BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury).

[Stage Direction]
On the order of motions:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: On the 14th instant the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) inquired whether certain paintings had been purchased by the National Gallery of Canada, and the answer given by my colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), was in the negative.
This inquiry having been brought to my notice, I wish to inform the house that privy council order 1540, dated July 6,	1932,
authorized the purchase by the public archives of Canada of two historical portraits of very special interest; the portrait of Lord Durham, painted by Thomas Lawrence, and the portrait of General James Wolfe, painted by Highmore.
I desire, for the information of the house, to lay on the table a copy of the order in council authorizing this purchase and a memorandum by Doctor Doughty, the dominion archivist, with respect to the same.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 83, to amend the criminal code (lotteries).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Mr. Speaker, this bill has for its object the amendment of section 236 of the criminal code by adding a paragraph to the list of exemptions declaring that it is not a criminal offence under the statute to conduct lotteries when they are organized by the
Questions

government of a province of Canada for educational or public charitable purposes, under the laws of the legislature of such province.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Prime Minister or any member of the administration received a resolution adopted by the county council of the county of Bonaventure asking that representatives of the dominion government and provincial government of Quebec arrange for a conference with the public representatives of the county during the coming summer, to discuss matters of vital interest to all for the improvement of general conditions of the Gaspe peninsula, such as fishing, lumbering, agriculture, cheaper transportation, better market facilities for our natural products, technical schools, back to the land movement and industry generally?
2.	If so, what answer has been given to this resolution?


Mr. BENNETT:: I observe that the hon. member for Bonaventure is not in his place, Mr. Speaker, but I may say that these resolutions were received, as were stated by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) a few days go. Their receipt was acknowledged, but obviously no statement can be made with respect to a projected conference that would Involve the consent of the provincial authorities first being obtained, and this is not an appropriate time to endeavour to arrange any such conference, as perhaps the hon. gentleman will understand.


LA MALBAIE, QUE.-CARRRIAGE OF MAH.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the contract for carrying the mail from La Malbaie to Grand Ponds, in the county of Charlevoix, expired?
2.	Have tenders been called for with respect to the renewal of such contract?
3.	If not, why?
4.	Has the contract been awarded to any person ?
5.	If so, what is the name of the new contractor?	...	-
6.	What are the terms and stipulations of such contract?
7.	By whom was the new contractor recommended?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Contract expires on 30th June, 1934.
2.	No.
3.	Not necessary to invite tenders where the expenditure involved does not exceed $200 per annum.
[Mr. Casgrain.l
4.	Yes.
5.	Johnny Harvey, Jr.
6.	Department has authorized a new four years' contract at $200 per annum.
7.	Hector Warren.


LES EBOUI.EMENTS, QUE., DISMISSAL OF LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the Department of Marine aware that
Mr. Charles Tremblay (Georges), lighthouse keeper at the wharf of Les Eboulements, in the county of Charlevoix, has been dismissed by telegram?	.
2.	Were any complaints lodged against Mr. Charles Tremblay (Georges) ?
3.	If so, what was the nature of such complaints?	.
4.	Who lodged such complaints?
5.	Who recommended Mr. Hector Tremblay to replace Mr. Charles Tremblay (Georges) ?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: This question was answered yesterday.


CASE OF FRANK GRIGWARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, some time ago a question was asked in this house with regard to the proceedings taken by the government of the United States to extradite Frank Grigware, otherwise known as Frank Lawrence Fahey, who was residing in Jasper, Alberta. The community in which he lived, the board of trade and many private individuals made representations to the government as to his excellent citizenship and the long time that he had lived in .that locality with credit and distinction to himself and to the community. These representations were conveyed to the offices of the Prime Minister and forwarded to the minister at Washington, who in turn transmitted them to the Secretary of State of the United States. I am just advised by the legation at Washington that the attorney general of the United States has discontinued extradition proceedings against Grigware. As to what further action may be taken to meet the request that he should receive a free pardon, in the light of the evidence that has been made available, has not been settled, but I desire to make this public statement expressing the appreciation of the Canadian government, and I am sure of this house and the Canadian people, for the generous attitude that has been taken in connection with the proceedings against Mr. Grigware.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: All parties in the house will appreciate what my right hon. friend has just said.

Sugar Tax


TORONTO CENTENNIAL
[Stage Direction]
VISIT OF FLIGHT OF ROYAL AIR FORCE On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to bring to the attention of the house a matter that was discussed shortly on March 16, 1934. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) intimated that the city of Toronto had suggested that it would be appropriate to secure, if possible, the presence of a representative flight of the Royal Air Force at the celebrations which have been planned by the city of Toronto to mark the one hundredth anniversary of its incorporation. The invitation was extended by the mayor of Toronto and transmitted, through our high commissioner in London, to His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, inviting a detachment of the Royal Air Force to attend the celebrations on July 2, 3 and 4 next.
I have pleasure in informing the house that the Royal Air Force have accepted the invitation and are sending a flight of "Fury" aircraft from No. 1 squadron, consisting of five aircraft, four officers and twelve airmen, arriving about June 20. The Department of National Defence has made arrangements to cooperate in every way possible with a view to ensuring the success of the visit.
REORGANIZATION OF MILITIA On the orders of the day:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This question does not arise directly out of the remarks of my right hon. friend, but it may be remotely related thereto. An item appearing in the Montreal Star of May 16 stated that changes are being planned in Canada's system, that there is to be a complete reorganization, that the changes contemplated are to be based on the most modern British model, to fit into a large scheme of imperial defence, and that Canadian control everywhere will be the keynote. May I ask the Minister of National Defence if anything of the kind is taking place at the present time, or is contemplated?


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, that
announcement might be called premature. Officers of the department are constantly seeking some way to benefit the organization, and to put it on what they consider a better basis, if possible. They are working along those lines, but nothing will be done immediately. They are constantly trying to better conditions, and this is along that general line.


SUGAR TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), who is the acting Minister of Finance, to an article which appeared in this morning's Montreal Gazette concerning the sugar tax. It reads as follows:
Information reaching the Montreal board of trade yesterday from sources closely linked' to the wholesale grocery trade was to the effect that in the coming fall the excise tax on sugar will be cut altogether by the federal government.
May I ask the Prime Minister if there is anything behind that statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The article to which the hon.
member has referred affords me an opportunity to make some observations which I think every hon. member will agree should be made. The press of the country carries on an agitation based upon some suggestion made by someone interested in a given course of events. The result is that petitions are circulated, in many instances, which are signed and presented to governments, and then it is said that something is to be done at a given time-that the excise tax on cigarettes is to be removed, that the sugar tax is to be lessened. All this is circulated throughout the country to the detriment of the government of the country and to the administration not of this government but the administration of the affairs and business of the country.
I can only say that that story is as devoid of any foundation in fact as any story I know of could be. Yet the effect of it will be that the next thing we will hear will be that "As the tax is to come back on a given day we trust you will make provision for those who have stores on hand;" and it will continue to go on in that way for weeks. In some countries this practice has become so intolerable that they have passed legislation making it an offence to circulate false news of that kind, for reasons which I think commend themselves to every hon. member in this house. The result has been that there has been a curtailment of the circulation of this type of news. It is not news; it is rumour. And it makes no difference how many times you contradict it, you can never overtake it. There will be people in remote parts of the country who will hear about or read these articles, and they will believe that something is contemplated. Then, if some
Coal Investigation

action is taken in six months or, say, next year in the budget, it will be alleged that someone had advance information in respect to it.
I can only protest, not in the name of a government, or this government, but in the name of all governments in Canada, whose task is always great, against the circulation of rumours in the public press-and especially in view of the fact that the carriage of papers through the mails of this country represents a loss to the taxpayers of Canada of, it is estimated, not less than $6,000,000 per year.
Under the circumstances I think I am not going too far when I suggest that at least those who administer the affairs of the country, whether they be a Liberal government, a Conservative government, or any other form of government, are entitled to that consideration from the public press with respect to the conduct of public business which will not allow rumours, such as that to which the hon. member has just referred, to be circulated throughout the country in reputable journals, and believed to be true.
PORT OF NATASHQUAN On the orders of the day:
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire of the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) whether he could dispatch an icebreaker to Natashquan so as to clear the port of ice. I received, this morning, a telegram from the mayor, Mr. Ernest Vigneault informing me that the port is blocked with ice, that vessels cannot enter and that the citizens of Natashquan and surroundings are short of food and provisions are very low. According to this telegram, which I shall dispense from reading in full, it is a most urgent case, and a vessel must reach the port within a few days.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall immediately make inquiries, and if it be possible, an icebreaker will be dispatched to that port without delay.
JACQUES CARTIER CELEBRATION On the orders of the day:


Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of National Defence would be kind enough to inform me if his department has received from the officer commanding and the officers of the 189th regiment of Rimouski, which for the greater part was recruited in the Gaspe peninsula, a request to be mobilized during the Gaspe celebration.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, the department has been approached regarding that matter, and the officer commanding in the Quebec district is acting on the committee to arrange these affairs. No definite arrangement has yet been made along those lines.
COAL INVESTIGATION On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the current number of a certain weekly paper there have been published what purport to be extracts from the McGregor report in connection with the alleged coal combine. I understand that a certain number of copies of that report were printed in the province of Quebec, but they are not generally available to the public. In view of this publication I would ask whether the government would not deem it advisable to have the report of the coal inquiry placed upon the table?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member sent me a notice that he would ask this question to-day. The extract to which he referred was taken from a journal which I do not think the hon. member named; therefore I do not deem it necessary to do so. But it is another case in which an endeavour is being made to create a false impression with respect to a matter which is in the courts of the country. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) transmitted the report of Mr. McGregor to the attorney general at Quebec. The attorney general took proper proceedings; a trial was had, a conviction made, an appeal has been taken and the matter is now under advisement by the court of appeal of the province of Quebec. No public purpose could be served by doing here what the statute does not contemplate should be done, when proceedings have been taken by the attorney general on the report made by Mr. McGregor to the minister, and the government has no intention of so doing.


RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Railways and Canals in a position to tell the house when the special committee on railways and steamship lines will be called?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be called early next week to organize, and then the committee itself will decide when further meetings shall take place.

Marketing Act-Mr. Neill


FREIGHT RATES ON LUMBER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) if he will lay on the table of the house a copy of a ruling recently issued by the board of railway commissioners and, I think, coming into force to-day or to-morrow, whereby the freight rate on lumber from the Pacific coast into the Montreal market has been reduced by something between $5 and $10 a thousand to the shipper, seriously affecting the spruce lumber market of the province of Quebec and other eastern provinces?


Robert James Manion: I have never heard of the ruling until this minute.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not either.


Robert James Manion: I shall make inquiries at
once and endeavour to get the ruling and lay it on the table as the hon. member requests.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith-Mr. Weir (Melfort)-Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-short title.
Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture if he now has available the information that I have been seeking from him for some time? Yesterday he was kind enough to give me a ray of hope when he said that he hoped to have the information in the very near future. What I want is information with regard to the decrease in the home consumption of several farm products which have been mentioned several times in Hansard. I hope the minister will be kind enough to tell me, first, if we still have a local market for these commodities; secondly, the reason for the decrease in the home consumption of such products; and thirdly, the remedy, if any, which has been applied by the government to prevent that decrease which has been taking place since 1930.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: I regret that the
information asked for has not yet been completed. I am sure the hon. member will
realize when the answer is brought down that there was perhaps more work entailed in getting the information than he had in mind when he asked for it, but I hope it will 'be in shape to be brought down at the beginning of next week, if not to-morrow.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman, and if I can be of any assistance to the officers of his department in cooperating with them I shall be very glad to do so.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
comment-I was going to say on one of the proposed amendments, but it is rather an omitted amendment, if I might call it that. I congratulate the minister upon having had the amendments printed. I am sure that it will facilitate the passage of the bill. I assume, however, that the amendments printed are all that he proposes to introduce, and that no others will be permitted or encouraged.
I venture to point out one feature which I do not think has been touched on at all in this house up to date, and in which this bill is wholly lacking as compared with the British act, and that is in a provision as regards contracts. The minister is well aware that in big business arrangements we do not do business like selling peanuts over the counter. Arrangements have to be made months, and sometimes years, ahead. Contracts have to be entered into. It is quite a common thing especially in seasonal industries for the whole output to be contracted for before the season begins. In some cases the banks hesitate to finance the industry unless that arrangement is made. I would like to ask what effect the minister thinks this bill will have on industry as a whole if it is found that under it, it is almost impossible to contract ahead.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) a day or two ago instanced the case of a business man doing business in Brazil and wanting to make a contract. There are other cases of the same kind. For instance, a man comes along and wants to buy the whole output of a pilchard plant on the west coast of Vancouver island. Is that producer to say to his prospective customer, " I am very sorry. I would like to sell, but I cannot do it. I can tell you next October whether I shall be allowed to do so or not." The minister may have some answer to that, and I shall be glad to hear it when he speaks
I want to give an illustration of what the British government thought essential to take care of such conditions. I refer hon. gentlemen to page 262 of the Agricultural
Marketing Act-Mr. Neill

Marketing Act of 1931, section 8, which covers two pages and a little more, and contains provisions to take care of conditions of that kind. I need not read it all. Suffice it to say that any contract entered into before the going into force of that act, or any contract entered into afterwards, provided it was not done with the deliberate intention of evading the act, is entirely taken care of. I refer the minister to the section I have quoted. In one instance it says that no person shall be liable to any penalty for contravention of any scheme in force under the act if he proves that the contravention was necessary for the performance of a contract and providing it was not done in evasion of the act. I do think that there should be some provision, and a very definite provision for that situation here because, I repeat, you cannot do business from hand to mouth. You must look ahead. Take the case of a contract for flour for shipment to the orient. Has the shipper to be put in the position where he can only say, "I do not know. I would like to do it but I have to get the consent of the board"-not of an unknown board, but of a board that we do not know the composition of, or how it will be composed, or its numbers, and we know very little about its ideas. Perhaps that vagueness is necessary on account of the dual jurisdiction, but nevertheless it makes it all the more necessary that some provision of the kind I suggest should be provided.
While I am on my feet I would like to allude to the remarks which the minister made yesterday with regard to the protection of the consumer. He said that there were three safeguards, first, that the scheme had to be approved by the minister and by the governor in council; but the minister and the governor in council are practically the same because what the minister recommends to his colleagues more or less automatically goes through except in very exceptional circumstances. So that brings it down-I do not wish to be unfair and say to the whim or caprice of the minister, but to the determination of a single minister, and that is not a sufficient safeguard to the consumer. It is not sufficient to have it left to one man whose judgment perhaps is based on insufficient information as to what is necessary to protect the consumer in that particular industry, or phase of industry, of which the minister may have absolutely no personal knowledge. If the minister has beliefs and opinions on that matter, why not put some provision in the bill for the protection of the consumer?

The second safeguard which the minister claimed existed was that there was no pricefixing but a regulating of the rate at which the stuff goes on to the market. I think the two are synonymous. If not, what is the purpose of the bill? Is not the bill to help the producers get a better price? I think the hon. member for Ontario yesterday exploded that theory by showing that, if you do such and so, the price will regulate itself. If people are prevented from selling, the result must be to stimulate the price directly or indirectly.
The third safeguard to which the minister alluded was that there was part 2 of the bill which gives power to control undue charges. Well, I do not think that is a logical argument at all. That refers to spreads, not original prices. The minister no doubt was alluding to sections 18, 19, 20 and 21, which give power to investigate spreads between producer and consumer. By the way, the minister is taking the teeth out of that by his amendment when he is limiting the committee simply to giving a report of what is in their opinion an unjust spread. The committee has not now the power to determine that the spread is unjust. It is not even a definite report. It gives only their opinions. Therefore, I suppose it follows that the provisions of section 21, the penalty section, will not apply as that section derives its authority from sections 19 and 20. Although there may be some outlet by way of the Combines Investigation Act, so far as this bill is concerned its teeth have been largely drawn. The committee is to investigate what spread is detrimental to or against the interests of the public in that it is excessive or results in undue enhancement of prices. This part of the bill only refers to spreads made by the middleman, to which reference has been made. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) has said that there was no protection given to the consumer. The prices given to the producer may be unduly high but the minister's argument is that action can be taken apparently under the Combines Investigation Act. The powers in this bill are to some degree wholly divergent from and contradictory to, the restrictions imposed by the Combines Investigation Act.
What does Great Britain do about it? There they have a consumers' committee, and this is not a committee existing only in the mind of the minister. The British act reads;
A consumers' committee shall consist of a chairman and of not less than six other members, who shall be such persons as appear to the minister, after consultation with the board

Marketing Act-Mr. Neill
of trade and, as to one member, with the Cooperative Union, to represent the interests of the consumers of all the products the marketing of which is for the time being regulated by schemes approved by the minister.
It is a well known fact that the board of trade in England functions in a manner entirely different from our local boards of trade. The board of trade there alluded to is practically a department of government. This committee is charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the minister on the effect of any scheme approved by the minister, which is for the time being in force, on consumers of the regulated product. If necessary, another committee can be set up under the British act. This is a committee of investigation and shall consist of a chairman and four other members. That committee is charged with the duty of going into the statements made by the original committee. That committee has full power to go to any of these boards and examine their books, and so on. A report is then made to the minister. If the committee of investigation reports to the minister that any provision of a scheme is contrary to the interests of consumers or the interests of any persons affected by the scheme and is not in the public interest, the minister, after consulting with the board of trade, may by order make such amendments as are thought necessary or revoke the scheme. Those are pretty drastic powers to be carried out on the recommendation of the first committee as endorsed by the second investigating committee. The minister may then revoke the whole scheme if he thinks a consumer is getting what we call a raw deal.
If amendments such as these were introduced into this bill we would be given more encouragement to vote in its favour, but when we see the wide divergence between this bill and the protections given under the British act, it makes us wonder whether the whole thing is not just a piece of window dressing to look at, to admire and to point to rather than something that is to be carried out. I hope I am not doing the minister and the government an injustice in saying that. Why not make the thing workable and practicable? Does not the minister think that there should be some protection for existing contracts, those made either immediately before or immediately after the passing of this bill, in order to maintain the ordinary channels of trade?


Robert Weir: I shall deal with the hon. member's questions as nearly in order as I can. First, the amendments to this bill are not a closed book, as he suggests.
Secondly, I feel that all local boards will be anxious to facilitate all contracts rather than to break them. As far as protection to the consumer is concerned, what protection has he at the present time which he would not have after this bill is passed? The hon. member has suggested that the chief purpose of the bill is to raise prices, but I have always maintained that the chief purpose is to stabilize prices.


Alan Webster Neill: The same thing.


Robert Weir: Very different. For example, under present conditions it is quite possible-I believe hon. members will agree with me when I say that it has been done- that forces outside the control of the producer and outside the welfare of the consumer may	bring	prices	down to an	abnormally low level. Stocks may be accumulated in the hands of a few, and prices raised higher than	would	have	been possible	hadthe flow of	goods	been	regulated and	theconsumer forced to pay more than he otherwise would have to pay. Under this bill all products	will go forward according to
grade and in a more regular manner and prices and markets will be stabilized.
With reference to the protection given in Great Britain to the consumers: Consumers' committees are set up; they report their objections to the minister, who takes them before the governor in council, after consulting with the board of trade. Under this bill we have the power to revoke schemes and withdraw authority from the local board. We have just as much power over our local board as is given under the British marketing act. We have the power to regulate the spread between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays. At the present time there are very few ways of controlling that.


Alan Webster Neill: It comes back to the fact that the minister has sole control; he can kill or he can keep alive. He may be satisfied to assume that power, but I would not care to be in his position. It is true that the bill says he can revoke, but there is no machinery provided whereby the consumer can be vocal in expressing his wrongs. Such machinery is provided for in the British act, under which there is the consumers' committee and the additional investigating committee. Where is the machinery in this bill? I may approach the minister and say that such a thing is wrong and he may or may not take action-. He has no facilities for doing so. This bill is not at all compatible with the British bill, but if that is his determination-

Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworth


Robert Weir: The hon. member states that there are no facilities for taking action. What more facility is necessary than the power to withdraw, if necessary, all authority from the local board?


Alan Webster Neill: I believe that is expressed in section 5, but it is expressed in a very general way. I think any minister would hesitate to destroy completely the work of a board simply on the say-so of Tom Jones. Tom Jones' complaint is not given any authority or power. He may apply to the minister and the minister's deputy may decide that there is nothing in the complaint. There is no real machinery provided whereby the consumer can express his wrongs. The only way he can speak is by personal letter to the minister.
The minister said that any local board would be glad to facilitate contracts, but I do not know why they should be. We do not know what these boards may be like. They may be flushed with their authority. They are put in power and the: first thing they will want to do is to control things as much as possible. It would be a deterrent rather than a help to their operations to have existing contracts. They certainly will not be friendly and sympathetic to people who have made prior contracts. But at any rate their powers begin when the board is approved by the minister, and there will be existing contracts then. There will be no provision however to take care of them. We cannot be very far wrong if we follow the British act, not in its letter and entirety, for their conditions are different, but in its general spirit. They have a very fine sense of making laws that are workable, laws that fit in with the general temper of the people, and it is because laws meet with the approval of the vast mass of the people that they are so well observed in Britain. It is because the laws are so constructed as to afford every facility to anyone to get redress for any grievance which he may feel. I think there should be provision in this act to take care of existing contracts, before the bill goes into effect.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. While it may be true that the door is not closed to amendments, it is extremely difficult for a private member of the house to introduce amendments in committee of the whole, because the amendments have to be fitted into the entire scheme. I would however suggest to the minister that he take into consideration the possibility of incorporating in the present bill some of the features of the British scheme. While undoubtedly we are
fMr. Neill.]
trying to protect the producers, as I said before there is no real provision for the protection of consumers. It is quite possible for example that a local milk concern might come under this board. I believe there is provision in the amendments that a board in a certain province might be brought under the operations of this act, and I can quite conceive that a group of milk producers, if they had exclusive control, might run up the price of milk so- that the consumers in the city would suffer.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni is right; there ought to be some way by which the consumers, through regularly organized representation, might be in a position to protest against high prices and in that way protect themselves against exorbitant charges. At the present time the producers are being very badly dealt with, but I do not think that any class in the community can be very safely trusted with exclusive and rather arbitrary power. They might very easily use such power to the detriment of the general public. It would seem to me to be a roundabout way if a few consumers had to make representations to the minister, sending deputations to Ottawa to reinforce those representations. In practice that would be an impossibility for any ordinary group of consumers.
There is another point to which I called attention in passing at an earlier stage of this discussion, and that is protection to the employees in industry. There is a very considerable number of people engaged by the fruit growers as pickers. I have every sympathy with the growers of fruit; it seems to me they ought to be protected. But I should like to see in this act some provision for their employees. Very often when a man is subject to exploitation he takes it out on his employees, and I suggest that there ought to be some- protection for the latter. I think that is true in connection with the tobacco industry, about which we have heard so much. People brought in to do certain types of work are often required to live on low standards. That is also true of the beet industry. People are often employed for the season and they and their families work at such wages as enable them to maintain only a very low standard of living. In that case I have every sympathy with the producer. I do submit however that there ought to be in this bill provision for the employees, and I hope the minister will take these two points into serious consideration.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I come from western Canada-

Marketing Act-Mr. Donnelly


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before the hon.
gentleman proceeds, can we have some answer from the minister with regard to the two points which I have raised?


Robert Weir: I did not think an answer was necessary. I thought the hon. member wanted the points to be taken into consideration and I have made a note of them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, that is something to be thankful for; but seeing that I made a specific request, I think we should have some amendments along the lines I have indicated. We should be told whether there, is any prospect of having such amendments; if not we shall have to bring in the amendments ourselves, and that is not so satisfactory.


James J. Donnelly: Coming from western Canada, I am interested in this bill particularly in so far as it applies to the marketing of wheat. Wheat forms probably ninety per cent of the products of the western farmer. Will the minister tell us how, under present conditions, this act when applied to wheat will help the farmer to get any more for his product? If it is going to help the farmer to get a fraction of a cent more for his wheat, then I am prepared to support it in every way.
We all know the conditions which the farmers in the west are faced with to-day. True, the farmer in the west is a little better off than he was last year. Last year when he produced a dollar's worth of commodities he lost 50 cents; to-day he does not lose quite so much, only about 25 cents. In other words, last year it cost him $1 to produce 50 cents worth of his commodities and today it costs him $1 to produce 75 cents worth. He is therefore just a little bit better off, but it will take a long time before he is on his feet again, and if this bill will help to put him on his feet once more I am ready to support it in every way.
Some people say that the great carryover of wheat has been all due to the Liberal policies that were in force from 1921 to 1929. They say that we lost our market under Liberal rule, that all restrictions placed against our wheat were put into effect while the Liberals were in power, and that no restrictions have been imposed since. Well, let us look at the facts. I will deal with wheat, taking a few countries, the major importing countries. What do we find in France? On July 1, 1930, when the Liberal government
went out of power, the duty against our wheat going into France was 85 cents a bushel; on the 1st of May, 1934 there was a duty of $1.44 per bushel in force against us. That increase has come about under the Conservative government. For the last four or five years we have not had a crop of wheat and yet our carryovers have been piling up year after year. In Germany, on July 1, 1930 there was a duty of 97i cents per bushel against our wheat; on the 1st of May, 1934 the German duty was $2.69-an increase piled up since this government came into power. Take Italy, which is another great importer. On July 1, 1930, the Italian duty against our wheat was 87 cents per bushel, and to-day that duty has been increased to $1.74 per bushel. Yet they tell us that no increase has been made in the duties against Canadian wheat going to other countries.
What about Belgium? On July 1, 1930, Belgium had a duty of one per cent ad valorem; to-day they have a duty of thirteen cents a bushel plus two and a half per cent ad valorem. What about Spain? On July 1, 1930, Spain had a duty of $1.10 a bushel; to-day they have a duty so fixed that the price of wheat in Spain shall always be at least $1.98 per bushel. What about China? On July 1, 1930, China had no duty on wheat; it was free. To-day the duty is ten cents a bushel including the surtax.
But that is not all. These importing countries have placed other restrictions, milling restrictions and quotas against our wheat. What do we find with regard to France? On July 1, 1930, three per cent of foreign wheat was allowed in all milling flour for domestic use; to-day no foreign wheat is allowed in domestic flour. On July 1, 1930, Germany allowed 70 per cent of foreign wheat in her flour; to-day only three per cent of foreign wheat is allowed in her domestic flour. On July 1, 1930, Italy had no restrictions; to-day they allow only one per cent of foreign wheat to be used in domestic flour.
The whole answer is that the duties and the restrictions which this government has piled up against the products of other nations have made us lose many of our markets. Let us look at what the Commercial Intelligence Journal of May 5, 1934, has to say in regard to Canadian wheat imported into Switzerland:
Since the war Switzerland's annual imports of Canadian wheat have been close to 10,000,000 bushels. Taking into consideration its population of approximately 4,000.000, it has thus been one of the best per capita markets in the
Marketing Act-Mr. Donnelly

world. Under normal economic conditions this trade would continue. Switzerland has, however, found it necessary to restrict imports from countries such as Canada and the United States with which there is a heavy unfavourable trade balance, and to divert it to other cereal-producing states with whom compensation agreements can be made.
Then they give a list of Switzerland's wheat imports, which shows that during the months of January, February and March, 1933, she imported from Canada 83,015 metric tons and for the months of January, February and March, 1934, only 24,886 metric tons. The article continues:
During the first quarter of 1933 Canada supplied 67-5 per cent of Switzerland's total wheat imports. For the same period of 1934 the figure had shrunk to roughly 28 per cent, a loss of 58,129 metric tons. For the second quarter of 1934 it is reported that quota allotments will allow Swiss millers to use only ten per cent of Canadian wheat, . . .
Assuming this to be the case, only about fifteen per cent of Switzerland's total imports for 1934 will come from Canada in comparison with 47-13 per cent in 1933 and fifty-two per cent in 1932. It is not improbable therefore that Canadian grain exporters will have to face the possibility of losing a market for as much as 175,000 metric tons or 6,431,250 bushels of wheat
That is lost in Switzerland alone. That is what has caused our markets throughout the world to be lost. The other day France gave us the answer. When we had the conference in Italy, what d'id France say? She said that she was willing to take our quota, to lessen her milling restrictions and to reduce her duties; but she said also:	"What are
you willing to buy from us if we buy from you?" That is the whole answer with regard to the present wheat market,
I should like to put this question to the minister: We have a carryover of something like 200,000,000 bushels, and during the past four years our government, practically speaking, has handled all our wheat; because John I. McFarland has been buying all our wheat and selling it. You may call it options or whatever you like, but when you buy an option, at the end of the time you have to take the wheat or sell it to somebody else. John I. McFarland during the past four years has for this government been handling practically all our wheat. How much better will we be off under this bill? Will it give the farmers any more for their wheat than they are getting to-day, and if so, how can this result be reached What is to be done with this carryover? If we go under this bill, form organizations and sell our wheat, I would like the minister to tell us how this will benefit the farmers.


Robert Weir: It gives the farmers an opportunity, if they organize under this bill, to control their own product if they feel that by doing so they will obtain any more for it. There is no necessity in my following further the remarks of the hon. member with reference to his speech on tariffs. If the farmers do not see fit to organize and it is felt that assistance can be given to the marketing of our wheat, there is power in this bill to give that assistance in the way in which it has been given during the past two ' or three years or in any other way that may seem fit and advantageous. My impression of the work of Mr. McFarland is different from that of the hon. member according to his statement. While he was speaking I made a note that he said that the government through Mr. McFarland was buying all Canadian wheat; my understanding is that Mr. McFarland is not buying all Canadian wheat, but rather he takes up wheat as it flows on to the market when it is felt that the price will break and the bottom fall out of the market.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I want to ask the minister a question arising out of conditions as they exist in a number of counties in Ontario where the farms are on the outskirts of a city and are not as large as they are in the districts in the west to which the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) has just referred. The first question I would like to ask is this: Does the minister contemplate a board for each natural product of the farm?


Robert Weir: A number of small
products might be grouped together under one board, depending upon the wishes of the farmers in any one particular locality.


John Campbell Elliott: Do I understand the minister to say that the style of the board depends upon the people who are forming it in the local jurisdiction?


Robert Weir: Yes, they submit
their plan and it, of course, has to be approved.


John Campbell Elliott: That means that a certain plan may be asked for in one district and a different plan asked for in every other district. Does that necessarily mean that you may have just as many plans as you have districts? That is the point that strikes me as being of interest.


Robert Weir: If it were deemed
advisable, that might occur, but I do not contemplate that it would.

Marketing Act-Mr. Elliott


John Campbell Elliott: As I understand the minister, it might occur that you would have about as many different plans or schemes as there were groups of people asking for plans; then you might have as many boards as these people desire. I am asking these questions for the information of the people whom I represent, because in my riding we produce many products. We start in the early spring with lettuce, asparagus and other early vegetables; we grow strawberries, raspberries, currants of various kinds, cherries, plums, peaches, apples and potatoes; we raise horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, poultry and produce dairy products, eggs and innumerable other articles. As a matter of fact there is very little that is not produced in that fruitful section of the country. How many boards would be required to handle those various products?


Robert Weir: That would depend
upon the submissions of the producers as to what they thought would be to their best advantage.


John Campbell Elliott: Then would this be possible: In a community where, for instance, the people produce garden stuff such as asparagus, lettuce and that sort of thing, if there was an aggressive aggregation of those people naturally we would expect one board for those products. Would the minister say whether those articles would be grouped under one board or whether there would be a separate board for each article, if it were asked for?


Robert Weir: They would make
their submission, but from what the hon. gentleman has said I would gather that the people in his constituency are quite rational-


John Campbell Elliott: They have given every
evidence of it.


Robert Weir: -and that they
would give full consideration to the problems before them. Personally I feel that few if any people are better qualified in this connection than are the producers themselves. There is a difference between saying what might be possible and what might be conceivable.


John Campbell Elliott: Then as to licences,
would the minister tell us what is contemplated in that regard? I do not see that any change is proposed with regard to subsection (f) of section 4, which reads:
-to require any or all persons engaged' in the production or marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses and occupations with the board, or to obtain a licence from the board, and such licence shall be subject to cancellation by the board for violation of any provision of this act or regulation made thereunder.
Has the minister in mind that each individual who intends to market any product must have a licence for that product, or is it contemplated that he will have a blanket licence for all the products of his farm?


Robert Weir: That depends on
the producers themselves, as to what they desire. No person is going to force any producer to take out a licence or do the things referred to unless the producers express their desire to do so.


John Campbell Elliott: May I point out to the
minister that this is not what the act says. It states:
The board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power-to require any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses and occupations with the board-
I take it that this means the general board?


Robert Weir: No, the local board, if that is included in the scheme suggested by the producers themselves.


John Campbell Elliott: Then it is only if the producers themselves ask for a registration that a registration will be made; is that correct?


Robert Weir: I would say yes.


John Campbell Elliott: Then I would very respectfully suggest to the minister that when we come to this section it should be changed, because that is not the way I interpret it now. My hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) says it means the dominion board, and that is the way it would appear to me. Does the minister say that only one licence will be required for one farmer or that one licence will be required for each product?


Robert Weir: That is up to the producers themselves, in their own submission.


John Campbell Elliott: Then if the people who control the production of any particular natural product, the people who are the leaders in the strawberry industry or any otheT scheme, ask for a certain scheme and request that everyone who intends to sell under that scheme be registered, does the minister propose that their request will be granted if it appears reasonable?


Robert Weir: If it appears reasonable.


John Campbell Elliott: So if it appears reasonable to the producers and to the minister you could have a board for each of these products in a county such as Middlesex, for example? You could have these boards if they were asked for by the leading producers of each product?
Marketing Act-Mr. Elliott


Robert Weir: I do not think the hon. member is doing it purposely, but he seems to be following the line adopted by other hon. members during this discussion, who repeated over and over again that if sixty per cent agreed the other forty per cent would be forced in. I do not know whether or not this is for public consumption, but I know the hon. member would not wittingly do that. He is endeavouring to build up a hypothetical case with regard to leading producers. It is not contemplated at all that leading producers will be able to force their will on the other producers; it will be the majority of the sum total of the intelligent producers, as to what they think is best in the handling of their own product.


John Campbell Elliott: I would just suggest to the minister that he would do well to listen to the argument that is being advanced rather than to the suggestions made by somebody else who is supposed to be here to assist the committee.


Robert Weir: I must object to what the hon. member says.


John Campbell Elliott: I note the objection.


Robert Weir: My deputy, seeing me hesitate while trying to recall what the hon. member said, in order to finish my answer, supplied the words "leading producers" and that was all.


John Campbell Elliott: I want the minister to know that this is not for the purpose he has suggested, and I do not thank him or his deputy, if that is the souree from which it came, for the suggestion or the manner in which it was made. Perhaps the minister will allow me to finish before he says anything further. It does not assist the discussion of a question of this kind to make suggestions like that. Surely the minister will not say that I have unnecessarily taken up any of the time of this committee, but I propose to endeavour to secure answers to the questions that are troubling me and the people whom I represent. Now, if I have understood the minister correctly, he says that if the producers ask for a local board in regard to each different product they can have it and, if the local board makes the request, it will become necessary to have a licence for the production of each product. I do not assume that the minister has any idea as to what the scheme may be in each locality, as to whether or not there will be a checkerboard scheme with as many different plans as there are boards. If that were the condition I suggest that it would be one of the most iniquitous features in connection with this bill. The 
farmers are labouring under difficulties enough without being asked to go and register their names, addresses and occupations with the board.


Robert Weir: May I suggest that
the farmers are not being asked to register, or to do anything else, except at their own request.


John Campbell Elliott: Under the bill as it now
stands "the board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power to regulate " -and so on. That is as plain as the English language could be. Paragraph (f) of clause 4 reads:
(f) To require any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses and occupations with the board, or to obtain a licence from the board, and such licence shall be subject to cancellation by the board for violation of any provision of this act or regulation made thereunder.
I suggest to the minister very respectfully that the farmers and small producers of this country-the man who produces fifty bushels of plums, so many bushels of pears, so many barrels of apples, so many dozen eggs, so much poultry^-does not want to be subjected to the inconvenience this section would impose upon him.
I should like to ask the minister whether or not it is the board which has the power to cancel licences. The bill says: "shall be subject to cancellation by the board." Is that the local board or the dominion board?


Robert Weir: The local board,
with powers delegated by the dominion board, on the basis of the scheme set up, will have power to withdraw or cancel a licence. The other statement to which the hon. member referred, when he mentioned the farmer with a few dozen eggs or a few apple trees is taken care of in paragraph (b). That is, the local board has power to exempt certain individuals, a provision which appears in the British act.
While I am on my feet I should like to refer to something which I am sure the hon. member either misinterpreted or misunderstood. When I spoke before, I thought I made it clear that I did not think for a moment the hon. member would wittingly give an incorrect impression, but in each of his statements he used an expression indicating that leading producers could force their will on the other producers. I just wished to bring this to his attention.


John Campbell Elliott: What happens after a
licence is cancelled? Has that man no rights with regard to marketing?

Marketing Act-Mr. Elliott


Robert Weir: I would say that
after his licence is cancelled he would be prepared to conform to the regulations of the board, when he would see the effect of them.


John Campbell Elliott: It is a kind of chastening placed upon the producer after his licence is cancelled.


Robert Weir: No, it is compulsion to make him conform to the regulations.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, but he does not belong to the board any longer; his licence is cancelled.


Robert Weir: He cannot operate, then.


John Campbell Elliott: He cannot operate?


Robert Weir: No.


John Campbell Elliott: I wish to call the minister's attention to a statement made by an eminent authority with regard to interference with freedom of the business of a country. I refer him to a book entitled The English Constitution -written by Walter Bagehot. He speaks first about bureaucracy,-and if ever a bill was intended or calculated in the final result to build up a bureaucracy, I say it is this one. If the committee will permit I shall read what the author has to say in this regard:
Not only does a bureaucracy thus tend to under-government, in point of quality; it tends to over-government, in point of quantity. The trained official hates the rude, untrained public. He thinks that they are stupid, ignorant, reckless-that they cannot tell their own interest-that they should have the leave of the office before they do anything. Protection is the natural inborn creed of every official body, free trade is an extrinsic idea, alien to its notions, and hardly to be assimilated with life; and it is easy to see how an accomplished critic, used to a free and active life, could thus describe the official.
And this is the description.
"Every imaginable and real social interest" says Mr. Laing, "religion, education, law, police, every branch of public or private business, personal liberty to move from place to place, even from parish to parish within the same jurisdiction; liberty to engage in any branch of trade or industry, on a small or large scale, all the objects, in short, in which body, mind, and capital can be employed' in civilized society, were gradually laid hold of for the employment and support of functionaries, were centralized in bureaux, were superintended, licensed, inspected, reported upon, and interfered with by a host of officials scattered over the land, and maintained at the public expense, yet with no conceivable utility in their duties. They are not, however, gentlemen at large, enjoying salary without service. They are under a semi-military discipline. In
Bavaria, for instance, the superior civil functionary can place his inferior functionary under house-arrest, for neglect of duty, or other offence against civil functionary discipline. In Wurtemberg, the functionary cannot marry without leave from his superior. Voltaire says, somewhere, that, 'the art of government is to make two-thirds of a nation pay all it possibly can pay for the benefit of the other third.' This is realized in Germany by the functionary system."
I shall not read it at length, but it goes on to say:
The functionaries are not there for the benefit of the people, but the people for the benefit of the functionaries. All this machinery of funetionarism, with its numerous ranks and gradations in every district, filled with a staff of clerks and expectants in every department looking for employment, appointments, or promotions, was intended to be a new support of the throne in the new social state of the continent; a third class, in connection with the people by their various official duties of interference in all public or private affairs, yet attached by their interests to the kingly power.
And this is the last reference I intend to make.
The Beamptenstand, or functionary class,, was to be equivalent to the class of nobility, gentry, capitalists, and men of larger landed property than the peasant-proprietors, and was to make up in numbers for the want of individual weight and influence. In France, at the expulsion of Louis Philippe, the civil functionaries were stated to amount to 807.030 individuals. This civil army was more than double of the military. In Germany, this class is necessarily more numerous in proportion to the population, the landwehr system imposing many more restrictions than the conscription on the free action of the people, and requiring more officials to manage it, and the semi-feudal jurisdictions and forms of law requiring much more writing and intricate forms of procedure before the courts than the Code Napoleon.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Go on.


John Campbell Elliott: I believe the committee has benefited by the changes which have been made in the bill. I am glad they have been made. Many of those changes were made as a result of suggestions which have come from the committee since the bill has been before it. I should like to make this suggestion very seriously-


Robert Weir: Has the hon. member any special change in mind which has been made at the suggestion of any hon. member opposite?


Mr. HANBURY:: Why did you change them, then?


Robert Weir: My statement was that they were not changed; they were put there to clarify what was already included.
Marketing Act-Mr. Elliott


Wilfred Hanbury: The whole trend of the bill has been changed.


Robert Weir: Would the hon. member suggest how it has been changed; or what particular part of it. He seems to speak with authority, and with a finished statement.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps we could get over that if the minister would say that all of this discussion and all the suggestions he has received have been of no benefit to him and have contributed no assistance in the making of the changes that have taken place.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The member
said the committee; he did not say the opposition.


John Campbell Elliott: This is the suggestion I want to make to the minister, and I want to make it without being offensive. He knows the sentiment among the producers of this country to-day pretty well. There is no margin of profit. As a matter of fact the general producer of natural products in this country to-day cannot get for his products the actual cost of production, just as the hon. member for Willow Bunch has said, and they are in no humour to be subjected to a lot of restrictions and limitations and supervision in the getting out of licences, and particularly the charging of fees for the service of boards that they have no voice in appointing.
Before this bill goes out of committee I think the minister would be well advised to clarify the section dealing with the number of products for which boards can be formed. Surely a man should not be subjected to membership in at least a dozen boards, a potato board, an apple board, a wheat board, a cattle board, a hog board and various other boards. He should not have to take out more than one licence if he should have to take out any at all.
Furthermore I would like to ask this question of the minister: Is it intended that the cost of setting up this machinery is to be borne by the producer or borne out of consolidated revenue fund in view of the changes that have been made in the section?


Robert Weir: The intent is, when the local board is set up, that the cost of operation and administration will be borne by the producers. With all due respect to the hon. member, I still feel that he has not at all grasped the significance of this bill. He states that his producers do not want to be subjected to all this licensing. It is up to them absolutely to say so or not. No person is subjected.


John Campbell Elliott: Just this concluding word. I am sorry if the minister misunderstood me. It is not up to them to say, if some other board or organization has power to compel them to come in against their will.


Robert Weir: No other board has.


John Campbell Elliott: Then the act must be changed from what it is now or some superior authority will have that power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me just quote, so that we may get it clear, what the minister said in this house on May 9, 1934, at page 2947 of Hansard. Speaking of the scheme I asked:
But if it were approved and say sixty per cent had put forward the proposed scheme, would not the remaining forty per cent be obliged to enter the organization and come under the regulations?
Mr. Weir (Melfort): My understanding is that if that was one of the conditions of the scheme, the remainder could be forced to come in. Hon. members opposite have been repeating themselves with their references to sixty and forty per cent. I hope those references were made only by way of illustration. I think we are all agreed that the success of any scheme under which compulsion would be necessary would be more likely if there was the highest possible percentage.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I am obliged to the minister for his direct answer. It brings out an all-important feature to which sufficient attention has not been given as yet.
I think that is as clear as can be. If a certain number, whether it is a bare majority or a number running up to sixty or seventy or eighty per cent of the producers, set forth a scheme, and it is approved, the remainder are obliged to come under it, and they will have to submit to the licensing process, submit to regulations which prescribe the extent to which they may be permitted to produce or sell or offer for sale, and submit to all the other regulations contained in the scheme whether they like it or not.


Robert Weir: When a scheme is
submitted by the producers themselves these things are set out in the scheme, and each producer, if he is asked to vote, will understand what he is voting on. The dominion board will have no power to impose anything on any of the people of that region except in conformity with the scheme set up at their own request. The right hon. gentleman suggested that a bare majority might be in favour of it. Well, I have not made any different statement to-day, at least I hope I. have not, from the statement which the right hon. gentleman has just quoted from Hansard. It has always been in my mind that it would be possible, if the scheme were

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
approved by the provincial minister or the federal minister, depending upon the auspices under which it was set up, to force in the minority if in the opinion of the minister it was felt that the scheme was satisfactory, and the vote that was asked for was sufficiently representative.
Before I take my seat may I ask this question? Is it not possible at the present time without this bill at all for a provincial government, if a majority of the people demand a scheme such as one of these schemes might be, to compel others to come in under that scheme?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is always
possible for a provincial government to pass any laws it desires and to compel people to accept their provisions provided the government is in a position to get support enough to enact the legislation, but that is very different from what is proposed here. This is to allow a group of the producers in a locality to frame a scheme which will apply only to that locality, and which will oblige the other producers in that locality, who happen to be in a minority in the community, to come under the regulations set forth in that scheme.
The minister always says in his remarks: It is for the producers themselves to say. But when he uses the word "producers" he means a particular group of producers who get together to form a scheme-not the producers who are outside the circle and who may not necessarily wish to avail themselves of the scheme and fall in line with some group that has got control for the time being, or may wish in some way to further its own ends.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is not that a well
recognized principle in local option?


Alan Webster Neill: You yourself, Mr. Chairman,
know that in British Columbia a certain group of producers did get the provincial government to pass a law of this kind. The majority decided it should govern, but that law was declared to be ultra vires in the courts.
If I caught the minister aright he said in answer to my hon. friend from West Middlesex that the dominion board had power to exempt certain individuals, just as there was such a provision in the British act. I really cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged. I have already brought out that point here, but apparently it did not soak in. The difference is enormous between this bill and the British system of exempting somebody. This bill provides that the dominion 74726-198
board shall have power to make orders or determinations. That is in section 4 (a). Then paragraph (b) gives the board power:
to exempt from any determination or order any person or class of persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated' product.
It will be noticed that any person, even an exporter, may be exempt from the determination or order of the board. That almost invites the suggestion of favouritism. The British system is quite different. There they exempt from the provisions of a scheme certain small producers. In order to do away with the multiplicity of reports and returns they exempt the man who may have only one cow or a pig or a few hens. They set a minimum, so to speak, and state that if a man has not more than so many hens he will be totally exempt. But when they make an order it applies to everybody in the scheme, there is no favouritism. I think they state that anyone milking less than four cows or selling eggs in lots smaller than two dozen does not come under the scheme.


Robert Weir: Who decides that?


Alan Webster Neill: It is decided by the government.


Robert Weir: It is provided for in the scheme.


Alan Webster Neill: It is provided for in the
scheme sanctioned by the government. In our case it is the dominion marketing board that will exempt. They are not exempting the little fellow in order to save all this trouble and annoyance, they may pick out an exporter and say that the particular order does not apply to him. Such an exemption may be worth thousands of dollars to a man. He may be loaded up with a lot of exportable stuff and an order comes out preventing exportation for a fortnight and because of political favouritism-I do not exempt any government-he may be exempted. With their ability to frame laws to give absolute justice, the British do not do it like that. When a board there makes an order or a determination it applies to everyone; everyone except the little man who is exempted from the whole scheme must comply with all orders. Look at the trouble that saves. We will have every man who owns a cow on some back lot sitting down and making out returns. I just wanted to emphasize the difference between the British system of exemption and that proposed in this bill.

3132	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


Robert Weir: I maintain that subsection (b) makes provision for the exemption of individuals as set out by the producers when they submit their scheme, and in that respect the provisions have the same effect as those contained in the British act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) asked me whether or not the principle governing the formation of these local boards at the instance of the majority in a locality was not the same principle as that underlying local option. May I say to him that I think it is a diametrically opposite principle. The principle of local option is that everyone in a community determines whether or not there is to be local option. Under this measure, only an interested occupational group determines what regulations shall apply. The correct parallel would be if local option in a given community were decided by, say, only those who were intemperate or wished to drink as they please. If only that class of people were to be given the right to decide whether or not everyone was to have the right to drink as he pleased, you would have an exact parallel. Take it the other way. If only the temperance people were to sa}' as to whether or not licences should be granted or prohibition put into force in a certain locality, without those who possibly might hold opposite views being given a say you would have an exact parallel. It would be an interested group having authority and power to compel everybody else to fall in line with their own point of view, and that is just what is being proposed here. The only difference is that in the case of the local option illustration the reference would be to consumers whereas in this bill it is to producers.


Mr. VENIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the committee as I have stated already my opposition to this bill in so far as it refers to the fisheries and products of the sea. However, there is some enlightenment which I would like to have from the minister in view of certain amendments which have been submitted. An amendment has been submitted to section 2, subsection (e), which more specifically defines a natural product. I am informed that under the interpretation clauses, animals will include fish. The proposed amendment reads in part as follows: *-and such other natural products of the forest, sea, lake or river, and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product that may be designated by the governor in council, in accordance with the provisions of this act.
[Mr. Neill.)
Am I to understand that the byproducts of the sea must be designated by the governor in council? I shall give some of the byproducts. One of the byproducts of fish is cod liver oil. A byproduct of the lobster packing industry is tamale, a very delicate and delicious product. Seal oil is a byproduct of the seal industry. Then we have the fertilizer made up of fish offal. There is fishcake for the feeding of animals. Am I to understand that these byproducts must receive the sanction or be designated by the minister before they can be marketed through a system adopted by the local board or local group?


Robert Weir: Any scheme set up must be approved by the governor in council. I think I can give an illustration whch will provide a more direct answer than a straight yes or no. For example, a scheme is set up for animals, or, in this case, fish. Such a scheme would have to be approved by the governor in council. If there were byproducts, and the producers of those byproducts also wished to submit a scheme, there would be no additional work as far as they were concerned because their requests would come before the governor in council at the same time.


Peter John Veniot: The producers of these byproducts are not always the original producers. For instance, the original producer or fisherman does not produce cod liver oil. The lobster packer produces tamale but the original fisherman does not. I shall not refer to the seal fishing on the Pacific coast or at other places, but considerable is done in the maritime provinces. The man who hunts the seals does not extract the oil. In the case of fishcake, the man who does the fishing sells the product to the consumer but the sardine packing industry also manufactures fishcake from the products of the fisherman. In the case of fertilizer, there is natural fertilizer and manufactured fertilizer. Herring fry are found along the Atlantic coast. If the wind is favourable these are found in windrows three or four feet high by two to three feet wide running for miles along the shore. That product is saved and used as fertilizer but is not put through any process of manufacture. Now what group will handle that? Will it be the farmer, the primary producer from the soil, or will it be those engaged in the fishing industry? With all due respect to the minister and his attempt to do what he thinks is right, I confess that I am scared that

Marketing Act-Mr. Veniot
so far as the fishing industry is concerned he does not know where he is drifting; if he did he would not allow the fishing industry to go into this bill. The bill is inoperative, and before he undertakes to bring the fishing industry within its provisions I would strongly advise him to consult the Department of Fisheries. In that department there are men of vast experience, experts who have studied the industry in all its details, who know the history of fishing, who have followed up the fish from the time the fry is sent out until it is ready for the market. In the maritimes there are associations that have made a special study of the fishing industry under the direction of the Department of Fisheries in Ottawa. And let me say this for the department. Prior to my time at Ottawa, and since, I have had wide experience with the officials of that department and I can say that there are no officials in any department of the government that pay more attention and give better service to an industry than do the officials of the Department of Fisheries to the Canadian fishing industry. We have a biological institution that studies very carefully the history of the fish and reports if not weekly at any rate monthly to the department the requirements of the fishermen, suggesting to the department what should be done to encourage these men to improve their conditions, and to find markets for their product. In the department here there is an organization that indicates to the fishermen the time when the fish will school, as we say in the industry: in what sections of the country and at what dates and tides it pays the fishermen to go into deep waters to catch mackerel; and so on. From the biological office there is given to the department information which indicates the best localities for codfish, and information as to conditions on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland is also available. In the department there is an organization that stimulates the fishermen to greater efforts than they have made in the past.
Under the last government the department organized a circle of fishermen's associations, not only to study the marketing business and the curing of fish, but to instruct fishermen in better methods of attaining their ends; and all this information is in the Fisheries department. All the necessary organization exists in that department. Why then impose upon the fishermen this law that places upon them, restrictions which they cannot carry out?
I am not speaking in any political sense this afternoon. If I had politics in view I would say, "Put the bill through as it is," because it would mean my election by acclamation in
74726-198*
the county I represent. No; I have a better perspective of the duty I owe the public, the duty I owe the people I represent, the duty I owe Canada as a representative in this house. That perspective is the good of the people I represent; I want those people protected; I do not want them hampered by a law that will mean the ruin of the fishing industry.
Let me discuss the interpretation which the minister has put on the board. The registration must be made with the federal board; the minister cannot, get away from that. The interpretation distinctly declares that "board" means the federal board, and it also states that local board shall mean so and so. In section after section you will find provision for recommendations to be made to the federal board by the local board. When therefore you come down to the section dealing with registration, which is one I strongly oppose in the interests of the fishermen, why should the minister tell us that registration must 'be made by the local board? The bill distinctly says that the board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power to do so and so. Under "interpretation" we find that:
"Board" means the Dominion Marketing Board established under this act.
And in paragraph (b) we find that:
"Local board" means a board authorized to administer a scheme approved under this act.
I maintain that registration and licensing must be done by the federal board, and that is not the intention of the minister. If it is his intention that it should be done by the local board, then I say he should change the bill and make it convey that meaning.
The Lord help the fishermen on the Atlantic seaboard, in the way fishing is carried on there now, if they have to observe that section which forces them to register and obtain a licence.
I have said my last word on 'behalf of the fishermen whom I represent, and I think I am voicing the views of every fisherman on the Atlantic coast when I say that this act is not workable. Leave us as we are under the Fisheries department, and if there is need of further power then put it in the hands of the Minister of Fisheries, and not of the Minister of Agriculture. What does he know about fishing? He is not supposed to know anything about fishing. I give him credit for his knowledge of agriculture; but when you are preparing a bill dealing with natural products and include in that bill natural products which are not understood by

Marketing Act-Mr. Roberge
the department that fathers the bill, then I say it is not fair to the people I represent-and the majority of the people I represent are fishermen.
After sending this bill to the people of my constituency with a request for their opinion on. it, I have received letter after letter asking me to raise my voice once more in opposition to the bill. I had made up my mind not to add anything to what I said the other day because I felt I had gone far enough; but on the receipt of these letters I felt it my duty once more to protest. I would ask the minister, before he goes any further with the bill, at any rate so far as the fisheries are concerned, to go to the Department of Fisheries and1 consult the deputy minister and the experts there. Let him find out what they are doing for the fishermen and then see whether in his judgment it is necessary to include fish in this bill.


Mr. ROBERGE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, on May 11 last, speaking on the budget I was just going to broach the subject of the famous bill No. 51, when my forty minutes expired.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) by his first amendment to this bill showed that the criticism of the Liberal party was fair and justified. I shall add: if the government introduced this bill to relieve the farming class, it is because the opposition compelled them to come to the rescue of the farmers whose returns, since this government is in office, have fallen off 50 to 75 per cent. Ever since 1932, the Liberal party has requested such a measure for the farming class; one has but to refer to Hansard, vol II, session 1932-33. On November 24, 1932, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) moved a resolution in the house purporting to assist agriculture. In 1933 the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) moved a resolution in connection with a trade treaty with the United States which would have had the effect of improving the lot of the farming class. In 1934, the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough again moved his resolution. It was only after being compelled by the opposition that the government decided to introduce this bill No. 51 in order to help agriculture. At first, this measure could not be sanctioned by the opposition; however, with a few more amendments, it may be acceptable.


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: Hear,
hear.


Eusèbe Roberge: To prove what little interest the government have always taken in the farming class, I shall endeavour to show how they fulfil the promises made in 1930, they promised to make the farmers happy. How? By taxing them; by increasing the duty 25 per cent on cream separators; 10 per cent on barbed wire; 19 per cent on mowing machines and binders, 174 per cent on harrows, and 15 per cent on ploughs, by increasing the sales tax from 1 cent to 6 cents, postage stamps, 1 cent, and levying a tax on sugar. I have enumerated but a few articles, because the complete list would be too long. As we are on the eve of a general election, the government introduces this measure, hoping by these new promises to again deceive the people, especially, the farmers.
In perusing bill No. 51, it is obvious that it has not been entirely draughted by the hon. Minister of Agriculture, but under the searching eye of a dictator. Thus the two following sections have been inserted in the bill:
14. Every person who fails to comply with any order or determination of the board or of a local board or any regulation of the governor in council shall be guilty of an offence and ' punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars and not more than five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
21. 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.
Not satisfied with having broken the promises made to the farmers in 1930, to-day, by bill No. 51, as sections 14 and 21 testify, the government threatens the farmers with a fine or imprisonment if they do not comply with its marketing act; it is an insult to the farming class.
In 1932, sir, previous to the Imperial Economic Conference, held in Ottawa, the farmers, seeing that their distress had increased during the two years that this administration had been in office, considered it proper to suggest to the government what they themselves thought would remedy their situation, so that it might be discussed at the conference. Almost 2,000 delegates representing the farming class of all parts of Canada

Marketing Act-Mr. McIntosh [DOT]
met here. In order to be introduced to the government this delegation comprised both Conservative and Liberal members. An interview was requested from the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett); it was only rational. What was the reply? That is the Prime Minister was too busy to receive them. They insisted that if the Prime Minister were too busy to receive them he should be represented by his Minister of Agriculture. The reply came back that his ministers as well as hirm-self were too busy to receive them. That is the kind of interest that this government has shown towards the farming class since 1930.
The farmers, therefore, only await the opportunity to protest at the polls against the reception given to their delegates by the government in 1932, against all the taxes levied by this administration and against sections 14 and 21 of this bill which threatens all the rights and liberty they have enjoyed since confederation.


Wilfred Hanbury: If it is considered
advisable, would it be possible under this bill to prohibit imports of any commodity from one province to another?


Robert Weir: I would say not.
It certainly is not contemplated in the bill.


Wilfred Hanbury: It may not be contemplated in the bill, but my interpretation of the measure is that it does give that authority. I understand that a provincial board regulates importations into a province. I may be wrong in that interpretation and if I am, I would like the minister to correct me, but if I am not wrong, then I suggest to the minister that they would have authority to prohibit importations from one province to another. I would like to have his answer to that question.


Robert Weir: I would say that
they have no authority to prohibit importations from one province to another.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I would like to say a
few words on this bill at the present moment and perhaps say something further later on. I have listened to the discussion in the house for the last few days, from members occupying the different parts of this chamber and I can truthfully say that I think the minister ought to appreciate the fact that from the fruitful discussion that has taken place certain amendments have been brought into parliament. I hope the last word with regard to amendments has not been spoken; that the good work we have started-and I am referring to the whole chamber-in modifying this bill, in so changing it that it is a better
bill to-day than when it was introduced, will continue and that through that continuing transforming process we shall have evolved a bill which will be satisfactory to parliament as a whole. I believe it would be a vital blunder for parliament to accept a bill that in reality is not what it ought to be, that is not finally approved to such an extent that it will give general satisfaction not only in the house but throughout the whole of Canada. The minister has stated that in all likelihood further amendments will be brought down.


Robert Weir: I stated that it was not a closed book as far as amendments were concerned.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Exactly. That means the same thing, and I think the minister is to be congratulated on the fact that he has allowed the amendments we have had up to the moment, and on his statement that further amendments are not out of the question. To my mind that is a very vital statement, and in essence it means that this bill will be still further modified, so that by these modifications we may hope for a measure that will be satisfactory to all parties. I do not think a measure of this kind, which so vitally affects the future of the producers, should be made a political football, and any remarks I have to make will be from the point of view that further amendments should be brought down and the bill so modified that it will be a credit to parliament and Canada.
Up to the present time I think we have had twenty-two amendments to the twenty-one sections of the bill. To me that looks very much like a new bill. If any member can state when any bill was brought into this house containing only twenty-one sections to which at least twenty-two amendments were made, I am sure we would like to hear about it.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: How many amendments were moved by the committee?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is not the point. Practically every amendment brought down has evolved from the discussion in the committee, so that question does not mean anything. The hon. gentleman is only trying to dodge the issue, and he is not going to dodge it with me. Every amendment is the result of the discussion in this committee, and no hon. member sitting behind the government is going to get away with the idea that government supporters are alone responsible for these amendments. The house is re-

Marketing Act-Mr. McIntosh
sponsible; the whole assembly is responsible, not the Conservative party or the government. I am willing-and I think the minister will admit that generally this is my attitude -to give the minister all credit with regard to what he has done and to repeat that as the representative of a western riding I appreciate the amendments he has brought down.


Mr. BROWN:: The amendments have not been adopted as yet.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: An hon. member says the amendments have not been adopted. That is true, but none the less they are important, and I believe that with further amending and clarification most of the amendments will be adopted. The minister has said that the amendments are only to clarify the bill, and that they do not affect the principle at all. Well, when twenty-two amendments are made to a bill containing twenty-one sections, with section after section of the bill wiped off the slate, I think it looks very much as though these changes may result in practically a new bill. For instance, I find that paragraph (e) of section 2, having to do with the interpretation, is struck out. The new section has been made very much clearer; new thoughts have been incorporated, and it is much more concrete than it was previously.


Robert Weir: I want to make just one observation. I think the hon. member is getting confused as between sections and subsections, is he not?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I do not think so. I said that paragraph (e) of section 2 had been struck out.


Robert Weir: I understood the hon. member to say that section after section had been wiped out.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am pointing out that subsections and sections have been wiped out, and I have given one example.


Robert Weir: The example given was a subsection.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, and rightly so. Then we come to page 2, section 3 of the bill, and we find subsection (9) wiped out entirely.


Robert Weir: Perhaps I was not following closely. Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that subsection (e) had been completely struck out, or that it had been amplified?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I will use the words that appear in the amendments that are to be found
[Mr. McIntosh.1
on page 3 of the votes and proceedings of Friday, May 11, brought down by the minister. There it says, "Strike out paragraph (e) of this section," and if that does not mean to strike it out I should like to know what it does mean. My point is that when you strike out a subsection you are striking out a vital part of the bill as it was brought down originally and substituting something entirely new. Therefore, these amendments are something more than a clarification of the bill.
May I go on and deal with the other amendments. The minister in his amendments says that subsection (9) of section 3 is to be struck out, and I need not read what is to be inserted. Then on page 3 paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 4 is to be struck out; paragraphs (c), (e) and (i) of the same section are to be struck out as well. Then on page 4 we have subsection after subsection struck out.


Robert Weir: Might I interrupt again just to get this clear? I do not wish to follow the hon. member in all that he has said, but I would refer to paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 4, which he mentioned. The only change made in that paragraph is the word "agency."


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is an entirely new idea added to that section of the bill, and that is my point. I do not see why the minister should object, because I think it improves the bill. Does the minister suggest that he does not want to improve the bill?


Robert Weir: Not at all; I do not want the hon. member to misrepresent what has been done. That is all. I am quite willing to accept any statement that is in accordance with what has been done, but I think he is going pretty far afield in the .statements he is making.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I do not wish to misrepresent. I might turn the tables on the minister and say that because he is differing from me the minister is trying to misrepresent. It is the same idea.
Let me continue-I am not sure just how far I had proceeded when I was interrupted. So many sections andr subsections have been struck out that one almost gets lost in the forest of changes. Anyway, I believe I had reached section 4, where it is indicated that paragraph (8) is added, following paragraph (7). Then paragraph (3) of section 5 is struck out and paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of section 5 is struck out. Then turning to page 6 of the bill we find that section 9 is struck out, section 10 is struck out and section 11 is struck out. I think

Marketing Act-Mr. McIntosh
these are most of the strike-outs, and this prolific "strike-out" ball game is just about over. I am inclined to believe those who say that in this lively strike-out game the bill has been entirely changed, and that we have a new bill. There is no doubt about it, we have made the bigger score-won the day.
Now let me proceed. The name given to the bill when it was introduced was:
An act to improve the methods and practices involved in the marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith.
I may say that as a member from western Canada I am wholly in favour of a marketing bill-that is, a real marketing bill, and not a political bill. I refer to a marketing bill, and nothing more. I am in favour of such a bill for the simple reason that for the last twenty-two or twenty-four years I have lived in an agricultural area of western Canada. During that time I have stood behind the farmers both on the public platform and in the press. I have stood by the farmers-the cooperative organizations of western Canada, the grain growers, the wheat pool-through that period of time, and I am not going to allow any man or party in this house to try to put me in a position whereby a continuation of that support will not be given.


Mr. LOUCKS:: You should have voted for the bill then, and not against it. Why did you vote against it?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I voted for the introduction of the bill. And if you will just hold your peace for a little while you will know the position I take. If you want to know why I did not register my vote for the bill on second reading, it was because I knew the bill was so utterly imperfect, that you would be forced to bring down amendments. That is the reason.


William John Loucks: You have to admit to having changed the principle of the bill.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is what I have said. Further than that I do not admit anything, so far as you are concerned.


William John Loucks: That is characteristic of you.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: As I said, I am for a marketing bill which will find a market in Canada or out of Canada for our natural products, or the products evolving therefrom. I am for a marketing bill for which there will be full ministerial responsibility. I am for a marketing bill which will be backed
up by full parliamentary responsibility. I am for a marketing bill which will rest on the freedom of thought and action of the producers concerned, which will be built from the foundation up and not from the top down, which will be democratic and not bureaucratic. I believe the farmers are anxious to have that kind of bill, and an organization based upon that kind of bill. Then, I am for a marketing bill that is fully constitutional and that will not result in litigation later on and thereby become a source of expense to the community, the provinces, and the nation. More than that,
I am for a marketing bill which will be accorded national support from the start, and will not divide the support of the producers, thereby bringing about confusion worse confounded. I am for a marketing bill, in other words, that is not a political bill, that is not a bureaucratic bill and which is not, to a great degree, based on any crumbling state socialism or fascism.
What about the bill which was introduced to this house, and about which I should like to say a word or two? The reason I was not very much in favour of it, as at first introduced, was that I could not make myself believe that the short title of the bill, namely the Natural Products Marketing Act 1934, was a correct short title. I would say that perhaps it could be better named:	The
Natural Products Unnatural Marketing Bill, or The Natural Products Unparliamentary Marketing Bill, or The Natural Products Unconstitutional Marketing Bill, or The Natural Products Non-Cooperative Marketing Bill, or The Natural Products Experimental Marketing Bill, or The Natural Products Compulsory Marketing Bill, or The Natural Products Restrictive Marketing Bill, or The Natural Products Destructive Marketing Bill, or The Natural Products Unconstitutional and Uneconomic Marketing Bill. That is the reason I was not very much enamoured of the bill when it came to the house, and that is the reason I wish now to congratulate the minister upon the number of amendments which have been brought down, because those amendments have entirely transformed the bill and made a new one which I hope, witli'-further amendments, I shall be able to support.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: By the chattering of
some hon. members sitting behind the government it would seem they must think this bill is about right at the present time. That does not indicate much because even before

Marketing Act-Mr. Heaps
the amendments were brought down we heard member after member sitting on the government side of the house state that the bill, which was far from right, was all right. If it was all right then, it must be much better now, and we hope it will be better still when further amendments are added to the measure now before the chamber.


William John Loucks: The principle of the bill
is exactly the same, despite all you have said.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No. I do not think I
need say much more at the present time. I hope that amendments which, I believe, are in the offing will be brought down forthwith, because the sooner they are brought down the sooner the discussion will be over, the sooner we will have the bill remodified so that it may be generally acceptable throughout Canada. May I repeat that I think the minister is to be commended upon the many changes which have been made in the new bill before the house. If these are indicative of what we may expect in the nature of further amendments I may say that I believe there will be a greater degree of unanimity and cooperation in connection with the bill than we had at first expected.


Mr. HEAPS:: I am more than pleased to witness the somewhat changed attitude of some hon members sitting to my right. It seems that now there is not very much difference between the contending factions in the committee. In fact, we have almost reached a stage of unanimity, and possibly with one or two further slight amendments the bill might go from the committee and, after third reading, be adopted as the unanimous legislation of the House of Commons. I am only too pleased to observe that I should be happy to do anything within my power to bring about unanimity. However, I have no desire in view of the statements that were made here last night and this afternoon to get into any controversy over the different aspects of this bill because it appears that controversy is almost a thing of the past so far as many phases of this bill are concerned. We are all agreed that in a measure of this kind there has to be a certain amount of compulsion or coercion, and the idea of a particular group voting for a new kind of economic council being formed is one I think that is accepted generally. Some are fearful because it will be occupational groups who will vote for a scheme under this bill, instead of the community as a whole. We are living in an age where because of economic

conditions we are compelled to experiment along different lines perhaps than have been followed in the past.
I rose to point out that there have been a number of occupational groups who have come to committees of this house or to parliament within the past few months to request that councils of one kind or another be set up to deal with their particular industry. I have them enumerated here.
We have had the tobacco growers come to a committee of this house and ask for some form of council in their industry to protect the growers. We have had the furniture trade come and ask for some code, if you wish to call it that, in their industry. Those engaged in the clothing trade have also come and asked for a code. The retail merchants of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific are all wanting some form of code to give them an opportunity of merchandising their commodities on what they consider a fair basis. Then those on the farm raising hogs and cattle want some form of council in their industry to give them the protection which they have not got at the present time. Those who are engaged in the packing industry have also come to a committee of this house and requested some form of regulation to give them protection in their industry. Only within the past twenty-four hours we have had those engaged in the fruit industry come before a committee of this house asking that something be done to protect the industry by which they attempt to make a living.
Then, in milk production, already in the province of Alberta legislation has been passed for the fixing of prices, and similarly in Manitoba, and I believe that in the province of Quebec-if I am wrong I hope I shall be corrected-legislation has been passed to deal with the milk situation in that province. I could go on and say that this house on many occasions in the past has gone on record for some form of compulsion in regard to one industry or another. In 1929 when my hon. friends opposite were sitting on this side of the house they were opposed to compulsory unemployment and sickness insurance, *while the Liberal party was in favour of some form of compulsory unemployment and health insurance.
We can have no legislation of any kind for the well-being of the majority of the people without some form of compulsion. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I shall not deal with that aspect of the question.
As I said before, I think we have got to the stage where we are all fairly unanimous in

Marketing Act
regard to some of the provisions of this bill. But last night the leader of the opposition made a suggestion to the minister who is piloting this bill through the committee that if certain amendments were made to part 1 of the bill such as have been made to part 2, he would be ready to support the measure. The request of the leader of the opposition was not an unreasonable one. The amendments that he was requesting from the government I believe were not unreasonable, and I am just wondering if the minister who by now has probably had time to consider that request is in a position to give an answer to the suggestion of the leader of the opposition.


Robert Weir: No specific amendments have been submitted, but as I have said, amendments will be considered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) a question just to make clear to the committee what may be in his mind? Does he see any difference in principle between trade unions, for example, demanding the right to compel those in similar branches of trade to enter the union and to abide by such regulations as the union itself may make with respect to wages, hours and working conditions, and what is proposed here with regard to organizations of producer's?


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is a great deal of similarity in the two. The trade unions of this country and of other countries have made it one of their cardinal principles to be in favour of the closed shop, and that is exactly the principle that is being followed, in my opinion, in regard to certain provisions of this bill except that a trade union may take in much larger groups than the occupational groups coming under this measure. But so far as the principle here is concerned, it is more or less the same principle that has been followed by trade unions for many generations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask this further question? Would it not be most unfair to the trade unions to compel their members to pay the higher prices which they may be obliged to pay for commodities, assuming prices of commodities hereafter are to be determined by occupational groups or closed organizations of producers, unless the trade unions too were to be accorded exactly the same kind of opportunity of fixing wages and other conditions?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The trade unions have always insisted on a fair wage for a fair day's work, and we are prepared to give to others exactly what we are advocating for ourselves.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. gentleman has not answered the question. I have asked whether the trade unions would be perfectly content after this legislation is passed to remain in the position in which they are at the present time, and not make any demand that they themselves be treated as regards the sale of their labour, and conditions under which they may be obliged to work in a manner similar to that in which this act proposes to treat the producer's organizations, should they be obliged to pay higher prices for regulated products.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would not want to see the trade unions in an unfair position in relation to any other class, but the trade unions and working people of this country are not prepared to see the farmer giving away his stuff and compelled to live on a standard below the ordinary standard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We all agree to that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The trade unionist is in this position: He is advocating for the farmer the things he has been advocating for himself for many a long year. If prices rise too high, far beyond what is necessary to recompense the farmer for his effort, we will naturally object to that, but I hope that with the forming of these occupational groups or local economic councils in particular industries prices will be so regulated that they will be fair to the producer and fair to the consumer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where is there any provision in the bill which will ensure
that?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that before the bill is passed, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre stressed yesterday, some action will be taken to safeguard the interests of the consumer in that respect.


William John Loucks: I just want to say a word on the point raised by the leader of the opposition. If the producers get a higher price that will be reflected back in increased purchasing power for the labouring man. The leader of the opposition-I give him credit for sincerity-seems to be very fearful for the minority. I am a farmer. Suppose I am a minority farmer, a competitor of my neighbour, and I refuse to come in under this scheme put forward for the industry. If there is no control over me I can practically destroy the price that my neighbour farmer and the majority group of farmers should re-
Marketing Act

ceive for their products. I do not see anything dreadful about the position of the minority at all. When I do that, to a certain extent I destroy my own price as a competitor. I depress prices and, therefore, I destroy myself. I do not see anything very wrong with this bill. If a small minority does not come into the scheme, it will receive the same price as that received by the majority. There are bound to be certain individuals who cannot see their way clear to come in but if a majority thinks there is a possibility of raising commodity prices, those prices will be raised to the minority which has refused to come in. On the other hand, if we do not do something like this everyone will be hurt because prices may be depressed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend referred to me and I hope I have not misunderstood him. His argument seems to imply that higher prices will assist in the way of augmenting purchasing power.


William John Loucks: Yes, that is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not agree with that. The rise might be carried to a point where you would not have any demand. My hon. friend should remember that there is always that danger. As far as the rights of minorities are concerned, may I say that the protection of the rights of minorities is a fundamental obligation upon parliament itself, as well as on all members of parliament. It is the particular obligation of a party that happens itself to be a minority. Sooner or later everyone comes to be in the minority with regard to something, and unless the rights of minorities are protected, liberty itself will soon disappear. I agree with my hon. friend when he says that the man in the community who seeks to lower standards and who is prepared to undersell by unscrupulous and unfair methods should be summarily dealt with, but I believe parliament itself has plenty of scope and power to pass the regulations necessary to deal with that class of persons and that kind of behaviour. I think it should be parliament and not local groups that should make the regulations that are to govern industrial and commercial practices. In a word, my objection is simply this: So far as the regulating in this measure goes, it is not initiated or even concluded by parliament. Parliament is left out of the picture altogether; the whole thing is left in the hands of local selfinterested groups and with the minister or the governor in council. Parliament is ignored altogether.

Mr. GOLDI'NG:	I should like to ask the
hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) who has just spoken, what he considers is the final object of this bill?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have been in the house
for a month or so but I am sorry that I do not know just what it is. I think it is to regulate and try to help the primary producers and to relieve them of the condition in which they now find themselves. Evidently there is to be regulation and control in some way of the production and sale of the things they produce.


Mr. GOLDING:: And of prices.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And prices as well. I should like to revert to the point I raised a moment ago. I do not intend to deal with the details of the bill but I feel that the various factions in the committee have reached a stage where there is not very much between them. I was wondering if we could not get over that bridge. Perhaps the minister would be willing to adopt the suggestion made last night by the leader of the opposition. I should like to quote his remarks which appear on page 3316 of Hansard, as follows:
If a similar change could be made with respect to part I of this legislation, whereby these local organizations might make reports to the ministry of conditions as they exist and the ministry take the responsibility of enacting legislation or passing orders in council which would be generally known and made generally applicable from coast to coast, then so far as I am concerned I would cease to have any opposition to the measure as a measure of an experimental character.
I do not think the request of the leader of the opposition was at all unreasonable and I would like to see the government accept his proposal. Perhaps then the measure could be passed without much further delay.


Robert Weir: I do not intend
to raise the question of offences and regulations, but I think the matter mentioned yesterday by the leader of the opposition represents only a difference of opinion as to its meaning. I think this bill contains exactly what the right hon. gentleman referred to. Under this bill the producers would submit to the minister in charge conditions as they find them with suggestions for improvement. These are submitted to the cabinet and we act on those suggestions, or otherwise.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it the contention of the
minister that what the right hon. leader of the opposition suggested yesterday is already part of the bill?

Marketing Act


Robert Weir: According to my
understanding of what he said, it is.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Upon what does the minister base that understanding?


Robert Weir: Upon the language
of the bill.


Mr. LUOHKOVICH:: Am I to understand that all the opposition of the official opposition hinges upon this one point, namely, that the local organizations should make reports?


William Henry Golding: With reference to the
remarks of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). If I gather anything at all from his remarks, they were to the effect that this bill is going to regulate prices. I should like to say to the hon. member that I know something about trade unions. As a machinist, I have been a member of a union and I know something about the work of the unions. I know something about workers' conditions and I know something about the objects of trade unions. I might say that they have not always been as fair as my hon. friend represents.


Mr. MITCHELL:: You are speaking about trade unions?


William Henry Golding: Yes. Discussing this bill
yesterday, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) referred to farmers bringing in their wheat to an elevator. He pointed out that under present conditions if a farmer was not satisfied with the price offered for his wheat, he could not leave it at the elevator but had to take *it home again. The hon. member for South Rattleford (Mr. Yallance) corrected him. I should like to read the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which was as follows:
I am afraid my statement has been entirely misunderstood. My statement is that the individual farmer is helpless. He takes his grain to the elevator, and if there is room the elevator man will take it. But if the farmer is not satisfied with the price offered, or with any other condition, the only possible procedure open to him is to turn around and take his grain home again.
Mr. Yallance: Will this bill change it?
Mr. Woodsworth: Yes, this will change it.
I should like to ask the minister if he wants the impression to go out through the western part of this country that should this bill go into effect the farmer is going to get just the price that is satisfactory to him? That is the inference here. Not very long ago the minister pointed out that the primary object of the bill was not to regulate prices but to regulate the marketing of products.
The inference in this statement is that the bill is going to regulate prices to such an extent that the farmer will receive a price satisfactory to him. I contend there is no such provision in the bill.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps it is not my position to do so, but I would point out that when you regulate the marketing of a product you will also be regulating the price. You cannot have one without the other. If you do not have a market, then you do not have a price. It may be somewhat out of place at this time, but the hon. member has referred to the unfair practices of trade unions.


William Henry Golding: In many cases.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, no organization is perfect.


William Henry Golding: You admit it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not say that any organization was perfect, and I do not admit anything. I do say however that if the hon. gentleman were a good trade unionist he would take the opportunity of saying something in support of a measure dealing with unfair practices.


Humphrey Mitchell: I might ask the hon.
gentleman this question. How would you deal with the present situation between the Imperial Tobacco Company and the growers? What are you to do about it? Where an organization overnight can cut in half the price of tobacco to the producers, unless you give the producers some opportunity to organize themselves they are lost forever. Let me say this to the hon. gentleman as a trade unionist. This year the British trade union congress will meet to celebrate the hundredth anniversary of the Todpuddle martyrs when men who tried to establish trade unionism were transported to Australia for seven years. That was the birth of the organization. When the history of these times is written it will be acknowledged, notwithstanding all the criticism that may now be made of trade unionism, that the trade unions have made a real contribution to the lives of the working people of Canada and of every other country in which the movement exists. The only difference between the Kaffir in Africa and the Canadian is that one had the sense to organize and the other had not. The trade unions have been the driving force behind social change in every country where
Marketing Act

it has been exerted. I am not apologizing. We have made mistakes, because we are a human institution.


William Henry Golding: That was all I said.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is quite enough.


William Henry Golding: You admit it.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, I will not admit it.


William Henry Golding: You did admit it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Has the Liberal party made mistakes?


William Henry Golding: Yes, of course. In answer to my hon. friend, in regard to the tobacco growers-and all this is out of order-I would point out that we have a Combines Investigation Act which could have been invoked, and should have been invoked. In regard to trade unions, my hon. friend has admitted that they have made mistakes, and I admit quite frankly, as a member at one time of a trade union, that they sometimes did things that were not fair. Everyone will agree to that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) agreed to.
On paragraph (d)-Minister.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Can the minister give us any enlightenment as to who is likely to have charge of the administration of the act? Perhaps he can tell us why in this bill he has departed from the regular practice of indicating the minister, leaving us with a guessing competition as to who the hon. gentleman is to be. It is not a principle which I will make any fuss about, but I should be glad if he would tell us why the government has made this departure. So far as I know, it has been the practice in the past always to indicate what minister would administer the act.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: My hon. friend may assume that in all human probability the administration of the act will be under the Minister of Agriculture. However, for greater convenience and some elasticity the bill has been drafted in its present form, as it is realized that agriculture is not the only natural product involved. I do not think I am going out of my way if I say that we may assume that the Minister of Agriculture will be the man.


William Richard Motherwell: I will accept that as satisfactory but judging from the multitude of provisions in the bill, and the claim which

so many ministers could easily put in for the task, I was anxious to ascertain whether it might be the minister of mass buyings and Yorkshire geldings who would be put in charge.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (e)-Natural product.
Robert Weir: I move that paragraph (e) be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"natural product" includes animals, meats, eggs, wool, dairy products, grains, seeds, fruit and fruit products, vegetables and vegetable products, maple products, honey, tobacco, lumber, and such other natural products of the forest, sea, lake or river, and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product that may be designated by the governor in council, in accordance with the provisions of this act.


William Richard Motherwell: It would be ungracious of me to criticize this, but it really is not as good as it looks. I like the list the minister has outlined as 'being in the main the easiest to start with. It is an excellent list and a better one than I suggested myself, but I merely indicated in a general way what I had in mind when I mentioned ten or a dozen items which could be enlarged by parliament and not by order in council as in the bill. However, we cannot expect a perfect bill and I will not press this point over much. I hope that the hon. gentleman will confine himself to this list for a year or two while others are being got ready. If he does that he will do well, because this is I take it in the main a guide to the country as to what the government has in mind with respect to the com; modities that should be proceeded with first. Others can follow later.


Albert Joseph Brown: Before we hastily pass this list I think it should be given some consideration. On the title of the bill there was a good deal of discussion that might more properly have taken place under this clause, and it seems strange that those who spoke about certain natural products included in this list are not here now to reaffirm their objections to certain items which it contains. The thing of outstanding interest to farmers on the prairies is grain, particularly wheat. Can the minister say whether under the conditions that now prevail in the marketing of wheat there is any possibility of this scheme being put into effect in the immediate future in connection with wheat? We know that the government has entered into certain commitments with other countries with respect to the marketing of wheat, and that is one thing that might be taken into consideration. Some-

Marketing Act
thing else that should be considered is that the marketing of wheat, as at present provided for, has developed over a long period of years. Since the beginning of the century certain grievances have arisen in connection with wheat marketing, and after a great deal of agitation on the part of the farmers with respect to some of these grievances the grain act was introduced regulating the conditions governing the marketing of wheat. That was followed by the Canada Grain Act. We would like to know whether there is any scheme that is to be put into effect that will in any way affect the operation of this very efficient body that has been created, the board of grain commissioners, a board that I think all the farmers of the west have perfect confidence in as regards its personnel. I believe the different boards of grain commissioners that have operated during the past have rendered very effective and efficient service. There was a great deal of unfair criticism against the former board. I was not by any means in sympathy with the criticisms that were directed against that board; I think they were mostly unfair and in some cases promoted by those who wished to cover up some of the mistakes that had been made by some of the organizations in carrying out the operation of selling wheat. But I think it is very important to know how this new board, if it is to be constituted, is to operate in connection with the present board of grain commissioners.
I want to state that the chief concern today is not in regard to marketing machinery in connection with our grain; it is in regard to getting markets for our grain and in this bill there is not the slightest indication of anything that will improve our markets. I know the claim has been made by those who advocate a one hundred per cent pool, that if they had only had control we would not have got into the difficulty in regard to marketing our wheat. As I stated before, any such claim as that is absolutely without foundation and absurd. I want to say this for the pools-and I have said it before- that they came upon a period of very hard times. Had the grain fluctuations been simply the normal, possibly the pools would have survived; they could not stand up under the tremendous fall in prices that took place. At the same time that does not justify those who are not only sympathetic but fanatically sympathetic toward the pools, in making the claim that they could have saved the situation if they had had one hundred per cent control. A more absurd claim could not be advanced.
I want to know from the minister just what the proposition is in regard to grain. Is there any likelihood under conditions as they prevail at present of advantage being taken, if it is deemed to be an advantage, of this bill to organize under it, or in view of the present situation is it wise, by including grain in this list, even to give the suggestion that the grain trade might be organized under the bill? As I have said already, to my mind the most important matter is not what our marketing machinery will be but where we are going to get markets for our grain and in this bill there is not the slightest indication of anything that will open markets to us. That is, after ail, the point in which the farmers of the west are most interested and it is one on which they are under a good deal of misapprehension. There is undoubtedly a certain amount of support from the west for a marketing bill, but it is on the supposition that the bill is one that will get .markets for our stuff. That is the thought which is uppermost in the minds of the farmers. That is true particularly in regard to grain; they suppose it is a bill that will do something towards securing markets for them, but in the bill there is not the slightest indication of anything of the kind. Therefore I would make the suggestion that in view of the present situation, grain be excluded from this bill. The government have made commitments. At the moment I am not going to say whether those negotiations that have been entered into and that have resulted in certain agreements may be good or bad; that is not the point at present. Those commitments have been made and in view of the present grain situation I suggest that it might not be wise even to indicate the possibility of the formation of a board to handle grain.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Will the minister tell the committee whether fibre and flax will be included in this along with other natural products?


Robert Weir: My understanding is that they are not specifically included as the clause reads.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Ldsgar (Mr. Brown) expects an answer. So far as I am aware-and my opinion in this respect is not worth any more than his-I know of no immediate contemplation of the formation of the compulsory pool to which he referred; and certainly not of one that would in any way interfere with the Grain Act as it stands so far as the board of grain commissioners are concerned, but at any rate the best safeguard is this, that before any such scheme would be put forward it would have to be put

Marketing Act-Mr. Carmichael
forward by a large majority of the grain farmers. I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me that each farmer in the west is as intelligent as he or I and perhaps many of them are more so in ascertaining whether it is in his best interest.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I should like to say something on this subclause, but it is almost six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Just before the dinner hour, Mr. Chairman, we were dealing with section 2, subsection (e), which reads:
"Natural product" includes animals, meats, eggs, wool, dairy products, grainsand so on. I need not read the entire section. This is the amended subsection, by the way. The principle of this bill has been very throughly discussed on the second reading, and in fact I think the principle was discussed again on the short title. Heretofore I have not taken any part in the debate on this bill, and I do not believe I would have done so at this time except for the fact that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) raised the question of wheat prior to the dinner hour. The hon. gentleman rose in his place and advocated that wheat should be left outside the scope of this bill. I was rather surprised to hear him express himself in that way, but he was just expressing the views that I find recorded in a publication issued in Winnipeg called The Country Guide, under date of May, 1934. This publication contains quite an extended article, which I do not propose to read, which I believe was prepared by the board of the United Grain Gorwers, who ask that wheat should be handled separately They go on to point out why grain should be excluded from the marketing act, and when I turn to the editorial page of this same issue I find the editor expressing himself in these words:
The opinion expressed elsewhere in this issue 'by R. S. Law, President of United Grain Growers,_ that grain should be excluded from the provisions of the natural products marketing bill, will commend' itself to the grain growers generally.
The hon. member for Lisgar expressed those sentiments fairly well; in fact I believe some of the arguments he advanced are quoted in this article almost as he gave them. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I come from an agricultural constituency; the occupation of
[Mr. R. Weir.)
my people is farming, and they grow wheat almost entirely. So when you advocate leaving wheat outside the scope of this marketing act certainly it touches the people whom I represent. During the past week or so I have received a number of telegrams, which I have before me, from wheat pool committees, wheat pool directors and one from the mayor of a town, I have a letter as well. All these communications are along the same line, and I am going to read the letter in order to set forth the opinion of the grain growers in my section of Saskatchewan. The letter is addressed to myself under date of May 7, and reads:
Dear Sir:	[DOT]
It has just been brought to my attention that there is a strong movement to have wheat excluded from the operations of the natural products marketing act.
The farmers in this community look with strong disfavour on any attempt that may be made to have wheat excluded from the operation of this act.
I sincerely trust we can look to you to use your good offices and influence to have wheat included-
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) William Shaw.
That is a good sample of the telegrams and communications I have received. So far as my personal opinion goes I certainly think wheat should be included with the other natural products. The hon. member for Lisgar seemed to think there might be a possibility that the board of grain commissioners would be set aside. I do not. think that is likely to happen,, or that the Canada Grain Act will be set aside. I believe both the grain board and the grain act will be used under the new marketing bill. For several years we have had in western Canada a wheat pool which functioned very satisfactorily until the great slump in 1929. Since that time they have not been functioning as satisfactorily or as fully. I want to state here most emphatically-and I think I am stating the opinion of a great many farmers-that the private interests handling the grain are not indispensable. A great many farmers hold the view', which I share, that private interests controlling and handling our wheat, such as the United Grain Growers, are not by any means indispensable. In other words it is quite possible for the farmers of western Canada to handle their wheat independently of any such organization as the United Grain Growers or any other private body.
In order to acquaint the committee with what transpired last year in connection with the prices of grain in western Canada I am going to quote a few statistics which I have

Marketing Act-Mr. Carmichael
before me. I have here the prices for No. 1 Northern wheat in Winnipeg, the closing cash prices from January 1, 1933, to December 31 of the same year. Some interesting information is contained in those figures, and I think it bears very definitely on the question raised by the hon. member for Lisgar. I am not going to read the prices for the whole year, but I am going to deal with that portion of the season when the farmers of the west had very little grain in their possession and were marketing a comparatively small quantity of the 1932 crop. I will start with May 2, 1933. On that date the closing cash price for No. 1 Northern wheat at Winnipeg was 611 cents. On June 7 the closing price was 611 cents, so that over a period of thirty-six days the price remained fairly uniform. There were some fluctuations during that period, but the highest price was 651 cents while the lowest price was 611 cents; that was the entire spread during that period. On June 8, however, the price began to advance steadily; on that date it was 621 cents. Then jumping over to June 24 we find that it increased to 691 cents. That is an advance of 7f cents in sixteen days. Well, there is nothing very alarming about that. But on June 26,-I believe the 24th was a Saturday, and there was no market on Sunday the 215th,-on Monday the 26th, the price was 741 cents or an increase of 4f cents in one day.


Mr. YOUNG:: Why the advance?


Archibald M. Carmichael: Marketing Act-Mr. Carmichael
fact that at the end of the time there is a rise of less than five cents, there has been a fluctuation of over 30 cents a bushel.
I am bringing these points to the attention of the committee to emphasize the need for including wheat within the scope of this marketing bill. While the wheat pool is not functioning at the present time there are many farmers in western Canada who do not look upon it as a completely dead issue. It is true that in 1929 the wheat pool suffered financial reverses, but so did the private grain trade. There are men in western Canada who were involved in the handling of grain, either as private companies or private individuals, who suffered very heavy losses during the 1929 slump. The farmers in my constituency -and I believe I speak for the great percentage of the farmers in Saskatchewan-are expecting that times are going to become normal in the future, and perhaps in the not too distant future. When times become normal those farmers want the machinery at their disposal so that they may be able again to set up a farmers' marketing organization, if they choose to do so. There is no threat that they are going to do so, but they just wish to have the machinery available so that if they come to the point where they wish to organize a wheat pool and have it functioning as it has functioned in the past, they may have the machinery available for so doing.
I have made these remarks largely in answer to the expressions of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). I wondered why he took the stand he did take. I do not think he is so close to Winnipeg that he needs to reflect the viewpoint of the grain trade. I believe his is an agricultural constituency, although possibly it is not devoted to grain growing quite as extensively as is my own constituency. In any case, I do not pretend to give his reasons for advancing his arguments. I wish to emphasize my own argument, namely, that the people I represent want grains included in the marketing bill, and they insist upon wheat being included within the category of grains.


Albert Joseph Brown: The hon. member for
Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) has answered my remarks on the assumption that I was opposed to the wheat pool. Nothing of the kind, I was a member of the wheat pool. As long as I was raising grain and the pools were operating I gave my wheat to the pools, and it was handled by them. I have criticized the management of the wheat pools, although there was a time when, as the Minister of Railways said the other day, it

was as much as a man's political life was worth to make a criticism. The wheat pools made a mistake, there is no question about that, and all I ask of them is that they admit their mistake. The wheat pool may be the proper way of handling wheat, and I have no objection to people joining together to handle their wheat through a wheat pool. My only objection has been to an attempt by legislation to force a one hundred per cent wheat pool on the people of the west. That is a sufficient answer to my hon. friend.


Mr. REID:: I was particularly interested this afternoon when the hon. minister stated that he was still open to suggestions and that the door would not be closed to further amendments. I have an amendment to offer to the section under discussion, but before presenting it I would like to make a few brief remarks.
Practically all, if not all, the speeches made on this bill since its introduction into the house have been made with regard to agriculture with the exception of the speeches that were made by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I am not at all surprised that that should be the case because, first of all, we have this bill in charge of the Minister of Agriculture, and secondly I believe practically all the demand for marketing legislation has come from agriculturists throughout the country.
Some member suggested this afternoon that this act will be an experiment in legislation. The suggestion I am going to make to the minister is that we start by dealing with one product at a time. I have recollections of the great difficulties we encountered in British Columbia before our Milk Producers Act and Natural Products Act in the province became law, and I think the government would be well advised to go a little slowly and deal only with agricultural products in the first place because if the difficulties met with are the same that we met with in British Columbia before we reached a definite conclusion, there will certainly be lots of complications in the administration of this bill throughout the length and breadth of Canada.
I am of the strong opinion that no demand has come from the fishing industry or the lumbering industry to come under this bill. Perhaps these products are being included in the bill with the idea of applying quotas to them. I do not expect that the hon. Minister of Agriculture would know a great deal of the difficulties or complications that might arise if the canning industry in British Columbia through its representatives were to ask

Marketing Act-Mr. Reid
for a board to be set up in that province. In British Columbia there are some forty-four canneries and well over five thousand gill net fishermen, most of whom own their gear and boats. The minister might say that these fishermen might get together and ask for a board to be set up, but so long as the bill provides that producers and marketers can come to the minister for a board my belief is that the marketers, the canned salmon industry, will probably be the first to ask for a board to be set up to control the product of fishing, namely, canned salmon. If such should be the case, I fear very greatly what might happen to the fishermen. The fishermen might want and did want to start a cooperative association of their own so that they could market their product. That association has not been in operation during the past year or so and were a board to be set up by the canners any movement on behalf of the fishermen for a cooperative association might very well be blocked, and the board that was acting on behalf of the canners might also control both the method of catching fish and the price of the product. I very much fear that that would not be in the interests of the fishermen.
I would ask	the minister to	tell me if	anyrequests	have	been made	on	behalf of	thefishing and lumbering industries to come under a bill of this kind. I know that the minister has had	lots	of requests	on	behalf of	thefarmers.	I know that the	apple growers,	the
fruit men and the milk producers of my province are demanding some sort of marketing legislation, but I doubt very much if any request has come to the minister from either of these other two industries, and I do appeal to the minister on behalf of the fishermen particularly to eliminate from the amendment now before the house some of the natural products contained in it, and that in particular the natural products of the sea, lake or river and forest be eliminated.
For the benefit of the committee I may say that there are some three hundred saw mills in the province of British Columbia, and I think I am correct when I suggest that probably ten of these mills produce seventy-five per cent of the total production. If the production had to be reduced by some ten or fifteen per cent I am of the strong opinion that the small mills would be the ones compelled to shut down. I urge this in all sincerity because I am not putting a hypothetical case, or setting up a straw man to be knocked down. I am stating what I believe to be the case from my experience. I maintain that so long as producers and marketers remain in the bill the danger I have suggested exists in 74726-109
regard to the fishing and lumbering industry, and I think the minister and the government would be well advised to consider dealing only with farm products at the beginning, and try the act out with regard to them. I doubt if any other country has gone so far at one jump as to include the natural products of the forest, sea, lake or river, and any article of food or drink, and agricultural products. If the: act works out well for the farmers with agricultural products, which I am bound to admit do require some assistance, it might then well be extended to other industries, but I doubt if these other industries have asked for it. I would like the minister to tell me if they have.
I would also suggest that we might make better progress if we allowed the contentious clauses to stand and proceeded to consider the other ones. Will the minister consider eliminating from the amendment which he has offered the products of the forest, sea, lake or river?


Robert Weir: I have not at hand any requests that have been made from either the fishing industry or the lumbering industry. There is no doubt that if the fishermen or the fishing industry do not feel that there is any need for the application of this part of the bill there will be no local board set up.
I would ask the hon. member for New Westminster to consider this other phase, if the marketing of fish, for example, or the fishing industry is everything that could be desired? Does he not think from his closer contact with the industry from his location than some of the rest of us have that it might be possible in some way for the Dominion Marketing Board to be of assistance to the fishing industry without the application of this particular method of submitting a scheme? No scheme1 would be set up unless a majority of the fishermen or of those engaged in the industry asked for it. So they are protected in that way.
But aside from that I gather from debates that I have heard in this house about the condition of the fishing industry, and from the suggestions that have been made to improve it that the Dominion Marketing Board might be able to be of great assistance to the fishing industry, but for that purpose the definition would have to remain as it is.


Thomas Reid: Perhaps the minister has not caught my point. If you retain in the bill the words "producer" or "marketer" you make it possible for a marketer to ask for a board to be set up, as distinct from the producer who could also ask for a board and you also make it possible for a "producer and mar-

Marketing Act-Mr. Neill

keter" to ask for a board. There are three distinct bodies. There is the producer as a producer, the marketer as a marketer, and there is also the producer and marketer, because some products are both produced and marketed by farmers and others. I do not think the minister caught my point as to the fishing industry. In British Columbia you have, on the one hand, the producer, the fisherman who owns his own gear and boat, at considerable cost. He produces the fish and then another man or a company purchases them and markets them. I was thinking of a marketer coming to the minister and asking for a board to be set up to be distinct from the board set up by the producers. I think there is great danger in that and I doubt if such a board set up by the canners would be of any benefit to the fishermen. We now have all kinds of rules and regulations and inspections to govern quality and I do not think such a board would improve matters. I do not know whether the minister has got my point with regard to the producers, on the one hand, and the marketers on the other; the fishermen, on the one hand, and the cannery men on the other.


Robert Weir: I understand it.


Alan Webster Neill: I must endorse the stand taken by my colleague from British Columbia (Mr. Reid) and also by the hon. members for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) and for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) and I think by two or three hon. members from Quebec, It has been asserted that hon. members on this side are attacking this bill for political reasons, an "agin the government" sort of thing, but when hon. members like the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) and the others I have mentioned ask the government to delete wheat, fish and lumber from the provisions of this bill, I think it is evident that at least they are convinced that it is desirable that these industries should be left out. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) has spoken of taking our political lives in our hands; we certainly are doing that in taking this stand unless we have the backing of the industries concerned. I have not had one single request in any way, shape or form from fishermen to support this bill. The minister has said that it will not be brought into effect unless a majority of the fishermen ask for it but with all due deference I must tell him that as long as it is open to the marketers to ask for a board and get control of the industry, there will be danger to the fishermen. In addition there is the vista opened up by section 9. If I thought for one moment that the fishermen were not [Mr. Reid.)
backing me up unanimously or at least ninety-nine per cent-I will take a chance and say a good many of the canners as well-I would not be taking this stand. The hon. member for New Westminster stated that a year or two ago the fishermen entered into cooperation but that that was no longer in existence. That was in connection with running a cooperative cannery. But they spread themselves too much and had not sufficient capital to face the depression, so the thing fell through. However, they have now cooperation of a kind I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. It is not coercion, it is not socialism or anything like that, it is something they are doing for themselves. All they ask is that they be left alone to carry out their own scheme. I should like to quote from an article which appears in the Cooperative Union of Canada. This body might be described as the C.U.C. as against the C.C.F., and I think it is a rather more practical body.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gobeil):: Is the hon. member speaking on the amendment to the amendment?


Alan Webster Neill: Absolutely.


Mr. STEVENS:: We have not heard it yet.


Samuel Gobeil: Mr. Reid moves that section 2, subsection (e) be amended by striking out the word "lumber" in the fourth line and "forest, sea, lake or river" in the fifth line thereof.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Lumber is in the third
line of subsection (e), if that is what you are talking about.


Samuel Gobeil: It is in
the fourth line of subsection (e) after the word " tobacco."


Alan Webster Neill: In my own feeble way I am
trying to support the amendment. Is there anything wrong with that? I am trying to give the reasons why the minister should accept the amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster.


Samuel Gobeil: The
amendment to the amendment had not been regularly put to the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: Has it now been regularly
put?


Samuel Gobeil: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you, I will continue.
The article to which I referred reads:

Marketing Act-Mr. Stevens
The Kyuquot Trotters' Cooperative x4ssocia-tion, which was recently admitted to the Cooperative Union of Canada, was organized in February, 1931, after a long period interrupted by strikes and price disputes with private buyers. According to a report published in the Canadian Co-operator, March, 1934, the membership in the new association has increased to 200 fully paid shareholders at $25 a share, and well equipped stations have been established at Kyuquot, Quatsino, Nootka, Ucluelet and Bamfield, covering the fishing grounds of the west coast of Vancouver island from cape Beale to cape Scott. President E. Larum reports as follows:-"We started chiefly as producers, but shortly after incorporation opened a general store on our Kyuquot and Nootka floats. We are this winter building a modern store and office at Kyuquot. Each of our members owns and operates his own boat and gear, with a value of from $1,500 to $3,000. The fishermen deliver their daily catches to the stations of the association, where they are weighed, iced, and held until transferred to the association's chartered diesel fish-packers running on schedule to the markets at Victoria, Vancouver and Seattle, U.S. The fishermen receive at each delivery a statement of the weights, and on return of the packers each received his payment according to market prices. In the three years the association has operated we have averaged a yearly production of 1,000.000 pounds of spring and cohoe salmon at an average yearly value of $150,000, with operating expenses $40,000 a year, much of which is duty on fish marketed in the United States and selling commission. The cooperative marketing of our fish proved a success right from the start, as well for the producers as the buyers. The fishermen have learnt to take better care of their fish, and have wholeheartedly given the management their support in putting a quality product on the market. Our fish is now known to be of the highest quality, and for that reason brings the highest prices."
This association has made a gallant start and has done well during the years of the depression but we are now going to unload on it the obligations and the machinery and the regulations of this bill. The minister has said that they do not have to go in, but they will have to go in if the word "marketing" is left in the bill so that the marketers can get control of a board. Kyuquot is out of touch with telegraphic communication although I am in negotiation with the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) with a view to getting some form of wireless communication installed. At the moment it has no telegraphic communication and this association will be hampered at every turn. It will have to refer to some board located somewhere else to see whether or not it can do this or that. Suppose the board is located at Vancouver and in its judgment-we cannot always impugn their judgment; it may be animated by what it thinks is in the best interests of the industry-it thinks it desirable to get the dominion board to make a rule that no salmon 74725-199J
is to be exported from Canada. Everyone in British Columbia connected with the fish business knows that such a ruling has been the ambition of the canners for many years. They have achieved that ambition so far as sockeye salmon is concerned but they want to have it extended to all salmon. Supposing such a regulation is put into effect, what will become of these people? Under section 8 they are liable to be subjected to the control of not one, not three but five boards. Under section 8 the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, may approve of a proposal for:
The creation of a new local board to regulate the marketing of a product already subject to regulation by one or more existing local boards, provided that the existing local board or boards approve and that the powers of the new local board can be exercised consistently with the exercise of the powers of any existing local board or boards.
There may be two local boards in existence. Under subsection (d) the minister may make another board, which makes three. Then we have the provincial marketing board and the dominion board as well. Is it any wonder that we who are trying to help these fishermen and lumbermen say, "For heaven's sake, leave us alone." The lumber and fishing industries, we know, are badly off enough. The fishing industry is in a parlous condition, but it will not be improved by making things worse along the lines indicated here, and the minister himself has indicated that he has received no requests.


Robert Weir: I did not admit that; I said I had no requests before me.


Alan Webster Neill: What does that mean? Has the minister had any?


Robert Weir: Personally I have not, no.


Alan Webster Neill: Well that was what I understood the minister to say. At page 2952 of Hansard he said the other day that in one instance the producers themselves suggested a certain thing, and he said he had representations from British Columbia organizers. That, however, refers to the milk and fruit business; it does not refer to the fisheries. If the hon. member for New Westminster or I were alone in taking this view it might be said that we were animated by an improper motive or by crank ideas. But when almost every man on this side of the house representing the fishing industry begs the minister to leave that industry out of the bill and not give us its blessing, he might well consider that request. Would it not be well,
Marketing Act-Mr. Stevens

as the hon. member for New Westminster has suggested, to let us try it first on the dog; let us try it on the agriculturists. I hope they will pardon my rough metaphor, but they know I mean well. I do suggest however that we should begin with one industry, trying it on agriculture who have asked for it. But for heaven's sake leave the fishermen alone.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the view taken by the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni represents a pretty wide stretch of the imagination. There is nothing in the bill that will, as my hon. friend says, force this upon any group of operatives, either in the lumber or in the fishing industry. The bill is very clear in that regard; there must be a request for it from the operatives. The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Neill) says, "But those interested in marketing may ask for a board."


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, that is quite true. I gather from the portion of the discussions I have heard that it is perhaps dangerous for me to suggest possible cases, because they will be seized upon and distorted into my declaring that it is the intention to do this or that. But if hon. gentlemen will permit me to illustrate, without charging me with having in the back of my mind, or suggesting that the Minister of Agriculture or any other member of the government has in the back of his mind, any intention of doing this or that, I could illustrate possible circumstances where it might be highly desirable and in the interests of industry to have some body or organization that could deal with a given situation. In what I am about to say, I wish it clearly understood

I emphasize this-that I am merely giving an illustration.
On the Pacific coast we have had very serious difficulty in connection with the export of herring, owing entirely to conditions beyond our control. I do not like to discuss this matter, and I hope it will be taken in the proper way. In the orient there has been a conflict of view between Japan and China- we will be frank about it. As a matter of fact China, which is a very important market for this product, imposed a local boycott upon herring coming from British Columbia because it was alleged that, in part or in whole, they were packed or handled, or owned or marketed by Japanese nationals. Now, that quarrel has nothing to do with us, but I can assure hon. gentlemen that it created a situation which

presented a very great difficulty to my own department. We had to handle it with a rather delicate touch, and I may say that it was perplexing. I can quite understand that under such circumstances the functioning of a board such as might exist under the act could very well handle a situation of that kind. In fact, I can see clearly where it might be of great advantage, without in the slightest degree interfering with the producer of herring. I will give another illustration.


Alan Webster Neill: Can the minister explain how the board could handle it to advantage?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. I will go a little
further, but again I warn my hon. friend that I am not stating what is likely to occur; I am merely speculating, trying to illustrate the situation. In the incident to which I have referred it was necessary for us to give assurances to certain sections of the market in the orient that the goods were not packed by a certain class of people in this country. As I say, in a measure it was none of our business; but, in the interests of the industry at the coast, we felt that it was our business as far as possible to secure the data and give the assurance, and with the assistance of the different parties in the transaction we were able to do so. In that way, I think, a board such as could be erected under this act would be of exceedingly great value, because its certificate would be accepted in all probability by the country to which the goods were destined.
I will give another illustration, and I ask the house not to request me for the moment to specify. I can do so if it is considered desirable, but I do not regard it as desirable to be specific in public. I have in mind a country in Europe-there are several, but there is one in particular which I have in mind, and an important one-which has placed a specific quota on imports into its market. Now, that is not something of our doing, but something which in their wisdom they have put into execution. Now when we approach the marketing season, obviously it is desirable as far as possible to arrange with the Canadian exporter to fit into the demands of that important market. That is done to the best of our ability. It is fraught with great difficulty and many perplexities, and there is great danger that if it is perpetuated and goes on year after year, or if the quota were narrowed a bit, it might be so perplexing as to involve perhaps unfairness to some exporters as against others.

Marketing Act-Mr. Stevens


Alan Webster Neill: You are referring to canned
salmon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and I would ask that I be not requested to be too specific because it is not desirable. But there again it is necessary that we should have some organization to meet the exigencies with which we are confronted because of the actions of another country. I have in mind another situation, and it is applicable to fish, where there has been a contraction of the market, but where with the assistance of a board of this kind it might be possible to encourage or to develop export. I am myself giving that some study at the moment.
I can assure the committee that I can see changed conditions with which we are confronted all over the world in the matter of trade and the admission of goods into other countries, and with these changed conditions it may become absolutely imperative that we should have other machinery than the somewhat loose methods which under normal conditions might prove satisfactory or which in the past have proven fairly so.
Both hon. gentlemen who have preceded have referred to the products of the forest. I really see very little likelihood of there being any demand in that respect. Within the last year we have been confronted with a problem in connection with one of our largest manufacturing products-I do not wish to specify. We have been confronted with a condition of absolute chaos within the industry, and again this is due in large part to new conditions which have come into existence outside the control of the government of this country. We have had no machinery to deal with the situation. We have had no powers to meet it, but, I can easily appreciate that it is quite possible we might be of very great assistance to a Canadian group who were exporting in a large way from both coasts- and as a matter of fact there has been a condition of warfare between the two coasts in this particular product. Now, a marketing authority such as might come into being under this act, at their request, could act as mediator and conciliator between the two conflicting bodies of interest.
I express my own conviction-because I quite appreciate what both hon. gentlemen have in their minds-that there is no possibility, perhaps I should say no probability of there being any onerous obligations imposed upon any group against its will by reason of the passing of this act. I cannot conceive of anything of the kind being even remotely possible. Both hon. gentlemen who have
spoken rather emphasized the rights or liberties of the individual fisherman. I can say this, that with the principle that runs through this act I cannot see any possibility of anything being imposed upon any individual or class of operatives against their will. And as for there being any danger that the board might, in directing marketing, in its turn reflect or impose its will on the producer,- that is, I believe, the real apprehension in the mind of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni -one could conceive of an extreme condition under which it might go to the extent of doing that. But I should say that it would be completely foreign to the intent of the bill, and I cannot conceive of such an authority doing so. Certainly if that should happen there would easily be an opportunity to deal with it at the first session following such an act.
I feel impelled to say this-and I know I carry the judgment of my colleagues-that there is no thought in the mind of the minister who has charge of the bill or in the mind of any af his colleagues that there shall be erected a board which shall, in conflict with the wish of those whose business comes under it, act in any way antagonistic to their interest. I do see however where, in this changing condition with which we are daily confronted, such a board might be very useful in both these industries.


Alan Webster Neill: I appreciate the moderate tone which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has adopted and I will try to meet him in the same spirit. We agree with him entirely that the minister is animated by a proper desire in putting through this bill, and hopes and believes that nothing but good can come out of it. But when you are dealing with legislation you must contemplate, not what a minister designs and hopes and intends, but the use which other people may make of your legislation, human nature being essentially selfish.
As regards dried salted herrings for the oriental market, the minister said that the board might give certificates to the effect that the product was entirely handled by certain people, and so on. But that is done now. There is an inspection system under the Department of Fisheries and none of the product goes away without a certificate clearly indicating its quality and origin. The business is passing altogether into the hands of the orientals anyhow, and I am not particularly concerned to see that continue.
The minister was on sound ground when he brought in the question of the quota. That js above all one defence and justification and
Marketing Act-Mr. Neill

reason for the bill. If the British or some other nation say, "We will out off your quota of meat, butter, cheese, or whatever it may be", then we must have some machinery to handle that situation; and the argument of the Minister of Trade and Commerce was at least sound in that regard. But I would make this reply to him. Canned salmon is comparatively a small industry, in the hands of a few people, and it is held almost entirely on the Pacific coast. There are only two nations that have any suggestion of a quota at the present time. Last year I believe there were some thirty-four or thirty-five canneries operating in British Columbia. There is an association knows as the Canned Salmon Section of the British Columbia Manufacturers' Association, and I think there are only twenty-one or possibly twenty-two members. So that if it developed that a certain nation was putting a quota on canned salmon it would be easy for that private association to get together and regulate the supply and they would do it in a far simpler and easier way than it could be done through a board of this kind. That, I think, meets a good deal of the argument put forward by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I wish to give one further illustration to show why these people want to be left alone. Before I discuss that however I would refer to what the minister said in reference to lumber. He expressed the opinion that it was not at all likely that there would be any demand for a board. If he does not think that it will be asked for, and if the lumbering men have not asked for it, why not leave it out and have one trouble le.ss for the minister who will be in charge of the act? However, coming back to the cooperative association, and cooperation is supposed to be the basis of a good deal of this act, like all business men they must look ahead. In shipping fish to the market they engage diesel fish packers running on schedule. The contract, as I happen to know, for taking this fish in the months of May, June, July and August is made the previous fall, probably in November or early in December. Next fall, if this bill is in effect and this cooperative association undertakes to make a bargain to get these packers running to schedule, what guarantee will they be able to give? Suppose they want to ship a million and a half pounds of fish next year; they cannot guarantee that they will be allowed to ship the fish to the United States or anywhere else, nor can they guarantee any fixed price or quantity. What is the packer going to do? He will insist upon 
something definite. He will then be told that the consent of the board will be obtained. But it is hard to get the consent, of a board recently established to deal with conditions that will exist nine months in the future. Possibly they might have to go to the dominion board at Ottawa, and these men have neither time nor inclination, nor do they see the necessity for anything of the kind.
I cannot put the situation too strongly, and it is backed up by almost every representative of the fishermen in this house. Is not that full of significance to the minister? Would not some of them get up and say that in their particular districts the bill would be of benefit to the people they represent if that were really the case? The fishermen have made no request to the minister, so I wonder if he could not let this stand over and make some investigations of his own. Let him send out word to British Columbia through the acting Minister of Fisheries; let him ask the president of this cooperative association what he thinks. He is entitled to be heard.	I have not	his opinion	on	thesubject, but	this	would	affect him	or	atleast the association which he represents. Ask the canned salmon association; they would be entitled to give their views, but do not take such extremely drastic action in connection with an industry which is peculiarly ill adapted to come under the act and which does not appear to have been considered by the men	who	drew	it, without	giving
the matter serious consideration. It is quite evident that this act was framed having regard to agricultural products in the main, and it is not suited to the problem of fish.


Mr. GANONG:: Mr.	'Chairman,	in	my
constituency more people depend for a livelihood on fishing than on any other industry, and the fishing of sardine herring is the most important branch of that industry. The greater part of these herring go to the canning factories of Eastport, Maine, which pay only on the number of cases they can pack out of the fish they receive. Our fisher-ment have no chance at all to check up as to how many cases they do pack. Several times they have tried to form an organization in order to protect themselves, but with hundreds of weirmen it is easy for the factories in Eastport to persuade some of them to sell their fish on the basis of the number of cases packed, and as soon as one or two weirmen do it all the others have to follow. This marketing bill will give these fishermen the opportunity they have been looking for to unite, if they see fit to do so, in order to have some control not over prices but over

Marketing Act-Mr. Duff
the way their fish are marketed, and the quantity they have to market. To-day they may ship their fish to Eastport, and they may be told that the fish were not fit to pack or perhaps that they had to be put into fertilizer, for which they would get little return. Coming from a fishing constituency I think one of the first applications to this board will be from the sardine fishermen of Charlotte, and I would regret very much indeed to see the fishermen excluded from this act.


Mr. DUFF:: In answer to the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) may I say that there is no need of any such act as this, if the fishermen of his constituency wish to get together and decide where they will sell their fish, to whom they will sell them or what quantity they will sell. That can be done by local organizations in a cooperative way, and this board is not necessary at all. So far as I am concerned I am going to take only a few minutes of the time of the committee, because I have come to two conclusions. The first is that a majority of the members of this parliament are going tc pass this bill, and the second is that the quicker the bill goes into operation.the better it will be, because inside of two or three months the government and members of parliament, as well as the fishermen, the lumbermen and the farmers w'ho come under this bill will be praying to God for the government to repeal the act.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Let us carry it.


William Duff: That is what I say, but as I have not spoken in the committee previously perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to say a few words, because the province of Nova Scotia is interested in this legislation. I take it from what was said a moment ago by the Minister of Agriculture, who is in charge of this bill, and by his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reply to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) who moved this amendment striking out fish and lumber, that the fishermen need not come in under this bill unless they so desire. That is my first point. Now I turn to section 9 of the bill, which reads:
Notwithstanding that no petition in relation to any natural product has been filed, the minister may, if he is satisfied that the trade and commerce in the said product is injuriously affected by the lack of a local board to regulate such product, at any time propose a scheme for the marketing of such product

Surely if what was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the Minister ol Agriculture a moment ago is correct, and no one need come under this scheme unless they
so desire, section 9 should be eliminated from the bill. My second point is that the minister said that no fishermen need come under this bill unless they so desired and unless a majority of the fishermen asked to do so. If that is so, and the fishermen, the farmers or the lumbermen need not come under the bill unless they wish, why is it necessary to put the producers to all the trouble set forth in this bill? For instance, the bill requires any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses and occupations, not only those who wish to come in under the scheme but everyone, whether they come under the scheme or not. They must register their names, addresses and occupations with the board. My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) must laugh at that. How are you going to get the fishermen scattered from Ketchikan to the Fraser river to register? You will need an army of officials.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: A census.


William Duff: You will have more than a
census; you will need the election enumerators they are going to appoint next month. Then every fisherman has to obtain a licence.


Robert Weir: Only those who of their own volition submit a scheme will be asked to do so. I think the hon. member is under the impression that these things are compulsory if there is no scheme. If the fishermen of Nova Scotia submitted a scheme which they thought would be to their advantage in the marketing of their fish, it is optional whether or not there will be a poll. There might be organizations set up in which there would be no poll and no compulsion, but we will take the case which I believe the hon. member has in mind. If the scheme submitted asked that a poll be taken in order that a vote might be secured to see if a majority were in favour of such a scheme, in which the others would be forced to participate, even then it might not be a part of that scheme to have these people registered or licensed. I agree with the. hon. member that in many cases it might be almost impossible to take a vote, but that would be dealt with at the outset. I wish to emphasize the fact that this registration would only come about when the scheme submitted by the producers themselves requested that this should be done. Perhaps it was not necessary for me to make these remarks, but I thought my hon. friend misunderstood me.


William Duff: Perhaps the act is not very well drawn or I do not understand it, but here is what it says:
Marketing Act-Mr. Duff

The board shall-have power-to require any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses and occupations with the board, or to obtain a licence-
That is not any or all persons who come under the 'scheme, but all persons having to do with the product.


Robert Weir: The word that covers what I have said is the word "regulated." It is only in connection with a regulated product, and we can only have a regulated product when a scheme is set up.


William Duff: That is in another subsection. But this paragraph (f) is not required at all. It provides that all persons shall register their names, addresses, occupations, and shall take out licences. That is certainly clear language. If the minister states he will amend that so that it will refer only to those who come in under the scheme-


Robert Weir: Let me explain.


William Duff: I think we understand it.


Robert Weir: No, I am afraid
not. In the. same section the hon. member is reading appear the words "regulated product." The basis of the whole subsection turns on these words "regulated product," and those words apply only where a scheme has been set up.


Samuel Gobeil: May I
remind the committee that we are now on section 4, and that it would be preferable to continue discussing it.


William Duff: Let me go a little farther.
The minister said that no fishermen would be required to come in under this scheme unless they did so by a vote. As an example, let me take the province of Nova Scotia, and ask the minister whether he will have only one local board in that province, so far as the fishing industry is concerned, or how does he propose to find out whether the fishermen desire to come in under the legislation?


Robert Weir: That would be for
the fishermen themselves to say. If they felt that they wished to join together, in the way we have explained, they themselves would bring the matter before the dominion board, and through it to the dominion government.


William Duff: The point I am getting at
is this: Does that mean that all the fishermen of Nova Scotia-or 60 per cent, or 70 per cent, or a majority-will have to decide to come in under the scheme before the board is appointed, or does it mean that every

locality in Nova Scotia can vote to come in under the scheme and each ask for a local board?


Robert Weir: One scheme might
be submitted from a particular locality in Nova Scotia. But if another scheme were proposed, another local board suggested, and the scheme submitted to the provincial government, if it had to do with purely domestic trade within the province, I have no doubt these different groups would combine into one group. What the hon. member suggests is possible, but I would say it is not conceivable.


William Duff: I am afraid the minister does not understand the situation, so far as the fishing industry is concerned. Let me explain to him that there are at least two hundred localities or fishing ports in the province of Nova Scotia in each of which there are anywhere from, say, fifty to one hundred or more fishermen. In some cases perhaps there may be five hundred or one thousand fishermen. But, as I have said, there are two hundred different fishing localities. I understand from the minister that in each of these two hundred places the fishermen may get together and decide by their vote either to come in under the scheme, or to stay out. And if they do decide to come in under the scheme, then in those two hundred places there will be two hundred local boards and all situated in the province of Nova Scotia, and in the fishing industry alone. Is that right?


Robert Weir: They could not
come in of their own volition, even if they had voted and decided to come in. Their scheme would have to be submitted to the dominion board, and through it to the governor in council. One of the conditions might or might not be that a vote would be taken. That is not the only way in which assistance could be given to the fishermen. Assistance might be given by the dominion board itself, because its jurisdiction in matters of export trade would be interprovincial. Outside of any vote being taken whatever, if on investigation or as a result of representations to the dominion board it were shown that some action by the dominion board might be taken to assist in the marketing of fish, or to assist in any other way in the fishing industry, action could be taken without reference at all to the small localities or the individual fishermen.


William Duff: The minister has not answered the question regarding these two hundred localities which may call their fishermen together and have a vote, each locality decid-

Marketing Act-Mr. Duff
ing to ask for a local board. These localities are scattered throughout a long coast line. For instance, they cannot deal only with one local board. If this scheme is to work they must have local boards of their own. If in each locality they vote for a local board, and to come in under the scheme, will a local board be set up?


Robert Weir: If that is what they wanted, and if in a particular locality a condition existed as a result of which the fishermen in that locality felt that they could be assisted, their request would be given consideration and might be approved. But it would be effective only in that locality alone. If there were a number of other localities which wished to do the same thing and they organized for provincial trade, then I would say there would be no difficulty in having them so organized by having one vote to unite them all.


William Duff: If there were only one local
board in Nova Scotia, so far as the fishermen were concerned, where would that local board be situated, and how would the fishermen keep in touch with the local board, or the local board with the fishermen?


Robert Weir: If a scheme were
to be set up in that particular way, it would be set out as shown here in the bill. When the scheme is submitted they will state where the headquarters are to be, the personnel of the board, how the board is to be selected, and so on.


William Duff: That is what I am trying to
say to the minister, namely, that if the fishermen themselves, the government or the dominion marketing board decide there shall be only one local board-and for the sake of argument we will say it is to be at Halifax, which is fairly central-that board would be three or four hundred miles away from one part of the province, and about two hundred miles away from another part. Along that coast line, both east and west, are perhaps two hundred fishing villages and towns. I say to the minister that either he has got to have a local board in every fishing district-or practically every fishing district-or the thing would be absolutely unworkable, even if the scheme were good. That is the point.
And here is another point: Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that in fifty fishing settlements scattered along the Nova Scotia coast line the fishermen met and a majority decided to come in under the scheme. Then, in the other one hundred and fifty settlements we -would suppose that the fishermen do not want to come in under the scheme; they do not meet, and they do not vote. Now
then, the minister is going to set up either fifty boards or one board for those fifty settlements, which have intervening settlements not operating under any scheme. If that is done, under this measure how is the minister going to help the fishermen, so far as prices or the marketing of their goods are concerned, because the fact would be that three-quarters of the fishermen are outside of the legislation, and as a matter of fact have not asked to come under it? Only one-quarter of the settlements along the Nova Scotia coast line have asked, by their vote, to come in. That scheme, unless under clause 9 the minister forces the remaining one hundred and fifty settlements to come in, would not apply to all. How would it work if, as I said a moment ago, it is left to the fishermen themselves to decide, and if only fifty settlements out of two hundred decide to come in, the remaining one hundred and fifty deciding to stay out? The one hundred and fifty settlements would be able to sell their fish at whatever prices they wished, when they wished and to whom they wished. But under the scheme the remaining fifty operating under the local board would be put in a disadvantageous position. Could the minister tell us how he would work that out?


Robert Weir: Again, of course, it is a hypothetical case.


William Duff: No, it is not a hypothetical case.


Robert Weir: I take it that it is.


William Duff: Oh no, it is not, at all. It is a practical illustration from real life.


Edward James Young: Hypodermic.


Robert Weir: It is a hypothetical case in that it is not an actuality now before us to decide upon. But to answer the question, those fifty have a problem before them and they would know when they submitted their scheme, and when they voted, that it was for their own particular difficulties and locality. They feel that by the fifty combining together they could improve their conditions independent of the others. It would be only on that basis, I take it, that they would submit such a scheme.


William Duff: Before the minister included fish and fish products he must have had some idea that this bill was going to benefit the fishermen. How did he arrive at that conclusion? I have had some experience in the industry myself and I am serious when I say to the minister that I do not believe this will benefit the fishermen one iota. You are only going to put impediments in the way of the fishermen selling their products.

Marketing Act-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) stated that it was the unanimous idea of the members of this house that lumber and fish products should be excluded from the operation of this act he certainly was not speaking for me. I am very much opposed to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). In my riding last year the conditions in the fishing industry were so bad that the provincial government of Manitoba held an investigation. It might surprise hon. members of this house to learn that there was perhaps over a million dollars' worth of fish produced in my riding a couple of years ago. If the amendment of the hon. member for New Westminster carries it will mean that the fishermen in my riding will have no redress whatever because most of their product is exported to the United States, and therefore it must come under dominion jurisdiction.
I think that the arguments of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni are not worthy of very much consideration, especially when he says that the hon. minister may permit an order to be made that no fish shall be exported from Canada. I never heard such an absurd statement in this house. You talk about human nature and its selfishness. Well, we have a situation existing in this country at the present time where citizens of Canada who are producing the products of the soil and working in the lumber camps or in the factories or in the fishing industry are practically in a state of starvation, in a state of slavery, and yet hon. members stand up in this house and talk about freedom. I heard the hon. member for Ontario the other afternoon lighting the lamps of all the failures of the past to try and prevent this government from enacting this progressive legislation. I think we have reached a situation in this country where the Liberal party as represented by the members in this house is no longer worthy of the name Liberal, and certainly they do not represent what I choose to call freedom. Freedom of the individual to starve, perhaps, and freedom of our industries to perish. There is a situation confronting us at the present time of superlative abundance. and yet we find poverty and chaos and bankruptcy.


Mr. McPHEE:: Four years of Toryism did it.


James Herbert Stitt: What will it be four years from now if the people of Canada put so-called Liberals into power who know not the meaning of liberty or freedom, and

who have no policy whatever. I think that any man with common sense can stand up and say to the people of this country that the true guardians of liberty and prosperity are to be found in the Conservative party and that the real Tories are over there.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What about South Oxford?


Edward James Young: How is this bill going to help the fishermen?


James Herbert Stitt: My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni stands up and says: For God's sake leave us alone. I say, Mr. Chairman, For God's sake and in the name of charity let us bring some order out of this chaos. Let us try to improve conditions and make Canada a fit place to live in. I am ashamed of the Liberal party. I came to this house with a great many Liberal ideas and I still have them. -


An hon. MEMBER:: You are a Liberal.


James Herbert Stitt: Yes, a real Liberal, not a so-called Liberal, and when we describe the Conservative party of the present time we should underline the first part of the name, "Liberal'-Conservative party. It certainly seems to me an extraordinary situation when the right hon. gentleman who is leading the opposition at the present time, and who has been one of the greatest exponents of liberty, who wrote a volume of Industry and Humanity-
Mr. NiEILL: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. Has the hon. gentleman's admirable treatise on the parties in Canada anything to do with this amendment?


James Herbert Stitt: It has a whole lot to do with it.	'


Alan Webster Neill: It has nothing to do with it. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Samuel Gobeil: On the point of order I have been of the opinion that this committee has been out of order about half the time. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment.


James Herbert Stitt: After the provincial
government held an investigation into the fisheries of Manitoba it is rather strange that without any operation of law whatsoever, and simply because the government gave some indication that they would act, the fishermen got a higher price for their product.

Marketing Act-Mr. Qumn


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: That is because we have a good government in Manitoba.


James Herbert Stitt: I believe it is good policy for the government to include large areas within the ambit of their legislation. I think the government should take as much power as possible. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce answered the argument of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi when he said that it was not the intention at all to do all those superfluous, imaginary things that were suggested by the hon. member. I have not taken any part in this debate before, Mr. Chairman, but as I have stood up in this house and criticized this government, I want now to stand up and commend them for really trying to do something to try to bring order out of chaos.


The CHAIRMAN:: The question is on the amendment to the amendment.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, are
we dealing with the fishermen or with the section ?
Amendment to the amendment negatived.


Mr. QUINN:: Mr. Chairman, will you please read the amendment? You are taking a vote and many members of the committee do not know what it is about.


Samuel Gobeil: The
amendment to the amendment has been read to the committee.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I am asking that you read it again so that we may vote intelligently.


Samuel Gobeil: If it is
the wish of the committee I will read it again. The amendment to the amendment is that section 2. part (e) be further amended by striking out the words "lumber, and such other natural products of the forest, sea, lake or river," in lines four and five thereof. The amendment to the amendment has been lost and the question is now on the amendment.


William Duff: The hon. member wants to
vote.


Samuel Gobeil: The
subamendment is lost.


William Duff: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) asked the chairman to read the amendment so that he would know how to vote. I ask that we vote again.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member did not mention voting, he asked that the subamendment be read and I read it with the consent of the committee.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I do not require any instructions from the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) as to my duties in this committee. I have listened to the hon. gentleman tell of the trials and tribulations and troubles of the fishermen in Nova Scotia. If there is an industry in Nova Scotia or in any other part of this country which needs the assistance proposed under this bill, it is the fishing industry. The hon. member for AntigonishAIuysborough knows that for the past three or four years the fisherman has been getting so little for his product that he finds it extremely difficult to obtain a livelihood. If this bill is only an experiment, it should be given consideration and at least a trial in order to see if the fishermen of Nova Scotia and the other provinces cannot obtain some relief from the conditions under which they now have to exist. I would point out to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough that there is an organization known as the Maritime Fishermen's Union. This organization has a large membership and it should be able to give advice to the minister who will be charged with the administration of this bill. I think the membership of this union represents the best fishermen in the maritime provinces and if any expression of opinion has been received from that organization as to whether or not a board should be set up in the maritime provinces for the purpose of marketing and regulating the products of the fisheries, I think it should receive consideration. I think if that body made a recommendation, the rest of the fishermen in the maritime provinces would agree and get behind them,


William Duff: I had no intention of instructing the junior member for Halifax as to how lie should vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Duff: What is wrong with that? I heard him tell the chairman that he did not understand what we were voting on. I thought I was being courteous to him when I asked the chairman to read this subamendment again. If that were done I thought that the junior member for Halifax would understand what it was about and would know how to vote. Surely there was nothing wrong in that.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I did not say there was anything wrong.


William Duff: You were very annoyed and you said that you were not going to take any instructions from me. In view of the court-

Marketing Act-Mr. Speakman
eons action on my .part in asking the chairman to read the subamendment so that the hon. member could understand it, I think his remarks are gratuitous.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I appreciate the hon. member's assistance.


William Duff: My hon. friend has given his views with regard to the bill. He told us one of the reasons he is in favour of it was the condition of the fishermen of Nova Scotia for the last few years. He then went on to say that if the government wanted to find out anything about this bill they could obtain information from the organization known as the Maritime Fishermen's Union. I agree with that statement and I ask my hon. friend if this union which is composed of thousands of fishermen in Nova Scotia has approved of this bill? I can tell the minister and his colleague, the junior member for Halifax, that they have not approved of it. I might tell the junior member for Halifax that a very important organization in his city, the Halifax board of trade, and others, are absolutely opposed to this bill. My hon. friend must have got the same telegram I got a month ago from the board of trade.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I think the hon. member can interpret this bill just as clearly as I can and perhaps better. If the Maritime Fishermen's Union which is composed of such a large majority of the fishermen in Nova Scotia do not want this bill, it will not go into effect so far as they are concerned.


Mr. BARBER:: There is one product which I think might be included in the original clause. The amendment submitted by the minister contains these words, "grains, seeds, fruit and fruit products, vegetables and vegetable products, maple products, honey, tobacco". I should like to see the word "hops" included after the word "tobacco". There is a large production of hops in this country and considerable trouble is being had in importing and exporting the product. I think this industry would desire to come under this legislation and I suggest it be included.


Robert Weir: That would be included under the last part of the amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On going through the various provincial acts I notice that the general definition of natural products is the same as that given in this bill before the amendment was submitted by the minister. Does the minister anticipate any trouble because of the varying definitions of natural products in the various acts?


Robert Weir: I would say not.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: As the subamendment has been disposed of, I shall revert to the amendment. I intend to deal with grains, more specifically with wheat. When speaking on the second reading I stated that it was my personal conviction that wheat was of such importance as to merit the appointment of a wheat board under a special wheat act. I think this should be done because of the importance of the product and the peculiar problems which arise in its marketing. I might emphasize that my desire to have it excluded from this bill was wholly conditional upon its inclusion in another act which would deal specifically with wheat. Until and unless we can have assurance that this other act will be passed and a wheat board appointed, I would prefer to see wheat where it is rather than have it left out in the cold altogether. Under the provisions of this bill at least a part of the work might be done.
As to my reasons for believing it should come under a specific act and be administered by a wheat board, the remarkable degree to which the marketing of wheat has now become state controlled will not have escaped the notice of the committee. It is no longer in the hands of the trade to market as they wish; it is no longer in the hands of the producers to market as they wish, but it has become a matter controlled largely by international agreement, by obligations entered into by the various governments interested in wheat production. More and more has that become the case until the export of wheat has become almost a matter of state policy in this and certain other countries, and it is apparently becoming increasingly so. If that be the case, as I believe it is, it is logical that the state, having assumed the responsibility, perhaps unwillingly, perhaps inevitably, of controlling that international trade in wheat, should assume the further responsibility of looking after the marketing of the wheat itself.


William Richard Motherwell: Now that we are back again on the prairies where we know more about wheat than we do about fish, let me read a statement which I have shown to the Minister of Justice, to find out whether I have the right relationship between cereals and this bill. The statement is as follows:
While many farmers naturally like to see all cereals included in the new marketing act, where it is now and likely to remain, so long as we have huge carryovers and no hedging market supplied by public investors, it would seem necessary, first, for the government to establish a national wheat marketing board.

Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworth
until at least the return of normal world wheat marketing conditions and normal annual carryovers.
This seems all the more necessary so long as wheat continues to be the subject of an international agreement, such as now exists between Canada and some twenty other countries. Foreign governments could not negotiate thnswise with a number of small Canadian wheat boards, even though merged, as they doubtless would be; just as Canada could not negotiate with similar local boards in a foreign country. Furthermore, small or big local wheat boards, with delegated authority from the central marketing board, could not finance their wheat marketing operations without a government line of credit or guarantee, or both, as is being done in the case of John I. McFarland's present stabilization activities on the Winnipeg wheat market.
Just at eight o'clock I showed this statement to the Minister of Justice and also to the Minister of Agriculture. My idea is to see whether I have the right relationship described in the article which I have prepared and read, between the wheat question and this bill. As I understand the matter, we are tied up with twenty countries under an international agreement and as nations can deal directly only with nations I do not see how, if this authority is delegated to a local board, such board can conduct an international agreement with a nation. Would the Minister of Justice help me out with respect to this matter?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that my
opinion in regard to the matter of marketing wheat would be in any way as valuable as that of the hon. member who has put the question. It is true that an agreement exists whereby Canada is to be allowed 200,000,000 bushels of exports of wheat. I do not think the present bill in any way conflicts with that arrangement. Whatever form the arrangement has taken, whether a treaty or agreement or international agreement or whatever it may be I cannot see that that arrangement will in any way conflict with the arrangements proposed under this bill so long as the quota of 203.000,000 bushels is not exceeded.


William Richard Motherwell: Might I ask my
hon. friend this question: As he knows, negotiations have been going on recently between the Argentine and Canada with respect to changing the quota for the Argentine. Assuming that the Argentine government, through the regular diplomatic channels, Rideau Hall and then the Department of External Affairs got into contact with Canada, would the Prime Minister refer the Argentine government to the fact that we had in the meantime delegated this authority to a local board or, if you like, a central
board on the prairies, and would he say to the Argentine government, through the Governor General: I am very sorry; this authority has been delegated to a board in Regina or Edmonton. Will you consult with such board as to the new allocation of the wheat quotas? Is that what he would say, or what would he say?


Hugh Guthrie: I would say that we
would be bound by the terms of our agreement and the board would not be able to do anything which would conflict with that international agreement. As regards the matter of Argentina, while I do not profess to have a very definite knowledge on the subject, my information is that the government of Argentina has made a claim that the quota allowed to it should be increased


William Richard Motherwell: Thirty million
bushels.


Hugh Guthrie: *-and that the increase
involved would affect the Canadian allotment to the extent of perhaps three or four million bushels.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Has Russia done the
same thing?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not aware of that.
Therefore the claim of Argentina is not a very serious one as regards Canada but my impression as well as my opinion is that any international agreement we may have entered into or may enter into in the future would be entirely above the operations of the wheat board under this legislation, and if a question should arise as between the government of Argentina and that of the Dominion of Canada in regard to the amount of the quota, the dominion government would be the one to settle that question and it would not be referred to the wheat board for settlement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to suggest a subamendment that looks in the opposite direction from that which was defeated a few minutes ago. It seems to me that this marketing bill is somewhat anomalous in that it comes under the Minister of Agriculture. I presume that situation arises because the agriculturists have been the prime movers in requesting legislation of this- character, but it would seem as if the bill includes so many natural products that it might better come under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As matters stand, however, we have a very wdde range of natural products now coming under this bill. I consider the amendment is a distinct advance over the original drafting. In the

Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworth
original clause a natural product would not necessarily seem to have included, for example, such articles as wool, because wool is not in the narrow sense a natural agricultural product; it is one step removed from being a natural product. The same is true perhaps as regards honey, which is specified in the clause and certainly so with regard to lumber because while trees are natural products, I should think lumber is decidedly a secondary product. This second draft goes a great deal further than the original one, at least so far as a fair reading of the original draft would indicate. Now it includes the greater part of what is in the popular way styled as natural products.
Further than that, the amendment reads:
Any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product.
The question arises why the derivatives should be limited to food and drink. With the exception of lumber they are so limited. Why we should say that there should be control over lumber made of trees and why we should not give any control over furniture made of lumber or, let us say, over clothes made of wool, I cannot quite see; it seems to me to be a very arbitrary limitation. Therefore I would beg leave to extend the scope of the act by moving:
That in section 2, subsection (e) in the fifth line of the amendment, after the word "forest" there should be added' the words "the mine," and in the sixth line the words "of food or drink" should be left out.
There are two suggestions contained in this subamendment. As the amendment stands we include agriculture; we include fishing; we include lumbering operations; we include the marketing of any of the products of the forest or the sea or the lake or the river. Why should we not include the products of the mine? We have our coal mines, our gold mines, our copper mines, a great variety of mines and minerals. There seems to be no reason why we should bring in general legislation covering all those other departments of our natural products and deliberately leave out the one. It may very well be that no submissions have been made by the miners. We have been told that no submissions have been made by the fishermen or by the lumbermen. It may very well be the case that the clause will not be invoked in regard to the mines. But if it is well to have general provisions that may be used if necessary in connection with fishing or lumbering, it would seem to me that all the arguments advanced for the inclusion of these industries would substantiate my contention that we should

have some general provision that would apply to mining. The Minister of Trade and Commerce gave some specific examples to show that it would be highly desirable in the case of exports of certain types of fish that the government should be able to control the export. He said that this wras desirable in the interests of the producers. Mines and the products of mining are in precisely the same position as fishing and lumbering and I cannot see why they should not be treated in the same way.
Therefore, as I asked before, why limit the derivatives to food and drink? If the farmer is to have his product,-fruit, wheat, whatever it may be, controlled by the board, why should the mining man not have his product and its derivatives controlled or why should the textile industry not be controlled? Why limit control to food and drink? I would take it that under this bill amended as it now stands, whiskey or beer could come under control; they are articles of food or drink.


Mr. HOWARD:: They are supposed to be
under control now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but they may be brought directly under control by means of this amendment.. If whiskey or beer, articles of drink, come under this, why should clothing, household furniture, household utensils, not come under it as well?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Everything.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, quite so.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member is spoiling the bill now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am not spoiling it. I am simply suggesting to the minister that as he has drafted the bill he is arbitrarily limiting it to certain kinds of natural products thereby leaving out the products of the mines. I cannot see why mining should be made an exception. All the arguments that apply in favour of the other industries being included are in favour of mining being included.
So with regard to the derivatives, since provision is made to control food and drink derivatives, I do not see why other derivatives should not be included and therefore I urge that we should strike out the limiting words "of food or drink."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon
member gets mines included and those two limiting words left out, can he think of anything else that will not be included? Will there be anything left out? Will not pretty much everything conceivable be included.

Marketing Act


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend stated that the same reasons would apply to mines as to agricultural products, lumber, fish and the like. He is wrong in that impression. This is a voluntary arrangement so far as the producers go. There have been requests from the various producers of agriculture, of lumber and of fish. There has been a protest from the men interested in mining; they do not wish to be included. The suggestion was made and I think the first draft that I saw of the bill did have mines included. The reason they are not included in this bill is that the miners themselves did not want them to be included.
There may be a good deal of force in what he has urged in regard to secondary products, furniture and so forth. I have been approached personally in regard to furniture; the manufacturers asked to have that included. It would be well to let us walk before1 we run. Do not let us overdo the thing at the outset. This bill is a new effort in this country and I wish it the greatest measure of success, but I do not think we should overload the proposal in the meantime.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understood a little while ago the Minister of Agriculture to say that there had not been any request from the fishermen.


Robert Weir: I said that I personally had received no request from the fishermen; I had none before me.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In any case there has not been any great pressure brought to bear from either the fishermen or the lumbermen and yet they are included. It was suggested a few minutes ago that the measure should be confined to agricultural products and the government took the ground that there was no reason that it should not include the products of the forest, the sea, the lake and so on. If we are going on that assumption, I cannot for the life of me see why we cannot extend it to include this one other group of products. It seems quite logical that they should be included.
Amendment (Mr. Woodsworth) to amendment negatived.


Hugh Guthrie: There is one other amendment that I have been asked to move on behalf of the minister; it is a technical error in the drafting of the amendment. In the fifth line after the words "natural products" the words should be inserted "of agriculture and." It would then read:
Natural products of agriculture and of the forest, sea, lake or river.
I would move that amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Guthrie) to amendment agreed to.


Mr. STEWART (Lethbridge):: I would like to ask the minister a question. When speaking on the second reading of the bill I drew his attention to the question of the sugar beet industry of southern Alberta. Is sugar beet included in the definition as a manufactured article of food or drink?


Robert Weir: It is included in this definition.


Mr. GERSHAW:: May I ask if fodder crops such as alfalfa, hay and clover are included?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I wonder if the minister would be good enough to enlighten my layman ignorance as to why it is necessary to have the last eight words in this amendement. This is different from the original bill. Power is given the governor in council to designate any other product. That is all right; I would understand it if it stopped there but it continues :
-in accordance with the provisions of this act.
I fail to find any provisions in the act providing for the governor in council doing anything of the kind. These words have been introduced in the amendment, and apparently they do not jibe with the original bill. Are those last eight words necessary, and if so, w'here are the provisions in the act?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think there is any objection to the words; they do not mislead anybody. They give the governor in [DOT] council power to add other articles of a similar kind, and anything that is done in that' way shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this act.


Alan Webster Neill: I quite understand that, but it goes on to say that the designation must be made by the governor in council in accordance with the provisions of this act, and I do not find anywhere in the act any provision for the governor in council doing any designating.


Hugh Guthrie: I see no objection to striking out the words, though I do not think it would hurt the bill to leave them in. I would agree to strike out those words if my hon. friend so desire; perhaps it would give us wider power.
Mr. SPEAIvMAN: Would the minister be good enough to repeat the subamendment which he moved? We did not hear it, and the chairman did not repeat it.


Hugh Guthrie: The only additional
amendment is the insertion of the words "of agriculture and" after the word "products" in the fifth line of the section.
Marketing Act


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Subsection (f) agreed to.
On subsection (g)-regulated product.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask just one question here. In this subsection there are three references to the word "scheme." The interpretation section does not include any definition of the word "scheme" itself. It seems to me that is the one term above all others that should be defined. Would the minister advise us what is meant by a scheme, and will he consider whether he should not include a section to define what is meant by that word?


Robert Weir: The particulars of the scheme are explained in section 5, and are further dealt with by regulation. A scheme is simply a proposal submitted.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Would not the word "plan" have been a better word to use all through the act rather than "scheme"?


Robert Weir: I was informed that "scheme" was a particularly good word for the purpose we had in mind, following the British marketing act.


Alan Webster Neill: Does not the minister think
there should be a definition of the word " producer "? The whole bill turns on that, and you have not a definition. There may be endless disputes about what does constitute a producer. I suppose the dictionary would say a producer is one who produces. A coal miner produces coal, but I suppose he would be classed as an employee and not as a producer. A good many questions of that kind may arise in connection with fisheries. How about a man who is working on shares; he is paid so much a ton for the fish he catches, and1 a certain share is taken by the owner of the boat. I submit that there should be a definition of that word.


Robert Weir: Would the hon.
member show me where the word "producer" appears in the bill? It may be there, but the purpose of the bill is to regulate the marketing of natural products, and of course the owner of the product is the producer, not the hired help who assist in the work.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know that at a glance I can put my finger on the word, but I should like to know how many times the minister has mentioned it in discussing this bill. His whole defence and explanation has been that the producer will do so and sio, and that any scheme will have to be approved

by the producer. I think it does appear in the bill, but that is immaterial. The whole bill hangs on the meaning of the word.


Robert Weir: If I used the word " producer " it would be simply as a short way of saying all the persons engaged in the production of these natural products.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
iSection 2 as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Dominion marketing board.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, would you read the first subsection, please, so that it will be of record as to what we are voting on?


Samuel Gobeil: Subsection (1) reads:
The governor in council may establish a board to be known as the dominion marketing board to regulate the marketing of natural products as hereinafter provided.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Carried. I
hope that makes it perfectly clear that so far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we are in favour of a marketing bill to regulate orderly marketing. It does not follow however, that we are in favour of certain or all of the provisions of this act.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection (2)-constitution of the board.
Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister explain
why we are appointing a board without being told how many members will be on it or what remuneration they will receive? Will he mention any board of similar importance in Canada that was appointed under these conditions? The tariff board, the pensions board, the radio commission and all the other boards were described in the measures which constituted them; the number of members was set out, together with the remuneration. In some cases we went further and defined the pensions they should receive after being in office for a certain length of time, but here it is left to the sweet will of the governor in council. They hold office during pleasure; they receive such remuneration as the governor in council may see fit to give them, and there is no number stated at all. It is at least pertinent to the scope of the bill to have an idea whether that board will consist of three or of thirty members, and I think we are entitled to know something as to the number of members and their salaries.

Marketing Act
We might have some idea of the ability of the men if we knew what salaries they were to be paid.	*


Robert Weir: Of necessity this
bill must contain a good many provisions of a general character, and it must be flexible. A board might be set up consisting of three persons; a scheme might be submitted by the producers of a certain product, and it might be thought of advantage to add to the board a man particularly adapted to deal with that particular commodity. As far as the salary question is concerned, as I said before every effort will be made to obtain the services of the best possible individuals for this board.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 3 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
On subsection 9-Payments authorized.
Robert Weir: I beg to move an
amendment to subsection 9, as follows-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the
chairman would read the section first, so that we may have the whole information before us.


Samuel Gobeil: Subsection (9) appearing in the bill is as follows:
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.
Shall I read the amendment?


Robert Weir: I beg to move that the subsection be amended to read:
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 to defray the operating expenses of the board incurred by it directly,	and any	expenditure	incurred	or
authorized by the board under the authority of section 9 hereof.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would	the
minister	explain	wherein the	amendment
changes the original section.


Robert Weir: The reason for the
amendment is to limit to a certain extent demands which may be made upon the consolidated	revenue	fund, and eliminate	the
possibility of local boards drawing upon the fund for direct operating or other expenditures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree that
any limitations put upon the board in the matter of taking moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund save by parliamentary
appropriation in the first instance, are'entirely in the right direction. But I think the minister does not go far enough, and I hope the same reasoning which has led him to limit the boards' powers in connection with drawing these funds from the consolidated revenue fund will cause him to agree to an amendment which will similarly limit the governor in council in the matter of drawing funds from the consolidated revenue fund.
I do not think it is necessary again to cover the ground as to the importance of having control of all public expenditures in the hands of parliament, and particularly in the hands of this House of Commons. What is proposed by the minister now is that we shall, with regard to expenditures under the provisions of this marketing bill, adopt a course different from that which has been adopted with respect to all other measures, with the exception of the unemployment relief measures, which were supposed to meet an emergency. I should therefore like to move the following in amendment to the minister's amendment; and I hope the minister will be prepared to accept what it proposes:
That the amendment be amended by striking out the words, "out of the consolidated revenue fund" and substituting therefor the word's "out of moneys appropriated by parliament."
The amendment would not lessen the amount of money available for the purposes of this legislation, but it does keep control by parliament over the expenditures which may be necessary.
May I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the estimates as presented to parliament relate to all departments of government, and that there is nothing of an administrative character for which this parliament does not make specific appropriations which are presented to parliament for its consideration in the first instance in the form of estimates, so that all matters pertaining thereto may come before the house for discussion. For example, in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture we find votes for dairying, cold storage warehouses, fruit, including a grant of $4,500 to the Canadian Horticultural Council. Then, there is an amount for seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to seed fairs, and also a grant of $17,010 to the Canadian Seed Growers' Association. Then there is a vote for livestock, including assistance to fairs and exhibitions, and another vote for experimental farms, including investigations concerning plant diseases. There is a vote for the health of animals branch, and the administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and the Meat and

Marketing Act

Canned Foods Act. There is a vote for entomology, including investigations and inspection relating to destructive insects and pests, and so on. Aid these are votes for services pertaining to the Department of Agriculture over which parliament has control. With respect to all of them the government asks parliament in the first instance to provide the necessary moneys, in the form of appropriations and for that purpose gives estimates. I know the minister will say that it may be difficult to make an estimate as to how much will be required, but that is so in regard to any estimate. There has to be some basis, surely, on which the house may be advised as to how much will be necessary. And a procedure whereby money may be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund by the government and not controlled in amount by the House of Commons represents a complete departure from the principle of control by parliament over expenditure and taxation. What I have said with regard to expenditures in the Department of Agriculture is equally true with regard to expenditures in the department having to do with the forests, equally true in regard to expenditures with respect to the fisheries and mines, and equally true respecting any other expenditures for the administrative work of the federal government. Why should there be, in connection with this measure, a departure wholly subversive of the fundamental principle of control by this House of Commons over expenditures? I hope the minister will accept the amendment to the amendment.


Robert Weir: In answer to the
right hon. gentleman may I say he has stated, and I appreciate his statement, that he is in favour of a dominion marketing board to assist in the regulating of production. Because of that I am sure he would not in any way wish to move an amendment to any clause which would limit or hamper the possibility of any assistance which might be given to an industry. He has referred to the Department of Agriculture to show how, at the beginning of each year, estimates are made as to the expenditures for the coming year. But these have to do with well-established policies, and it is a very much simpler matter to make an estimate in connection with them than it would be to make an estimate in a new field such as the one now before us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe any cause or course is prejudiced at the outset when a minister finds it necessaiy to state that it is impossible to tell the country how much it is going to cost. After all, that is an all-important consideration with respect to 
all legislation. I venture to say that the minister himself, if interested in so small a matter as the ^purchase of a farm, for the commencement of new operations, would not think of going into such a venture or take any action in connection with it, if he did not have in his mind some estimate of the amount of money likely to be required as a consequence of his action. All business men have estimates before them before venturing into any line of business with which they intend to be associated. It is equally necessary that in the work of government some estimates should be given to parliament.
The minister has pointed out that he does not know what amount may be necessary. May I say to him that at the time of the war when expenditures ran into hundreds of millions of dollars the government of the day found it impossible to know exactly what amount would be required. Nevertheless, not once did Sir Robert Borden depart from the proper procedure of placing an estimate before parliament. He stated that in the opinion of the government, after the end of the fiscal year a certain amount would be required, a large amount, and1 asked for it. If the minister is afraid that he will not receive sufficient moneys to carry on the work of administration of the board let him ask for an amount which in his 'opinion will be sufficiently large and let us discover whether or not there are ample reasons why that large amount should be given. Surely the minister can give reasons why a particular sum of money is or is not large enough. That is all we are asking him to do. I am not suggesting that the minister shall limit or skimp in any way the amount he thinks necessary, but I do say that he should give to parliament a statement showing how much money in the opinion of the government this legislation will cost during the period of the year. If in that time it turns out that all the money is not required, the balance would remain in the consolidated revenue fund. If on the other hand there should not be a sufficient amount the minister or the government has always the privilege of having parliament vote additional amounts in the form of supplementary estimates when parliament reassembles, and if necessary parliament can be brought together at any time the government wishes. More than that, as the minister has pointed out, there are times when governor general's warrants may be used with justification. With all these provisions of which the government may avail itself, I do submit that there should not be a departure in this legislation from

Marketing Act
that fundamental principle of the control by the House of Commons over the expenditure of moneys required for administrative and other purposes and over the taxation incidental thereto.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just want to give a point of view on this. I am speaking now for myself. Frankly I think the scheme should pay its own way. I think every tub should stand on its own bottom. I believe the government should give some assistance to set the thing in motion, but it is in the best interests of the farmers themselves I believe that they pay the expenses involved in the scheme. In my judgment that will be a brake on bureaucracy. The producers will have some control over the machinery that is set in motion for their benefit. I think the government should provide the machinery for setting up the marketing boards, but it is in the best interests I believe of those who think they are going to benefit from them that they should finance them, because after all is said and done when you pay for something you have some control over the policies put into effect. I think that is absolutely sound ground on which any scheme of this description should be administered. As I say, it may be necessary to provide some moneys to set the thing in motion but once it gets established the responsibility for financing it should rest on those who are going to benefit from it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask the minister if he would give us some idea of how much is required for the purposes of this act, so we may know what it is going to involve the country in the matter of cost. First of all the board is to have the right to regulate the time and place of marketing, and so forth. Can the minister tell us in round figures what he estimates the cost of the board will be; that is to say, the salaries of the members of the board, the obtaining of premises for them and the management of their business. Can the minister give us in round figures an estimate of what that will come to?


Robert Weir: No, I would not venture an estimate as to that. I see little difference in what we have here and what the right hon. gentleman himself suggests. It has been the custom in the past to overexpend almost without limit money that has been voted, and then bring down supplementary estimates to cover the expenditure. With reference to setting a sum that might seem sufficiently ample, I see no gain in setting i particularly large sum.
In reply to the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), I would agree with him if we were in normal times or if this act had been in operation and things were more stabilized than they are. The applications that we have had from a number of industries for such legislation as this have stipulated that they expect to carry the burden themselves, but there is this difficulty of the conditions through which we are passing and the difficulty of some far-flung branch of the agricultural industry in organizing and of being in more dire need of assistance than other industries that are better organized.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is an extraordinary admission to have from the minister that he has not any idea at all what the expenses of the board will be, apart from the cost of the various functions it has to discharge. We have several boards, the tariff board, the civil service board, the board of railway commissioners and the like, and in all these cases it has been possible for the ministry to advise the House of Commons as to what the likely cost of these boards would be, but in regard to this marketing board the government apparently has not any idea, and cannot even give an estimate.
Take next the functions of this board. There are several of them mentioned, and apparently the minister is going to dip into consolidated revenue fund for the moneys required for this purpose. One provision is that the board may compensate any person for loss sustained by withholding from the market any regulated product pursuant to an order of the board. Can the minister give us any idea how much will be required for compensation under that provision?


Robert Weir: So far as the local boards are concerned that has to be done out of their own funds.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How much is expected to be done by the federal board itself?


Robert Weir: That depends altogether on the conditions during the year the act is in force.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister cannot give us any estimate at all, is that it?


Robert Weir: I do not think any person could.


Hugh Guthrie: I think there is a good deal of force in that. We do not know how this is going to operate. We cannot make a reasonable estimate. But I see no objection, if my right hon. friend will permit some change in the wording of his amendment, to
Marketing Act

our adopting it because I feel that an appropriation will have to be made by parliament this session, but I cannot name it; I cannot limit it. I cannot give a very good estimate of the amount at the present time. The amendment moved by my right hon. friend is to this effect:
That the amendment be amended by striking out the words "out of the consolidated revenue fund" therein and substituting therefor the words "out of moneys appropriated by parliament."
If he would make that read "out of moneys to be appropriated by parliament" we could accept it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly. That is entirely the purpose of the amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: We will have to bring down an appropriation this year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all I had in mind.


Hugh Guthrie: And it will be in the
supplementary estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Moneys to be appropriated for the purposes of this act-that is quite satisfactory.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is moved to amend the amendment by striking out the words "out of the consolidated revenue fund" and substituting therefor the words "out of moneys to be appropriated by parliament."
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.


Alfred Speakman: I find myself in full agreement with the views expressed by my hon. friend from East Hamilton as to this act being self-supporting. That is certainly the wish of the producers. But under this amendment which limits the scope of the original act the moneys to be appropriated by parliament are strictly limited to direct expenditures of the central board or expenses in connection with the scheme to be put in operation, not by the producer but by the minister or by the government. As it reads now, the costs of all the local boards or producers organizations, all of which come directly in contact with the product, are to be borne by the product itself. That is sound, but I do believe that the financing of the central board, a state agency, and of its operations, is the smallest contribution which this country can make to a general dominionwide problem.
There is one other point I would like to bring to the minister's attention. While I am in accord with this limitation, there is one class of expenditure which might be

excluded and yet, which it might be well to make, and that is this. When the producers have submitted a scheme, supposing it calls for a vote to be taken, before the scheme itself is in operation and producing money I think some provision might be made that the preliminary organization expenses, which, I repeat, will be incurred before the scheme itself has had any opportunity of functioning and producing revenue, might be met or at least advanced by the state. Otherwise it might be a very serious handicap to organization among producers who had no funds to contribute at the time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister's amendment now reads:
The governor in council may from time to time authorize payment to the board out of moneys to be appropriated by parliament of such sums of money as may be necessary to defray the operating expenses of the board incurred by it directly.
I assume that the words "operating expenses of the board incurred by it directly" include all expenses to be made by the board in virtue of the provisions giving the board certain powers. For example, all the expenses which would be incurred under section 4 would be expenditures incurred by the board directly. Is that not so?


Robert Weir: This is limited to section 9.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment reads, "as may be necessary to defray the operating expenses of the board incurred by it directly." Subject to the provisions of the bill, the board is to have the power to regulate the time and place of marketing, grant compensation, assist by grants or loans and acquire property. All of these functions will entail direct expenditures. I assume that all are covered or I would not feel that the amendment to the amendment begins to cover what I had in mind with regard to the control by parliament over expenditures. I do not want to have any doubt on that point.


Robert Weir: I do not think I have caught the point of the right hon. gentleman's question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I can put it another way. I assume that there is no desire on the part of the government to conceal its intention with respect to the manner in which money shall be provided for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this bill. I assume that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) in accepting the amendment to the minister's amendment which I

Hudson Bay Insurance
proposed meant it to be understood that this parliament would be asked to appropriate moneys for the purposes of this bill and that all the purposes of the bill would be covered by specific appropriations made by parliament, and that the government apart from the amounts specifically appropriated would not have the right to dip into the consolidated revenue fund for any purposes in connection with the administration or provisions of the bill.


Robert Weir: As I understand it, I would have no hesitation in answering, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister mean that there is no intention to do other than have moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this bill?


Robert Weir: As stated in the bill, in accordance with the provisions of the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is still involved. For example, there is a provision in the bill which gives the minister the power to start investigations quite apart altogether from the board. The minister himself may start an investigation into one thing or another. The proper method of proceeding with respect to any bill is to require appropriations by parliament for every single purpose of the bill. It is equally proper and necessary that the same method should be followed with regard to all expenditures to be incurred under this bill. I want the minister to say if there are any expenditures contemplated under this act which are to be met out of consolidated revenue funds without the proper appropriation being made by parliament?


Robert Weir: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all right.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) made what I think was a very appropriate suggestion. Nearly all organizations of the kind contemplated by this bill receive some assistance from the state in order to get started. Money must be got from somewhere in order to prime the pump. If a marketing scheme is started and the necessary majority not obtained, who will pay the costs? I think provision should be made either in the form of a grant or loan as this is the invariable practice of all t.he provincial governments with which I am familiar. I do not think there is any such provision in this bill. It is unfair to
leave it to the initiative of a few enterprising producers to start the ball rolling. They will have to spend considerable time in organization work and then if they fail to get the requisite vote they will have to shoulder the expenses. I think it would be quite legitimate to devote a certain amount of state money for this purpose. It could be provided for in the appropriations referred to by the Minister of Justice, but I think it would have to be mentioned in the bill before an item could appear in the estimates.


Alan Webster Neill: There is a provision for that purpose in the British act.


William Richard Motherwell: Will the minister think that over and we can discuss it tomorrow.


Robert Weir: Yes.


Mr. LUCAS:: Supposing there was a demand for a scheme and a vote was taken but it was not sufficient to bring the scheme into effect,, who would bear the expenses?


Robert Weir: I would say those who submitted the scheme in the first place. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



HUDSON BAY INSURANCE RATES

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment I desire to lay on the table two copies of the fifth report on Hudson bay insurance rates, 1934, by the imperial shipping committee.
The fifth report of the imperial shipping committee on Hudson bay marine insurance rates, which is made public to-day, indicates quite clearly that the underwriters are coming to recognize the comparative safety of this route, more particularly in view of the efforts the government is making to provide adequate aids to navigation and to maintain an efficient patrol service. The committee, on which Canada is represented by the High Commissioner for Canada, has been untiring in its efforts to obtain this recognition and have succeeded in no small measure. There is every reason to hope that as shipping over this route increases in volume and the demand for insurance grows, as it inevitably will, the more or less prohibitory rates that have been in effect heretofore will disappear.
The opinion of the committee, as expressed in this report, tends strongly to the view that during the season of open navigation the risk of casualty for vessels is little, if any, greater
Hospital Sweepstakes

on this route than on the St. Lawrence route, and they find it difficult to appreciate the reasons for the existing disparity between the rates for the suspension of warranty as between Churchill and Montreal. They, however, recognize that as long as the route is used by comparatively few vessels, as has been the case heretofore, the volume of insurance will be comparatively small and a single total loss would more than account for the profits of a whole' season. However, the committee are glad to be able to report that the joint hull committee, having in mind the experience so far obtained and the improvement of conditions effected by this government, have seen fit to recommend a reduction of ten shillings per cent on the insured value in the rates of additional premium to be charged for the suspension of warranty on this route. This reduction is in respect of vessels fitted with gyrocompass as well as vessels not so fitted. The existing advantage of ten per cent on vessels fitted with gyrocompass is maintained.
In view of the fact that the house is greatly interested in this matter, I felt this was the easiest way to bring it to its attention, rather than to make a statement outside of the house.



HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there is another
matter to which I should like to refer before the house rises, that is, the date most convenient for the debate on the second reading of Bill No. 56, with respect to hospital sweepstakes. I had thought that possibly, by consent, Tuesday next would be a good day to discuss it. Monday is not a very convenient day because all members have not returned from their week-end. If we take it on Tuesday that will afford the opportunity, which it was promised would be afforded, for a free vote on the subject. If that is convenient to the house we will make that the order of business, by consent, for Tuesday next. I should be glad to know the views of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as the opposition is concerned, Tuesday will be as convenient as any other day.


Mr. SPENCER:: This part of the house
;is agreeable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then, by consent of the
house, I move that that be made the order ,of business for Tuesday next.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Bennett.)

Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one other matter which
1 think the house should dispose of. It has been represented to the government from some quarters that the house should not sit on the 24th. I confess I had not given it thought, but when it was brought to my attention I promised to bring it to the consideration of the house. It is not necessary to conclude to-night what action shall be taken, but when the house convenes tomorrow I shall have had an opportunity of considering it with the right lion, gentleman opposite and some other members as to whether we should sit or not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will say
immediately that whatever the government decides will be acceptable to us.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.45 pan.	*
Friday, May 18, 1934