to the last we have the rates imposed by the United States in 1930, after nine years of Liberal regime. What do we find? Of the twenty-five articles we find not one article on the free list, and in connection with the other eighteen articles which in 1921 carried minor or small tariffs, the increases are in some cases from 100 per cent to 200 per cent. That is what the Liberal party saw happening to our export trade in primary products during those years.
Last night the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) reviewed the results of the Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1923 and the Hawley-Smoot tariff of 1929. What action did the Liberal government take which could be considered retaliatory? They did nothing not even a protest. We have the record of the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition delivered in 1929, at a time when he was in power, to the effect that he did not propose to take any action for fear of retaliatory action on the part of the United States. I could place on Hansard, further, a list of commodities entering Canada. These figures are very interesting because there are several items in the list showing an increase in the tariffs imposed by the government of that day. If we review the records respecting the percentage of goods entering Canada free of duty we find that to-day we have a greater percentage of goods entering Canada free of duty than we had at any time during the last twenty years.
The opposition opposed the United Kingdom agreements. When the agreements were under discussion the right hon. leader of the opposition said that if returned to power he would repeal the agreements, and would not be bound by them. But the people of Canada know very well what the agreements have meant to them. During the first six months after this house passed the agreements and they became operative, the people were naturally a little leary of them. They had been listening to and reading the arguments presented by the opposition. To-day, however, after more than a year's operation we find that the Canadian people know full well what the agreements mean to them, and that they have meant a great increase in our trade with the United Kingdom.
The leader of the opposition made the statement that the marketing legislation would contract rather than expand trade. He said that was happening to-day. Well, it is but a further illustration of the old saying that there is no one so blind as the man who will not see. That would apply with respect to the right hon. gentleman's statement. I have

in my hand a record of some observations made by hon. members opposite, and particularly by the leader of the opposition, at the time of the debate on the United Kingdom agreements, and I shall refer to one or two of them. The right hon. gentleman declared the imperial treaties to be a tariff wall around the empire, to be a Tory conspiracy and for that reason undeserving of support from anywhere. While the leader of the opposition was taking that stand the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), at page 352 of Hansard for 1932-33, declared that the government had swiped the Liberal policy in broad daylight. Although his leader had just said that the trade treaties were a Tory conspiracy, when the vote came the hon. member for Mel-vile voted with his leader. I could refer to other statements made by hon. members opposite in that debate. However, at this time to prove that they were wrong I shall place on record some figures showing the increase in our trade under the agreements during the eleven months between April 1, 1933, and March 1, 1934. In that period, as compared with the same period in the preceding year, our exports to the countries enumerated increased in the following percentages:
Per cent
British Empire countries	 21
United Kingdom	 20
Australia	 54
British South Africa	 61
British India	 44
At the same time we had a very material increase in our export trade with several foreign countries. In fact, in the month of February last compared with the month of February, 1933, we had an average increase of 51 per cent. Hon. members opposite have offered criticism with regard to our volume of exports and imports, but I am pleased to give further figures showing the import trade for 1933 as compared with the same period in 1934. The increases from the countries indicated are as follows:
Per cent
Foreign countries	 41
United States	  43
China	 31
Japan	 39
Germany	 51
British Empire	 45
United Kingdom	 41
British India	 114
Australia	  182
New Zealand	 102
There can be no doubt that the Prime Minister of Canada and his government are endeavouring to solve our problems and to obtain wider markets. They are endeavour-

Marketing Act-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
ing to see that the primary producers obtain markets for their products. Agriculture is the greatest industry in Canada. It is the one industry which each year produces more new wealth than any other industry. As I have indicated, our government is making an honest effort to do something in that regard. Certainly we are not standing still. I should like hon. members to compare the statement I have just made with the report from the Liberal summer school held last summer at,
I believe, Port Hope. I have before me a record which came through the press indicating that after discussing this problem of wider markets, at a time when the leader of the opposition was present, the summer school admitted that Liberals could suggest no method of improving our market position. When a party gets to that state it no longer deserves the support of its members.
During the last two years we have learned two things in particular: First, we have learned that the world, and particularly the United Kingdom, can consume only certain quantities of our primary products. That quantity is less than it has ever been before. We have also learned the quality of the products they require. May I say that the measure before the house proposes to regulate both as to quantity and quality. Hon. members have pointed out, and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) made it very clear to-day that under this measure there is no compulsion or no danger of interference with the rights or liberties of producers. Under this measure, when the minister is satisfied that a reasonable majority of producers of any one product have signified their intention of being organized and brought under this measure, the minister may provide for the set-up of a board. I do not think the farmers or other primary producers are worrying very much about parliament taking away any rights or liberties from them when that is done. We must trust our ministers, no matter of what shade of politics they may be. I am sure any minister taken into any government that might be formed in the future would do his best and could be trusted when the situation arose to do the right thing with respect to the primary producers.
As regards wheat, the machinery is practically set up already. We know what has been taking place and wheat may come in under this legislation or it may not. I have no particular reason to believe it will not and I would be satisfied whether it came in or not because I believe it could be properly handled in any event. But the machinery
is set up under the Canada Wheat Board Act that was passed in 1922. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) gave the details with respect to that and he outlined the powers given to the board set up under that act, greater powers than are given by any part of this measure to a board. It is peculiar that at that time the rights of parliament were not considered to be in danger; there was no question about that then, and it was amusing to note the position taken on that occasion that it was all right to do certain things and to give powers to that board without infringing on the rights of parliament. As a matter of fact it was set out in that act that the government might- not by parliament-but by order in council extend the term of that legislation and, as I say, there was no question then about the rights of parliament being in danger.
The hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) quoted from a letter which appeared in the Manchester Guardian. As I understand the matter, this article was cut out of that journal and sent to him by the Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society of Great Britain. It made certain references to the government of Canada and to Mr. McFarland with respect to their operations in supporting the wheat market. No doubt the Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society would like to get some cheap wheat. I would ask the hon. member whether he thinks the reading of that article at this particular time serves any useful purpose. The hon. member knows the situation as well as any other hon. member and in fact better than most because I believe to some extent he has been taken in the confidence of the government with respect to supporting the wheat market. But it was very inconsistent on his part to bring up that question because we know his record and his action with respect to what happened in the committee when Mr. McFarland appeared before it. We also know what the hon. member stated in the house the evening following Mr. McFarland's appearance before the committee, when my hon. friend practically suggested, as he did in quoting the article, that there was something wrong with the operations as conducted by Mr. McFarland. I say that the hon. member's stand on those two occasions is certainly not consistent.
I should like to quote some figures with regard to the importations of wheat into Great Britain. In p'ebruary last Great Britain imported from all countries 7.566.000 bushels of wheat and from Canada 3,100,000 bushels,
44	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
or practically fifty per cent. That shows that we are getting a fair amount of her trade and that Great Britain is dealing fairly with us in that respect.
I note also that the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), when speaking the other day on the budget, referred to the wheat business. I think he made a mistake on that occasion; it was not right for him to make the statement he did in the house with respect to the amount involved and so forth for which the government might 'be liable in connection with the wheat transaction, because he was present in the committee when Mr. McFarland gave his evidence and he heard Mr. McFarland state that during the period he had been in charge they had handled one billion bushels of grain and he thought they had made a possible saving to the farmers of 20 cents or at least 10 cents a bushel. What does that mean? If Mr. McFarland has accomplished that they could take all the wheat they are handling at the present time and dump it in the lake and the farmers of western Canada would still be ahead of the game.
With respect to the quotation from the Manchester Guardian made by the hon. member for South Battleford I want to ask just this question:	What is the Manchester
Guardian? It is anti-British government; it is certainly anti-Canadian government. One could almost say that it was anti-British. There are in Great Britain a hundred journals that the hon. member can quote in the house if he likes, that will favour and support the action of the British government and that of this government with respect to the wheat business. Why is it that on many occasions we have heard quotations made in the house from the Manchester Guardian when hon. members could find other journals that would say just the opposite? The situation is this:	When the hon. member made
his speech and gave that quotation, it could be reported in the Regina Leader or the Winnipeg Free Press, which is certainly antigovernment. That quotation could be cut out and sent to some friend in the old country who could read it on an occasion similar to that which we had the other night, as purporting to speak for the Canadian people and the Canadian government. That is what happened here the other night, but the journal from which the hon. member quoted does not speak for the British people.
The hon. member also cited a case where he might have forty bushels per acre to market. I only hope the hon. member for South Battleford and all the other members

from Saskatchewan who are interested in farming will have forty bushels to the acre. I should be only too pleased if they could have such climatic conditions as would give them forty bushels to the acre. He said: " Suppose of those forty bushels I could sell only seventeen or twenty under the act, what would be the situation?" Let me answer him by asking a question. Which would be the better position-to be able to sell for a reasonable price say 60 to 70 cents per bushel seventeen or twenty bushels of the forty, or to sell the forty bushels at twenty cents a bushel, or practically not be able to sell any at all?-because that is what might happen.
I do not consider, that so far, a sound or reasonable argument has been presented against this bill. It seems to me that the opposition have been sent out to do an unpleasant job, to oppose for the sake of opposition, with instructions to go far afield in securing an argument. The whip has cracked, so to speak, and they are sent out to do this job. The leader of the opposition gave them a good lead when he made his speech during the debate. He employed the Magna Charta and Green's history to show that our constitution and the rights of parliament were in danger. I do not care, nor do the farmers of Canada care very much about the constitution or the rights of parliament, but they are concerned about markets and prices. When the right hon. gentleman advances that argument about the constitution, it is interesting to me to note that not on any occasion have they ever made a suggestion or charge that under any act that has been passed by this parliament has the constitution been affected in any way or have the rights given to this government been abused; the rights of parliament have never been affected. I wonder how much of the time of parliament has been taken up during the last four years and how many pages of Hansard have been covered by the discussion by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other hon. members opposite of constitutional matters and the rights of parliament. I am sure the people of Canada would be interested in that information. It is all so much ballyhoo.
What the farmer is worrying about is the prices he will receive for his agricultural products. He wants markets and the chance to make a profit in the sale of his primary products. That is what we propose to give him by this bill. This bill is only another evidence of what this government is trying to do and has always tried to do for the primary pro-

Dominion Companies Act
ducer. I think the best argument in favour of this bill is the fact that opposition members are opposing it. They have opposed every measure which has been brought down in the interests of the primary producer. Another argument in favour of this bill is the fact that it will be of great benefit to the producer.
I suggest to the opposition that they give reasonable support to this bill. The people of Canada are anxious that something should be done in this critical time when the world is faced with the greatest difficulties. Canada is marketing her goods under the greatest difficulties and I know the people would appreciate it if we got behind this bill. I do not believe there is an hon. member opposite who will dare vote against it. I think the people would be glad if we stopped this ballyhoo about constitutional rights and passed the bill, which I propose to support.
On motion of Mr. Casgrain the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 26, 1934