[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 57, to amend the Oaths of Allegiance Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Speaker, on March 13 last the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the former Minister of Justice, introduced a bill with the same title, "An Act to amend the Oaths of Allegiance Act." Since that bill was introduced and printed further consideration has been given to its terms, with the result that a slightly modified bill has been prepared, which was submitted to the hon. member for Quebec East before its introduction into this house and which has, I think, received his approval. He has already given notice to the house that he is withdrawing the bill introduced by him on 74726-147^
March 13 in order that this bill, which is a modified form of his own, might be considered favourably by the house.
The hon. member for Quebec East, referring to the circumstances under which his own bill was introduced, made a brief reference to the proceedings of the imperial conference of 1926 of which he and the right hon. leader of the opposition were both members. The summary of proceedings of that imperial conference contains the following passage:
The title of His Majesty the King is of special importance and' concern to all parts of His Majesty's dominions. Twice within the last fifty years has the royal title been altered to suit changed conditions and constitutional developments.
The report recites the title of His Majesty which was adopted by royal proclamation in 1901, and then proceeds:
Some time before the conference met it had been recognized that this form of title hardly accorded with the altered state of affairs arising from the establishment of the Irish Free State as a dominion. It had further been ascertained that it would be in accordance with His Majesty's wishes that any recommendation for change should be submitted to him as the result of discussion at the conference.
We are unanimously of opinion that a slight change is desirable, and we recommend that, subject to His Majesty's approval, the necessary legislative action should be taken to secure that His Majesty's title should henceforward read:
"George V. by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India."
On March 12, 1927, the parliament of the United Kingdom, in order to carry into effect the resolution of the imperial conference of 1926, passed the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927, which appears in the imperial statutes as 17 George V, Chapter 4, Section 1 of this act reads as follows:
It shall be lawful for His Most Gracious Majesty, by his royal proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm, issued within six months after the passing of this act, to make such alteration in the style and titles at present appertaining to the crown as to His Majesty may seem fit.
Thereafter, on May 13, 1927, a royal proclamation was issued under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act providing that His Majesty's style and titles in the English tongue should thereafter be: "George V, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." Since 1927 that style and title has been adopted in Canada and throughout the British dominions in all administrative acts,
231S
Oaths oj Allegiance Act

but the fact that that is not the title prescribed in the Oaths of Allegiance Act of Canada apparently escaped notice until the hon. member for Quebec East brought it to the attention of parliament, and introduced a bill to rectify that anomaly.
At the same time it has appeared expedient that the oath of allegiance in Canada should conform in its terms to the oath of allegiance which was adopted in the United Kingdom in 1868, and which has been adopted in South Africa, Australia and I presume in New Zealand, although I have not had access to the New Zealand statutes. That form of oath is the form suggested to be adopted in the bill now to be introduced.
The anomaly that our oath of allegiance should differ from that which has prevailed in the United Kingdom since 1868 led me to make some interesting researches. I found that the present oath of allegiance presently prescribed in the revised statutes of Canada was adopted by the parliament of Upper Canada on February 13, 1833, by chapter 12 of 3 William IV. In looking into the circumstances \inder which the statute was passed, I find that that was a time of civil strife and turmoil in Upper Canada. Upon the union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1840 the oath which had been adopted in Upper Canada was no longer the oath for the united Canada which came into existence in 1841. The year 1849 was also a time of tumult, civil commotion and excitement and the legislature of old Canada re-enacted in 1850, chapter 18 of 13 and 14 Victoria the form of oath which had been adopted in Upper Canada in 1833.
When the British North America Act was passed in 1867 an oath was prescribed therein in schedule 5 by section 128 of that act. This was a simple form of oath to be taken by senators and members of parliament and did not conform to the somewhat elaborate oath which had been contrived in 1833 in Upper Canada and in 1850 by the legislature of united Canada. The British parliament declined to adopt that form of oath. In 1868 the British parliament 'by special statute, 31-32, Victoria, chapter 72, which came into force on July 31, 1868, a year after the British North America Act, 1867, was enacted prescribed a form of oath to have effect in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and throughout the British dominions in so far as the legislation of .the Imperial parliament had force and effect. This simple form of oath prescribed in Great Britain in 1868 is:
I,		, do swear that I will be
faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her Heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.

There was a provision in this statute that upon the demise of the sovereign, the name of the reigning sovereign of the time should be inserted for .the name of Her Majesty, Queen Victoria. This is the oath of allegiance which is prescribed in the United Kingdom and in all the colonies of the empire and the same form has been adopted in Australia and South Africa. It seems expedient that this dominion should adopt the same form and this is what is proposed in the present bill.
The bill provides for two exceptions. There is a slightly different form of oath to be taken by members of the House of Commons and the Senate, which is prescribed by section 128 of the British North America Act, 1867, and the fifth schedule thereto. We have no authority or at least we do not propose to amend the British North America Act, and therefore we except that act in this proposed legislation. We have excepted also the simple form of oath which is prescribed in our Naturalization Act, which act is similar to .the naturalization act of the United Kingdom. The same form of oath is prescribed in the naturalization acts of South Africa and Australia.
There is one other simple provision. Several statutes of this parliament contain special oaths of office to be taken by special officials. I am informed that when other officials are sworn in, it has been the custom for the clerk of the privy council to improvise such a form of official oath as he deemed expedient under the circumstances. There is in this bill a provision that from time to time the governor in council may prescribe oaths of office, which have not been expressly provided for by parliament, when new offices are created and it becomes necessary to administer oaths of office to the appointees to such offices.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	What amounts did the Department of Public Works expend at Sainte-Anne des Monts, county of Gaspe, during the year 1933-34?
2.	What are the particulars of such expenditures ?
3.	What works were carried out?
4.	How many workmen were employed in connection with each of such works?
5.	What was the salary of the superintendent of such works?
6.	Who superintended such works?
7.	What salary was paid to the workmen?

Questions


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 
UNEMPLOYMENT BELIEF, PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. LAFLECHE :: What is the total sum paid by the Dominion government since 1930 to date in the counties of Riehmond-Wolfe, Compton, Shefford, Stan-stead, Brome-Missisquoi, Chateauguay-Hunt-ingdon, in connection with public works and by way of contribution under the Unemployment Relief Act?


Mr. DUPRE:: Riehmond-Wolfe	$ 71,948 50
Compton	
49,921	26Shefford	
55,844	20Stanstead	
40,082	64Brome-Missisquoi	21,539	96Chateauguay-Huntingdon. . .	1,458	00Total	$240,794 56
In addition to the above, there was approved, under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, a schedule of works providing for repairs to bridges in the following counties: Chicoutimi, Compton, Deux Montagues, Dorchester, Drummond, Gaspe Sud, L'Assomption, Matane, Megantic, Soulanges, Kamouraska.
The dominion contribution in this respect was $9,493.67, but it is not possible from the accounts received to determine the amounts chargeable to each county.
Also, under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, there was approved a schedule providing for the painting of bridges in the following counties: Arthabaska, Argen-teuil, Bagot, Bellechasse, Bonaventure, Champlain, Chateauguay, Deux Montagnes, Kamouraska, Laprairie, L'Assomption, Megantic, Montmorency, Papineau, Soulanges.
The dominion contribution in this respect was $4,999.81, but it is not possible from the accounts received to determine the amounts chargeable to each county.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, DISRAELI, WOLFE COUNTY
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	What amounts have the government expended at Disraeli, county of Wolfe, for direct relief, works, etc., from September 30, 1930, to March 31, 1934?
2.	What were such works?
3.	What amounts have been expended for each of such works or contracts?
4.	What amounts have been expended yearly by the government for all works carried on at Disraeli?


Maurice Dupré: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Disraeli village,
Wolfe county.
Unemployment Relief Act, 1930-
Public works:	Bridge and embanking repairs	to aqueduct.. $2,100	00Direct relief	
177	50
Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931-
Public works:	Stone filling
bridge approach	
3,159	77Direct relief	
129	78
The Relief Act, 1932-
Direct relief	 405	58
The Relief Act, 1933-
Direct relief	 154	77


BUTTER IMPORTATIONS
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	How many pound's of butter were imported from Australia, since August 1, 1930, to date?
2.	What customs duty per pound was levied with respect to such imports?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: Imports of Butter from Australia Entered for Consumption in Canada from August 1, 1930, to March 31, 1934, with Rate of Customs Duty Applied and Amount of Duty Collected
Duty
Lbs.	Rate of duty applied	collectedAugust 1, 1930, to March	31,	1931...	2.107,840	2,107,840	lbs.	at	lc.	per	lb.	$21,078	40Fiscal year ended March	31,	1932...	776,892	638,344	lbs.	at	lc.	per	lb.	6,383	44138,548 lbs. at 5c. per lb.	6,927 40Fiscal year ended March	31,	1933...	22,196	16,204	lbs.	at	5c.	per	lb.	810	20Fiscal year ended March 31, 1934...	-	-

T otal
2,906,928
Pedigreed Hogs

PEDIGREED HOGS On the orders of the day:


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, a question was asked
yesterday by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) based upon a press dispatch that an importation of Swedish pigs was to be made into this country. An answer of yes or no might be misleading and I should like to make a short statement in an endeavour to make clear just what is behind this press dispatch. It is generally recognized that the Danish pig is among the most suitable to produce bacon of the type desired by the consumer in the United Kingdom. This suitability is the result of years of careful selection based on the gain of the pig and the quality of the pig, using feed which is cheapest to feed. That is, the selection is based more on a pig suitable to make use of certain feed rather than the changing of feed and the putting in of considerable research work on feed to make it suitable to any pig. In order to improve the quality of her bacon, Sweden imported some of the best approved herds of Denmark landrace pigs. They carried on the work started in Denmark and the result is that they are now on almost an equal if not an equal footing with the Danish bacon produced by the land-race pigs. For this reason it was felt it would be all gain if there was an importation made into this country from the best of the Swedish herds in order to make a study of their suitability to our country and to our feeds and also with the possibility of crossing with different bacon type hogs used in Canada. Pigs of this type are not available for purchase in the United Kingdom, as referred to in a press dispatch. There was a small importation last fall of white pigs from the United Kingdom. This importation is contemplated, when we receive the assurance of the health of animals departments of the United Kingdom and the United States, that such an importation will not interfere with the understanding between the countries. It is the intention to keep the importation entirely under the control of our government institutions for experimental purposes in order to see how they respond to our conditions, in comparison with our own pigs under similar conditions. If they do not respond, as it is expected they will, they will not be distributed amongst private breeders but will be slaughtered and sold. Every precaution in this connection will be taken if the importation is made.


LULU ISLAND RIFLE RANGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: When the estimates of the Department of National Defence were under discussion the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) directed a question to me with regard to the Lulu Island rifle range in British Columbia. I informed him at that time that the range had not been sold and that tenders had not been called for. That was misleading, because I find on further examination that early last year, in February, 1933, this property had been transferred for administration to the Department of the Interior. While I was confident that our department had not sold it, it had slipped my memory for the time being that it had been transferred. I find on inquiry from the Department of the Interior that the property was offered for sale in August last. There was received only one tender, which was not considered satisfactory, and the property was not sold and has not been sold since.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Thank you.


TORONTO EAST VACANCY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: May I ask the Prime Minister when it is intended to issue the writ for the constituency of Toronto East.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: The matter is covered by statute.



LIVE STOCK AND PRODUCTS ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee on Bill No. 40, to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.-Mr. Weir (Melfort)-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 2-Exporting agent.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: What difficulties have been encountered to necessitate this provision?


Robert Weir: In the Live Stock Act authority is given to set a maximum charge which commission men, or people engaging in trade in the stockyards, may make for the handling of stock, and there is also provision that bonds be required for people so engaged in trading in live stock. The act does not cover these

Live Stock and Products Act
particular cases that have come into prominence through our export of cattle, and it was to include exporting agents that these two words were added.


Charles A. Stewart: Is this to overcome such a difficulty as was recently encountered in the port of Montreal?


Robert Weir: It would be a protection in a case such as that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-"Public commercial vehicle."
Mr. BEAITBIEN:: This section will not interfere with the farmer taking his own stock to market?


Robert Weir: It simply provides that anyone other than the farmer handling the stock will have to report to the owner the grading and ticket of sale to show what the basis of payment was.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Regulations.
Mr. REID:: Will the minister give us a further explanation of this section.


Robert Weir: Some of the provinces that desire to improve the quality of their poultry have wished to pass legislation to give them control over the eggs that go into their hatcheries, so that they may be assured they are from approved flocks. That object however cannot be attained; that is to say, they have no control over eggs coming from another province into the territory concerned, and various provinces have asked us to insert this provision in the Live Stock Products Act, so that if they wish to pass enabling legislation they may do so in order to prevent the entry into the province of eggs from flocks that are not approved, and which are intended to be hatched in the hatcheries within the province. If the provinces do not wish to pass legislation, this will not interfere. So far as concerns those that do-and we have had a number of requests- it will enable them to carry out their plans for the improvement of poultry in each particular province.


Thomas Reid: Has any request come from
British Columbia?


Robert Weir: I believe not.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Any request from Quebec?


Robert Weir: No.


Mr. SPENCER:: Any request from Alberta


Robert Weir: Yes.


Thomas Reid: I understand some regulations are at present in force in connection with hatcheries. What are they?


Robert Weir: This will not affect them at all.


Thomas Reid: But there are some regulations in force at present; some supervision is given by federal officials in British Columbia?


Robert Weir: Yes. There are
approved hatcheries and approved flocks. The approved flocks are on request approved by federal officials or by provincial officials and the desire is that eggs will not be shipped from one province to another from flocks other than from those approved for use in hatcheries. This provision will not affect any regulation which exists at present in British Columbia in connection with their approved hatcheries.


Thomas Reid: May I draw to the attention of the minister complaints that have reached me regarding the present regulations in British Columbia, that is, that approval is given to certain hatcheries without investigation as to the source of some of the eggs in the hatcheries, the result being that some men who have approved flocks are at a disadvantage, so to speak, by breeders who have not approved flocks selling to those hatcheries. Difficulty is, I understand, going to arise due to provincial regulations being put into effect in Alberta designed to prohibit importation into that province of day-old chicks unless from approved hatcheries. Those two aspects of the situation should be looked into by the minister and I would like to know whether he has any further information.


Robert Weir: No.


Thomas Reid: At present in British Columbia those regulations are not being enforced, and I believe to the benefit of approved hatcheries.


Robert Weir: I would appreciate
it very much if the hon. member would communicate with me and give me specific instances that will enable us to make an investigation of the matter to which he refers.


Thomas Reid: I shall do so.


Mr. NEILL:: I think this clause might
very well be left out. It is dealing with pretty small potatoes, as the expression is,
Live Stock and Products Act

when we interfere in a matter of that kind. The minister has said that the object is to allow regulations which will permit the hatching only of chickens of an approved breed.


Robert Weir: No, of approved
flocks. This is very important from the standpoint not only of quality production but especially of disease control.


Alan Webster Neill: The suggestion, as he said
a few minutes ago, was that they had been bringing in from another province birds or eggs-


Robert Weir: Eggs.


Alan Webster Neill: -of an undesirable quality.


Robert Weir: From flocks that
were not approved and not certified as free from certain prevalent diseases.


Alan Webster Neill: The average man in British
Columbia who raises chickens, makes a hobby of it and wants to increase the quality of his flock, will hardly go to the expense of bringing in inferior eggs from another province. It would not be sensible to do so. He will naturally bring in eggs from an approved breeder or approved hatchery or someone who has a reputation. He would not bring in inferior eggs from a distance because that would make them very expensive. If he wanted inferior eggs, he could get them next door.


Robert Weir: This applies only
to commercial hatcheries, but I know from personal experience there are commercial hatcheries that advertise under more or less fictitious certificates. The certificate is a very fine looking document so long as one does not investigate it, and yet there may be no registration behind the birds, no selection made and no guarantee that they are from approved flocks or flocks disease-free. This provision will not interfere with the small chicken farmer; it will affect only commercial hatcheries as a protection against disease and inferior birds.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Failure to comply with requirements.
Mr. GERSHAW:: Does this mean that an ordinary buyer of cattle at a point of assembly shall be required, in order to comply with this provision, to fill in special forms issued by the government?
(Mr. Neill.]


Robert Weir: No, it has nothing whatever to do with that. In the Live Stock Act power is given to the Department of Agriculture to set a maximum charge to be made by live stock commission firms in the handling of live stock. If it is felt that the charge is too high, notice is given that it should be reduced, but previously the period of time between the notice being given and the ministerial order being issued and put into effect was sixty days. Some live stock commission firms might, on request of the department, put into effect immediately the charges asked for. The others would have sixty days in which to do that, and then appeal. It is thought that thirty days will be sufficient.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Disbursements.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I would
like the minister to give a little further explanation of this section. It seems to be rather important.


Robert Weir: At first sight it might be felt that this was taking away some of the protection from the farmer selling his stock. The clause in its previous form, which is now to be eliminated, stated that the bank was to be responsible for the administration of a trust account, that is whether or not payments made out of that account were as they should be. I believe that this provision was in opposition to a clause in the Bank Act, and that there is no power to enforce it, but the producer and the farmer selling his stock is in no way affected. It simply has to do with the operation of a trust account. That is if one party to the trust account should issue a cheque in a wrongful way the bank was responsible for that. The protection for the producer is not in this provision, but in the fact that the people handling his stock are bonded.


Edward Joseph Garland: May it not be implied that the government is accepting the responsibility for the administration of the trust account?


Robert Weir: Not at all.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yet as the minister is providing the regulations for the administration of and payments from the account does it not appear possible that there arises some responsibility?


Robert Weir: It is claimed that this clause in our Live Stock Act cannot be

Canada Grain Act
enforced because it is contrary to a provision in the Bank Act. What I assured myself of is that this amendment in no way affected the protection of the farmer.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am
wondering if the minister may not be stepping into a possible difficulty. There is no doubt whatever that he is now cancelling a provision of the old act with respect to the obligation of the bank concerning trust accounts and is himself going to provide the regulations. There is undoubtedly a moral responsibility at least. I am afraid that may be the interpretation placed upon this section. I am not complaining.


Robert Weir: I am afraid I have not got the point of the hon. member's question.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, then, there is another question that I would like to ask on this section. Has the question of provincial jurisdiction been raised with the minister in regard to what he now proposes?


Robert Weir: Not as far as I
know.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Notice as to shipment of cattle.
Mr. YOUNG:: Is not this section in conflict with the powers being given to the marketing board under the new marketing bill?


Robert Weir: I would say not.


Edward James Young: Why not? Here the licence is to come from the minister; under the other the licence is to come from the board. Is a man going to have to take out two licences?


Robert Weir: No, we would say not. This is optional. The marketing bill is not passed yet, nor the board set up.


Frederick William Gershaw: May I ask what this is particularly designed to guard against?


Robert Weir: It might be used to protect quality. It might also be necessary, for example, in connection with a matter that has been under discussion at different times, that of restricted quotas to the United Kingdom. If this country were limited definitely to a certain number of cattle to be shipped out, powers such as this would be necessary to regulate the flow of those cattle.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 2, to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, 1928.
He said: This is purely a technical amendment. The Unfair Competitions Act was the name substituted for the Trade Mark and Design Act; it is referred to in this act and we are just making this act conform to the change in the title.
Alan Webster Neill: What section?


Mr. STEVENS:: It is section 7.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 53, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the mini#er if this bill is going to the agriculture committee?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the intention. I would suggest that rather than go into a detailed discussion here the motion might be allowed to carry so that the bill can be sent to the agriculture committee where it will be dealt with in the usual way.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: I am quite agreeable to that suggestion and will look with a good deal of interest for the new evidence the minister evidently has to justify this change. I will also look forward to hearing any evidence the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) or his staff may be able to bring forward, and will try to weigh all the evidence and decide the matter dispassionately.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In a judicial manner.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 18, consideration in committee of the motion of Mr. Weir (Melfort), for the second reading of Bill No. 51, to improve
[Stage Direction]
Marketing Act-Mr. Bradette
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. A. BRADETTE (North Timiska-ming):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that yesterday, in the discussion of this very important measure, I made it very clear-and I suppose this applies to most hon. members on this side of the house-that as far as I am concerned I agree with many features and the spirit of the bill. We realize that the old policy of laissez faire is a thing of the past, and that to-day we must have to some extent a system of planned economy. Of course, in dealing with a matter of this kind we may go to extremes. We reached an extreme under the old policy and to-day, in order to maintain an even keel in the national life of this country, we must be careful that we do not go to the other extreme.
We must not expect the government to take over all our social and most of our personal activities. This bill implies the interference of the government in many of the activities of our daily lives, and that is why I have been opposing som# of the features which it contains. We must remember, of course, that we cannot continue indefinitely to enlarge and implement further the policies of the past. We have seen many changes take place. In connection with our external trade, for instance, in the last twenty-five or thirty years we have made treaties with other nations of the world, while before that time the matter of external trade was left largely to corporations and individuals. We have seen the curtailment of our wheat acreage, which was agreed to by the right hon. Prime Minister after the conference last summer. This was another step in the direction of governmental regulation if not absolute governmental control. I feel that one of the main reasons for this act is to secure the sanction of parliament to the curtailment of our wheat acreage in the western provinces in order to have uniformity of policy in that direction. So I believe we have been courting government control for the last dozen years at least, and no one can say that I personally or the Liberal party are opposed to some of the principles contained in the bill now before the house, and the enlargement of that principle. I stated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that doubtless the capitalistic system has sinned, but at least it has shown that it can supply all the requirements of the people. The situation we have to face to-day, however, is not so much a question of production and regulation as it is a ques-

tion of distribution and of the purchasing power of the people. Notwithstanding anything that people may say to the contrary and notwithstanding what appears in this bill, the consumer must be primarily concerned with this measure.
There are other causes as well which have contributed indirectly to the present situation, and which have brought about the legislation now before us. One very important contributing cause of the depression was the financial structure of many of our corporations, the watering of stocks, the terrible gambling which we witnessed for six or seven years, and so on. A series of articles appeared in the Montreal Daily Herald during the course of last winter which indicated very plainly that the people of this country have been mulcted to the tune of nearly four billion dollars. In nickel stocks alone, for example, the Canadian people have lost at least $900,000,000. I am not going to read any of these articles since I believe they were distributed to all hon. members of this house and of the Senate, but I should like to refer to some of the headlines that appeared in connection with that series of articles:
The Orgy of Nickel.
One Billion Shares.
$900,000,000 Lost.
37.000	Suckers in One Month.
Abitibi Fiasco.
Shawinigan Collapse.
Alcohols.
Asbestos.
Canada Cement.
Canadian Pacific Railway.
Massey Harris Company.
A Great Industry Crippled by Natural Causes.
Thousands of Stock Marketing Victims.
Inside Information Peddling Condemned.
Dominion Bridge,
Canada Steamships.
Perifidious Stock Jobbing.
Victims Everywhere.	_
30.000	Pauperized by Nefarious Use of Inside Information.
Price Brothers Collapse.
A Noble Name Dishonoured for Pool Operators and Market Riggers.
Who Played Ducks and Drakes with Alcohol's Market Position?
Who Caused the Asbestos Debacle?
Who Fooled the Shareholders in the Newsprint Industry?
Whose Master Hand has been Responsible for the Millions of Losses by Canada Cement Shareholders?
What of the Canadian Pacific Railway?
Canada Steamships; a National Catastrophe.
Mysterious Stock Wabbling; a Sorrowful Story.
Brazilian; a Sorry Wreck.
Inside Information as it Affects Commercial Morality.
Dominion Bridge and Others in the Mad Boom.
Improper Use of Information.

Marketing Act-Mr. Bradette
Not only the big corporations with nationally known names, but thousands, if not tens of thousands, of the smaller corporations found it possible under the existing government regulations to squeeze the people to the tune of some four billions of dollars. That has been one of the main causes of the depth of this depression. We had the spectacle of European peoples sending across their gold and their money to carry on gambling in the New York market in a way that had never been done before during those so-called prosperous years. The government must be seized of these facts and should find a way of dealing with them. I know that the committee on mass buying intends to deal with the matter, but it is of such great importance that it is imperative that action be taken at once if we want to bring back prosperity to this country.
Some hon. members may think that it was only the so-called big fellow who was in the market, but this orgy of gambling reached throughout the rank and file of our Canadian people. On many occasions I myself have seen in the town of Timmins, for example, the miners coming from their work, still carrying their dinner pails, sitting before the stock boards to watch the quotations. I have seen people in all walks of life throwing more and more of their savings into this form of gambling, because it is gambling pure and simple, and the worst possible kind of gambling, for in a poker game there may be some chance, but it has been well proven by the Montreal Herald that in the stock market the dice are loaded against the smaller speculator, the little fellow, who had no chance of winning from the start.
I want to be fair, Mr. Speaker. I know that the government is sincere in wanting to go to the root of our present social evils, but I repeat that this has been the greatest cause of the depression that we are now experiencing, for the savings of our people were turned away from proper commercial and industrial channels and thrown into the stock market.
The bill that is now before us is leading to government control with a vengeance. As I stated a few moments ago, there must be some measure of control applied, as it has been applied in the past, and it is probable that the measure of control will have to be enlarged to some extent.
Let me review briefly what absolute government control has led to in other countries. Will anyone say, for instance, that absolute government control in soviet Russia, control of all the activities of that great population,
has been beneficial to the working men and the farmers? Hon. gentlemen no doubt remember the statement that was made by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), who is very impartial in his views and fair-minded in his utterances. He told us after his visit to Russia last year that the situation he found there was most deplorable, that it could hardly be conceived.
Is Italy in a better position than she was a few years ago? Italy has an absolute dictatorship, absolute government control of all the social and commercial and industrial activities of that great nation. You can always judge a tree by its fruits. Only a few days ago the prime minister of Italy asked the Italian people to tighten their belts a little more, and that after having had full control of all the activities of that great nation for a number of years, with the people of the nation working together almost as a solid unit. After years of application of the government policy of absolute control, the prime minister of Italy tells the people that they must tighten their belts a little more. The belts of Canadian people are not as slack perhaps as wTe would like them to be, but I would like to see any prime minister in this country or any leader of any great party go before the Canadian electors and tell them that they must tighten their belts a little more. I believe that shows, Mr. Speaker, that absolute government control would not be applicable to this country.
It is true that the capitalistic system has sinned very grievously, but I believe that there are honest and sincere men in the higher positions in our industrial and financial life, and I believe that much can be done by cooperation and coordination between our industrial leaders and all other activities, and the government to solve many of our difficulties at the present time.
We cannot get away from the fact that this marketing bill now before us is intended to give a greater measure of control over the activities of our primary producers. It is true that the farmers were the first class of our population to suffer in the depression. Why? For one very good reason, and that was that they were not organized to curtail production. Mind you, I am not in favour of working against the designs of Providence. Regardless of what other people may say, I have faith in Providence, and when I am told that nations, and indeed whole continents, are planning to curtail production I have some fears, I nevertheless believe that there is a better solution of our problems. But the farmers were unable to get or maintain

Marketing Act-Mr. Bradette
higher prices for their production because of the lack of organization amongst them, and then they found themselves with over-production. That was not because of more bountiful crops, but when unemployment came in the cities and men were thrown out of work, when labour became cheaper for it is simply a question of supply and demand and when labour is plentiful wages go down, the urban population lost almost fifty per cent of its buying power within a year. The results of that were felt more severely by the agricultural class in this country than any other.
To-day an attempt is being made in this country to curtail the acreage of wheat, and indeed the bill before us, if I understand it aright, is based on the principle of curtailing production or at all events maintaining artificial prices. I never have believed in artificiality, whether applied to industry or any other class of the community. I believe in the natural course of nature, which can be helped to a certain extent only by legislation and governmental regulation. Surely in this country we are not going to try to make our Canadian people as alike as two peas. Have we not confidence enough in their individualism to allow them to work out their own destinies, and abstain from interfering unless some form of regulation is absolutely demanded? Are we going to say that no one shall be allowed to glow a bushel of wheat or catch a pound of fish or produce goods of any kind without the dictation of government officials? I certainly give the government credit for all the intelligence and administrative capacity it possesses, but no one can make me believe that the primary function of government is not legislative and administrative. The course of history shows us that after the different units of population became large enough, governments were formed for the greater convenience of society, and that applies to Canada. But governments do not possess creative power. That belongs to the individual. Take the evolution of industry and the development of new inventions, for instance. Who will dare to say that these inventions are due to the inventiveness of the government? The suggestion would be absurd because that is not the role of government. The government role is to legislate in such a way that its legislation will be beneficial to all sections of the population.
So far as this bill is concerned, I fully appreciate that there are certain principles that must be followed and accepted, and those principles are not new because they have been

practised in this country for a number of years. There must be some regulation but there certainly should be no regulation in an autocratic manner. I have not the time at the present moment to go into the details of this bill. I believe hon. members should take the opportunity both on second reading and in committee to discuss every phase of it. I am discussing this all-important problem from the viewpoint of the people whom I represent at the present moment. I represent a constituency which is partly industrial, partly mining and partly rural. There are located in my constituency some of the largest gold mines on the North American continent; we have some of the finest rural sections in Canada part of the Northern Ontario clay belt, and we have also great industrial centres like Kapuskasing, Iroquois Falls and Smooth Rock Falls. I have received hundreds of letters from people in my constituency, some for and some against this bill. They all ask that there should be a thorough discussion. The people in my constituency are very sincere and they appreciate the problems which we have to face at the present moment. Although they did not all have an opportunity of reading the bill, some are absolutely in favour of it while others are absolutely against it. The principle which applies to my riding applies also to the government. The government should be careful and not swing too much in one way or the other, they should endeavour to keep an even keel. Some of the people who have written me appreciate the need of a certain amount of governmental regulation but in most cases they contend that this regulation should not take away the initiative of the individual^
In most parts of this country we are still in the pioneering stage. I cannot visualize the time when the government will be the mother, the father, the director and the leader of all our actions, whether personal, industrial or otherwise. Some latitude should be given to the intelligence, the integrity and the activity of our people which has been so well displayed in the past. I can speak as a farmer and I can speak also as a common labourer because as a young man I earned my bread by the sweat of my brow. I would be quite willing to go back again to manual labour. I know the aspirations of the people and I know what the men in the shanties and working manually are thinking. Twenty or thirty years ago I spent my winters in the shanties, but in those days the government did not mean so much to the Canadian people. To-day we expect the government to give us everything. The government has a certain duty to perform in an administrative and legislative way hut

Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworth
I repeat that they have no right to interfere with the personal actions of the people. The government have no right to dictate to the people and say what they shall do to-day or to-morrow, but they have the right to control certain of their activities. I have faith and confidence in our Canadian people. I believe in the spirit which is so well expressed in every section of the British Empire, the spirit of initiative and individualism, the spirit of respect for authority and concern for the welfare of our national life. We do not need drastic measures whereby our every step will be checked.
I mentioned yesterday the difference which exists between this bill and the English act and I pointed out that the principles which apply here are not the same as those which apply in Great Britain. This government intends to regulate certain provincial activities. We are quite ready to-day to blame the newsprint industry for their orgy of building mills and causing over-production; we contend that they should have known that the newsprint market, particularly that of the United States, was being well taken care of and even was saturated; but a few years ago we could not have visualized a federal marketing board which would have dictated to the Honourable Mr. Ferguson or the Honourable Mr. Taschereau their line of conduct at a time when they were asking the financiers of this country to invest their money in newsprint mills in northern Ontario or Quebec. The provincial premiers at that time would not have tolerated any interference from the central government because they maintained, and perhaps rightly so, that they were better acquainted with the situation. No one would have dared to criticize Mr. Ferguson when he was trying to induce American capital to come into northern Ontario and invest in timber limits, water power and newsprint plants, and the same thing applies to Mr. Taschereau of Quebec. Who would have dared to dictate to the Manitoba government in connection with their power developments? Can anyone contend that this marketing bill will foresee all the activities of the future, whether social, industrial or otherwise? Will anyone contend that he can foretell what will happen five or ten years from now? In 1927, 1928 and 1929 there was an apparent shortage of power in Ontario and who could have foretold at that time that in 1934 we would have a surplus?
I believe in the cooperative spirit of the people and we must fully realize the situation we are facing. I should like to mention
I believe this act has been misnamed, it should be the national regulatory act. Codes have been established in the United States but I do not see anything of that kind in this bill, giving no protection to the small farmers, labourers and consumers.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for North Timis-kaming (Mr. Bradette) for admitting so frankly that the capitalist system is not one hundred per cent perfect. I think a further study on his part will reveal to him that the evils which he notes, especially those which were recorded in the article from the Herald from which he read, are inherent in the system.
From my point of view this measure is one of the most significant ever introduced in this house. It may or it may not accomplish the good or, on the other hand, the evil anticipated but it is remarkable in its tendencies. Many of its provisions are vague but I assume that in the discussion in committee their meaning will be fully ascertained. There are certain essential safeguards which seem to be entirely lacking and the operation of the bill is so dependent upon concurrent or enabling provincial legislation that it is next to impossible at this stage to forecast the actual working out of the proposals. However, I would say that the underlying principles are fairly clearly defined. Instead of there being only one principle involved, it seems to me .that there are two principles involved in this bill. First, there is the government control of the marketing of certain natural products and derivatives thereof and, second, the bill affords another example of what is coming to be known as administrative legislation, that is, the granting to the government of certain general powers which it may carry out by means of regulations.
I should like to point out that this measure involves farreaching political consequences. It may very well mean much more than what appears on the surface, it may possibly involve the realignment of the political parties and organizations in Canada. I take it that by introducing this legislation the Conservative party is definitely committed to extending government control over industry; I can read the bill in no other light. Indeed, if the C.CF. had introduced legislation of this kind I can fancy there would be hurled at us the charge that it was socialistic, communistic, bolshevistic and all the rest of it, and that
2328	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworth
we were destroying initiative and were all going to be regimented. The hon. member for Timiskaming has already suggested that in his speech.
Surely this is a great change in practice for the Conservative party. In this connection I recall an editorial which I read in the Ottawa Journal of May 3, 1929, entitled "Too Much Paternalism." This, I may observe, was in regard to certain insurance legislation. The editorial in question read:
It is to be hoped that parliament and the government find a resting place for these recommendations in the most convenient waste basket. And the reason is clear. It is that if Canada keeps heeding all the reports that are made by committees, and goes on doing all the things that a lot of well-intentioned but misinformed people want her to do, then this country will become so burdened with paternalism and bureaucracy that the taxpayer will be crushed into the earth. Already, indeed, the hand of the state is everywhere. Yet, not satisfied with this, and despite complaints against the ever-increasing cost of government, we have men advocating insurance against unemployment.
It is absolute nonsense. This country has no more need' of unemployment insurance than it lias need of polygamy. In a country like England, over-populated, and where industrial and economic conditions are entirely different from our own, there is something to be said for it. But in Canada, sparsely settled, lacking in population, and passing through an era of tremendous development, the proposition that it is necessary to insure our people against unemployment is absurd. Its only result would be to add to the cost of government, to produce more bureaucrats, and to discourage what is a real insurance against unemployment in Canada, namely, thrift and industry. . . ,
During the past few years we have seen Canada go in for a lot of expensive frills which, when first proposed, were widely ridiculed. And the reason is that any organized minority, if it wants to make enough noise, can put over most anything upon an indifferent and lethargic majority. That is why we are going further and further toward paternalism, looking more and more to the state to do things for us, and getting away from the old wholesome practice of individual effort.
Well, this measure says goodbye to all that. I do not think I need deal with the question of the liberty of the subject; it was very well dealt with by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). I confess that some of us who were brought up more or less in the general principles of economy as taught by the Manchester school have had some little difficulty in adjusting our thinking to the new world situation. For example when some years ago it was proposed to have a 100 per cent wheat pool I myself found it very difficult to acquiesce in the proposal. And yet, when one studies the situation, such proposals are after all only an extension of certain practices with which we have become familiar.

In my own city some years ago we desired to have a new water works system. A vote was taken and the majority of the people were in favour of the system, so that we put through the necessary legislation and installed the water works. Previously a man might have sunk a well in his backyard. He might as an individual have been opposed to the new arrangement, but under our municipal practice as sanctioned by the people, a bill was put through the legislature. The majority of the people felt that they ought to have a pure water supply and the minority had to come to terms and participate whether they wished it or not.
I have wondered, however, whether the government is prepared to carry out some of the implications of this principle under which the minority rights must be set aside in the interests of the general welfare. I hope the Prime Minister will not think I am taking advantage of his very generous hospitality to-day when I say that this train of thought was suggested by the speech of the Postmaster General of Australia. I find that in Australia when the majority of the bondholders were willing to accept a lower rate of interest the minority of the bondholders were, in his very happy phrase, "asked to agree." I would suggest that if the principle underlying this legislation is adopted by the government and the house as a whole we may as a next step hope for a referendum of bondholders with a view to reducing the rate of interest, and in that case the minority would be asked to agree. Of course, there would be nothing in the way of their being dragooned!


Alan Webster Neill: Does my hon. friend find that in the bill?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but the principle of the bill might be extended into other spheres. Perhaps I would not be going too far if I congratulated the Conservative party on its virtual acceptance of some of the C.C.F. policies. Undoubtedly the British Marketing Act had a great influence in the drafting of this bill, and that act was originally drafted you will recall by a Socialist Labour minister in Great Britain. It is quite true that the act was subsequently modified before being adopted by the present British government, but it owes a great deal to its original drafting, and the original legislation was introduced as part of a definite and general scheme.
The trouble is that the present legislation might be described as patchy or streaky. It is a bit of socialism introduced into the capitalist system, and possibly -we should re-

Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworlh
member the scriptural admonition against the sewing of a new patch on an old garment. If that is attempted the very great danger is that the rent will be made worse. I am afraid that this patchy legislation will not cure some of the major evils from which we are suffering at the present time.
While I congratulate the Conservatives on introducing this legislation even though I have tried to point out some of its weaknesses, and while I am a bit dubious whether or not the government will enact other legislation in harmony with it, I would say that the Liberals, by this bill, are placed in a very bad predicament. The leader of the opposition, quite honestly I think, still clings to the old laissez faire school of thought. He is heartily backed, of course, on every occasion by our friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young), and I am looking forward to that hon. gentleman's denunciations. We have already heard from the members for Last Mountain, Hants-Kings, West Edmonton, and others. They have already decided to oppose the bill on the ground, very largely, that it is an unwarrantable extension of governmental authority and an interference with the rights of the subject. I suppose they will have behind them, generally speaking, the Liberal sentiment of the present government of Quebec. On the other hand, may I point out that their position is weakened somewhat by the fact that the president of the National Liberal Federation has already departed very substantially from that attitude. At an earlier stage in the session I called attention to the speech delivered by Mr. Massey at Lake Couchiching on The New Economic Nationalism and I quote again for I think this is rather significant:
It's a difficult world to live in; we are *witnessing the very transition between old laissez-faire improvising ways of doing things, and a tightly planned modern state system. We have to plan our own recovery in this easy-going country of ours, our own reconstruction, our own relationship to this new world.
And again:
The primary conflict is not therefore isolation versus internationalism but planning versus improvisation, and in this trouble planning will,
I believe, be victorious.
Once again:
It must suffice for me to say that national planning will have to be the foundation of Canada's international relations. Old conceptions of government must give place to new.
As I said before, I heartily agree with Mr. Massey's statement. Further than that, even such a sturdy organ of Liberalism as the Free Press of my own city is driven, in special
cases, to abandon its old position. I notice an editorial in it of some months ago, July 31, on More Milk Regulation as follows:
The whole argument for milk regulation is based on the vital importance of that commodity to the community. Any alert, intelligent public health policy must seek to assure all classes of the people of an adequate supply of milk of good quality. For the healthy growth of children this is particularly important. The effect of a better-than-usual supply of milk for the children of families on relief has been noted by many. It is necessary, therefore, that the retail price of milk should be kept as low as possible, and that requires that the spread between the price to the producer and that to the consumer should be no more than is reasonably necessary. That can only be assured if the distribution is on an efficient economic basis.
The most striking thing revealed by a consideration of the present distribution system is that it is anything but economic. It is extremely wasteful and inefficient. The competition has led to the establishment of more plants for the pasteurization and handling of the milk than are necessary and many more wagons than would be required if the companies were not following one another around in all parts of the city. This wasteful duplication is paid for by the consumers, including many who can ill-afford it.
That is precisely the situation which has developed in our city and I believe it is situations of that kind which the bill before us is designed to meet. Moreover, the Liberals are having their difficulties because of the defection of large numbers of younger Liberals throughout the country who, perhaps, are more flexible in thinking and realizing the need of a change in policy. The outstanding example now is that of British Columbia where Mr. Pattullo has come out with certain legislation that is remarkably similar to the bill we are at present discussing and which is an entire abandonment of the old laissez-faire policy. I understand that the only possible way in which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) can answer those who appeal to him against Mr. Pattullo is by bringing forward another Liberal principle that he does not believe the dominion should enter upon a discussion of provincial matters; that each province should be autonomous. That may do for the time being, but it does not alter the fact that Liberals all over are being forced out of their old position.
In this matter the government it seems to me, is in rather a happy position because it has the support at least of the governments of the west. British Columbia, a Liberal government; Alberta, a U. F. A. government; Saskatchewan, a Conservative government and Manitoba, a Bracken-Liberal government-
2330	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworth
all these are more or less committed to the principle underlying this bill. So far as laissez-faire is concerned, the stars in their courses are surely fighting against Sisera. I think I cannot but take advantage of this opportunity to place before the house the position of our own organization in this matter of external trade. Plank No. 5 reads:
The regulation in accordance with the national plan of external trade through import and export boards-
Canada is dependent on external sources of supply for many of her essential requirements of raw materials and manufactured products. These she can obtain only by large exports of the goods she is best fitted to produce. The strangling of our export trade by insane protectionist policies must be brought to an end. But the old controversies between free traders and protectionists are now largely obsolete. In a world of nationally organized economies Canada must organize the buying and selling of her main imports and exports under public boards and take steps to regulate the flow of less important commodities by a system of licences. By so doing she will be enabled to make the best trade agreements possible with foreign countries, put a stop to the exploitation of both primary producer and ultimate consumer, make possible the coordination of internal processing, transportation and marketing of farm products, and facilitate the establishment of stable prices for such export commodities.
Permit me to say that the government in this bill goes much further in the direction of bureauracy than we in the C. C. F. would like to see, because we believe that whilst there must be some sort of social control, we should do our utmost to avoid centralized control and on the other hand rather encourage the development of cooperative institutions. The lack of such provision in this bill is one of its most serious deficiencies. In this connection may I read our plank No. 6 on cooperative institutions.
The encouragement by the public authority of both producers' and consumers' cooperative institutions-	'
In agriculture, as already mentioned, the primary producer can receive a larger net revenue through cooperative organization of purchases and marketing. Similarly in retail distribution of staple commodities such as milk, there is room for development both of public municipal operation and of consumers' cooperatives, and such cooperative organization can be extended into wholesale distribution and into manufacturing. Cooperative enterprises should be assisted by the state through appropriate legislation and through the provision of adequate credit facilities.
In this particular bill it would seem as if the state itself undertakes not merely the supervision but the actual administration of the marketing of goods. We on our part would rather see a larger measure of local cooperation.

I said that the bill contained very far-reaching provisions with regard to regulated products. Clause 4 indicates this. I do not think I need read it in detail, but it gives the board power:
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-
And so forth.
To exempt from any determination or order any person or class of persons-
And so forth.
To compensate any person for loss sustained-
And so on. Clause 9 is also decidedly far-reaching as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) stated yesterday. I should like to ask: Why limit the control to natural products and to food or drink derived therefrom? Why not have control over manufactured products? If the breakfast foods would come under this legislation, and I think they would according to the terms of the clauses, why not clothes? If drink, we will say beer, would come under the terms of this legislation, why not furniture? It is all very well for the minister to tell us that all he contemplates is agricultural products, but the terms of the bill go much further than that. It would seem to me that the revelations coming out in connection with the price spreads committee clearly indicate that in connection with the processing we have great evils, and that we should exercise some sort of control not merely in the marketing of our natural products but also in the processing of them. Further than that, we should not limit its scope merely to food and drink derived from this class of natural products. Just how far the principle might carry us is indicated by the emergency action of the British cabinet back in 1921. I hold in my hand an article from the Manchester Guardian of April, 1921. Under that emergency action such provisions were included as:
That it shall be lawful for the Minister of Transport, the Board of Trade, and any other department approved for the purpose, and any person duly authorized by a department on whom powers are conferred by this regulation, where it appears necessary to do so, to take possession of any land, buildings or works (including works for the supply of gas. electricity, or water, and of any sources of water supply) and any property (including plant, machinery, equipment, and stores) used or intended to be used in connection therewith.
The Minister of Transport and the Commissioners of Works are empowered to take possession of any land, buildings, or other property for the purpose of providing accommodation in connection with any scheme of

Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworth
road transport or for housing persons engaged thereon, or of feeding or supplying necessaries to such persons.
The Admiralty, Army Council, Air Council, Minister of Transport, Commissioners of Works, and any other department approved for the purpose, are empowered to take possession of any food, forage, material, or stores, and any articles required for or in connection with the production thereof. After such department has issued a notice of possession any person who sells, removes, or secretes such material without consent, or deals contrary to conditions that may have been granted will be guilty of an offence against the regulations.
I mention this merely to show what would be involved if the principle contained in this bill were applied to other departments of our life.
Now there are several questions which I should like to ask the minister and the house. Three questions are outstanding in my mind as I read this bill. The first is, will the act benefit the producers unless there is a guaranteed minimum price? It seems to me that this is one of the fundamental questions involved in the present wheat situation. I cannot see that any government is justified in forcing the farmers to reduce the export of wheat, which means in practice more or less to reduce their acreage, unless there is supplementary legislation which provides that the farmers will be able to maintain a decent standard of living. Surely complementary to regulation, price fixing legislation is inevitable. That question I should like to have answered very definitely by the minister at some stage in this discussion.
The second question that occurs to me is, What provision is there for the protection of the consumer? In the British procedure more or less protection for the consumer is provided in the set up of the scheme. There are at least two committees, and provision for consumers' investigation. The publicity that is provided for, under I think section 9 of the British act, is to a considerable extent a safeguard to the public; yet notwithstanding these safeguards we find in practice that consumers are complaining a great deal about the actual working out of the British act. In the bill now before us I can find no protection whatever for the consumer.
The third question is, What about the employees? Personally I am strongly in favour of protection to the farmer, but if you protect the farmer you must surely protect his hired man. There must be some protection for farm labour. But nothing of that kind is included in the bill. Then again while certain secondary products come under this act, that is, food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product, it is not at all clear that those em-74726-148
ployees engaged in the processing are to have any protection. It is fresh in our minds that only a few months ago there was a strike in Stratford in connection with the packing plants. The employees were urging that they should receive an advance from 2 cents to 3 cents for each bird plucked. It would seem to the ordinary man that that was not an unreasonable demand, but it was denied by the packing companies. There ought to be very definite provision in legislation of this kind that the employees in any processing industry should be adequately protected. We have further illustrations in the revelations that are coming to us through the so-called Stevens committee. There is no doubt whatever that many employees are being paid much less than a living wage. In this legislation we are apparently overcoming some of the difficulties that have arisen through the division of jurisdiction as between the dominion and the provincial, so it would seem that we might incorporate into this act some sort of minimum wage legislation for those engaged in the manufacture of articles derived from natural products.
As there are a great many details and technical questions to be considered in relation to this bill, the proper procedure would be to send it to the agriculture committee where the experts might be heard. I cannot see how in any other way we can discuss the details with any very beneficial result.
There are several other matters to which I should like briefly to call attention in the time at my disposal. I would note that the central bank is being placed by the government under independent control. Why then, should this marketing board be in the direct control of the minister? That seems to me a great inconsistency. I should think that all the arguments which the government brought forward for the creation of an independent board to handle the money of this country would apply equally to the handling of agricultural products of this country. Further I note that in the setting up of a marketing scheme normally there is to be a petition from a representative number of the producers. There is no indication as to what constitutes a representative number. In the British act that is provided for. It seems to me that this is very loose indeed. Further there is no indication as to who is to bear the cost of such a petition. In the British act there is an arrangement under which the whole cost does not rest upon the producers. Especially in this country, where we are 60 widely scattered, I can understand that the bill as it now stands might work a very great hardship upon the cooperative organizations.

2332	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworth
With regard to the section dealing with compensation, I am informed that in the Argentine the government has a monopoly of exchange and charges the importers in order to compensate the exporters. If our producers are to be compensated because of an adverse exchange it seems to me that we might very well charge the importers, who are benefiting by that self same adverse exchange. If we had some sort of clearing house in which arrangements of that kind could be made it would seem to me to be desirable.
We are told that we have before us a very important constitutional question. We have had difficulty because of the British North America Act, and I am told that although the provinces cannot delegate their authority to the dominion and the dominion cannot delegate its authority to the provinces, by the device of this marketing board in some mysterious way both can delegate authority, and it is presumed that this covers the whole ground. Hence it is said that the marketing board may have authority which can be secured neither by the provinces nor by the dominion. I am not a constitutional lawyer but I should like very much to have that point cleared up. In the meantime may I point out that under section 95 of the British North America it would seem that in any case the dominion government has very wide powers with regard to marketing. Section 95 reads:
In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province, and to immigration into the province; and it is hereby declared that" the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to agriculture in any or all of the provinces, and to immigration into any or all of the provinces;
This is what I should like noted:
-and any law of the legislature of a province relative to agriculture or to immigration shall have effect in and for the province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any act of the parliament of Canada.
So it would seem to a layman at least that we need not worry too much with regard to the difficulty of jurisdiction if this dominion parliament acts in the matter.
I said a little while ago that the great difficulty I found in the proposed legislation was that it was simply one particular act, an attempt to bring about governmental regulation in one department of our public life. I ventured to say that was something like sewing a new piece of cloth on an old garment. In some way we must work out a new system. I know that a great many members of this house are prejudiced against the word "socialism." I am not particular
/Mr. Woodsworth.]
whether or not that word is used, but I take it that we have reached the stage when we must have some sort of social control, if that term sounds any better. We are faced with a situation in which we have a large measure of monopoly, either private or public. I cannot think that we are going back to the old, individualistic way of doing things, and I do not think it is possible either to control these big trusts or to break them up in such a way as to overcome the terrific power they exert at the present time. Under these circumstances some of us believe that the only possible way is to have governmental monopoly or centralized government control over these monopolies which, if effective, would be pretty much the same as actual ownership. As I see the situation it i3 because we are living in an age of highly organized industry and yet have governments that are attempting to carry out policies that belong to an earlier age that we find ourselves in our present difficulties. If we went back one hundred or even fifty years I think a laissez faire policy would be good and that a free trade policy would be good, but unfortunately that stage of society has passed. Under these circumstances I would say to my Liberal friends that the only way to carry out the fundamental principles of Liberalism in this day is to secure some sort of planning which will be under democratic control. I think there is a danger that it might become autocratic; that is frankly what I fear in the action of my friends the Conservatives.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Gobeil):: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. But it is
possible, I submit, to have some sort of regulation under democracy:	that is the
problem we must work out in the future.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on the second reading of a bill the first important consideration is that of distinguishing between the purpose of the bill and the principle which underlies its provisions. The purposes of the bill are usually set forth in the name given the measure itself, and the provisions of the bill indicate by their wording the principles upon which they are based. With respect to the measure now before the house the purpose is adequately described in the title, which reads:
An act to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith.

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
As to the desirability of a purpose to be served, as thus expressed, I think all parties in this house will be in entire agreement. There is need for improved methods and practices in the marketing of natural products; there can be no doubt of that, and there is also need for improvement in methods of furthering export trade. Those are highly commendable objects, and any provisions which will further those ends without injury to production and trade of the country or depriving individuals of rights, liberties and privileges which are sacred to all will, I believe, at this time, receive general endorsation. When, however, we come to discuss the question of the principles underlying this measure, we find that the means taken to effect these very desirable ends are questionable indeed and it is in these provisions that the principles are to be found on which the bill itself is based.
May I pause for a moment to say to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who has just taken his seat, that when he says the Liberal party is a party of laissez-faire he entirely misrepresents its position.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to know it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Liberal party at no time has been a party of laissez-faire. If one takes the history of Liberalism, either in the old land or in this land, one will find that most of the statutes relating to compulsory education, to industrial and social legislation, legislation respecting the regulation of factories, mines, shops and the like, and in this parliament, legislation respecting fair wages in government contracts, investigation of industrial disputes, combines, old age pensions and the like have been enacted at the instance of the Liberal party, and all these enactments have been in the nature of regulation and control. The Liberal party stands for regulation and control, but it stands for such regulation and control at the instance of parliament and not at the instance of bodies that are in no way responsible to parliament or to the electors of the country, and therefore without the necessary authority in the making of the laws.
The supreme consideration at the moment, it seems to me, is not whether we are to have regulated trade or regulated marketing -it is generally agreed that regulation is necessary-but whether that regulation is to be carried on by bodies which, under our constitution, are expected to legislate in matters of the kind or by powers delegated to special interests, or groups, or individuals with no responsibility to parliament or the people as 74726-148 i
a whole; in other words, whether parliament is to continue to be responsible for legislation as we have been for the most part up to to-day, or whether we in parliament are to divest ourselves of this obligation and transfer it to some bodies that hitherto have not had authority to effect those ends. That is a very large question, and it goes to the very heart of the situation in the world today. I know that in many parts of the world at the present time there is a tendency to get rid altogether of parliamentary institutions. In some countries the effort to get rid of them has taken the form of turning over government to groups who are given authority and power to manage and regulate as they deem best everything in the interest of persons belonging to particular occupations and callings. That is the method that is adopted in Russia. It is part of the soviet system. But that method I submit is not needed in Canada at the present time, and is not necessary to effect regulation in the most effective way.
Again there are movements in other countries, as for example in Germany, Italy and Austria, where the effort has been made to get rid of parliament altogether and turn over the power to legislate to dictators on the assumption that parliaments in those countries have broken down and have not served the purposes and met the needs of the people.
I have nothing to say as to whether that is true of Italy and Germany and Austria, but I do sav that so far as Canada and Great Britain are concerned it is not true. The parliaments of Canada and of Great Britain still stand as the great guardians of liberty and security for all classes of people in ail parts of their respective countries. The exception that I am going to take to this particular legislation is that while it purports to be legislation to further the regulation of trade and the production and marketing of. goods, it is really legislation designed to do away very largely, if not almost entirely, as I think I shall be able to show, with the power of parliament and the right of parliament to control in these all-important matters.
In that' connection let me ask at once what are the principles underlying this legislation? As I have said, you have to look at the provisions, not the name of the statute to see what they are. In this bill they will be seen to explain why the government has found it necessary to divorce the carrying out of this legislation from parliamentary control altogether. When we examine the provisions of this bill we find that the principles are
2334	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
principles to restrict production and trade and to create monopolies. Those are the principles underlying this bill. I want to repeat that because it is all important. The principles underlying the provisions of this measure are the principles of restricting trade and restricting production and of creating monopolies with regard to commodities that are to be produced and bought and sold and stored and exported from different parts of the country.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: Government monopolies?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Monopolies of producers in particular occupations, special groups controlling production, purchase and sale of different classes of products and commodities. My hon. friend, if he has read the bill, ought to have been able to discover that for himself. As to the principle that the essence of this whole measure is restriction of production and trade and the creation of monopolies there can be no question whatever. That is just where I am going to take issue with my hon. friends to my left in the far corner who are advocating some of the socialistic measures they have been putting forward. I do not believe they can have studied the provisions of this measure or they would not be prepared to give it the support they are doing to-day. I can understand how, in their desire to further the extension of state functions and to see a great bureaucracy built up, which of necessity will have to be supported by force, they are quite prepared to allow hon. gentlemen opposite meanwhile to transform the system of government in a way that would serve their ends in a socialist state. But I do say this, after listening to the same hon. gentlemen talking about individual liberty and denouncing a policy of scarcity, and after hearing them in one form or another contend for the rights [DOT]of the poor and oppressed classes in the country, that they cannot have considered this legislation with care, or they would find it very difficult to give the support they have already expressed in its favour.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure that the right hon. gentleman would not suggest that we have advocated the extension of bureaucracy or advocated changes by force. None of that is correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend all the time, even in his speech this afternoon, argues for the extension of state functions. How can you have an extension of state functions, let me ask him, without the creation of
{Mr. Mackenzie King.l
a bureaucracy? That is of the very essence of it. How can you possibly extend the functions of the state without creating a bureaucracy, and how can this bureaucracy carry out its functions except by the power of might, which is force, and which is always the power behind government and authority when it attempts to administer public affairs by a large extension of state functions? That is the answer I make to my hon. friend and to the members of his party. They have not come out and said: We are after force and bureaucracy. But the whole essence of the socialist state is founded on that, and my hon. friend knows it. No one knows it better than he does. He has read Cole's book on the method in which matters may have to be carried on for a time, he knows that Cole has said that the socialistic state will have to have a bureaucracy and be maintained by force, and that in the meantime as a step to that end socialists will probably have to allow Toryism to go very far to help create the needed bureaucracy and force and accustom the public mind to that kind of government. The members of the CC.F. to-day are congratulating the government on this legislation which it has introduced. Is it not a nice spectacle to see an hon member, the leader of the C.C.F., which party regards itself as the antithesis of Toryism, congratulating Tories on their legislation, as my hon, friend has done in his speeeh this afternoon and that because it goes the length of further extending state functions in a manner which will inevitably serve to create a bureaucracy. We have our Tory friends opposite introducing -legislation which, like the spider with the fly, is aimed at catching a few flies which happen to be at the far end of the chamber. They are prepared to walk into the spider's parlour for the time being to help the spider get through this particular legislation. But I am afraid the inevitable fate of the fly awaits them.
In order that it may be made perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, that the principles of the measure are as I have described them to be, let me give a bird's eye picture of what is proposed in the bill. Let hon. members carefully consider what it is that we- are being asked to endorse. I might say, if one does not take the trouble to verify what one says by reference to the provisions themselves, the natural reaction to the picture would be that the measure could not mean anything of the kind, that it cannot possibly go so far. Let me give the picture.
First of all, in the regulation of trade and the marketing of our production in this country it might be asked, is it this parliament that is to regulate and say how much

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
is to be produced, or what restrictions there are to be on trade, or how sales are to be regulated, or is it some other body or bodies? The bill does not provide that this parliament shall do any of these things at all, but it does provide that they shall be done by some bodies other than this parliament and in part by bodies that are not in existence at the present time. That is the first statement I want to make. This legislation is to give power to bodies that do not now exist, to make regulations which will restrict production and restrict trade, and to create offences for which it affixes penalties -it puts in this particular statute the penalties that are to follow if what is set forth as regulations and orders to be made by these bodies that do not yet exist is not earned out. That is what it provides.
The first proposal is that a marketing board shall be appointed and that certain powers shall be given to that board. What are the powers? One power is that if a group of persons in any local district come together and wish to regulate trade as respects a particular commodity, or group of commodities, it may petition the government to have the production of and trade in that particular commodity or group of commodities regulated in the manner it suggests. The government is then to pass on the petition to this board. If, after looking it over, the board advises that it is desirable to carry out the scheme-I direct attention to the word "scheme"; it is a scheme, not a law that is to be carried out-then the governor in council-not this parliament; parliament does not appear again once this bill has been assented to by the representative of the sovereign-may approve the scheme and publish its approval in the Canada Gazette. The scheme then becomes law; everything set forth in the scheme as framed and fashioned in that manner becomes part of the law of the land to which it applies. It need not and probably will not, apply to the country as a whole. There may be one scheme in British Columbia, another in Quebec and another in Nova Scotia; there is no obligation of uniformity, it is simply a scheme which a particular group of producers in a particular part of the country have agreed upon. Once it is approved of by the board, it becomes law in that part of the country.
This provision is put in the bill to please our socialist friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. It was put there to catch the leader of that party just as he has been caught this afternoon when he said that this means the beginning of socialism. His objection was that the scheme was not large
enough, that it went just a certain distance, that it did not go far enough to suit him. It brought him, however, right into line with the government in supporting the measure because it is the beginning of the control of production and of trade not by parliament, but by groups which have united together to draw up schemes which are to be made applicable at their instance to the rest of society. Have we come to the time when that sort of thing is desirable? Are there to be no interests considered other than those of a particular group? Parliament stands for the necessity of seeing that all classes likely to be affected by legislation are heard from before legislation is imposed upon them. Does this law require that all classes shall be heard? It distinctly rules out all but one particular class and that the class whose selfinterest and that alone is to govern. Take any group, whether they be tobacco growers, apple growers, hog raisers or other producers. Let that group come together and let a representative number of its members petition that the affairs of their trade as far as production, sale and the rest of it is concerned are to be managed in such and such a way in accordance with some scheme they have devised, if the board, the minister and governor in council approve of that scheme, it then becomes law. What about the men who belong to other occupations and callings? What about consumers generally? What about the great body of labour that the hon. member champions so eloquently in this house? They may not happen to be the particular group that is legislating in its own self-interest, but they will all be affected by the law the group is creating. Not one of them is to be heard in advance of the making of the law. The fines and imprisonments that are to apply to anyone who dares to violate what becomes the law are put down in the bill but what the law is to be none save the self-interested parties are to have a word. As I say, this was all intended for Cooperative Commonwealth Federation consumption.
Let us see what is intended in reality. Even if there is no petition by any group, even if there is no request from any source, if the government of the day or an unnamed minister-the bill does not say what minister; it may be the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), or any other minister

thinks it desirable to restrict trade or to restrict production, then the governor in council may make such regulations as are necessary to
2336	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
restrict that trade or production or regulate its business in other ways. That is all to be done without any reference to parliament. Is my hon. friend willing to turn over to the Tory party of Canada the complete control of all trade, and of the direction which it is to take? That is pretty much what he is doing in the support he is giving this measure. I have heard him advocate the desirability of trade with all nations and all countries.
There are two blights, so far as policy is loncerned, which have been put upon the trade of this country since the present administration came into office. One is the blight of economic nationalism, which seeks to bring everything in the matter of manufacture and trade within the confines of our own country, and the other, which I consider to be worse, the blight of economic imperialism, which seeks so to direct matters by legislation, as for example the United Kingdom-Canada trade agreement, tariffs, national revenue rulings and the like, that whatever little trade there may be beyond our borders shall be confined as largely as possible within the British Empire with as little as possible relatively with any foreign country. There is to be found the real significance of the powers to be conferred upon the governor in council under this legislation. When the government believes it is in the interests of its own policies it may pass any order it pleases with regard to the trade of Canada, regardless of the legislation parliament itself has enacted or may enact.
Do hon. members realize that this bill gives to the governor in council the power to prohibit absolutely the importation of goods from another country which the government may allege it is in the public interest to prohibit? Do hon. members realize that it gives the government not only the power to prohibit imports, but the power to prohibit the export of goods from this country? That is the power given to the governor in council. This parliament is to part altogether with its right to say what is to be imported or exported; under the provisions of this bill, hereafter the governor in council will have that power. I ask: Since when has this parliament decided to throw up its hands in the matter of the control of the tariffs of the country? Tariffs will be of no effect after powers of this ivind are given to the governor in council. I have always understood that the great function of parliament was to control the revenues and expenditures of the country and that tariffs played a very important part both with respect to revenues and what as a consequence may be possible in the way of outlay. This legisla-

tion takes away from this parliament any possible control with respect to any article or series of articles coming within its comprehensive provisions in connection with which the government of the day may wish to prohibit exportation or importation. I submit that is going pretty far. As I have said, the effort is to get away from parliament altogether in the matter of restricting and prohibiting the importation and exportation of goods, as well as in the matter of regulating production.
The bill as it is presented to this house destroys all that we have been taught to cherish as the essence of British liberty. As it now stands, it destroys all that upon which our parliamentary system in the truest sense of the word rests. It is unconstitutional from beginning to end; it simply ignores the constitution of the country and the constitutional rights of parliament. I would go further and say that it is subversive of our judicial system, as I shall be able shortly to show. Men have been accustomed in this country to believe that they had some protection of their rights in property and the fruits of their own labour, in the judiciary of the country, that the courts of the land would have something to say as to whether or not they were to have their right to hold their own property respected and to do with it what they pleased. It will no longer be so, once this bill passes if it carries in its present form. This law declares that, once these different boards to be created in the manner I have described have made certain regulations, they may go to the extent of prohibiting a man from working on his own property or from selling his goods. That is to be the law, and he has no escape; all that the courts can now do is to see to the imposition of the fines and penalties here set forth.
We have had a good deal of discussion in this house about the unwisdom of the blank cheque, the principle of giving to the government or to anyone the power to dip into the public treasury for particular funds as needed, without control on the part of parliament, and we on this side have fought that proposal right along for four succeeding sessions. I believe that some of my hon. friends in the far corner for part of the time supported the Liberal party in that effort, but may I say that this bill repeats this very thing. It does not do so as an emergency measure to furnish relief, but it does propose to enable the government to do as it pleases with regard, not to increasing but to limiting production, not to expanding but to restricting trade. It goes a step further than that, for it takes the matter right out of the hands even of the

governor in council and allows a board that is not yet in existence, the personnel of which, so far, we know nothing about, to dip into the treasury, into the consolidated revenue fund of the country and take out moneys for its own purposes. In order to enable it to satisfy its own needs, are we in this parliament going to hand the public treasury over to some board about the personnel of which we at present know nothing, and shall know nothing even after this legislation passes, until the board is actually in existence?
Let mo now read some of the provisions it is necessary to read the provisions, because the language I have used would seem unbelievable but for the fact that it is demanded by these very provisions. But before I Quote them, let me pause and ask my hon. friends, who suppoit this legislation, whether they believe in the old principle, "no taxation without representation." They accuse the Liberal party of standing for certain principles and shibboleths. Well, if we stand for them we stand for them because they have been the security of men and nations through the centuries, and they are the things that have stood up against revolution and against the kind of movements hon. gentlemen are fomenting at the present time-against Toryism


Mr. McINTOSH:: And will do it again.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition has stated that the Liberal party is standing out against revolution, which is being fomented by members in this corner. That is absolutely untrue and I ask him to withdraw it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say that. I said against revolution, yes; the Liberal party stands against it. And, I added, certain movements of the kind my hon. friends are trying to further. I do not withdraw that, because the movement my hon. friend is trying to further is one I denounce -taking the making of laws from parliament and putting that duty in the hands of others.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I listened carefully to what was said, and I suppose it will come out in Hansard. But I refuse to allow the leader of the opposition to imply-


Mr. SPOTTON:: He will change Hansard.


Mr WOODSWORTH:: No, he will not
change it, but I refuse to allow the leader of the opposition to say that we in this corner are seeking to foment revolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think that, with your authority, Hansard might be permitted to read the notes now of *what I said.
19, 1934	. '
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


Mr. SPEAKER:: If that is necessary, bul I cannot see that the point of order is well taken. I do not see that the leader of the opposition was not within his rights-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) made the statement that I would change Hansard, and I ask that that statement be withdrawn.


George Spotton: I will change it to " revise Hansard."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We can all
measure the size of the hon. member.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not catch your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think I am right in saying that there should be no implication whatever from the leader of the opposition, that any member in this corner of the house is fomenting revolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will say at once to my hon. friend that I made no statement of that kind with reference to him and his party. In my reference to revolution, what was actually in my mind when I spoke was the period of the civil wars in Britain when one party stood for the right of parliament to protect the people against impositions which the crown had no right to exact, and I meant that it was the Liberal principle of the rights of the people in the matter of their control over taxation that saved that kind of situation. And, I added, we stood against movements such as my hon. friend is leading-movements that would wipe out parliament and substitute soviets with respect to regulations to be imposed in some of these matters.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre has no right to interrupt; there is no point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With all due
respect to you, Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) may not agree with what has been said and he may argue that the inference from what he said is not correct. But there is no point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am willing to [DOT]
accept the explanation of the leader of the opposition that there was no implication, but
.	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
in making that explanation the leader of the opposition says that we are seeking to wipe out parliamentary institutions-
Some hon. MEMBEES: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -and it is not true.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The leader of the opposition may or may not be correct in that inference, but he is within his rights in drawing it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, Mr. Speaker, upon what does our whole parliamentary life rest? It rests upon the control by parliament, the commons in particular, over the revenues of the country, over expenditures, over taxation. That is what parliamentary life rests upon and has rested upon since there has been a free parliament in any part of the British Empire. The essence of it is complete control over taxation by parliament itself.
_ What has my hon. friend been supporting in his speech? He was supporting this bill. What are our friendis opposite seeking in this legislation? The object of this legislation is to get away from parliament by the setting up of a board, the personnel of which we know nothing about, and can know nothing about until it comes into existence, and to give to that board and other boards powers which parliament alone should have. Let me read subsection 5 of section 3:
The board may, with the approval of the governor in council, employ such technical,. professional and other officers and employees as the board may deem necessary or desirable, and such persons shall receive such salaries or remuneration as may be fixed by the board with the approval of the governor in council.
There is no mention of parliament there- no mention whatever of parliament, and there is to be no appropriation by parliament of moneys for the purpose, the board itself on authorization by the governor in council may take what is necessary out of the consolidated revenue fund. The board is to fix salaries and the governor in council to approve. Let me quote subsection 6:
Ihe board shall be a body corporate and shall have power for the purposes of this act to acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property.
Since I have been in this parliament, until the present administration came into office, the practice has been, when money was required for the purposes of bodies appointed under legislation, for an amount to appear in the estimates presented to this house setting forth the amount of money required, and for that amount or such portion of it as the house might be willing to grant to be ap-
propriated in accordance with the custom and practice of parliament for centuries past. That custom was abandoned under the relief measure. Now that, under the guise of an emergency, the government have succeeded for -three or four years in getting rid of parliamentary control in that way, we begin to see the reason that power has been sought all along. It is to give the governor in council, one individual,, a dictatorship. The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said that the difference between the executive in the United States and in Canada was that the executive there was one man while here it was a number of men. I told him that I thought I could point out that the executive here was still one man; it was the sovereign and in Canada his representative, and the Prime Minister admitted that. But it is the sovereign advised by the prime minister and his colleagues. To-day the Prime Minister and his colleagues have come to be the real executive, the principle however remains exactly the same; whether the executive is the sovereign acting in his own right, or the sovereign acting on the advice of his ministers, the responsibility ought to be to parliament; parliament should not be parting with its rights in order to turn them over to the executive. What does it matter if at one time the executive is a sovereign and at another a prime minister, supposing their powers to be the same and alike autocratic. We are face to face in Canada at this time with exactly the same situation-and I am going to refer to it a little later on-as the barons of Runny-mede were with King John. John, the sole executive of his day, asserted that he had the right to say what moneys w^ere to be spent and what was to go for this purpose and what for that. What has been suggested by the ministry opposite in this and other legislation? It is not that parliament shall have control of the money, but that the executive may do what it pleases with the public treasuiy with regard to those matters in connection with which it has been given and is now further seeking a free hand?
Let us bake clause 3, subclause 9:
. 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.
What is that other than a blank cheque? The government have already taken a blank cheque for use with respect to all their powers with regard to any thing that can be done under alleged peace, order and good government. They have a blank cheque with reference to all expenditures they may wish to

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
make for purposes of relief. The time has surely oome when we should make a decided stand against the taking of that power becoming the habitual practice of the government in relation to the regular business of the country. This is not an emergency. One cannot get away from the language of this provision: not parliament but-
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.
That is as unconstitutional as anything can possibly be. It is setting at defiance the whole function and purpose of parliament, namely, the control of the expenditures of this country and the taxation. It is parting with that and giving it to an executive to do with as it may wish and thinks best. That is not the only such provision. Let me go a little further. Not only can they use the public funds in this way but-
The board-
This is not even the governor in council.
-shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power-
What power?
-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.
That is, the board may go into the consolidated revenue fund and begin to compensate people. I have always thought that when compensation was needed, parliament was asked to vote the money necessary and an appropriation especially for the purpose was required.
Let me go a step further:
To compensate any person in respect of any shipment made pursuant to any determination or order of the board to a country whose currency is depreciated, in relation to Canadian currency, for loss due to such depreciation.
I am not saying that there should not be compensation in certain cases, but what I do say is that whatever compensation is to be made out of public moneys, the House of Commons should say how much compensation is to be paid and appropriate what is necessary before anything is paid. No board, no governor in council should have that right. It belongs to the people's representatives in the House of Commons.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How about the compensation for the destruction of diseased cattle?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is getting restless, I know, but let him try to retain his patience for a time.
Let us go a step further and see what powers are given to this board. We have been criticizing the ministry opposite for what they have taken in the way of power not only to pay out moneys under a blank cheque, but also to give guarantees for different purposes, using relief measures for making loans, guaranteeing advances by banks, and the like, and I think the leader of the C.C.P. has criticized them pretty severely for what they have been doing in the way of making loans and guarantees. We have now reached the point where they are going even a step further. Not only do they wish to do that themselves but they are willing to let this unnamed board do it. Paragraph (e) of clause 4, following the words:
The board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have powerstates:
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.
We have in Ottawa a bureau of research, one that cost this country quite a sum of money and that is doing excellent work. When money for research work is required, the minister in charge of the department brings in his estimates and asks parliament for an appropriation for that purpose. We discuss the purpose here and find out whether it is in the public interest, and whether, other interests being considered, that particular interest should be the one that should receive the attention the minister is asking for it. Then in the light of what is best for all, and not merely for one particular interest, the vote is granted. But under this legislation the board, not parliament, is to have the right to make grants or loans, to assist research and all the other objects mentioned in the section. About all the power parliament will have left will be to make good the losses that will inevitably occur as a consequence of those grants or loans.
Let me take another paragraph in the same part under the powers of the board. Paragraph (h) states:
To pay the operating and necessary expenses ot the board.
Having in mind the necessary taxation, that is a nice provision-for the board.
I do not know that it is equally good for the people who have to pay the bills. But this legislation gives to the board power to pay its own operating and necessary expenses.
2340	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
Then paragraph (i) states:
To acquire, hold and alienate such real property as in the opinion of the governor in council may be necessary for the purposes of the board.
If one reads this bill through, one cannot find anywhere within the four corners of it provision that parliament is the body that has to make the appropriation in the first instance.	.
These are all evidences in this legislation of a violation of that most sacred of all principles: No taxation without representation, and control by the House of Commons over the expenditure of public moneys. Where is the public, as a whole, represented on the board that is to make expenditures in this way? The only real representation worthy of the name is that of this House of Commons which represents the whole of the nation.
I shall now come to some provisions that deal with the power to legislate generally. I have dealt specifically with expenditures of public money. The "blank cheque" is only one phase. Let me now cite wherein this legislation does away with the rights of parliament to legislate on other matters and turns this power over to other bodies. I have read some provisions which relate more particularly to taxation and control of power and expenditures. I come now more specifically to those which relate to the making of laws with respect to production and trade.
Clause 8 states:
Whenever the governor in council is satisfied, on the recommendation of the minister, that a majority of the persons engaged in the production or marketing of a natural product so require, be may approve of a proposal for, *
(a)	the extension of the geographical limits of any part of Canada to which an existing scheme relates;
(b)	the extension of the powers of any local
board;	.	.	,
(c)	the amalgamation of two or more local boards.
And so forth. Not parliament, but the governor in council and the board between them are to determine how far a law is to apply. It is to be remembered " an existing scheme " means the regulations made by a board and which have the force of law. Listen to this:
9. 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 bv 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-

By parliament? No, by the governor in council.
Are my hon. friends opposite prepared to support that kind of legislation? Is anyone in this House of Commons prepared to support it, if he really understands it?- that a minister of the crown, unnamed, may if he thinks it desirable frame a scheme the purpose of which is to regulate production and marketing, and which, if he can get his colleagues to agree to it, then becomes part of the law of the land, and those who do not carry on their production or the sale of their commodities in the terms of what is laid down, not by parliament but by this scheme, are to be subject to fines and penalties and possibly imprisonment. Does anyone believe that that is something which this House of Commons should tolerate for a moment? If any plan for the regulation of trade or production cannot stand the criticism of this parliament, that is the strongest reason why it should never be put into operation. Let the minister come to this House of Commons and this parliament with a plan-"plan" would be a much better word than "scheme," although "scheme" comes nearer to indicating what it will be when it is really wrought out.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Very symbolical.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If a minister of the crown will come with any plan or scheme which has anything to commend it, surely with such a majority as hon. gentlemen opposite have they could count on getting it through the House of Commons. If they cannot, they have no right to say that when this parliament is no longer in session or apart from this parliament, they shall be free to set up any kind of plan or scheme they please.
I pause to make clear what is meant by " a natural product." The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) assumed all through his speech that what is referred to is simply farm products. But that is not this bill at all. Let me tell him that this term has an application very much wider than merely to farm products. He pointed out that the British North America Act contains a clause which places agriculture under both provincial and federal jurisdiction, and argued that at least it would seem that under that clause something might be done. The products of agriculture are only one of the classes enumerated. Look at the definition of "natural product" as set forth in the bill:
(e) "natural product" means any product of agriculture or of the forest, sea. lake or ri\er, and any article of food' or drink wholly or

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
partly manufactured or derived from any such product.
That includes, to begin with, pretty much everything that it is possible to eat or drink, and also a great many other things. It includes boots, shoes, clothing, furniture and furnishings, household supplies and the like; it includes any article which can be partly manufactured or derived from the natural products mentioned. And you are giving power to this government to make a law with respect to who is to produce those commodities, how much is to be produced, who is to sell them, or whether they are even to be offered for sale. And, as I shall show a little later, you are making it a criminal offence if some man should by chance even offer for sale something that under one of these boards or schemes is prohibited or restricted.
Let us go a little further on that point. Listen to this:
12. (2) The governor in council may, by order or regulation published in the Canada Gazette-
Let me pause there-not by law of the parliament of Canada, not by any statute, but by order or regulation of the governor in council,-
(a)	provide that any natural product shall not be exported from Canada without a licence;
but also to quote first 12 (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.
Can we conceive of anything more sweeping? In other words, hereafter we are to be governed not by statutes but by such orders or regulations as the governor in council may make to restrict the importation into Canada of any natural product. What does it mean? If the government should make up its mind that it is desirable hereafter that trade shall flow only in certain channels, that it is not desirable for example that the people shall get oranges or coffee or sugar at a less cost by getting these and other necessaries from some particular country that would like to trade with Canada but that does not happen to be within the British Empire, then it may prohibit these goods coming from that country and say that we shall get that kind of product hereafter only from the particular countries within the British empire so designated or implied. This is economic imperialism which, as I said a moment ago, is
their pet policy. In the last campaign the policy was economic nationalism: Canada first, but it has since grown to economic imperialism: Empire first. This section gives this government power to say what goods are to come into the country and what may be exported out of the country. I do not think I need stress that much further. However let me re-read subsection 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;
There you are! Now, Mr. Producer, no matter what you are producing, if it suits the governor in council-not if it suits the parliament of Canada, not if it is a law that has been put on the statutes while members of parliament from all parts of Canada were present-if it happens to suit the governor in council, whether parliament is in session or not, to say that you shall not export anything without a licence, then you will have to get a licence, and without it you cannot export. Let us read the second section. The governor in council may:
(b)	prescribe the forms of such licences, the terms and conditions thereof and the persons who shall have authority to issue the same;
That is a fine power to give to a government on the eve of a general election, to send around the country a lot of agents of the government of the day with power to issue licences to the producers in the different localities.
Mr, MERCIER (St. Henri):	Campaign
funds!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And further
the governor in council may:
(c)	impose penalties for breach of any such order or regulation or of any licence issued thereunder, and, generally, make such provision or authorize the doing of such acts or things as may in his discretion be deemed necessary or expedient for giving full effect to any order, regulations, or licences issued or made hereunder.
What freedom is there left to a producer? And this applies to all who have to do with the natural products named. Not merely those engaged in the various branches of agriculture but fishermen, producers of forest products and of all things that are manufactured or derived from the natural products mentioned are, as regards production and sale, all to be at the mercy of what the governor in council may do.
I know what the minister is going to say when he gets up to answer. He is going to say: Do you think we are going Act exercise these powers? We want them, Hu, we are

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
not going to exercise them. That is what we have been hearing all along. But when that argument has to be brought to the defence of a measure it is the strongest reason why the measure should not be enacted at all. We cannot afford to give to any government, as this measure does, power to do what it pleases with respect to production and trade.
Now let us go a little further. The governor in council and the boards to be established by him under this act may in the manner described create offences for breach of any regulations made. That is something new; that goes further than anything we have had up to the present time. Heretofore I have understood that parliament was the only body that had the right to create crimes and impose penalties, that the consent of the House of Commons and the Senate and the assent of the representative of the sovereign were necessary before any particular act could be made a crime. It is not apparently to be so hereafter. The governor in council may make any regulations he pleases and may prescribe penalties; any breach of such regulations will constitute a crime.	.
Now let us come to another point, which I wish particularly to stress. I refer to the right set out in Magna Charta that no man shall be dispossessed of his rights without the lawful judgment of his peers under the law of the land; not the law as made by the governor in council, not the law as made by some unnamed and as yet unexisting body, but the law of the land as known to everyone. It is an essential principle of liberty and freedom that the law of the land should be known, that it should be so known that every man as he runs may read. The law should not be something which is to make its appearance in the Canada Gazette after some board or governor in council, not parliament, has passed a regulation; it is something that should appear in the statutes of the country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Was Beauhamois given away by order in council or by parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, before recess I was speaking of the principles underlying this measure and had pointed out that as one reads the provisions of the bill he discovers that its primary purpose is that of limiting production, restricting trade, and creating monopolies in the production and sale of natural products. I pointed out that the provisions of the bill justified the view that it aimed at taking from parliament and transferring to a board to be appointed under the statute, and to local boards to be appointed in sections of the different provinces, the power to make regulations with respect to the production and storing and sale of natural products, but that parliament itself is not to be the body that under the act will make whatever may be necessary in the way of regulations.
I had also pointed out that under this bill when enacted into law there will be transferred from parliament to other bodies the creation of offences, offences in the nature of crimes, offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that all that is expected of this parliament is to fix certain penalties without knowing what the offences are to which the penalties are to be attached. The penalties are set forth in the bill, but I do not hesitate to assert that not a member of parliament can indicate at the moment what the offences are to which they are to apply. They are offences still to be determined by local boards, to be appointed under the act or by the governor in council.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that legislation of this kind violates the fundamental principles of British liberty, violates our constitutional system of government, violates every tradition on which our parliamentary system rests. I cited from the bill numerous provisions, anticipating to that extent the discussion in committee, because as I stated I believed that apart from this evidence the house would find it difficult to conceive that principles such as this could be embodied in legislation introduced into this parliament by any government. I think I have given instances enough of the provisions to make clear the assertion that I have made.
There is a portion of the bill to which I have not yet made reference and on which I wish to make one or two brief comments, and that is the last part which provides for investigation into some of the matters we have been discussing. Let me say at once that I believe there are certain evils which investigation is much more effective in curing than is any penalty. Publicity is a means of letting the light into situations that will not bear the light of day, and may serve even more effectively than any .penalties that can be attached to the violations of the provisions of an act to avoid the evil which may be disclosed as the result of investigation. I welcome in the fullest degree any legislation which will pro>
vide for the fullest kind of investigation into industrial and commercial evils, but where there is to be investigation hereafter, care should be taken to see that innocent parties are afforded the same degree of security as that to which they are entitled in any inquiry which would be carried on in the way in
2344	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
which parliament has hitherto provided. This legislation with respect to investigation does away with the safeguards which ensure to innocent parties their rights and liberties. It creates an interference with industry, not at the instance of parliament, but at the caprice of a minister of the crown.
The investigations provided for are to take place by the minister on his own initiative if he so desires, or at the request of a board, and the minister's initiative in matters of the kind, however he may seek to deny that such is the case, is bound to be in a large measure the result of political pressure. There will always be open the possibility of believing that the investigation has taken place from a political motive, and that it is being directed towards political ends. That is bound to be the case where power is left entirely in the hands of one individual, and where the investigation is not provided for in accordance with some predetermined method which has been approved of by parliament as a whole.
The bill goes very far in regard to what it permits in the way of investigation. It enables the minister to name the investigators, to choose them out of a self-interested group, because it is the group that wishes to have its production regulated and has succeeded in getting certain regulations passed under the provisions of the act, and this group of investigators is given power to determine what condition exists that is against the public interest and that is detrimental in a number of directions which the act defines. They not only have the power to determine what exists in this way, but as a result of their investigation they determine in addition what the offence is.
The penalties, as I say, are set forth in the bill, and we are to be asked to enact those penalties into law. But the body that is to fix the penalties is not to be the body that is to determine the offence. While parliament is to fix the penalties, this bill asks us to hand over to unnamed individuals and unnamed organizations and groups the determining of the offences to which these penalties shall apply. I repeat. Mr. Speaker, that without actually reading the sections of the bill anyone not in this House of Commons and with the bill before him would say that this was a misrepresentation of the situation, that such could not possibly be the case. I therefore wish to refer very hurriedly to the sections which bear out what I have said.
Under the head of Investigations in part II I read:
In this part and in any regulation made hereunder, unless the context otherwise requires,
IMr. Mackenzie King.]
(a) "committee" means a committee appointed hereunder by the minister-
A committee of unnamed individuals and groups. Then it goes on to define what "spread" is. There is also a clause which deals with the power to authorize investigations:
16. (1) The minister may at the request of the board or upon his own initiative authorize an investigation into-
Look at the number of subjects:
-the cost of production, prices, spread, trade practices, methods of financing, management, policies, grading, transportation and other matters in relation to the production and marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion of any natural product.
As I pointed out this afternoon, "any natural product" means any product of agriculture, of the forest, of the sea, of the lake or of the river and any article of food or anything wholly or partly derived from any such product. This means that the minister on his own initiative may appoint a committee to inquire into almost anything at any time. This all is perfectly clear. What security is there for business when it cannot be carried on without undue interference on the part of the minister who may or may not exercise his authority for political reasons? What does this committee do? Section 17 reads:
(1)	Whenever as a result of any such investigation the minister shall have reason to believe that such a situation exists as requires further inquiry he may at the request of the board or on his own initiative-
It comes back again to the minister each time.
-appoint a committee to inquire into the spread in connection with the marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion of a regulated product.
Who are the committee? Subsection 2 reads:
(2)	A committee shall be composed of such number of representatives of producers and persons engaged in marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion, and consumers, as the minister shall decide, and there shall be a representative of the minister who shall act as chairman.
What are the powers of the committee? Section 18 reads:
(1) A committee shall have power to investigate all operations occurring in connection with or in the course of marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion of the regulated product for the purpose of ascertaining the spread received by any person in the course of such marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion, and whether the same is detrimental to or against the interest of the public in that it is excessive or results in undue enhancement of prices or otherwise restrains or injures trade or commerce in the regulated product.

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
In addition to having those powers, the committee has the determination of the result of the investigation. Section 19 reads:
A committee may after investigation as hereinbefore provided determine, in connection with any operation occurring in the course of marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion of the regulated product, what spread is detrimental to or against the interest of the public in that it is excessive or results in undue enhancement of prices or otherwise restrains or injures trade or commerce in the regulated product.
That is not some body created according to the laws of the land such as a commission whose powers are definitely fixed by statute; it is simply a committee which has this power of determining what is detrimental, excessive and so forth. Section 20 reads:
A committee shall in the manner prescribed by regulations publish every determination made by it hereunder.
"Determination" is simply another word for "offence." The last clause, which describes the penalties, reads:
Every person who, to the detriment or against the interest of the public, charges, receives or attempts to receive any spread which is excessive or results in undue enhancement of prices or otherwise restrains or injures trade or commerce in the regulated produce, shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars or to two years' imprisonment, or, if a corporation, to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars.
In other words, this parliament is being asked to give its sanction to possible fines to the extent of five thousand dollars and to possible imprisonments up to two years, in the case of individuals, without knowing the offences to which those penalities are to apply. Parliament is not to have a say in defining the offence; that is to be done by the committee which is to be appointed by the minister to make the investigation.
. I come back to the question of whether the fundamental rights and liberties of the subject are to be dealt with in that manner by a representative parliament, which above all else is elected to protect the liberty and rights and property of the individual. Under this act, if the bill becomes law, the committee is to create the offence, and the same should be said of the local boards which are appointed for the purpose of laying down the regulations, that is, the laws, the violation of which is prescribed as an offence. Are these to be representative bodies selected in the manner in which legislative bodies are selected or elected in Canada, in England, or any British country? Before hon. members of this house can have to do with the making of laws they have to comply with and have
others comply with certain laws framed definitely for the purpose of seeing that whoever may be concerned in the making of laws is duly representative of the people as a whole. The first of these laws is the franchise act. The only persons who have a right to vote in a dominion election are those who can qualify with respect to the franchise. No qualification of the kind is required for membership on this law making committee. Anyone whom the minister wishes to appoint may be appointed to the committee. Next, hon. members have to be representative of constituencies. The Representation Act ensures that all classes in alt communities shall have a say before any offence can be created. Nothing of the kind exists in this legislation. As a matter of fact, it specifically limits those who have to do with regulating and making the laws and regulations to the interested parties, to those who have to do with the particular commodities the production and distribution of which are being made into so many monopolies. As respects law making, it is not representation by population, but representation by occupation. In addition to the Representation Act, there is the Dominion Elections Act which has been framed to ensure that before any member of this legislative body can help to create an offence or to make a law, he must first be elected in accordance with the provision of a law that ensures a certain degree of protection to the electorate in the matter of its choice. But none of these particular precautions or anything like them are to apply to these boards which are to determine what regulations are to become law. There is simply to be a direction by the minister or the governor in council with regard to the new offences which will be created as a result of the investigation and determination of the boards of investigation.
One has only to ask oneself what will happen as a result of all this to see whence we are drifting. We may have one investigation in one province, another in another province and yet another in another. We may have one board determining one thing and another board determining another. But it does not matter what they determine, the penalty is the same for the man who has committed an offence, by not producing or selling his commodities in accordance with the determination of the board that makes the investigation. I repeat that one has only to make clear the purport of this measure as verified by its provisions to see how completely subversive of all that is sacred to British liberty
2346	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
and to British parliamentary institutions and to British practice and procedure in matters of legislation the proposed measure is.
This afternoon the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation cited the Winnipeg Free Press as a paper that at times inclines his way in that it finds it necessary to say that there is much that is good in socialism. I do not think anyone who studies industrial problems will deny for one moment that there is not good in very much that is termed socialism. Neither will anyone venture to say that the socialist party is the one party having a monopoly of all that is good in the matter of social legislation. The socialist party have taken many of the aims and policies which belong to other and older parties and have claimed them as part of their own beliefs and convictions. That may be perfectly right and proper, but there is no monopoly in the matter of social legislation as between the different political parties. They may differ as to how they are to go about achieving their ends and what they intend to do when they attain to power, but as for any one party being the sole representative of social needs, and the one party whose policies alone will meet those needs, that, I think, is carrying things a little far. However, let us see what the Winnipeg Free Press has to say about this legislation. I am going to read a paragraph or two, and I shall do so for the benefit of my hon. friend in particular. When the legislation was first brought down the Winnipeg Free Press discussed it in an editorial entitled The Marketing Legislation. And here may I point out that the Winnipeg Free Press stands in a very signal position as a guardian of agricultural interests in the west. It is a journal in the city of Winnipeg, the interests of which city are more bound up with agriculture than I suppose are the interests of any other city in Canada, though of course to some extent it is true of all cities in Canada that their interests are bound up in large measure with the prosperity of agriculture. The hon. member saw the force, of that truth when he cited the Free Press. This is what that newspaper had to say editorially of the marketing legislation:
The legislation, from a cursory examination, appears to justify the estimate of it which conies from the capital. It is pointed out that nothing ever proposed, not even the War Measures Act, begins to approach it in the power which it gives to officials to regulate the trade of the country. It goes further, it is stated, than similar legislation in any country in the world having parliamentary government.
That was the first statement. What had that newspaper to say after a careful study
IMr. Mackenzie King.1
of the measure? In an editorial on April 3, under the heading The Dominion Marketing Bill, the following appeared:
The text of Mr. Bennett's farm mai-keting bill bears out Ottawa telegraph dispatches which said it placed immense and perhaps unexampled powers in the dominion government's hands. It is like no other bill in the history of the Canadian parliament. It confers on the cabinet at Ottawa, and' in some circumstances on one member thereof, authority to regulate, limit and even prohibit every kind of trade (domestic, export and import) in nearly every kind of natural product. This power is to be exercised by a national board and a number of "local boards," but these agencies will be created and controlled by the government. The bill, if it comes into force, puts an end to freedom of trade in all products (to quote its wording) "of agriculture, or of the forest, sea, lake or river," and in all foods and drinks partly or wholly made from such products, a category which includes such diverse commodities as ice cream and tinned salmon, beer and bread, sugar and beef. Sales of all these goods at home and in export markets, as well as imports of all of them, are brought under arbitrary and unlimited governmental control by this one statute. It is a bill rivalling, if not surpassing, the most notable efforts of the European dictators in the way of economic control.
That is a carefully and thoughtfully worded editorial which, I think, gives a just appreciation of this legislation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the C.C.F. party, speaking this afternoon, expressed the view that because some exception was being taken to the extension of powers on the part of governments in various directions, the Liberal party was holding to its old tradition of laissez-faire and did not want anything in the way of an extension of governmental powers. I think I made it perfectly clear to my hon. friend that the Liberal party, all. through its history both in the old country and in this dominion, has believed in regulation, but it has been regulation brought about at the instance of parliament. When my hon. friend talks about the Liberal party believing in laissez-faire what he really means to say is that the Liberal party believes and continues to believe in liberty. He is confusing the two. Now liberty and laissez-faire are not the same thing. Liberty is secured sometimes by regulation and sometimes by laissez-faire. Laissez-faire is simply a method, just as regulation is a method, a means to a particular end, that end being liberty, and when liberty has been threatened by too great an encroachment of officialdom or arbitrary power then the Liberal party has stood for liberty and for freedom secured through laissez-faire. When, on the other hand, the individual has not had sufficient protection, then similarly in the name of liberty and of freedom-at one

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
time political freedom, at another time social freedom, at another time religious freedom, and, as at the present time, economic freedom -the Liberal party has stood for such regulation as was essential to that end. What we have stood for is liberty and freedom, secured by laissez-faire when that method was needed to get rid of unnecessary restrictions that bind and handicap and fetter the subject and deprive him of his liberty, also for liberty and freedom secured by regulation at the instance of parliament when to the acquisition and maintenance of liberty that method of securing liberty and freedom has been equally essential. I am sorry that my hon. friend opposite is interrupting me.


Mr. MANION:: I am sorry; I did not intend to interrupt the hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I heard him talking about the Liberal party. He knew something about the Liberal party at one time.


Robert James Manion: There is now no Liberal party in the country I was speaking of, England. the greatest home of liberty in the world.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All political parties have had their ups and downs-


Robert James Manion: Mostly down in England at the present time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -don't be too sure; you will never down the principles that the Liberal party stands for. I might observe to my hon. friend that the people of Canada to-day are thinking not so much about the position of the Liberal party in England as about the position of the Liberal party in Canada in the light of what happened this very week in the county of Oxford.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? What do you think of an hon. gentleman who will refer to his political opponents as his political enemies, as the Minister of Railways did recently?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We shall have to let the Minister of Railways interpret that in his own way. Now what I wish to point out-and I think the interruptions have helped to make it clear-is that there are certain great traditions upon which all government is founded, and if you forsake those traditions it matters not what you do legislatively, you will destroy the edifice of the state itself. There are great traditions of the past which have been the main stay and security of the liberties of the British peoples, and it is as necessary if not more necessary to-day than 74726-149
at any time in the world's history that those traditions should be maintained. Take all the great charters of liberty in British history-[DOT] what are they? They do not purport to express anything new; they express what was asserted by the people at the time those charters were drafted as the rights and privileges which they claimed to enjoy as individuals. What we are fighting for to-day is exactly what, as I said this afternoon, the ibarons at Runnymede were fighting for at the time they exacted the Great Charter from King John. That is something that will be apparent to every schoolboy and schoolgirl who has any knowledge at all of current history, because the first document that boys and girls are taught in school to reverence is the Magna Charta. I suppose the history best known in connection with the study of British liberty is Green's. May I read to this house a page or two from that work with reference to the Magna Charta and what it stands for.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear some hon. members opposite laugh. I doubt whether some of them have heard of the Magna Charta. It is about time at all events they began to learn the most elementary lessons in government. To make clear to them the bearing of the Magna Charta on our present discussion I will quote from Green's Short History of the English People, the chapter entitled Under the Great Charter, 1215-17. Green says:
It is impossible to gaze without reverence on the earliest monument of English freedom which we can see with our own eyes and touch with our own hands, the great charter to which from age to age patriots have looked back as the basis of English liberty.
Please note that. I have under my hand as well a copy of Select Charters Illustrative of English Constitutional History, by Stubbs, a well known authority. This eminent writer, speaking of the great charter of liberty, states:
The whole of the constitutional history of England is a commentary on this charter; the illustration of which must be looked for in the documents that precede and follow.
That well expresses the significance and importance of this charter. Green terms it the basis of English liberty. Green continues:
But in itself the charter was no novelty, nor did it claim to establish any new constitutional principles. The charter of Henry the First formed the basis of the whole, and the additions to it are for the most part formal recognitions of the judicial and administrative changes introduced by Henry the Second. But the vague expressions of the older charter were now exchanged for precise and elaborate provisions. The bonds of unwritten custom which

2348	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
the older grant did little more than recognize had proved too weak to hold the Angevins; and the baronage now threw them aside for the restraints of written law. It is in this way that the great charter marks the transition from the age of traditional rights, preserved in the nation's memory and officially declared by the Primate, to the age of written legislation, of parliaments and statutes, which was. soon to come.
I pointed out this afternoon that the legislation we are discussing is so vague that one does not know what it really means. As I indicated a moment ago we know what the penalties are, but we are not yet aware what the offence is to be to which those penalties are to be attached. That is a reversion to a condition that existed in a period prior to the Magna Charta itself. Green says further:
But all vagueness ceases when the charter passes on to deal with the rights of Englishmen at large, their right to justice, to security of person and property, to good government. "No freeman," ran the memorable article that lies at the base of our whole judicial system, "shall be seized or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way brought to ruin: we will not go against any man nor send against him, save by legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Where is the law of the land to which at the present time those penalties are being attached? I ask that question, and I should like hon. gentlemen opposite to answer it. Nobody yet knows what the offences are to be; they are to be named, but not by parliament. The security to one's person and property is no longer to be in statutes and parliament and the law of the land, instead, citizens of Canada are to be subject to fine and imprisonment for what any board appointed by a minister may declare to be an offence.
The great reforms of the past reigns were now formerly recognized


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, two hours.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Two hours and twenty minutes, to be exact-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Two hours.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will give the right hon. gentleman his wish and say two hours. It has been a lengthy speech at all events.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: And a good one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But I am not complaining of its length. My observation was going to be this:	Listening to the right hon. gentleman I wondered if he was aware that there had been a world crisis during the past two years. Did he recognize at all that there had been a complete dislocation of world trade,

Marketing Act-Mr. Stevens
and that we in this country, in common with all the countries of the world, were confronted with new and baffling problems? What has actually happened in the world-not only in this country but in almost every other? We find that the chief countries at least, Great Britain and those of Europe, and I think we can add nearly every other, have been so disturbed in their internal economy as well as in their trade relations with other countries that there have arisen all over the world new and startling methods of doing business. That is a simple statement of fact, yet the right hon. gentleman throughout the whole of his speech never paid one atom or one moment of attention to it. He gave no consideration to the difficulties with which the primary producer-agriculturists, timber producers, fishermen-have 'been confronted in the last two or three years. No attention was paid to their problems. There was not a syllable in his whole speech devoted to offering a solution or encouragement, or even recognition of the existence of these problems.
What on earth has Green's history or the opinion of the historian Green about Magna Charta got to do with the price of eggs or hogs or butter? If the right hon. gentleman would just watch the financial page of his paper from day to day he would notice that the agricultural population of this country, constituting as it does about half our population, have during the past few years been suffering under a price condition which made the carrying on of their business almost an impossibility. That has been recognized. Just what to do to change that condition is the problem.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so; we recognize
it. Everyone who gives these matters serious thought recognizes it. It is easy to say: Raise prices and fix them. That sounds easy if you do not think about it at all. But when you address yourself to the task of attempting to raise, shall I say, the price of farm products or of other primary products to a level that will enable those who are producing them to live, you are confronted with one of the major economic problems of the time. The countries of Europe have been faced with the same thing to a certain degree, and I shall deal with them a little later. But I ask the right hon. gentleman, with regard to his reading us a lecture as he did for about half an hour on our disregard of the principles of Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, the parliamentary principles enunciated in thi reign of William and Mary, while we all value these old principles, what on earth have they to do with the problems now before parliament? What ought to be engaging the attention of parliament are the things with which we are now confronted, and in the brief time at my disposal I think I shall be able to show that there are some very real problems facing parliament.
While I do not for a moment suggest that this bill is a cure-all for the evils of the present time I do say that the Minister of Agriculture in introducing the bill offered to parliament a proposal worthy of its serious consideration. Not that the bill is perfect; not that its details cannot be improved; not that changes may not be hammered out on the anvil of committee discussions, modifying details here and there to meet the will of parliament. But the purpose, the general scheme, the theme that runs through the whole of this bill, is directed to trying to improve marketing conditions in this country.
I submit, further, that many of the citations of the right hon. gentleman as he proceeded with his discussion of the bill were not fairly made, because he would cite some portion of a clause and indicate that it was a violation of parliamentary rights, and suggest that it referred, for instance, to production when the clause does not refer to production at all but says that the producers of certain goods may get together. What for? For the purpose of the better marketing of their goods. That is the theme of the whole bill-marketing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot let
my hon. friend say that I misrepresented any clause. I simply say this, that Hansard will speak for itself and hon. members will find that every clause there given is correctly cited.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hansard will speak for
itself, but I shall refer in a few minutes to the clauses.
We admit, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is new and unusual in its character. But in this country, as in other countries, people have been struggling along under conditions that have been difficult, and have been clamouring for something out of the ordinary. Peoples all over the world have been very restive with governments because governments have been slow to depart from the beaten track. This bill is a departure; there is no question about that. But it is offered to the house in an effort on the part of the government to cope with unusual and difficult circumstances.
On the second reading of any bill it is supposed that the general principles will be discussed, but I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that nearly every speaker who has preceded me from the other side of the house has
Marketing Act-Mr. Stevens

discussed the details of the bill clause by clause, when there was no opportunity, under our practice, for the minister in charge to correct wrong impressions, to interpret the meaning of a clause, or to receive from the opposition and other members suggestions of improvements in any particular clause. I think the result has been complete confusion in the minds of members of the house as well of the public as to the intent of the bill. I submit it would have been infinitely better * if the details could have been left to be hammered out in the committee of the whole.
May I now turn my attention to the general theme, or, shall I say, the reasons behind the introduction of the bill. I shall be very brief in this portion of my remarks. Due to a fear in the hearts and minds of the people of Europe in particular as well as of other parts of the world there has developed, not during the last three or four years but during the last ten years, a tendency to erect barriers against foreign imports coming into their countries. This is based largely upon the desire of the people to produce enough foodstuffs to make them independent of other countries in case their fears are realized and another war should break out. I am not going into details; it is only necessary to remind the house of that fact in order that hon. members may appreciate the reasons why certain barriers have been erected against trade.
Another reason why the barriers have been erected is this: Countries have become bankrupt, bankrupt because of international debt, bankrupt because of their inability to meet their foreign Obligations. So we find that many countries erected


Edward James Young: High tariffs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is quite right-high tariffs and barriers against the inflow of goods. They desired to create credits abroad or-it is the same thing-to prevent the accumulating of debits abroad.


Mr. HANBURY:: Or the exchange of
goods.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is another reason. Exchange conditions due to fluctuating currency was still another. Some of the countries of Europe adopted the quota system, and this system has become one of the major methods of control of trade throughout the world. Nations imposed a certain restriction on the quantity of goods which might enter from a foreign country. I think I mentioned on a previous occasion that France, one of the most wealthy countries in the world, has some 1,300 items on her tariff under quota. These quotas are put on so that only a certain 
amount of goods may come in from other countries. Trade is allocated and directed and a monopoly created in their desire for the protection of their own trade. Greece does nearly all her foreign business by the quota system. She will allow only a certain quantity of this or that commodity to enter Greece according to the purchases by other countries of goods from her. All of this has changed completely the method of doing business.
The right hon. gentleman speaks of Canadian trade as though we were back in the days before the war or in the period since the war when these new methods were only in the process of development. He speaks as though there were no obstacles, no difficulties, no great changes or no new problems. If that were so there might be some grounds for the complaints the right hon. gentleman has made, but the fact is that there is not a country of major importance in the world that I know of that has not introduced high tariffs, quotas, inhibitions and other means of preventing the movement of trade. This is not because this government or his government which preceded it did anything to provoke such measures; it is because of conditions inherent in the countries themselves, chiefly the conditions which prevail in Europe.
I turn for a moment to some of the other reasons why this bill was necessary. I have mentioned the external causes, but there is an internal cause as well. Let us consider the change which has occurred in Canada during the last fifteen years. For instance, look at the development which has taken place in the creamery industry'. A few years ago there were hundreds-I was going to say thousands -of small creameries throughout the country. I could name half a dozen large creamery concerns which now control not the whole but substantially a large part of the butter moving to the markets of this country. This mass production of butter is internal to Canada. Take the packing industry. Within the last ten years quite a number of the small packing interests have passed out of existence and the control is now vested in two or three firms. This has created a change. Take cereal production: a vast change has occurred in the milling industry. In all of the realms of industry we find great organizations growing up for the handling of agricultural as well as other products. For the moment we are keeping our attention largely on agricultural products. This has brought about a need for a change in the marketing methods of the country. These products are now largely processed in the great centres and are marketed in large quantities, leaving the control not with the producer but with

Marketing Act-Mr. Stevens
the processing element which handles them. The bill now under consideration is designed to give some opportunity to the producers of agricultural and other products to get a fair chance in the markets instead of placing them under the control of the great marketing institutions which have grown up.
Unlike the right hon. gentleman, I am limited in my time, and I shall now turn to the bill itself. The bill has three major divisions. Before I state what those divisions are, let me say first that when the right hon. gentleman was closing his speech he referred to the fact that Canada was not like Great Britain. In that country there is one jurisdiction while in Canada we have a divided jurisdiction, that is, we have federal and provincial bodies. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) said this the other night and he said it in condemnation of the bill. Had he given the matter a little thought he would have seen that the very construction of the bill with which he differs and about which he complains was necessary because of the fact of divided jurisdiction. In the first part of the bill provision is made for the erection of a general board to exercise the powers inherent to it because of federal jurisdiction. That will be a very limited jurisdiction, confined to internal Canadian trade or the handling of goods within Canada. Of course, when it comes to importing or exporting, federal jurisdiction will be supreme. When you come to direct the marketing of farm products within Canada you find yourself confronted with provincial legislation. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni will recall that provincial governments have often found themselves confronted with a limitation of jurisdiction on their part which prevented them from carrying out certain schemes, such as that which the fruit growers of the Okanagan wished to put into operation, or that of the milk producers of the Fraser Valley. I am not saying whether these schemes were good or bad; the point I wish to make in referring to the two instances I have mentioned in my province-others might be mentioned elsewhere-is that an effort was made by the producers to erect an organization which in their opinion would give them a better chance in the marketing of their products in the great consuming markets. They failed because of a conflict of jurisdiction.
In introducing this bill the minister has divided it into certain parts. One part erects a board clothed with federal jurisdiction. Another part provides for the acceptance by the federal board of cooperation by provincial or local bodies. It need not be provincial-wide; it might be local. For instance,
a scheme, as it is termed, might be instituted in the Okanagan valley to deal with fruit. It might be developed, and it could come under the jurisdiction of the federal board, provided of course the provincial authorities gave the necessary sanction to that movement. It was for that reason that several of the provinces, knowing that this bill was coming forward, passed certain legislation, which might be termed enabling legislation to enable the local bodies or groups or the province as a whole to come under the jurisdiction of the federal board, or in other words to cooperate with that board. And so you have these two features.
A third feature in the bill, which might be referred to, and regarding which considerable complaint was indulged in by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon and evening, is the matter of investigation. In referring to this aspect of the measure I shall try not to violate the rules too far in going into detail, but I wish to discuss the question of principle and to reply to the complaint made by my right hon. friend this afternoon. He said that the committee provided for in part II of the bill for investigational purposes was in violation of the rights of parliament-that we were in a sense abrogating the rights and duties of parliament in this respect. I submit however that nothing of the kind can be read into this bill. The federal government having erected an organization that can cooperate with provincial bodies, surely there is no objection to such a body inquiring into spread, inquiring into the question whether or not the producer is getting a fair share of the consumer's dollar, to put it in a popular sense. That is one of the things we are trying to inquire into in the parliamentary committee. We all recognize that a parliamentary committee can never possibly cover the whole ground; we have had abundant illustration of that fact in the appeals that have been made to us to look into this, that and the other. But under federal jurisdiction, if parliament will accord this right and power, these investigations can be carried on. What difference on earth would there be between the work carried on by a body erected without all the formalities of a royal commission and the work carried on by a royal commission set up under the Inquiries Act? This government could to-morrow or at any other time erect a commission under the Inquiries Act to make an investigation into the very matters mentioned here, and it could be done at any time and parliament would not be consulted. Nor would there be any violation of the rights of parliament. All that this does is to recognize that in agricultural and natural products,
Marketing Act-Mr. Stevens

in the basic industries of the country, there is need for a very considerable degree of investigation; and, recognizing that, a committee is erected and made part of the act itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I took no
exception to the investigation phase, but to the committee of investigation creating the offence. No royal commission can create an offence.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is right in part. He says he objects to this committee having the right to create the offence, but I do recall his reading paragraph 15, and he dilated upon the objection to a committee of this kind. He said, "Imagine a committee of this kind!"-and then he read the provision with respect to the difference between the price of which any regulated product is purchased and the sale price thereof.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I objected to the committee creating the offence, but I said I welcomed investigation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Take section 21, to which the right hon. gentleman referred:
Every person who, to the detriment or against the interest of the public, charges, receives or attempts to receive any spread which is excessive or results in undue enhancement of prices or otherwise restrains or injures trade or commerce in the regulated product, shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars or to two years' imprisonment, or, if a corporation, to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars.
My right hon. friend objects to this because, he says, it removes control from parliament. But what does it do? It declares that any large corporation such as I have mentioned, or any body of that kind which indulges in a practice that is against the interests of the public, that is to say, charges, receives or attempts to receive any spread which is excessive, shall be charged with an indictable offence. Now what is an indictable offence? My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) will I think agree with me when I say that the meaning of this is that the person charged shall be charged in the regular courts of the land with the offence in question. He is haled before the county court or the supreme court, charged with an indictable offence, and he has the protection of the courts of this country, as he would under similar circumstances in any other British country.
I appeal to the right hon. gentleman to be at least reasonable and fair in matters of this

kind. He charges us with a violation of the rights of parliament, a usurpation of the liberties of the people, and an abrogation of the right of the people to appeal on this, that and the other. But the fact is that all the rights of the person accused are preserved. All that this does is to declare that in connection with this class of business with which we are trying to deal, where it is found on investigation that certain interests are obstructing the fair marketing of goods by certain practices, then such people shall be guilty of an indictable offence and haled before the courts and dealt with accordingly. Is there anything wrong with that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not touched the point at all. The objection I made was that this committee determines what is an excessive charge, what is the offence. What offence is, is not seh forth at all in any of the provisions of the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It has to be set out, just as any other such matter is, by regulation by the governor in council. The right hon. gentleman this afternoon discussed at considerable length the powers under the act. May I point out to him that there is not a regulatory statute such as the live stock act, or the potato grading act or the grain act, or a dozen, yes, a score of other acts, statutes of the country, passed when the right hon. gentleman was in office and when others also were in power, in which the power of regulation has not been given, and in which the regulations exceed in dimensions the scope of the act itself. And such regulations have never come before parliament at all, though they form part of the law-acts which the right hon. gentleman's government passed- though I am not blaming him for it-and, as I am reminded, the breach of any of the regulations of which acts is punishable under the acts themselves.
I have here the Root Vegetables Act passed by the government of the right hon. gentleman, under my hon. friend the member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) when he was Minister of Agriculture. Let me cite this terrible abrogation of the rights of parliament:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing the quality, form and dimensions of all containers in which potatoes shall be packed-
This sounds alarming; I think we should look into it closely to see whether it is not a violation of Magna Charta. But will the right hon. gentleman listen to this? This

Marketing Act-Mr. Stevens
is what my genial friend the hon. member for Melville put over on him. He could never have noticed this when he was Prime Minister:
-and the materials of which such containers shall be made, and may prescribe penalties not exceeding fifty dollars and in default of payment of any such penalty, imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month, for the violation-
Of what?
[DOT]-of any of the provisions

Of this act? No.
-of any such regulations.
That is, regulations made under the act. If I had time I know I could cite half a dozen statutes in every one of which similar provision occurs. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) advises me that the same provision is in 125 statutes out of some 225. I say to my right hon. friend that there is scarcely a statute having anything to do with regulating business, trade and commerce, internal or external, in which such provisions do not appear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend tell me of one instance where a body not connected with parliament has the right to determine an offence?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the point. It is the governor in council that is provided for all through the measure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am talking of the committee that it is intended to create under the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall come to the committee and the board in a moment. The point is that these statutes, and properly so, cannot be administered by regulations that have their origin in parliament. Take, for instance, the Meat and Canned Foods Act. That is an act which must provide for the size of the container; whether you shall put pectin or apple juice or anything else in strawberries; what is to be the quantity of liquid and the quantity of solid matter in a can of tomatoes or plums or peaches or peas or corn or beans, and so forth. There is a small book of perhaps fifty pages of regulations, not one of which ever came before parliament. Parliament would not be bothered with them, yet they are and have been in force and my right hon. friend and his government enforced them, and properly so, for years. All we are asking is that parliament do the same thing in this instance.
The right hon. gentleman said that this bill was calculated to restrict trade, to restrict production and to create monopolies. Those were his words; I copied them down exactly.
This legislation was brought into this house not to do any of those things, but on the contrary to make possible the movement of goods in Canada in something like an orderly manner and to protect the rights of exporters in the marketing of their goods abroad.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister a question? Just what is the meaning of the title of clause 12, "restriction of imports and exports"?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall explain that; in fact I was about to do so. I was about to say to the right hon. gentleman: What would he or any administration do under these circumstances? I shall not name countries, because I do not want it to go out that I am criticizing what countries in Europe and elsewhere are doing; but a certain European country notifies Canada that it has imposed a quota on, let us say, canned salmon. They say to Canada: Your quota of canned salmon is 150,000 or 750,000 or 500,000 cases, a certain limited quantity. How is the right hon. gentleman going to direct that? It happens that in this instance-and perhaps I was unhappy in my selection of it-that the industry kept within the quota without any difficulty. But suppose we had a huge surplus over and above that quota which had usually gone to that market; who is the one who is to determine whether company A or B or C or D shall have unlimited access and who is to be restricted? That is not a duty that we are choosing to bring on ourselves; it is a duty imposed upon us.
Let us turn, for instance, to something that is known generally-the question of live cattle going to Great Britain. I am not for a moment complaining about the action of Great Britain; that is their own business. But Great Britain has asked that a certain quota of cattle shall be observed. I think we shall probably manage that without any great difficulty, but if the point is reached where we must stop sending cattle over there, let us say for a few weeks, what authority will say which person's or company's cattle shall go forward? Who will determine that? Surely there must be some power or body to do that. I can name a whole lost of items where a similar situation may arise. It does not follow that that ends our market; it does not follow that we cannot ship more abroad, but it does follow that we are bound to respect the laws and wishes of the country in which those regulations are imposed and, moreover, they are and will be imposed whether we disregard them or not, so that in our own interest we must take suitable action so to direct our exports that the quota shall be observed.
235S
Marketing Act-Mr. Stevens

Therefore, in this bill we have, as the right hon. gentleman says, a part which deals with the control of exports and imports. I say to him at once that this may be termed a form of quota, not something that we have adopted in order to impose our system upon somebody else, but something that is practised in every country in Europe, for example, Italy, Spain, France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Poland I think-I am not quite sure of Poland-Greece, even in England, Bulgaria, Austria, Hungary. In all these countries a quota system is in force definitely and absolutely and imposed against the other countries of the world. In the face of this situation, what machinery would my right hon. friend erect if he does not aocept this?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What has been done right along?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall tell him that the task has been a very difficult one. It has been part of my duty as Minister of Trade and Commerce in some instances through officials of my department to get in touch with exporters to ask them to try to adjust their business, and they have done so; but in the last two years these quotas have been extending rapidly, not against Canada only but against all other countries. The time has come when we must have in this dominion some machinery which will enable the government to regulate the movement of those goods if we are to keep faith nationally with other countries and at the same time to do justice to our exporters. If I cannot appeal to my right hon. friend, I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite who are interested in this matter: What other method would they suggest which we could use which would adequately deal with the situation?
The right hon. gentleman says: But oh, this bill will give power to a body-and I remember he said this with a sort of dramatic emphasis-not yet in existence. What is legislation brought before parliament for? It is for the creation of these bodies, and that is precisely what we are trying to do in this case to-night. We are offering to parliament a proposal to create a body to do these things. Of course that body is not yet in existence; it could not be. Why should my right hon. friend, with that facility of language for which he is so noted and that peculiar intonation, suggest to the mind of his hearers the suspicion that something is wrong? Nothing is wrong with the bill; it simply and boldly and clearly sets out what the government asks parliament to set up so that we may carry on the business of the country. Oh, he says, but

parliament will have no more control over the trade of the country; parliament is being asked to abrogate its rights. We are turning it over, he said, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), to a body not yet in existence. We are doing nothing of the kind. The very fact that this bill is before the house is a recognition of the rights of parliament. We come before parliament and tell of the difficulties with which we are confronted; we consult with parliament as to how those difficulties are to be met. In doing that we are bound to come with some definite proposal. Does the right hon. gentleman expect us to come to parliament and say: We are faced with a lot of difficulties and we do not know what to do; will parliament please tell us what to do? If we did that, the right hon. gentleman would very properly say that the government had better vacate office because it has no mind of its own. It is the duty of a government to formulate a scheme which in their judgment and in the light of their experience is one which will meet a given situation, and to present that scheme to parliament. This we have done. I repeat what I said in my opening remarks; I know that the Minister of Agriculture, in charge of this bill, will welcome in the committee all fair criticism and constructive suggestions from hon. gentlemen in any part of the house. I have no doubt that there will be suggestions that will improve the bill; if there are I certainly will join with him and with others in welcoming them.
Then the right hon. gentleman complains that this bill creates a scheme. He does not like the word "scheme," but I think it is the word used in the British act, so it cannot be very far astray. And he says that a group may be set up under the scheme, and he used these words, "all others will be excluded from that group, and some favoured group will have control." Now the right hon. gentleman knows better than that. What is the purpose of this part which provides for the erection of what is termed a scheme? As I said, we cannot exercise powers which are reserved to the provinces, and we recognize that there might be a group in a province or in a section of a province that wished to have a more regular or orderly marketing of their goods. Let me take as an example the apple industry, and in this connection I invite my hon. friend from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) to ponder what he said the other night. I think he made a most excellent speech; with much of what he said I find myself in accord. If I recall his position correctly he did not

Marketing Act-Mr. Stevens
object to any scheme or regulation that would control quality, but he did object to control of quantity. Let me point out a situation that may very well arise. The apple growers of Nova Scotia or Ontario or British Columbia, all more or less independent groups, could form their schemes, could come together under a federal board in order to market their goods in an orderly manner. I invite him to consider carefully what happened last autumn. Nova Scotia had a phenomenally fine apple crop, and other sections also had good or fair crops. All these crops reached proper marketing condition inside of a few months, I think from about the middle of September to the middle of November, and there was a tendency to pour the apples on the British market. Remember that Great Britain also produces very fine apples, particularly in the southern part; and these come on the market at the same time. Then, as I think he or one hon. gentleman opposite mentioned, Australia and New Zealand, whose apples are marketed I think in May, June and July, sent an unusually large quantity to the British market, so that the Australasian apples were still pressing on the British market when the British and Canadian apples came along. It happened that our apples were poured in there in unrestricted quantities with the result that the market was very seriously disturbed and in a measure destroyed. The Minister of Agriculture there was so much perturbed because of the substantial loss threatened to producers that there was a very urgent demand for the imposition of a quota and a restriction of imports. That restriction was not definitely imposed last autumn, but I do say that if such a condition arises again, as it may and probably will, I do not doubt at all that there will be a quota imposed. Would it not be much better if before such a situation arises the Canadian representative could go to the British Minister of Agriculture and discuss the matter with him, estimate the needs of the market, and then that we should allow our fruit to pass on to that market in an orderly way instead of crowding it on without regulation, disregarding the rights of the British producer and the conditions of the market? That is precisely the sort of thing we are trying to provide for in this bill.
My hon. friend was going to ask a question?


Mr. ILSLEY:: I was going to say that the essential objection was to our flooding the market with inferior grades; therefore control of quality would have met the situation
perfectly and would have been all that was needed. I suggested the other night how that could be brought about without the expense of the complicated and cumbrous machinery of this bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I agree with my hon.
friend that a substantial part of the trouble was due to the exportation of inferior grades. There again we see the necessity of this bill. But I do not fully agree that control of quality would be as effective as control of both quality and quantity. I have no hesitation in saying that either you are going to be faced with chaos in a number of branches of agriculture or you must have some machinery that will enable this country to direct its marketing in an orderly way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
began to take exception to a remark I made, and I think the words he took exception to were " all others will be excluded." But he did not go on to speak of that. I believe the minister misunderstood. His inference probably is that I meant all other producers of the same class of goods. I did not mean that. What I meant was, other classes in the community, persons belonging to other trades, callings and professions, and consumers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I appreciate that point,
and the explanation. However, it does not alter this, and we will stick to the case I have given. Is it not desirable that the apple growers of these three provinces should be brought together in some common understanding of this export business? For instance our friends in Nova Scotia, who are only five or six days distant from the British market can pour their apples in while British Columbia and Ontario might be handicapped in that regard. Or British Columbia might have say 10,000 cases going through by way of the Panama canal in cold storage; the market is in danger of being flooded, and someone from eastern Canada pours his apples in and destroys it. No one, I am sure, desires that. Yet that is a condition that is very likely to arise. As a matter of fact the preference that we enjoy on apples, speaking of that particular commodity, will be frustrated and dissipated if we do not take great care in that regard.
I have already dealt with the complaint made by the right hon. gentleman as to creating a crime. I do not wish to detain the house further. There are a number of details that I should like to discuss, but I think it would be very much better if the various clauses of this bill were discussed
Marketing Act-Mr. Stevens

in committee of the whole, so that we may focus our attention upon the clause immediately before the committee and not deal with it in a general way together with other clauses without giving the minister in charge of the bill an opportunity to reply.
I will therefore conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, with the observation that the bill as it is introduced is prompted by one desire only, and that is the desire to assist in directing the marketing of Canadian products in the Canadian and foreign markets. That is the genius of the bill; that is the object and desire of the bill. It may be that in order to achieve that end it will be desirable to, shall I say, have some measure of control over production if, for instance, there is a reckless production in some section of the country to the detriment of others in connection with our export business. Or let us look at it in this way: assuming that cattle are being exported that are not fit for the British market, is it not highly desirable that we should have some body to determine what cattle or what class of cattle should be exported? These are the sort of things and I could name a score of them-that might properly come under the direction of this board.
With regard to the manner in which the board is set up, I think it is set up as other boards have been created. It has been complained very bitterly that the salaries of those who are to constitute the board are not named in the bill. That is a question which might very well come up in committee. My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) complained that the number of members composing the board has not been named, and I might indicate to him why it might be perhaps inadvisable to put that number in the bill. This central board, which we will say might consist of three, might find it desirable to set up committees to deal with apples, tobacco, hog products, milk, dairy products-


Wilfred Hanbury: Lumber.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, my hon. friend can carry it to other natural products such as fish and lumber. Assuming that this was desirable, would it not be much .better if the government had a certain amount of liberty to add extra members to the board if desired? That, I think, is the only reason the matter is left open. This is new legislation. This government will be back here next session; there is no doubt about that, and we will be back here for the next parliament as well. Next session, without doubt, we will be subjected

to close examination as to how this bill has been administered. There is no chance of parliament being deprived of its right to control and direct its affairs, but let me again remind the right hon. gentleman that in questions of trade, in questions that have to do with the processing, the marketing and the controlling of our natural products, in all existing statutes or in any statute that would be workable there must be a certain measure of administrative liberty left to the government or else the thing would be hopeless. Imagine having to come to parliament and ask for a resolution approving of the setting up of this, that or the other body. The right hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Comox-AlSbcmi said the other night and to-day that in the British house they go to parliament and pass a resolution. The British house sits practically the year round. They adjourn for about a month at Christmas, as a rule; during the dog days in August when no one does any business at all they usually adjourn again, and outside of a short adjournment at Easter, the British parliament sits the year round. So they have a different situation; they are a small compact country with one parliament. Here we have the handicap-and I think it is a distinct handicap-of nine parliaments in the country in addition to our own. We have the task of trying to keep ourselves in contact and harmony with these various legislative bodies, at the same time carrying on the administration of the country, with this parliament adjourned for seven months of the year. Obviously it would be impossible to follow the British course and come to parliament in connection with the direction of an act of this kind. It would be absurd and ridiculous for any government to suggest that such a thing should be done.
So, Mr. Speaker, we offer this bill to the house, not as a finished product but as a new piece of legislation designed to meet an unusual condition which has grown up in recent years. We ask parliament to cooperate with us in hammering it into workable and suitable shape so that it may be administered in the interests of the country as a whole.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we were very glad indeed to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), in his fifty-five minute address, endeavour to give some reasons why parliament should accept this bill. His first remark was that conditions in this country were different because we are in the midst of a world crisis. When I heard

Marketing Act-Mr. Duff
him make that statement I was reminded of the words of Robert Burns:
0 wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as ithers see us!
I remember reading in the newspapers the addresses made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other members of the government during the 1930 campaign; the world crisis was never mentioned. It was said to be purely a Canadian crisis; the world had nothing to do with conditions in Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite tried to make the farmers believe they should have seventy cents a pound for butter, for one thing. The minister did not explain whether this bill is going to give the farmer more or less for his butter, but I think I can prove conclusively that whether it is a matter of butter, of wheat, of fish or of anything else, this bill, instead of * increasing prices will lower prices. The strange point about the minister's remarks with regard to the world crisis, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) took twenty-five minutes to tell us that the world crisis had passed. Tonight the Minister of Trade and Commerce tries to tell this parliament that this bill is necessary because there is a world crisis in which Canada is involved.
The minister also said it was necessary to do something for agriculture. Well, it has taken hon. gentlemen opposite a long time to find that out. They have been in power for four years; for four years they have done practically nothing. Now the mountain has laboured and brought forth this mouse sponsored by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). A strange thing happened, however, during the address made by the Minister of Agriculture when introducing this bill. During his whole speech he did not take one minute to tell us what remedies were proposed for agriculture or the other primary industries of this country. He spent a great deal of time telling us about a calf that was taken to the stockyards from somebody's farm and that lost weight during the journey, but he did not say a word as to what this bill would do for the farmer or how it would improve conditions in the farming communities or in any other productive industry. I remember also that in discussing both the resolution and the bill the minister did not want us to ask any questions; in fact he would not answer us when we asked him to tell us what the bill meant. These are the hon. gentlemen who now come here and tell us that this bill is going to deal with and solve all our troubles.
What else did the Minister of Trade and Commerce say about this legislation? He referred to the fact that Greece and other countries have restricted trade by means of quotas. Surely it is bad enough for foreign countries to impose quotas on goods exported from Canada, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce admitted that by this bill the government was not only going to help foreign countries put quotas against our exports but was going to say to these other countries. "We have put extra quotas on ourselves so that our goods cannot be exported to foreign markets."
What else did he say, Mr. Speaker? He said that there was no intention on the part of this government by this bill to abrogate the rights of parliament. I say, Mr. Speaker, and the leader of the opposition has said, that by this bill the rights of parliament are being abrogated. But that is not all. In addition to the rights of parliament being abrogated, the rights of the private citizens of this country, which in my opinion are as important, if not more important than the rights of parliament, are being abrogated by this bill.
In order to make an argument the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to the apple industry, and he wanted us to put a quota upon it. It is quite evident that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not very well informed so far as his department is concerned, because that is the department that has to do with trade and commerce whether internal or external. I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there is great objection to this bill, not only in the province of Nova Scotia where apples are grown and marketed, but also in the great province of Ontario; and I would not be surprised, although I do not know, if there was not the same objection in the province of British Columbia because only the other evening my hon. friend from Yale (Mr. Stirling) in his speech in this house damned the bill with faint praise. He did not come out flatfootedly in favour of it, but in his effort to support the government skated around the bill and said that perhaps it might be advantageous to the apple growers of the Okanagan valley and the rest of British Columbia. I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce or anybody else, who are the better judges as to how and when the apples should be shipped than the men who are growing the apples and the men who pay their good money to buy them from the producers of Nova Scotia, Ontario and British Columbia? Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce
Marketing Act-Mr. Duff

dare to say to me or anyone else in this house that a local board-comprised of whom? Comprised when the Tories are in power, and especially with an election in the offing, of Tories, of course-


Mr. LOUCKS:: Oh no.


William Duff: Yes, and let me go further and say that when the Grits are in power certain interests and certain people will want jobs on that board just the same as when the Tories are in power. Does my hon. friend mean to tell me that the men who have put their money into this industry, the producers who ought to get every dollar they can out of it, are not in a better position to know when to ship their fruit than a local board comprised of heelers of one party or the other?
I go a step further. I say that this bill is not receiving the approbation of the people of this country. Those who have had a chance to study the bill are opposed to it. I say that the business men in this country are opposed to it and the producers who have had a chance to learn what the bill contains are opposed to it. I say further that within the next month when the people who do not know what is in this bill, but who naturally were hoping that there would be something good in it for the producer, when the common people of this country and the producers of agricultural products, of fish and of lumber, come to realize that instead of giving them higher prices this bill is going to drive the agriculturists off the farm, the fishermen off the sea and the lumbermen out of business by the restrictions it imposes, there will be general disapprobation throughout the country.
What does the Conservative press say of this bill? Surely if anybody should favour it we would expect the Conservative newspapers to do so. I have clippings here from four or five Conservative newspapers, but I have time to read only one. It is taken from the Montreal Gazette of March 27. Everybody will admit that the Montreal Gazette, even if it is a Conservative paper, is perhaps the sanest newspaper in Canada. What does it say about this abominable bill?
The provisions of the natural products marketing act open the door to more government interference in business and in a much wider field than any to which such interference has been restricted in the past. The legislation is evidently based upon the assumption that those who are engaged in the production and marketing of fishery, farm and forest products do not know their own business.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that the men who go down to the sea in ships

and the men who work on the farms and in the lumber woods do not know their own business better than any Tom, Dick and Harry who will be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but it is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to or commenting on or denying anything said by a member or exxpressing any opinion reflecting upon proceedings within this house. A bill is now before the house and it is not in order for hon. members to read comments in newspapers reflecting upon it. I must ask the hon. member to obey the rules.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do I
'understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is out of order for an hon. member to quote from a newspaper discussing a bill actually before the house? I understood that rule to mean that you could not quote any extract from the press reflecting upon an actual debate in this house, not upon any bill or measure, surely, that is now before the house for consideration. Otherwise half the debates in this house would be suppressed.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The rule is plain enough and easy enough to understand.


William Duff: I bow to your ruling that the
rule is very plain, Mr. Speaker. There is no question about it at all. If I am not to be allowed to read this article I will say that the Montreal Gazette, a strong Conservative paper, condemns this marketing bill in all its moods and tenses. It is absolutely opposed to the bill, and says that it will never be workable and that it is an interference with business in this country. That is sufficient for my purpose, when a paper like the Montreal Gazette condemns this bill in such a manner.
It is impossible for me in the short time at my disposal to deal with the bill at any great length. Consequently I shall deal only with one effect it will have on one natural product in this country, and I want to preface my remarks by saying this:	in my
opinion, instead of helping that industry this bill is going to drive it to the wall. Due to the policies of this government in the last four years that industry is practically on its last legs now, and it is going to be the last nail in the coffin, in my opinion, when this bill goes into effect. I refer to the great fishing industry in this country. I am going to deal with that industry in two of its phases: first, as to how this bill will affect the fresh fish industry, which is altogether an internal

Marketing Act-Mr. Duff
trade; and second, how it is going to affect the salt fish industry and the prepared fish industry, as far as foreign trade is concerned.
Let us see what will happen. Under this bill we are going to set up in this country different boards. What to do?
-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;
What does that mean as far as the fish industry is concerned? In the first place; how are these boards going to operate in the maritime provinces, on the great lakes and on the Pacific ocean? Anybody who knows anything about the geography of this country and knows anything about its business, and surely the Minister of Trade and Commerce should know something about it if anybody does, knows that in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, all along the Atlantic coast from Grand Manan to Cape North and extending up to Northumberland straits, there must be at least two hundred fishing hamlets each separate from the other. I want to impress that upon the house, that there must be two hundred different fishing hamlets from Grand Manan to Cape North. Will there be a local board set up in each community? If not, what good will a general board be if it is separated a hundred miles from the fishing community? Do you mean to tell me that the fishermen of Necum-Teuch will have to go to Halifax to consult the local board? Do you mean to tell me that the fishermen of Cole Harbour will have to go to Canso or somewhere else to consult the board? Do you mean to tell me that the fishermen of Glace Bay will have to go to North Sydney to consult the board? The thing is ridiculous on its face.
What is going to happen in the marketing of fresh fish? I claim that these boards will be no good and that they will not be able to carry out the functions which they are supposed to carry out as far as the fishing industry is concerned. What about the purchasing and selling of the product of the fresh fish industry? How can this bill help in any degree the producers of the fishing industry? The fishermen go out in the morning at four o'clock and bring in the fish fresh that evening. They must dispose of their fish immediately. We know what government officials or most of them are like; they interfere with every business instead of minding their own. These officials of the board will walk down on the wharf and they will say to the fisher-74726-150
men who have fresh fish in their boats: "You cannot accept that price of two, three or four cents per pound which the buyer is willing to pay you; you must keep your fish until tomorrow, the next day or the next week when it will be rotten so that the board can tell you when you can sell and at what price." That is what this legislation means. Let us assume that there is no interference and the buyer purchases the fish. He gets ready to box them up, he gets ready to ice them. Perhaps during the morning and before the fish were caught he had received telegrams from Montreal, Quebec, Winnipeg and other places offering him a certain price for fish and agreeing to take a certain quantity. This officious local board may be comprised of people who are the enemies of fishermen. They go down to the wharf and they say to the buyer: "You cannot sell your fish; you cannot ship them to Toronto, Montreal, Quebec or anywhere else." The buyer may have to show his telegrams and correspondence and the board may say, "You must hold this fish until to-morrow when the price will be higher. Telegraph your customer that instead of selling them for eight or nine cents delivered, you must have ten cents per pound." In the meantime the ice melts and the fish go bad. While the boards at Canso, Lunenburg, Yarmouth or elsewhere in Nova Scotia may be holding fish in that way, the boards in New Brunswick, whose officials may have more common sense, may permit fish to be sold. The result will be that the fishermen in New Brunswick are able to dispose of their fish while the fishermen in Nova Scotia cannot because of the interference of the board. That is exactly what is going to happen as far as the fresh fish industry is concerned.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: In that event the board would have to compensate the fishermen.


William Duff: Perhaps I had better deal with that right now. What a nice time the fishermen will have in trying to get compensation. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) knows as well as I that the fishermen receive their money as soon as their fish are landed and weighed. My hon. friend knows that the fishermen of Nova Scotia cannot wait a day or a month for a board to report to Ottawa and an investigation to be held. My hon. friend knows how hard it is to get money from this or any other government. They fool and humbug around for months, perhaps for years before they pay their honest debts.

Marketing Act-Mr. Duff

Mr. MacDOfNALD (Cape Breton):	Then
these fishermen will hardly ask for a board.


William Duff: The fishermen do not have
to ask for a board, the minister can appoint one. Some officious Tory in Lunenburg or Canso or somewhere else who wants a job can get in touch with the minister from Nova Scotia. He will go to the Minister of Agriculture and a board will be appointed in spite of the protests of the fishermen that they do not want one. If my hon. friend will read the bill he will not make any such mistake in the future.


Finlay MacDonald: Speak
for your own party, not for ours.


William Duff: My hon. friend cannot get
away from the fact that he said the fishermen would get compensation. It would be impossible for that to be put into effect as the fishermen must have their money immediately. I know the trouble there would be in getting compensation, and my hon. friend knows it just as well as I do.


Finlay MacDonald: The
bill reads:
The board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power 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.


William Duff: If that is true, perhaps the
best thing for the fishermen to do would be to get in cahoots with the board and have it refuse to allow them to sell their fish and they would then obtain a better price for them by obtaining a fuller compensation. Under present conditions the fishermen do not get very much and the money would be coming out of the treasury. That is not the proper way to do business in this country. Why should the fishermen, the farmers or anyone else be compensated from the treasury because they are compelled to withhold their product from the market? That is not right and neither the fishermen nor anyone else wants that kind of legislation. They want to be able to go out and get the best price they can obtain; they do not want to have to appeal to a board and then obtain money from the treasury of this country because that board will not permit them to sell their product.


An hon. MEMBER:: That will make a
lot of work for the lawyers.


William Duff: My hon. friend behind me says that that will make a lot of work for the lawyers. What about the salt fish industry? I am again going to refer to my own province.

My hon. friend knows as well as I that there is a large salt fish business in Nova Scotia. The fishermen catch fish fresh and take them ashore. They sell them to buyers who split and salt them and put them down in puncheons. Provided there is no interference in this bill, the fishermen get their money when they land their fish. There are perhaps hundreds of people in Nova Scotia engaged in buying fresh fish from the fishermen and salting them and putting them in puncheons. For the sake of argument let us assume that there is no interference by the board as far as the purchasing of fish is concerned. The buyer buys the fish, salts them and puts them away in puncheons. He leaves them for two or three months. Perhaps he has used up all his owrn money and he goes to the bank and borrows money on the fish he is getting ready for shipment later on. He may receive an offer from Gloucester or Boston for this salt, pickled fish but the board steps in and says: "No, you cannot sell this fish in Boston or Gloucester at that price; you must wait for a higher price." Perhaps this man may be kept from shipping his fish for two or three months. In the meantime the market has gone down. Why? Because the Gloucester and Boston fish men, finding they cannot get salt fish in Nova Scotia, go to Newfoundland, to Norway if necessary, or perhaps to New Brunswick, where the board may have more common sense than the one in Nova Scotia. They obtain their supplies from those places. The result is that in three or four months' time, when the embargo is lifted and the local board allows the dealer to ship the fish to Boston, he has to take a cent or two cents less per pound. My hon. friend says that he is compensated; but, I ask, why should there be any necessity for compensation? Is it due to the stupidity of the officials appointed by the government? Is that the reason why the compensation clause appears here? Why does not this government allow trade to flow naturally? Why should the government say to any man, "You shall not ship your salt fish to Boston or to Gloucester even if you wish to "? That is the man's own business and the business of the bank that advances him the money.
This bill is not fair to anyone, whether it be the man who catches the fish, the man who handles it or the man who sells it. And what about our foreign trade? In the mari-times there is what is known as the salt fish industry. There is pickled fish, herring and mackerel, and my hon. friend from Cape Breton South knows that in the island of Cape Breton the fishermen catch tens of thousands of barrels of mackerel and herring.

Marketing Act-Mr. Duff
They go to the small business men in the community in the spring and obtain supplies -barrels, salt and nets with which to catch the fish. They go out and catch the fish and bring them in and split them or gib them, then they salt them and put them into barrels. Well, what will happen now? After the fish are ready for market this local board comes along and says to the fisherman, "You cannot sell your fish to the storekeeper in Louis-burg; you cannot even send them to Halifax until we give you permission to dispose of them." What happens? In other parts of Nova Scotia there may be thousands of barrels of mackerel awaiting shipment and the local boards in these other places may allow the fishermen to ship their product to Halifax or to other purchasers of mackerel and herring in the province, and in the meantime the Cape Breton fishermen are left with their fish on their hands. By and by the market goes down and when the purchaser in the West Indies has all his bookings made for five or six months-because that is what they do- and all his arrangements to buy mackerel and herring have been completed so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, when he cannot get the commodity in that province he will go to Newfoundland and the fishermen in Cape Breton will be left with the herring and mackerel on their hands because the board would not allow the fish to be shipped out.
And who is to determine the loss? The local board, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance, who represents Richmond and West Cape Breton, where thousands of barrels of mackerel are caught every year? Who is to interfere, who is to fix the price, who is to use influence with the government to get the money paid as my hon. friend says the act provides? Who ever heard of business being carried on in this way?
Let me discuss something else in connection with salt fish. In addition to mackerel and herring, as my hon. friend knows, from Cape North to Grand Manan there are thousands of quintals of dried fish, cod, hake and pollock. This fish is caught and dried every year. Now, there is in the bill a section that provides that if the fisherman does not obey the mandate of the local board, if he does not take out a licence or do a hundred and one other things he shall be liable to fine and imprisonment. But what does the poor devil at Neil's harbour know about this legislation? He catches the fish and takes it ashore; he dries the fish and takes it to Halifax. When he gets to Halifax another officious local board appears on the wharf and says to him, "How much can you get for 74726-150J
that codfish?" He and the other fishermen with him say, "We have had four or five offers at such and such a price," but the board says, "You cannot sell the fish at that price; you have to get more money for it. You must wait for more money." The result is that the fishermen have to lie around Halifax until the board is ready to lift the embargo; otherwise they will be obliged to take the dried codfish back to Neil's harbour or to Ingonish as the case may be. If that happens, then next winter my good friend who represents the constituency in which these places are situated will come to Ottawa and inform the Minister of Agriculture that the fishermen have sustained a loss as a result of the order made by the local board, and the hon. gentleman will endeavour to get money for them-and none will work harder than my hon. friend from Cape Breton North-Victoria. But he will not succeed, and the result will be that the fishermen of Neil's harbour will have their catch left on their hands or will have to sell at a reduced price, because that is precisely what the effect of this legislation will be.
But supposing, after some delay, the fishermen are allowed to sell their fish to the exporter; what happens under this law? Let us see what it says, so that my hon. friend will realize that I am simply stating the facts. The board shall have power:
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 . . . to compensate any person in respect of any shipment made pursuant to any determination or order of the board to a country whose currency is depreciated. . . .
Let me deal for a moment with that last provision. Why should the treasury of this country compensate me if I choose to sell fish in a certain market where the currency is depreciated? I will give an example. Two years ago, owing to certain conditions, the Canadian dollar was worth only 76 cents or, to put it another way, the American dollar was worth $4.24, while the English pound in Trinidad was worth only $3.80 instead of $4.86. Now, I was shipping fish to Puerto Rico and I sold my bills of exchange at a premium of 22 or 23 per cent, whereas in Trinidad I had to take $3.80 for the pound sterling. Surely it is a matter of trading. Why should this government insert in this bill a provision to the effect that if anyone sells in a country whose currency is depreciated the treasury of this dominion should compensate the shipper?
Marketing Act-Mr. Duff

Let us suppose that English currency were depreciated after the passage of this measure, as it was a year ago. It is true that goods shipped from Canada to Great Britain were paid for on the basis of 83.80 or $4.40, or whatever it was. But had it not been for the interference of this government, had they allowed the goods which the people of Canada bought in exchange for the goods they shipped to come in freely, it might have been as broad as it was long and no one would have suffered. But the trouble was that the Minister of National Revenue imposed a dumping duty to the extent of the difference in value between the pound sterling and a certain fixed amount.
As an exporter, I submit that this currency situation is all wrong, and the government has no right to compensate me if I sell in a foreign market in which the currency is depreciated. The Canadian product enters into competition with fish from other countries. Fish from Cape Breton and from my own constituency of Guvsborough, from Halifax county, from Lunenburg and Grand Manan, goes on the foreign market in competition with fish from Newfoundland, Norway and even Great Britain and the United States. It is a well known fact that large stocks of fish are put into storage in the fall of the year from October to December, and those stocks have to do until June of the following year. The exporter or the fish merchant buys those fish from the fishermen and he pays the fishermen the current value for them. If he has not sufficient money of his own, he goes to the bank and borrows it under section 88 of the Bank Act. The result is that in many cases large sums of money are loaned to the different exporters of fish in Nova Scotia. Those men fill their storage plants with fish; they pay the labour for putting them in; they pay fire insurance on the fish and they pay interest every month on the money borrowed. But when they want to sell some fish, when they want to dispose of the article, when they desire to pay the bank part or all of the money they have borrowed from it, this legislation steps in and some local board says: Oh, no, you cannot sell your fish in a foreign market unless you get a certain price for it. They compel the exporters in the first place-and I object to this-to expose to this board, which is not and will not be responsible to parliament, their private business. The result is that if this board so desire they can tell their friend who is in the same business as I am, what price I have been offered for my fish. They say: We will not let you sell your fish, and I lose the order. As I said a moment ago, the buyer in the
[Mr. Duff.l
West Indies-Jamaica, Haiti, Puerto Rico or elsewhere-if he cannot get the fish from Nova Scotia will go to Newfoundland or Norway for it.
Suppose the local board in Lunenburg will not allow me or another exporter to sell our fish. Perhaps the Halifax local board has more sense and will allow the exporters there to sell, and they will sell their fish and clear up their bank loans. The result is that I have a large stock of fish left on my hands in the spring. In view of those facts will the people of Nova Scotia, who risk large sums of money, be able to carry on business after this legislation comes into effect? No. What is perhaps worse is this: is there any bank in this country which will lend a man $50,000 or $100,000 to buy wheat, fish or anything else when it knows that under this legislation some local body may interfere and he cannot sell the goods on which the bank might have loaned the money? When this measure goes into force the banks will not allow people to do business in the way they have done it in the past and the banks will be fully justified in their attitude. My hon. friend says: All the man has to do is to say to the bank: Never mind, the government will recompense you for your loan if the merchant has to dispose of his stock at half price in the spring. If the fish turn red or dun and the merchant has to dump them on a foreign market, the hon. member for South Cape Breton says that the merchant can come to the government and get the difference. Who will decide what that difference is? I say that the thing is fundamentally wrong, and the Minister of Agriculture knows it is wrong because he is calling his friends together to-morrow morning at ten o'clock to decide whether they will withdraw the bill or what they will do with it.


Finlay MacDonald: How
does the hon. gentleman know?


William Duff: I do know and my hon. friend should know, because he should be anxious to protect the interests of the people of Nova Scotia.
In my opening remarks I said that this bill would not benefit the producers of wheat, fish, lumber or anything else. In Nova Scotia at the present time we have voluntary cooperative societies which are composed of men in either the different farming or the different fishing sections. Those men in their organizations do good work; they get together, discuss their problems and decide what they shall do in their own best interests. But if this measure goes through, what happens?

Marketing Act-Mr. Duff
Every one of those voluntary cooperative societies goes out of business. Under this bill there is not cooperation, but a compulsory setting up of a local board of, say three men, not of fifty or sixty or seventy, as in the case of the cooperative societies, who to-day, all have a say. This measure compels the fishermen or the farmers to get together and so long as they have a majority of their number, the government will create a local board. Under this bill, if somebody has sufficient influence with the government, it is not necessary for the fishermen even to ask for this board to be appointed. So far as I am concerned, I have always been in favour of cooperative methods. In fact, in the town in which I live we had the first cooperative organization in the fishing industry or any other industry in the dominion. Sixty years ago this cooperative method was adopted so far as the fishermen in the county of Lunenburg are concerned. I have been in favour of that because I have been interested in the cooperative movement in that county for the last thirty years. But I say that this legislation is not cooperation at all; it is pure compulsion. Not only am I opposed to compulsion, but I say also that this compulsory method of appointing a board-and I repeat this-is not going to help the fishermen. In the final analysis the fishermen will suffer most.
The bill says that if a number of fishermen get together and a majority so decide, they can get a board. What about the minority? Let us say, for instance, in one of the villages on the Nova Scotia coast there are one hundred fishermen, and sixty of them sign a petition to the minister asking that a board be appointed. Because there is a majority the minister grants their request and appoints three local men to act on the board. The minute this board is appointed, what happens? They can regulate the time and the place of marketing and determine the manner of distribution and the quantity and quality of the regulated product. They can also prohibit marketing by any person at any time. Is that fair? Is that British? If sixty men get together and say: We want to hold on to our fish; we do not want to sell them, is it fair that if the other forty men want to sell theirs, they cannot do so, or even if one man out of the hundred wants to sell his, he is not allowed? He caught his fish; he and his two little boys went out at four o'clock in the morning in the fog and rain and storm and brought those fish to land. Yet because of this legislation, perhaps because some of his neighbours do not like him, they will prevent him from selling his fish. I believe that in
certain matters, for instance, in church and state, the majority should rule, and the hon member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) will remember the vicious legislation passed by this parliament in 1924. We know what happened in that case. Not only did the minority have nothing to say, but they were blanketed in an organization under the bill. That is what will happen in this instance; the minority will have no rights. They will be told under this bill that they must sell their fish or wheat or whatever it may be because somebody else says so. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask you to allow me to speak for a few more minutes, not very long.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With the leave of the house.


William Duff: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) spoke for more than forty minutes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: He was not limited as to time.


William Duff: Oh, yes he was.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: He was not limited as
to time under the standing order.


William Duff: I beg to differ.


Edward James Young: Go ahead, with unanimous consent.


William Duff: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have protests from a number of people. This act interferes with the freedom of trade. The trouble in this country in my opinion is that we have too much paternalism, too many restrictions, too many regulations, too many people looking after other people's business instead of letting them look after their own. Someone has written some verses which will do to wind up with, in view of the fact that I have not time to present further arguments in this important matter:
Paternalism, or Liberty in Extremis
There were just ten commandments to govern us all
In the spring of our race, but now, in the fall, Their number is legion, we know not the half, To suppose we can keep all is surely 'to laugh.'
You mustn't buy tickets in lotteries bad,
You mustn't drink booze, or else you'll be had, You mustn't plant wheat in excess of the scheme, You mustn't pay interest too high, it would seem.
There's a quota for this, an embargo for that, You have to pay duty on sox and on hat,
We're hedged and protected, no free will is left, Of even the free use of air we're bereft.
If they legislate further all liberty's dead, Paternal direction with only one head.
An order in council, as sure as your life,
You'll need to permit you to kiss your dear wife.
Marketing Act-Mr. Gardiner


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take much of the time of the house in discussing the measure now before us. I recognize that this bill contains very large powers. I recognize also that in order that a national board may be effective in carrying out the desired1 purposes it may be necessary for it to have very extensive powers. What I wish to say more particularly is that so far as the appointment of a national marketing board is concerned I am absolutely in sympathy with that proposal. As to the details of the bill, they can be left to the committee stage, when they can be properly discussed and amended where thought desirable by the house.
Unfortunately neither in his address in introducing the measure on first reading nor in moving the second reading did the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) take the opportunity to explain what in his judgment would be the scope or powers conferred upon this proposed marketing board. He did, however, speak of certain economic factors that must be dealt with and dealt with as soon as possible. Harking back to the ideas of twenty-five or thirty-five years ago is useless, for economic conditions have changed drastically since that time and we have facing us to-day a state of affairs such as the world has never known before; therefore extraordinary means must be taken now which would not have been taken then. So far, then, as the principle of the bill is concerned, namely the creation of a national marketing board to deal with the marketing of primary products, I am absolutely in sympathy with it, but I reserve my judgment as to the specific proposals embodied in the bill.
The hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Duff) dealt more or less exclusively with fish, something about which he knows. For the few minutes that I desire to take the time of the house I wish to deal with the industry of which I know something, in which I have been engaged in western Canada for thirty-two years, namely the agricultural industry. I think we all recognize that very few items of agricultural produce are selling to-day at prices which return to the producer the cost of production. I maintain that that condition cannot continue much longer, or the effect upon Canada as a whole will be very grave indeed. I am therefore willing to experiment to see if it is possible to assure to the primary producers at least the cost of production of commodities which this country requires and finds necessary to export in. order to pay for what is bought. If we go over the index figures for agricultural products, more particu-

larly up to about two months ago, we find that the prices, in other words the return that the producer receives for his labour, have been reduced to a greater extent than have the price levels of manufactured goods and other services. We are faced with this condition, that the majority of manufacturing processes to-day are controlled by great monopolies which can restrict at will the amount they produce, and to a very large extent tend to maintain their price levels. But each of the hundreds of thousands of producers of agricultural products in Canada is in competition with every other producer of like commodities when he comes to sell the product of his labour. The consequence is that so far as exchange values are concerned, the primary producer to-day is not getting a fair exchange. I am sure if this or any government can bring before this house a measure which will produce a greater parity of exchange values as between the different classes of commodities which the Canadian people must have in order to live, that will be all to the good not only of the primary producer but even of the manufacturing interests in this country.
The minister in moving the second reading of the bill told the house that he had received many communications from cooperative selling organizations. I think he referred more particularly to farmer organizations. He intimated that they were desirous of securing legislation of this character. I have not had the opportunity of securing much information as to whether the farmers of western Canada are satisfied with the proposals contained in this measure. I was very sorry, therefore, to hear that instead of sending this bill to the agriculture committee, where those who are most interested could come and give testimony as to whether the powers are sufficient or in their judgment too great or whether the general trend is satisfactory to their purposes, the minister proposes to submit this bill to a committee of the whole house. May I suggest to the minister that in my judgment, in order to satisfy public opinion and satisfy the producers themselves, it would have been far better to send it to the agriculture committee in order to give those directly interested, the actual producers of the commodities which will be to a large extent controlled by the proposed legislation, the opportunity of appearing and presenting their point of view. I suggest that that is absolutely essential. That is why I am not at the present time taking the opportunity to discuss the bill clause by clause and give my opinions

C.N.R.-Washout at Matapedia
on the various sections. But after all is said and done, sir, the most important thing in connection with any piece of legislation of this kind is its administration. It all depends on the administration of the legislation whether it will be successful and whether it will satisfy those whom it is intended to benefit. You might have the best piece of legislation the mind of man could conceive, but with poor administration the benefits would be absolutely lost. On the other hand you might have a piece of legislation considered poor, but with good administration it might be quite beneficial and effective. I would stress very strongly indeed that, in whatever form this measure passes the house, the government have a great responsibility in seeing to it that the administration is the best this country can secure, because unless there is proper administration I am satisfied that it will be a failure and will be detrimental to the best interests of the producer.
Let me repeat, sir, that with the principle of the national marketing of the primary products of this country I am in hearty sympathy. With regard to the provisions of the bill I want to hear a further explanation by the minister as to just how he proposes or expects to put it into effect, and until that explanation is given I am neither supporting nor criticizing this legislation. And may I suggest further that I trust the Minister of Agriculture will see his way clear to send the bill to the agriculture committee, which in my judgment would be much more satisfactory to the producer than to have the bill considered by the committee of the whole.
On motion of Mr. Young the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, April 20, 1934