PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. G. H. PETTIT (Welland) moved:: That the petition of Lucy Doris Cannon praying for a bill of divorce from Edward Frederick Cannon, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93 (3) (a) and (c) in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville) moved:: That the petition of Annie Rosner praying for a bill of divorce from Solomon Rosner, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93 (3) (a) and (e) in relation thereto.	-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Bill No. 56 (Letter A of the Senate), intituled: "An Act with respect to Hospital Sweepstakes."
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: It will be observed, Mr. Speaker, that it is not indicated that the bill is in charge of any particular member of the house. In view of the fact that the government proposes to leave the matter entirely to the members, without any indication of the government's view with respect to what action should be taken, it might be well to set a day for the discussion of this bill. A day next week might be agreed upon, if some hon. member becomes sponsor for the bill. 
Mr. SPEAKER,: I am informed that Mr. Fraser of Cariboo sponsors the bill.
Order stands.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ROBINSON:: 1.	How many persons residing in Canada commute daily for work in the United States, and what is the total amount of their yearly wages ?
2.	How many persons residing in the United States commute for daily employment in Canada, and what is the total amount of the yearly salaries paid to them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to this question it is impossible for the government to give a correct answer. We have no means of ascertaining the information sought. We have communicated with our representative in Washington for the purpose of bringing the matter to the attention of the American government as mentioned the other day, but the question itself cannot be answered.
Question dropped.


RAW TOBACCO IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How much raw leaf tobacco was imported from the United States of America during the fiscal years ending March 31, 1920, 1921 1922 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930,' 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934?
2.	How much tobacco was exported from Canada during the foregoing years?
3.	What was the production of tobacco in Canada during the foregoing years?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Canada's imports of raw leaf tobacco' from the United States for the years ended March 31, 1920 to 1933, and for the eleven months ended February 28, 1933 and 1934, were:
Years ended March 31	Pounds	Dollars1920.. .	.. 23,398.746	12,787,1631921.. .	.. 19,032.367	12,108,2811922	19,848,439	8,108,6391923	.. 13.063.379	4,686:6421924	.. 14,421,145	5,595,8741925.. . ,	.. 12,335,687	4,592,9361926	,. 14,000,926	5,361,2511927.. .	.. 15,933.267	5,170.8481928	. 16,853,796	5,594.9461929 . .	. 17,441,819	5,618,9751930	. 15,878,880	5,363,6431931	. 15,092,356	4,335,903
Questions
Year ended
March 31	Pounds	Dollars1932	12,216,403	3,197,2831933	9,629,218	2,530,725Eleven months	ended February 28	1933	8,777,176	2,333,9561934	7,169,632	1,784,179
Note.-'Imports of raw leaf tobacco from the United States for the year ended March 31, 1934, will not be available for about two weeks.
2.	Canada's domestic exports of raw leaf tobacco for the years 1920 to 1934, were:
Canada's Domestic Exports of Raw Leaf Tobacco, with Amounts. Exported to
the United Kingdom
(Years ended March 31, 1920 to 1933; and eleven months ended February 28, 1933 and 1934)
Exports to
Years ended	Total Exports	United Kingdom	March 31	Pounds	Dollars	Pounds	Dollars1920	
223,595	130,264	181,176	94,4301921	
200,153	130,457	160,112	90,3891922	
471,991	175,826	340,487	135,7841923	
1,100.007	297,923	892,482	248,3741924	
2,055,337	375,582	1,164,061	295,1161925	
3,531,422	733,166	2,219,109	645,7301926	
2,860,413	1,045,673	2,722,897	1,030,2501927	
6,330,972	2,569,300	6,308,093	2,562,9181928	
6,079,606	2,215,916	6,054,907	2,212,4741929	
6,583,676	1,954,482	6,247,871	1,926,0851930	
6,811,391	1,504,264	5,293,167	1,389,3341931	.... 6,051,319	1,505,594	4020,202	1,415,1031932	
8,222,922	2,536,998	7,950,353	2,500,0601933	
14,748,069	3,902,244	14,618,897	3,880,096Eleven months	ended February 28	1933	
10.725,679	3,036,790	10,596,724	3,014,6641934	
7,326,682	1,914,580	7,165,989	1,890,222Note.-Exports of raw	leaf tobacco from	Canada for the	year ended March	31, 1934,
will not be available for about two weeks.
3. Canada's production of tobacco for the years 1920 to 1933, were as under:-
Years	Pounds
1920		 32,660,000*
1921		 13,249.000
1922		 25,948,000
1923		 21,297,000
1924		   18,711,000
1925		 29,266,000
1926		 28,824,000
1927		 43,917,000
1928		  41,976,000
1929		 29,886,000
1930		 36,717,000
Years	Pounds
1931	  51.300,000
1932	  54,094,000
1933	  39,400,000
* Census figure.


CATTLE EXPORTS
Mr. GOTT:: 1. How many cattle were exported from Canada to the United States of America during the years ending March 31, 1921, 1922,. 1923 1924. 1925, 1926. 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934?
2. How many cattle were exported from Canada to Great Britain during the foregoing years?
Questions


Mr. STEVENS:: 1 and 2.
Canada's Exports of Cattle to the United Kingdom and the United States (Years ended March 31, 1921 to 1934)
Cattle for improvement	Cattle for daily	Cattle, one year	Cattle, over one	Totalof	purposes.	old or less,	year old,	cattle'o United Kingdom-	stock No.	n.o.p. No.	n.o.p. No.	n.o.p. No.	No.Years ended March 31:	1921	-	-	131	1311922	-	-	35,418	35,4181923	-	_	25,758	25,7581924	-	_	59,486	59,4861925	-	_	86,245	86.2451926	-	_	117,819	117,8191927	-	. _	61,671	61,6721928	-	_	1,222	1,2221929	_	_	405	4051930	_	1931	_	_	6,223	6,2241932	-	_	26,734	26,7341933	-	-	24,301	24,3011934	-	-	54,428	54,428o United States- Years ended March 31:	1921	-	72,731	221,278	295,2791922	-	51,257	121,060	172,9611923	-	29,125	199,272	228,8951924	-	25,175	98,322	124,1681925	-	42,319	82,231	125,1931926	-	65,507	105,231	171,6331927	-	64.608	89,003	155,7071928	-	78,280	200,013	283,7891929	21,434	76,720	136,297	237,8381930	21,765	85.226	125.280	236,3321931	1,744	27,188	1,976	39.3931932	5,463	16,423	350	27,3751933	.. 3,729	3.390	1,894	213	9.2261934	.. 2,892	2,523	50	159	5,624
tobacco in bond


Mr. GOTT:: ,	Kow_much raw leaf tobacco was there in
bond in Canada as at March 31, 1934?
2.	How much United States tobacco was tnGr6 in bond in Canada as at the same date?
Kow many tobacco manufacturers had raw leaf tobacco in bond or storage in Canada as at the same date?
4.	How much has each company?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1.	5,366,295 standard pounds of foreign raw leaf tobacco were reported as being in manufacturers' warehouses, in Canada, on the 31st of March, 1934.
_ 2. Information not available as separate statistics are not maintained in the department at Ottawa as to the amount of United States tobacco in bond.

3.	36.
4.	The private business of individuals or corporations would be disclosed if such information were given and this would be contrary to the established practice of the Department of National Revenue.


PUBLIC DEBT OP CANADA
Mr. FONTAINE:: What was the amount of the public debt of Canada at the close of the fiscal year March 31, 1934?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question will be answered in the budget and full particulars will then be given.
Question dropped.

Questions as Orders for Returns


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EMPLOYEES OF PENSION AGE
Mr. HURTUBISE:: 1.	Are there any Canadian National railway employees eligible for pension still at work?
2.	If so, how many are there?
3.	Are said employees working at the request of the railway officials?
4.	How many Canadian National railway employees not eligible for pension, that is, having started to work after forty years of age. have reached the retiring age and are still working?


Mr. MANION:: This inquiry was referred to Honourable C. P. Fullerton, chairman of the board of trustees, Canadian National Railways, who has replied that the information requested concerns details of railway administration which are not considered to be of public interest.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. COOTE:: What amount of municipal bonded debt has been defaulted during the years 1931, 1932, and 1933 in each of the provinces of Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government has no means at its disposal to obtain the answer to this question that are not as easily available to the hon. gentleman himself. It involves writing to the appropriate authorities for the purpose of ascertaining anything beyond what may be ascertained by the bureau of statistics, which does not undertake to guarantee that the information received is complete.


George Gibson Coote: I wonder if the government will allow it to pass on the understanding that the information given shall be such as is in possession of the bureau?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it stands as an order for return perhaps that will meet the situation.


RESTORATION OF TEN PER CENT SALARY DEDUCTION
[Stage Direction]
(Mr. CHEYRIER:
1.	By the return of the 10 per cent salary
deduction, how many individuals in the following categories of government service will be benefited:	(a) revenue postmasters; (b) part
time collectors of customs; (c) lighthouse keepers; (d) wharfingers; (e) charwomen; (f) seasonal or part time labourers; (g) lockmen; (h) bridgemen on canals?
2.	What were the total salaries paid to each of the above categories during the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933?
3.	How many employees of the government service in the enumerated classes, or in classified positions under the Civil Service Act will benefit by the return of the 10 per cent salary deduction-giving the number in each class or * grade?
4.	What were the total salaries paid to the above employees during the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933?

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What is the present excise tax on cigarettes?
2.	(a) When was present rate of excise set;
(b)	what was it prior to that?
3.	How much revenue was raised from excise on cigarettes each year from 1912 (fiscal year), until March 31, 1934?
4.	How many cigarettes were consumed in Canada each year from 1912 to 1934?
5.	(a) How many cigarettes were legally imported into Canada during the foregoing years; (b) from where did they come?
6.	What is the import duty on cigarettes?


EXCISE TAX ON CIGARS
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How many cigars were produced in Canada during the fiscal vears ending March 31, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934?
2.	How is the excise tax levied on cigars?
3.	What was the revenue each year during the aforementioned years?
4.	What was the total revenue in each of these years from the tobacco industry-all branches enumerated?


PRODUCTION AND IMPORTATION OF ONIONS
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How many bags of onions were grown in Canada during the past ten years?
2.	What is the rate of duty on onions imported: (a) from the United States; (b) from other countries?
3. How many onions were imported into Canada, during the past ten years, and from where?
4. How many onions were exported from Canada, and to where?
5.	How many acres of onions were grown in Canada each year since 1921?


SEIZURES AND SALES OF AUTOMOBILES BY DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. LAFLBCHE:: 1.	How many automobiles were seized and sold by the Department of National Revenue, from 1926 to 1930?
2.	What price was paid for each of such automobiles ?
3.	Who were the tenderers?
4.	Of what make were such automobiles?

Motions jor Papers


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. MacINNIS:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams or other documents, exchanged between the hon. Minister of Justice or any person in the Department of Justice and Mr. W. H. Sproule, of Vancouver, British Columbia.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: There are some letters on the file of the Justice department referred to in this motion, but these letters refer only to some of the private affairs of a judge in British Columbia. The public interest is in no way concerned, therefore the government does not propose to produce these letters.
Motion dropped.


INDIAN AGENCY, PIERREVILLE, QUE.
Mr. BRASSET (for Mr. Boucher):: For a copy of all accounts, vouchers, bills, lists of payments, receipts, letters and correspondence, respecting item:	medical care
$1,268.35, hospital charges $3,862.10, and relief $12,028.04 mentioned in the auditor general's report for the year ending March 31, 1933, under the caption of Indian agency, Pierre-ville, Quebec; also a statement giving particulars with respect to names and addresses, amounts paid, and showing to whom and for whom they were paid.


POSTMASTERS-YAMASKA COUNTY
Maurice Brasset: For a copy of all letters and correspondence between the Postmaster General, the deputy Postmaster General or any official of the Post Office Department, and any person, since August 1, 1930, to date, respecting the postmasters of the following post offices in the county of Yamaska; Pierreville, St-Zephirin de Courval, St-Elphege, St-Francois du Lac, St-Gerard, Yamaska-West, Notre Dame de Pierreville, La Visitation, St-David, St-Guillaume, the dismissal of said postmasters, and their substitutes or successors.


REVENUE POST OFFICES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. VALLANiCE:
For a return showing: (1) A list of post offices having revenue of $1,500 to $10,000 (on which salaries are determined), showing revenue for each of the years 1931-32, 1932-33 and 1933-34; (2) casual or automatic pay cuts suffered by each of the postmasters in these offices for each year (exclusive of the 10 per cent deduction).

Mr. TOTZKE:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the government, relating to the dismissal of Jean Amedee Motut, postmaster at Hoey in the province of Saskatchewan, and' the appointment of his successor.


INDIAN RESERVATION-POINTS BLEUE
Mr. DUGUAY:: For a copy of all correspondence and communications exchanged between the provincial government of Quebec, and the federal Department of Indian Affairs, from 1930 to date, respecting the Indian reservation of Pointe Bleue, county of Lake St-John.


NEW MASSETT, B.C., WHARF
[Stage Direction]
Mr. NEILL;
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Public Works and any person or persons, relating to a claim made against the government for lumber lost through collapse of the wharf at New Massett, British Columbia, in 1918.

Maurice Brasset: For a copy of all pay lists, in connection with_ works carried out at the wharf of Petite Riviere au Renard, county of Gaspe, during the years 1931 and 1932; also a copy of vouchers respecting purchases of lumber, iron, and other materials in connection therewith.


RIVIERE AU RENARD
Maurice Brasset: For a copy of all pay lists, in connection with^ repairs carried out at the wharf of Riviere au Renard, county of Gaspe, during the year 1933; also a copy of vouchers respecting purchases of lumber and other materials in connection therewith.


SAINT LOUIS, N.B., POSTMASTER
Mr. VENTOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports of investigation and other documents, relating to the dismissal of the postmaster at Saint Louis, Kent county, New Brunswick.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
may I ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position now to advise us as to the further legislation that is likely to be brought down this session?

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was about to say, Mr. Speaker,
that I propose to make a statement to-morrow with respect to the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In his statement to-morrow will my right hon. friend be able to indicate when the bill with respect to the Elections Act, in particular, will be introduced?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is in a forward state
of preparation. We have not had a chance to consider it yet, because it has not been completed.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved the third reading of Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right; that is
true.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister says, "that is true." I confess then that I am at a loss to understand the English language.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is like reading Donald Sutherland's report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister says that it is true. We have now, with the Prime Minister's words in addition, got all that we need to present the truth of the situation to the electorate. The Prime Minister of Canada as well as the Minister of Trade and Commerce says that
2174	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Mackenzie King
every single item was brought before parliament and was laid on the table. The report continues:
" If he had wanted, Mr. King could have brought before the public accounts committee any one of the items that were piled probably ten feet deep over the three-year period of our administration."
I wonder that the Prime Minister does not say, "hear, hear" to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the orders in
council would be nearly that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The orders in council did not contain the items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, they did; they contained the authorization for the payment of the amounts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a great difference between moneys paid out by order in council and moneys appropriated by parliament in itemized form, and that is the whole point of the exception we have been taking to the large sums of money which have been paid out without being itemized. That has been the whole tenor of the criticism from the outset from this side of the house with respect to these expenditures, that they differed from all other kinds of expenditure of public moneys in that the expenditure was not itemized and as such was not subject to the control of parliament. The bill passed at the first session contained a provision that the government should be allowed to expend up to $20,000,000. That was a definite sum in a round figure. But there was no itemizing of the services on and for which that $20,000,000 was to be expended; nothing was said as to how much was to go to one province or how much to another, nothing was said as to what was to go to public works or where public works were to be carried out, nothing was said as to what was to go for other objects, either relief camps or direct relief; it was just a lump sum of $20,000,000 to be spent. Last session an amount was fixed as a maximum, but, with that exception, the different acts have simply set forth that moneys could be taken out of the consolidated revenue of the coun-r try to any amount. There was no itemizing of expenditures, no appropriations on the basis of estimates. _ I say that that was entirely wrong, and it is deceiving the public, and saying what is untrue, when a statement is made that there has been control so far as this House of Commons or this parliament is concerned over the items of expenditure in connection with relief. The truth of

the matter is that there has been no control at all. To be told what has already been spent is not to control expenditure. We have only begun to appreciate the colossal waste as a result of the indifference and lack of care and control on the part of the government over these public moneys.
Sometimes a debate of the character which we have had if it effects no other end serves to bring out declarations which otherwise might not have been made. I must say that I was gratified when I read that the Prime Minister had said on Wednesday or Thursday that he was of the opinion that the British North America Act ought to be amended and that social services in the different provinces ought to be taken over and administered by the federal government. This is what we of the Liberal party have been urging all along should be done. If hon. members will read over the discussion which took place in the house during the special session and the sessions of 1931, 1932, and 1933 they will see that with regard to unemployment relief, old age pensions, technical education and other grants in aid, I urged very strongly that there should be conferences between the dominion and the provinces with a view to bringing about financial readjustments whereby there might be turned over to the federal authority the control of social services. I urged that, with this end in view, subsidies should be readjusted in a manner that would be equitable, always adhering to the fundamental principle upon which the compromise of confederation was brought about. Hon. gentlemen laughed at the suggestion. Grants in aid to technical education was one specific case where I emphatically stated that before the government went ahead and appropriated further grants in aid, I thought that they should find out in what position the provinces and the dominion were for the carrying on of technical education, and whether it would not be better to have some of the social services, insurance against unemployment, old age pensions and the like handled as a national scheme rather than having them dealt with by the provinces in different ways, or by some of them not at all.
In connection with old age pensions we had the Prime Minister saying in 1930 that there would be a one hundred per cent expenditure on the part of the federal government-one of the numerous promises that have never been carried out. I stated that I thought the federal government ought to have the administration of the whole of that act. This was just a part of what is known as social service

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Mackenzie King
legislation. I thought that there ought to be a nation-wide scheme and national policy laid down and carried out with respect to insurance against unemployment as well as with regard to old age pensions.
The suggestion from this side has been that any relief scheme, under which millions of dollars were to be spent, should be administered by a national commission broadly representative of all parts and interests in the country; that this commission could gather information and report to parliament and thus help to lay a foundation for the changes in the British North America Act which might be necessary in order to bring about a proper national control of the great problem of unemployment, that the problem might be dealt with by national rather than provincial means.


Mr. DUPRE:: The right hon. gentleman's views do not seem to agree with those expressed by the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, premier of Quebec.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very
glad to hear my hon. friend say that here. It is exactly what he and others have been trying to do; they have been trying, by implications, in this matter to raise a prejudice against the province of Quebec.


Robert James Manion: Nonsense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are trying to bring that about in different parts of the country by having it assumed that the province of Quebec is not going to be favourable to the amending of the British North America Act for any purpose. May I say at once to my hon. friend that I think he rose a little too soon that time; as he does very often, he let the cat out of the bag, and I do not think his speaking as he did has pleased the Prime Minister any too well. Now, however, we know the situation. The ministry opposite are desirous of having it appear -that Quebec is not favourable to an amendment to the British North America Act, and that, for that reason it will probably not be possible to get an amendment through under Liberal auspices. May I say this to my hon. friend: If he looks at to-day's paper he will find that the Conservative leader in Quebec has taken exactly the same stand as has Mr. Taschereau with respect to maintaining provincial autonomy in that province, so that so far as the question of provincial autonomy is concerned there is no doubt in the world that Quebec in that particular like every other province in Canada is properly jealous of its rights. An amendment to the British North America Act that will be injurious to their autonomy is one thing; an amendment that will serve the
interests of the provinces without prejudicing their autonomy is quite another. Where hon. gentlemen opposite make their mistake is in assuming that there will be any opposition to an amendment to the act which will help to relieve the provinces, including Quebec, of some of their burdens, and at -the same time relieve the dominion of some of its burdens by avoiding overlapping in matters of taxation, and expenditures of public moneys as is inevitable where one government raises public moneys and hands them over to other governments to spend. That obviously is not doing good to anyone but is doing injury to all.
As regards an amendment to the British North America Act wdiich would deprive the minority in any province of any right which it has, I believe that every province would be justified in opposing to the limit any such amendment. So far as this side of the house is concerned I am quite sure that any effort made in this country to deprive a minority of rights and privileges secured to it by the British North America Act would be strenuously opposed. But an amendment to the British North America Act which does not work any injury to any minority, but rather helps to relieve a majority as well as a minority of a burden it otherwise would have to bear, would be one which should very easily be brought about. If my right hon. friend had done what we suggested in this particular and appointed a national commission to administer relief and to advise him as to what legislation was necessary in order to make more effective a national scheme of unemployment insurance, old age pensions and other social services, he would not have to say what he says now, that the country will have to wait until the election is over before anything is done. He should in the existing situation have had the amendment made over two years ago. The British North America Act should have been amended in a manner that would have satisfied the provinces as well as the dominion. The fact that the Prime Minister has come to recognize that a change is necessary shows some progress, but it required a pretty strong stand and repeated urging on this side before he saw fit to make his statement. I have referred to what I said two, three and four years ago and Hansard will speak for itself in that particular. I shall read to the house what I said as recently as Monday last, a week ago to-day, and which I think caused my right hon. friend, the leader of the government, to make the statement he did on Wednesday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What nonsense 1 I have not even read it.
2176	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps someone hag told him about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The right hon.
member flatters himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are certainly at last in this happy position that if the Liberal party should at any time be entrusted with authority and seek to have the act amended in order to enable a great national scheme of unemployment insurance or other social insurance plan to be federally administered, the Conservative party through its leader will be committed to that course, and we shall be relieved of that much in the way of opposition. We shall be able to go forward with the endorsement of the present Prime Minister of all that in that particular has been said on this side.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has not endorsed what has been said on the other side; he has made his own statement. Do not try the Sutherland report over again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend will hear all he wants to hear about South Oxford to-night. After six o'clock tonight he will be silent about South Oxford for the rest of his life.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he will continue to expose just what was done at South Oxford and he will do' it in a few minutes too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If he has the desire to speak, we shall hear from him before six o'clock, because he certainly won't want to say much about South Oxford after that time.
As regards the endorsation by the Prime Minister of what was said from this side, may I read to the house what I said last Monday? I believe it was on Wednesday that the Prime Minister made the statement he would favour an amendment to the British North America Act which would lead to these social services being administered under a national scheme. On April 9, 1934, that is on Monday of last week, aa reported in Hansard at page 1983, it will be seen that I made the following statement :
I urged at the very first session that these grants in aid to the provinces should be stopped pending the calling of a conference between the dominion and provincial governments to see whether it was not possible to have some arrangement made whereby the dominion could assume a large number of obligations for relief in its different forms-social insurance in its various aspects-taking them over as a national obligation and in return obtaining agreements

from the provinces to amend their powers of taxation in some directions, or making concessions with respect to future subsidies. My hon. friends opposite will remember that I spoke over and over again about the inevitable consequences of continuing grants in aid at a time like this, pointing out that they meant that sooner or later the public treasury would be depleted beyond all expectation. I was hooted at by hon. gentlemen opposite for repeating this observation so often, but the force of it is coming home to them now when it is too late. I suggested then that we should seek an amendment to the British North America Act inasmuch as this question was likely to present itself with increasing urgency with time. I urged that we should at once take steps, in conference with the provinces, and by whatever course might be deemed necessary, to see whether the British North America Act could not be so amended as to give the federal government larger powers with respect to social and industrial legislation in order that we might have uniformity of laws throughout the dominion, the provinces being relieved of some obligations, having them made federal charges, and the provinces on their part foregoing, if that was equitable, their subsidies either in whole or in part.
Could any declaration be clearer than that?
I have made it in different forms during the last four years, and I made it specifically in this house on Monday last. Now the Prime Minister comes along with a statement as though the government were responsible for a policy which would lead to the British North America Act being amended in order that Canada might have a plan of national social service legislation that would serve to bring about more in the way of uniformity among the laws of the country and less in the way of expenditure of public money for the services that are being rendered. At any rate that much of good has come out of the discussion. The rest of it, so far as anything done by hon. gentlemen opposite is concerned, has been only to help to maintain this power of independence of parliament on the part of the executive, instead of seeking to have the executive continue to be as at all times it should be, responsible to the House of Commons and through the House of Commons to the people. In the circumstances I desire to conclude what I have to say by moving:
That the bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instruction that they^ have power to amend it by eliminating from it the clause which gives to the governor in council the power, when parliament is not in session to pass orders in council under the provision respecting peace, order and good government, and by eliminating from it such provisions as tend to deprive the House of Commons of its due control over the expenditure of public moneys and taxation.

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to traverse at length the observations of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King). I have only to say with respect to what I said in connection with the British North America Act I but repeated what I had said years ago, not last week, nor the week before nor the year before. While it may sooth the vanity of the right hon. gentleman to believe that his observations brought about the statement that I made, I can assure him that what I said was in reply to observations of the right hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). I merely stated what it is well known I have stated on several occasions. I think it was rather lacking in a sense of high responsibility for the right hon. gentleman to say that an effort has been made to create prejudice against the province of Quebec. The truth is that the premier of Quebec, following right after the statement that I made in this house, attacked my observations, and in the paper that I read the other evening, the Tribune, a French paper, published in Sherbrooke, the attacks were made against myself and the government because we had suggested that the act should be amended. Under the portrait of Premier Taschereau printed in that paper he was held out as being the champion, the defender, of the rights of his country, the protector of the rights of minorities, while in the statement made by myself in the house I was particularly careful to deal with that very point. I merely mention that because it does seem to me to be unworthy of one occupying the high position the hon. gentleman does, one who has been a Prime Minister of this country, to suggest that in the statement made in this house, which every member of the house heard, an effort is being made to create prejudice against the province of Quebec.
May I go a step further? The right hon. gentleman before he left office called a conference of the premiers of the provinces to discuss the amendment of the British North America Act; and a report was made, which is to be found in yonder library, and it will be found there that the result of his efforts was nothing, absolutely nil. He accomplished not a thing. That record may be read by anyone who desires to read it. The conference was abortive. And the reason was obvious.
Coming into office directly after, when the question of relief became an all-absorbing one, we discussed, as has been known to every member of this house, the question whether or not the federal government or the several provinces should be responsible for the administration of relief. And the several provinces disclaimed any intention to permit the federal power to exercise administrative privileges within their jurisdiction. And it is known in every province in Canada that while some of the provinces were not unwilling that such power should be entrusted to the federal authorities and that there should be a centralized administration of relief, there were others who as strongly insisted that it should not be so. And those others were the most powerful in point of population and wealth in the confederacy. So at that time we did not think, nor do ll now, that in a time of distress and depression it would be possible to bring about a successful conference for amendment of the British North America Act when such an attempt- failed in quiet times. I think almost every member of this house will agree that that is so. There is nothing new in the statement that the British North America Act should be amended, nor in the statement that I have said it should be amended. My saying so dates back to years before I came to this chamber. I had hoped that at the conference that the right hon. gentleman held when he occupied the position of Prime Minister he would have been able to bring about an agreement as to what the changes should be. But I say to him now, and I say to this house what every member of the house must know, that a federal commission could not function throughout this dominion unless the provinces were willing that it should, and the provinces were not and are not willing. Year after year they have stated that they desire to conduct their own relief measures in their own way, and they have done so. But the devastation wrought in Saskatchewan by nature necessitated federal relief on a very substantial scale, and other provinces were given financial aid for their own purposes and other purposes because if we helped one we should help the other. In other words their contention has been that wherever relief is necessary-and of that they are the sole judges under the constitution-it is the concern of the municipalities first, then the provinces; and the dominion, because of the magnitude of the obligations, makes grants in aid. There could be no national commission administering relief in Canada unless all the provinces were agreed. And the provinces, I repeat, have not agreed, although we were willing to undertake the responsibility. There were some provinces that were anxious that we should, but unless all were agreed, it was impossible. And the right hon. gentleman found at conferences he held in this city with the provinces to bring about

Relief Act, 1934-Air. Bennett
amendments to the British North America Act that he could not and did not succeed. Where in quiet times it was impossible to succeed I suggest that in times of great depression no one would undertake to bring a contentious matter such as that into the realm of discussion with respect to matters of relief.
Secondly, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is reported to have said that all the expenditures were laid on the table of this house and that the details have always been available to the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
what he said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not have before
me what the hon. gentleman said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statement is here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be very glad to
have it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is marked
in red at the bottom of that page.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister is reported as saying that:
. . . every single item was brought before parliament and was laid on the table. If he had wanted, Mr. King could have brought before the public accounts committee any one of the items that were piled probably ten feet deep. . . .
I hold in my hand the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief of March 1, 1932, and in that are all the details of the expenditures that were made by the federal government or to which they contributed, page after page, that was laid on the table of this bouse in 1932. I hold in my hand the report for 1933, the details are there, all the expenditures that were made, in great detail too, giving it by months in this case, month after month. Here is the original of 1930. There in those three reports are the details of federal expenditures and the works to which the moneys of this country were applied in connection with relief measures in detail. To that is to be added that the orders in council that have been laid upon the table of the house have contained a statement of the sums which were taken from the consolidated fund on the authority of the orders in council, for no money can be withdrawn from the consolidated fund except through these orders in council. Every one of them has been laid upon the table. So that with these three reports-I think there is a later

one for this year, not yet laid upon the table -with these reports and the orders in council you have a complete record of federal expenditures in connection with unemployment relief.


Mr. EULER:: Do the reports to which my right hon. friend refers include not only the expenditures made directly out of the federal treasury on federal works but do they also include details of expenditures made to which the federal government contributed through the provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just to show that at least one distinguished member of this house has not given much attention to these matters let me refer to the statement having to do with the province of Ontario, at page 38. I find the heading, "Municipal Works," and there are four columns giving the municipal, provincial and federal proportions and showing the total expenditure. Here are the statements as to each individual work.


William Daum Euler: Not in detail.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same detail that occurs in every other statement made to this house. The schedule number is shown, and I find all the different headings; provincial works, trans-Canada highway, Manitoba municipal works, and so on. There are pages of these municipal works, giving all these details. The point that was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) was this, that had the right hon. gentleman desired to bring the public accounts committee together of course that committee would have dealt with all these matters, but that committee has never been called into session since these relief measures were begun.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was asked for the other night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, and I agreed to the request made by the right hon. gentleman. When I was in opposition the public accounts committee, if called into session at all, was called at the instance of the opposition. The opposition is the body that investigates. Have they investigated a single expenditure? Have they called the public accounts committee together? Have they taken any of the steps that by the constitution are provided? Have they taken the steps indicated under the authority of Colonel Durell and of Redlich? The public accounts committee is the committee to deal with this matter. When I hear the right hon. gentleman cry aloud, in the name of freedom and of liberty, I recall the words of the great poet:
And freedom shrieked-as Kosciusko fell!

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Bennett
Notwithstanding all that, my right hon. friend has not seen fit to do more than just talk; that is all. He never even suggested that the committee should meet to deal with these matters. I do say, sir, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was absolutely right when he said, "Here are the details" and these details are fuller than is usual with respect to expenditures of this kind. The schedule number is given in each instance, and the orders in council under which the sum totals were paid have been filed in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my right hon. friend for the moment? He referred to Durell and Redlich in the matter of the control by parliament of expenditures. What Redlich and Durell say is that parliament should insist on itemized amounts at the time moneys are being appropriated and before the expenditures are made. That is the only real control parliament can have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I used to say to the right hon. gentleman about the Montreal harbour bridge. It is passing strange how interested he becomes in these academic applications of principles when he is out of power. It is passing strange how he neglects them when he is in office. It is passing strange that he should talk about a blank cheque to-day when he took from parliament a blank cheque under which more than $19,000,000 was spent, without anything being indicated as to how large the amount was to be when he took the cheque. Why this sudden conversion? Have we converted him by what we have done and said so that he realizes the necessity now of relying upon parliamentary control in dealing with these matters? I could name many other instances which occurred when he was in office; there is nothing new about this method. Whenever he wanted to do it in connection with railways he did so. What about the three steamships built on the Pacific coast, the three steamers about which the Minister of Railways said he did not know the money was to be spent for that purpose? What about the order in council for the hotel that was to be built in Vancouver, in connection with which the expenditure has amounted to twice the sum contemplated by the order in council, which was cancelled? What about these things? "Consistency, thou art a jewel." When I hear, in that perfervid oratory of the right hon. gentleman, talk about the departure from principles and the injury done to the body politic, and how future generations will rise up with these precedents to the great danger of democracy
I ask who, for nine years, taught democracy the lesson? Look at that harbour bridge in Montreal. When the Minister of Finance delivers his budget address he will show that one of the reasons for putting a tax upon the Canadian people was to find half a million dollars for that bridge, after giving credit for the amounts received from the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal. Was there any talk then about Durell? Were there any observations then about Redlich? Were any statements made then about the necessity of putting in the measure the sum of money to be spent? And what is more there never has been the audit that was provided for in this case.
These are facts to which I direct attention; that was fact No. 2, and now I proceed to deal with fact No. 3. It is said that the blank cheque is detrimental to the interests of the country as a whole. The other evening I explained that any statement in a bill that a minimum sum of money is available is but an invitation to the provinces to see to it that the whole of that sum is expended. I did not expect then to receive approval from such a high source as the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), who stated that this was the most powerful argument that could be made against stating a specific sum, and that he wholly agreed, that this was his view also. Most thoughtful men believe this is so. So far as peace, order and good government is concerned, I merely point out in regard to this matter that it has been discussed and re-discussed and that everything has been said about it that could be said. The right hon. gentleman has been even reading his own speeches to this house lest we forget what was said on previous occasions. This afternoon we heard him read the speech he made on Monday last, only a week ago. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) read three of these speeches by the right hon. gentleman the other night, so altogether it seems to me that Hansard will well preserve all that might be usefully said with respect to this matter.
Now I should like to say a word with respect to the audit. The right hon. gentleman has said that the auditor general made certain test audits, on the strength of which he wrote letters. I say, as I said in the house the other evening, that the facts do not warrant the allegations made by that gentleman; I say that frankly. Here is the document upon which the Minister of Labour was supposed to act, in part; it is the report of the Department of Labour on direct relief expenditures in the province of Ontario.

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Bennett
Exhibit A is the report to the Minister of Finance dated December 27, 1933, and signed by Georges Gonthier, auditor general. I find here a report to the auditor general from Edmund E. Stockton, dated August 15, 1933. Mr. Stockton was named by the auditor general as his representative to make the investigation in Ontario. Mr. Stockton made the investigation; he made his report on August 15, 1933, and so little did the auditor general regard the irregularities that he sent it to the Minister of Finance on the 27th day of December, 1933. That was the nervous anxiety he felt for the body politic in the expenditure of public money; the report was not transmitted to the Minister of Finance until December 27. Then I turn to the report itself; I think it might be well to look at it, because some parts of it are very important. These audits were made by Mr. Stockton in the following communities:
Almonte
Arnprior
Barrie
Belleville
Bowmanville
Brampton
Brockville
Carleton Place
Cobourg
Cornwall
Galt
Guelph
Kitchener
Lindsay
Orillia
Oshawa
Perth
Peterborough
Pembroke
Port Hope
Prescott
Preston
Refrew
Smith's Falls
Stratford
Trenton
Waterloo
Whitby.
After going into the accounts of these municipalities and pointing out some minor improvement, these are the closing words of his report, which appear at page 4:
Subject to the above observations I am of the opinion that in the municipalities visited the inspection and audit by provincial inspectors is sufficient to safeguard the interests of the federal treasury.
Those were his words. Then, the last paragraph :
I desire to express my appreciation of the courtesy extended to me by the various provincial and municipal officials and others whom I interviewed during my visits to the offices mentioned in this report.
Respectfully submitted,
Edmund E. Stockton.
He goes on to describe the methods which have been adopted, and to show what was being done by the inspectors to ascertain whether or not expenditures were in proper form. That was the summary he made.
Now, I put this to the House of Commons again:	The auditors of the provinces in my
judgment are men of reputation and of honour, and I have no reason to believe that the municipal authorities are other than men of honour. The provinces being responsible 
for the expenditures, in the sense of having undertaken by agreement to supply us with certificates signed by provincial auditors and by the provinces themselves, I still believe that the federal exchequer was properly protected. And if it had not been, as I indicated the other evening, the provinces must refund us the money. The auditor general's letters have been very sweeping in their statements, and he will have to endeavour to justify them before the public accounts committee. If they are not different from what I have seen he will have great difficulty in doing it. That is the other side of the question. Why have we had delays in receiving accounts from the province of Quebec? Why did we not receive any accounts from July until only the other morning? Why? Because the province of Quebec has an auditor who was not willing to certify accounts until he was satisfied they were correct. He has not certified accounts which he did not believe were correct. That was the reason for the delay,-because he had to satisfy himself. He knew he was pledging himself, his reputation and his name to this particular matter. There is the story. All I can say is this, that to assert there has been negligence requires greater proof than I, at least, have seen evidence of. If there is one thing in the world I have endeavoured to be particularly careful about, it has been the administration of the finances of this country. When I say that in every instance a certificate was prepared we provided that there should be a certificate by the auditor of the province, and signed by the province, I believed that we had taken all the steps which were necessary. It may well be that there may be some deception here and there. I suppose it is within the memory of hon. members in this house that even in the Dominion of Canada auditors have been deceived extending over a period of years, and that the offender was at last found out. There is no promise of infallibility either in connection with the man who spends money or the man who checks the expenditure of money. All one can do is to ascertain the extent to which sound business rules have prevailed. Where there were expenditures made by the municipalities and certified to by the provincial auditor, that the total expenditure was x and the share of the dominion was y, and where we paid y because of the certificate given by the auditor of the provinoe, it would be difficult to say that in that step there was any fraud or negligence, or a disregard of ordinary business rules. It may well be, as shown in connection with the prosecutions carried on in the province of Ontario, and one or two other provinces, that there were individuals who

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Bennett
endeavoured deliberately to defraud the country. But the fraud was on the municipalities and the provinces, and when the provinces found it out they took the necessary steps to expose it. So far as our accounts are concerned adjustments immediately followed, because we are in the happy position of being able to retain moneys which by investigation it is found have been improperly paid to the provinces, it being remembered that the cheque of the dominion goes to the provinces and not to the municipalities. Therefore, as between the provinces and ourselves, any difficulty of that kind can. be overcome.
There is another matter to which I was rather surprised the right hon. gentleman referred. He read from section 7 of the bill now before the house, and if he had taken the trouble to look at the interpretation act he would have found that the section in this measure is that found in all such statutes. It merely provides that anything which has been done by regulation, before it has been repealed shall not be vitiated by reason of the repeal. It is a standing rule of interpretation in our statutes. The section is as follows:
All orders and regulations of the governor in council made hereunder shall have the force of law and may be varied, extended or revoked by any subsequent order or regulation; but if any order or regulation is varied, extended or revoked, neither the previous operation thereof nor anything duly done thereunder shall be affected thereby, nor shall any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing or incurred thereunder be affected by any such variation, extention or revocation.
It is true that the right hon. gentleman is not a member of the legal profession, but he has had a wide experience, and he graduated in law. He knows well, or should know, that that provision is found in the revised statutes of our country, and is a rule in interpretation which has statutory force and effect. It has to be included in all matters of this kind. Wherever a statute provides that regulations shall be made under its provisions, this clause is inserted to protect those who act under the regulation before it has been either amended, revoked or altered. That is all there is to it.
But, much as was my surprise that the right hon. gentleman should make such observations as he did with respect to section 7, I confess I cannot understand why he should have suggested to this House of Commons the possibility that under the provision for peace, order and good government we could extend the lifetime of parliament. Who knows better than he does that that is in the British North America Act; who knows better than he does that that is an imperial statute; who
knows better than he does that a delegated power conferred upon an executive can never be higher than the power granted to the parliament which confers it. As this parliament itself could not extend its lifetime, except under the provisions set forth in the British North America Act, it did seem to me to be playing rather small politics to suggest to the people of Canada that under the provision for peace, order and good government this government could extend the lifetime of parliament. I think that careful-shall I say thoughtful-people who read that statement will place a great discount on everything which the right hon. gentleman has said. For it cannot be suggested that anything is added by way of argument when one suggests something which every hon. member in this house knows cannot be done by this parliament itself, much less by the executive, under a delegated power.
Then the other suggestion was that we had taken the power to disallow provincial legislation, under the grant of power to legislate for peace, order and good government. There again it must be obvious to even the most thoughtless member-if there are any, and I trust there are not-that it would not be possible for us to exercise any such power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made no reference to disallowing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said it was suggested; I did not say the suggestion was made by the right hon. gentleman. The power of disallowance is in the British North America Act itself, and that statute stands until it is amended by the power which created or enacted it. We cannot amend it; we cannot alter it, we cannot repeal it. The power that is^ there conferred is a power that this legislation does not touch, nor does this legislation touch any power which is in the constitution to be exercised by the parliament at Westminster, nor does it touch any powers that are conferred by the constitution exclusively upon the legislatures. What it does is, within narrower limits than those suggested by some hon. gentlemen, to confer upon the executive the power to make regulations for the peace, order and good government of the country under conditions in which it may seem necessary to the executive to exercise such power. But those powers as defined by the privy council are much less broad than some hon. gentlemen have suggested. I cannot in the very nature of things make a legal argument to this house showing that the limitations imposed upon the words are far greater than would occur to the ordinary individual not trained in the inter-

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Bennett
pretation of the constitution. If hon. gentlemen are interested they will find that they are the opening words of section 91 of the British North America Act itself so far as the power is concerned, and the enumeration of the powers in section 91 is an enumeration of powers that does not limit the generality of the terms of the general power conferred. The jurisdiction conferred upon the executive by this parliament under peace, order and good government is, as I have said, under the decisions of the privy council a rather restricted jurisdiction. But it is sufficient to serve our purposes in the event of any untoward circumstances requiring the exercise of such power.
The other matters that were referred to I think have been sufficiently dealt with in what has already been said in other years with respect to this legislation. I repeat, this legislation is not sought for any purpose other than the public good. I repeat, parliament is being asked to confer authority upon the executive peradventure it might be required. If necessary it is there.
I am not going to follow the example of the right hon. gentleman and discuss the marketing bill which stands for second reading to-day. But this I will say, that in all the legislation that was passed during the nine years the right hon. gentleman was in office, wherever it became essential or necessary to clothe the executive with power to make either regulations or rules or to do any acts that might be essential for the well-being of the country, that power will be found conferred upon the executive. No hon. member can tell me that there is any difference between conferring an unlimited power upon a harbour commission to guarantee bonds for the construction of a bridge and the conferring of power by the parliament of Canada upon the executive to take necessary action to provide relief for Canadians who are in necessitous circumstances. The principle is the same. Then why not frankly admit it and say: The principle is the same but we think that this power may peradventure be abused.
I said the other evening, and I say now, that no hon. gentleman can point to a single abuse of that power nor to any usurpation of authority nor to any deprivation of rights nor to any effort, successful or unsuccessful, on the part of the executive to do any act or thing except for the good of this dominion- not one; and I repeat that, in order that there may be no misapprehension with respect to the matter.
I have spoken at greater length than I anticipated but when one realizes the unreal-

ity of a discussion such as this, realizes that all these things that are now being condemned were once being done by the right hon. gentleman who now condemns them and that he would have to do them again to-morrow if he were similarly situated, that all these high heroics and histrionic efforts are, shall I say, but a passing phase of the work of an opposition that regards it as its sole duty at all times to oppose, when it is suggested that because of something said in this house last week this government or myself have learned something-I am always learning something, Mr. Speaker, and I trust that I always shall as long as I live-but with no desire to cast aspersions on the right hon. gentleman at all, I say to him that I have not learned anything from him with respect to matters of this kind. I say that without intending offence. When he suggests that because of something he said in the house last week I have changed my mind, the chances are that because he said it my mind would be more likely to remain just where it was. He should not betray his anger and annoyance because there are others who have as advanced thoughts as himself-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say changed his mind; I said cleared his mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -and because others may have thought of these things even before he did. He should not think he has a copyright on ideas and a patent on expressions, and I suggest to thim that he be tolerant enough to believe that there are others who sometimes think and have views and opinions; and because others have thought and concluded and expressed their conclusions, if they agree with his own it does not follow that they have come about by reason of listening to what he said. That is what he asks this house to believe, but I think it would be placing too great a strain upon the credulity of the house and the country to believe it. With that I shall leave this matter, Mr. Speaker, believing that it is more important to get the third reading of the measure than to discuss further the heroics of the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have had very little to say with respect to the measure now before the house. I do not desire to detain the house on the third reading of this bill but I should like in a word to make the position of some of us clear with regard to our votes upon it.
This is a case in which one might perhaps almost be justified in giving either an affirmative or a negative vote. We are anxious to

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Woodsworth
have a very large measure of relief, the largest measure of relief possible, and for that reason we might very well welcome a bill of this character.
Further, I have not been tremendously impressed by some of the arguments advanced by the official opposition. I do not desire to discuss to-day the question of democracy. In my judgment democracy does not necessarily mean that every measure must be submitted to parliament or to the people. Democracy in my opinion is not at all inconsistent with prompt and efficient action on the part of the executive. But I have to oppose this bill because I believe it is hopelessly inadequate as a relief measure. After all these years, when the government have had full opportunity of working out some constructive scheme, we are still simply being asked to acquiesce in the general idea that the administration is going to do something about the situation. When the measure was first introduced I pointed out that we had had no definite intimation as to what the government proposed to do with regard to a program of public works. I think we ought to have had that at the very beginning of this session. No hint of it is contained in this measure.
Further, we have had before us for many years the promise that there would be some kind of unemployment insurance scheme during the lifetime of this administration. There is nothing whatever contained in this measure with regard to that.
We have had this present government denouncing the dole and yet itself resorting to one of the worst forms of the dole that I have ever heard of, a dole that is absolutely insufficient to provide for the needs of large numbers of Canadian families in this country. I receive daily the most pathetic letters asking that something should be done to help to prevent the breaking up of homes and to give adequate food to the children of the citizens of this country. I do not consider that the measure now before us provides that kind of thing and because I feel it is inadequate, I cannot vote in favour of it.
I object to having these wide powers for peace, order and good government interjected into a relief measure. If we were facing a great emergency it might be necessary for the government to assert certain of the powers which it has under the British North America Act, but I protest once more against a government taking powers of this kind under a relief measure. For these reasons, some of us will have to vote against the bill although we are most heartily in favour of a relief measure.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Gordon) in whose name Bill No. 42, respecting relief, stands has moved that the bill be now read a third time. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has moved an amendment that it be sent back to the committee. Before a vote is taken I should like to take a few moments in making an explanation to the Minister of Labour of something which occurred in this chamber a few days ago when the bill was being discussed in committee. At that time I had received word frpm my constituents asking me, as a member of parliament, to bring before the government the need of certain relief for which they were asking. I desire to assure the Minister of Labour that in doing this I did not intend any discourtesy either to him or to any member of the ministry. My constituents who were represented by the mayor and town council of Canso also did not intend that there should be any discourtesy towards the Minister of Labour or the members of the government. It was pointed out that this matter should have been brought to the attention of the ministry direct and in order to show that the town council of Canso were considerate in the way they brought forward this matter, I should like to read a dispatch which appeared in the Halifax Herald of April 13, 1934. This is dated Canso, April 12, and reads:
A special meeting of town council was held Tuesday to decide what action would be taken to help fishermen obtain gear. After considerable discussion, a resolution was passed that the federal government be asked to establish a fund of not less than $15,000 under the proposed marketing and credit legislation, through a system of loans for purchase and equipment of boats. Copies of the telegrams were sent to Hon. E. N. Rhodes, Minister of Finance; William Duff, M.P. for Antigonish-Guysborough and William A. Found, Deputy Minister of Fisheries.
In addition to my receiving the telegram which I read to the committee, according to this dispatch the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), who is the minister from Nova Scotia, received a similar telegram as did the deputy minister of fisheries. No doubt that latter gentleman passed on the telegram he received to his minister, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau). In addition to my receiving this information, it was forwarded to members of the government which I think proves conclusively that the mayor and town council of Canso did not intend any dis-

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Duff

courtesy in the manner in which they brought up this matter. The dispatch continues:
Yesterday Mayor Croucher received a reply from Mr. Rhodes pointing out that there is at present no legislation and no vote available which would enable the requested assistance to be rendered by the federal government and suggesting that as the matter appeared to be urgent the council approach the provincial government.
It is not my purpose at this time to discuss whether this should be done by the federal or by the provincial government, my only purpose being to show the Minister of Labour that no discourtesy to him or to any other member of the ministry was intended by the town council. In connection with the criticism of the manner in which I brought up this matter, I should like to read a telegram which I received on Saturday morning and which I think proves conclusively that as far as my constituents are concerned they think that I did the right and proper thing in bringing up this matter when the relief measure was under discussion.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: We all admit that.


William Duff: The hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) admits that and he agrees with what the mayor has to say. The telegram is addressed to me and reads:
Canso appreciates your championship our cause. Herewith copy message sent to premier to-night. " Canso resents implication that presentation our case unfortunate as reported in daily press. Matter was presented to Honourable E. N. Rhodes, deputy minister of fisheries, and to William Duff our representative and feel Mr. Rhodes should have informed house to this effect. This is matter in which politics should play no part."
The telegram ends with the word "regards," which I presume is intended for myself, and is signed by L. R. Croucher, Mayor of Canso. With this explanation I hope it will be realized that in bringing this matter to the attention of parliament I was doing only my plain duty to my constituents.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I was verj'' much interested this afternoon in listening to the definition given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) of the constitutional rights of the dominion and the provinces. I was interested also in the answers which the Prime Minister gave on Friday evening to a question put by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury). It should not be forgotten that the dominion is the creation of the provinces. There never would 'have been a dominion government and we would not be now sitting in this house if the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Bruns-
wick and Nova Scotia had not agreed upon our creation. The powers which we exercise here were exercised formerly by the provincial governments-our powers are delegated powers. Quebec has been mentioned and I would say that the rights of that province are common to all provinces.
The greatest fights since confederation have been carried on by the English-speaking provinces. The warrior bold and the great champion of provincial rights was Sir Oliver Mowat who downed Sir John A. Macdonald in connection with many bills with regard to provincial rights. Who forgets the great fight earned on by Manitoba with regard to its educational rights? Who forgets the great fight carried on by New Brunswick on that same question? It is strange, but it happens that in this country the greatest fights we have had have been on the educational question. The population of Canada is composed mainly of two of the leading races of the world. Without Quebec there never would have been a confederation because Quebec, being situated in the middle, immedately between the maritime provinces and Ontario, consented to confederation, and in doing so gave up many rights. When Quebec consented to confederation it was in full possession of its powers, but it abrogated many of them in the hope and with the promise made to Sir George Etienne Cartier, Sir Etienne Paschal Tache, leaders of the Conservative party in power at that time, to Antoine Aime Dorion, to the Fourniers and the others, that not only the letter but the spirit of the law would be respected. I am proud to be able to say that to-day it is the boast of my province that it has carried out that undertaking of confederation not only to the letter but in the spirit also. If anybody wishes to be informed on that point, let him go to Quebec and inquire of the English-speaking citizens of that province; let him inquire of the Council of Public Instruction, the Protestant section, how the educational law is being carried out there and he will find in Quebec a breadth of view which I hope will some day prevail in every province.
Let us remember that we are Canadians. We are all proud of the country from which we sprang. Those who came from French stock have nothing to be ashamed1 of nor have those of British extraction. While we have had in this country men from all races, the French Canadian has played his part, not only in establishing this dominion but in its constitutional development; in the parliamentary field no man has ever surpassed those who have been produced by the French Canadian

Relief Act, 1934-Air. Marcil
people. Of course Quebec was then a minority; it is a minority still and when questions arise as to amending bargains, constitutions, contracts, because the terms of confederation after all constitute a contract, it is only fair and reasonable that the people who will be primarily affected do not want to consent to any radical changes without knowing what they mean. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) say to-day that this is not the time, when the country is in the position it is, to undertake to bring about those changes in a haphazard fashion or merely for the purpose of bringing them about. If you want to do anything in this or any parliament, the legislation which you may introduce must be backed by public opinion. If we had had the same cooperation at the beginning of the war as we bad later we would have avoided many unfortunate happenings. War was thrust upon us by Germany; we did not seek it. I was not elected in 1911 to go to war with Germany; I had no mandate from my constituents to send one, two, three or half a dozen contingents overseas, but we had no choice; we were at war. Canada was a British possession and had Britain been defeated, the German warships'could have ascended the St. Lawrence and laid in destruction every town and village in our province. We had to face the ordeal as it existed.
Canada, like all other countries, especially like all confederations, will survive only if there is mutual give and take. If we want our rights respected we must respect those of others and I am glad to know the feeling of the leaders of the two great parties in this house and even of the third leader, because the leader of the C.C.F. has spoken along the same lines, in regard to tinkering with the constitution. The constitution has been amended on several occasions, and I have been in the house when amendments have been made. That was done by consent. Many amendments to the British North America Act are to be found in the statutes, but they were probably agreed to by the dominion and the provinces themselves; there was no trouble about that. The people of any ^province, when a matter is brought to their attention and it is shown to be necessary in the public interest, will consent to an amendment. The constitution, of course, is not the laws of the Medes and Persians; it can be amended, but it can be amended only with the consent of the provinces because it was made with their consent, and under the rules of any game, no contract can be changed without the consent of the parties interested.
74726-138|
I am an old timer. When I came into parliament in 1900, we could not vote a dollar without its being placed in the estimates, passed through committee of supply and committee of ways and means and put down in black and white. I have heard debates here last for days and days in regard to very small amounts, a question of principle being involved. In the past parliament has abrogated its rights and we are abrogating them again to-day. The Prime Minister has said that no attempt has been made to go beyond the terms of the power that he has; that in what he desires to do there has been no abuse contemplated. But the principle is there. By the measure we are passing to-day we are putting into the hands of the cabinet, a committee of parliament, power to do anything they like to do under the sovereign for the peace, order and good government of 'Canada. That covers the whole field. In other words, it is a repetition of the War Measures Act. That act, which I opposed in the house and which was strongly opposed by the Liberal party generally, gave to the government of the' country full power of awarding contracts without tenders and, in fact, of doing anything under the sun. Under this clause the same power is being taken to-day and that is the main objection I have to the measure. We are all in favour of relief; we have all said so and we say so again, but something which should be sacred in every parliament is that the authority which raises taxation should have control over the spending of the money. We are abrogating that right. A great deal of federal money has been spent in my constituency; we have to vote for it but it is expended by the provincial government. The people of my constituency elected me to represent them in the federal parliament, but we simply raise the money here, send it to another government to spend and then, when the spending has been done, we are called upon to vote for an expenditure about which we know nothing.
This is on a par with the administration of our railways. We were told only a few days ago that the committee that looks into the estimates of the Canadian National Railways would be called. I have asked in parliament many questions that as a representative of the people I have to ask as to how this money and that has been spent and how much has been spent in my constituency. This question concerns fundamental principles of government. I have been, however, refused an answer because I am told that it is not in the public interest. We have taken the creatures, the servants of this house, this parliament, and

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Marcil
we have placed them above us, whether it be the chairman of the international joint commission, or of the railway commission, or of the pension commission, or of the civil service commission, or of any of the, I was going to say, one hundred and one commissions that we have created, because we now have government in Canada by order in council and by commissions. We have abrogated our rights, and that is contrary to the very essence of parliamentary government. The principles involved would take too long to state and explain now, nor is this the time to do so. I merely want to register another protest against departing from a principle which has been sacred in the history of the British constitution. It was asserted in England for generations and for centuries that there should be no taxation without representation. The people's representatives secured control of the public purse, and at the close of every parliament the last words that come from the representative of the king are the assent which he gives to the supply bill. Now we are abandoning that control. Those who come after us may blame us for that, but we are doing so voluntarily, except those of us who protest, of whom I am one.
Not only are we going to advance money to the provinces, which of course is a way of giving to the provinces money that we should spend ourselves, but the government are taking power to grant money by way of loans, guarantees or otherwise, to the Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. Then why should they not do so for the fishermen's associations and for the various associations of farmers in the eastern provinces? It may be said: Well, wheat is the great product of the country; millions of dollars worth are produced by the western people. As the Prime Minister said the other day, there is no country in the world in which so much wealth has been raised by so few people, in so short a time as that from the head of the great lakes to the foot of the Rockies, the great wheat fields of Canada. During all my time in parliament I have been prepared to support all measures for the benefit of the west. Let us never forget that it was the Liberal party and its policies which placed a million people in that western country. I had the honour many years ago when I was deputy speaker of this house of attaching my signature to the bills creating the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. So the Liberal party did what it could for the west in those days. To-day it is being blamed in many speeches for building too many railways. There was a time when every member from western Canada was predicting that one transcontinental railway was not enough, that

two were necessary and that the time would come when half a dozen would not be too many to carry the output of that great prairie country. The west is but beginning after all. How much is under cultivation at the present time? Not more than fifteen or twenty per cent of the land that could be made productive. But that is another question.
I want to refer to the wants of my own people. As I said on Friday, I have received over a hundred petitions from all parts of the province of Quebec, signed by farmers, in favour of the fisheries of the Gaspe peninsula and of Quebec. I want to read just one of these petitions so that it will be on record and in the hope that when the Prime Minister comes to afford the relief he intends to afford under this bill he will not forget the settlers in this country, whose ancestors came to Canada many years ago, and who are now in deep need; men who have not been favoured with the bountiful crops raised in the west, who do not possess such fertile lands, but who nevertheless have stood by and done their share for the upbuilding of Canada. I should like to see the government do what it can under these relief measures to bring about a better understanding between the dominion government and the provincial government regarding this moot question of the fisheries of Quebec, as to which at present there is conflict. In view of the appointment by the Prime Minister of the committee on price spreads this question should be inquired into in the maritime provinces as well as in Quebec. I think it my duty to read this petition.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but that is not the way to present a petition to the house. There is a proper method of doing so, as no one knows better than the hon. gentleman.


Charles Marcil: This is not a petition
addressed to parliament, it is rather in the shape of a resolution adopted by these people. I want to read it so that the government may be apprised of the situation in which these people find themselves.
(Translation):
Maritime fisheries of the Province of Quebec*
Whereas the maritime fisheries of the province of Quebec, located on the St. Lawrence river, the Gulf and Bay des Chaleurs, interest a population of at least 100,000 souls partly depending on the fisheries for a livelihood.
Whereas, since 1922, the government of the province of Quebec have taken over the fisheries on the high sea.
Whereas it is difficult for the Quebec government, without aid, to give the service supplied by Ottawa, in connection with maritime fish-

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Motherwell
cries, because such service already exists with its program, experts, scientific institutions, coastguard vessels, assistance to fishermen and many other facilities which are impossible for the Quebec government to undertake side by side with that established by the Dominion government.	.
Whereas the federal service extends to the other provinces where fishing on the high sea is carried on, moreover, this service, so highly organized, is partly defrayed by the taxes paid by Quebec and from which the latter receives no benefit.	. .
Whereas the organization of the maritime fisheries on a more profitable basis for the fishermen of the province of Quebec, the theoretical and practical instruction, the establishment of purchasing and marketing co-operative associations can be better undertaken through the medium of the dominion authorities. _
Consequently the people of the province of Quebec who depend on our martime fisheries are at a market disadvantage compared with other fishermen of British Columbia and the three maritime provinces.
Therefore, it is moved by....
Seconded by....
And resolved:	_	_
That the associations of "l'Union catholique des cultivateurs" on behalf of their members, request the cooperation of the dominion and provincial governments to improve the lot of the maritime fishermen of the province of Quebec.
We respectfully insist that there should be some arrangement between the said governments this year, and we further request if it is necessary, the repeal of the 1922 order in council transferring the exclusive control of the maritime fisheries of Quebec to the provincial government.
We make this request from a purely human, economic and national viewpoint.
We, therefore, beg of the Minister and members, both federal and provincial, to examine this question on its merits, so that both governments may come to an agreement in this connection.
Briefly they ask that there should be cooperation between the federal and the provincial governments in coming to the relief of the fishermen of Quebec who are now in a very, very difficult position. I hope the government will give effect to this view and bring about an understanding by conciliatory methods with the province of Quebec. Quebec at the present time is administering its inland fisheries, but in the maritime part of the province the fisheries were left under the control of the dominion, the Magdalen islands for instance. Naturally the inland fisheries are a matter for the provincial government, but the maritime fisheries should be, I believe, administered jointly by agreement with the province. The Minister of Fisheries for Quebec says, as reported in a Quebec paper two or three days ago, that he had made several attempts to bring about an understanding with the dominion government. I am not familiar with all the negotiations that have taken place, but he claims that so far he has been unable to succeed.
I bring this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister hoping that, in accordance with what he said a short time ago, he will be able to afford relief in cooperation with the provincial government. He cannot do so otherwise because it is a matter of provincial concern with which we would have nothing to do unless these terms relating to peace, order and good government were in the measure. I hope the Prime Minister will give my remarks full consideration and try to bring about an understanding with the government of Quebec.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, any goverment that has had one of its major measures so consistently and strenuously opposed by the opposition as has been the case with this relief bill should not be surprised if we register our last protest on the motion for third reading before the bill passes and goes to the other chamber. That is the usual practice in all similar cases. If the government believe the country is on the way to recovery surely they should be getting away from this class of legislation instead of reverting to it, as they are doing now. Either the government does not believe its own ballyhoo with regard to recovery or it is enacting this legislation, which is more severe than the legislation last year, for some other purpose, and the nearness of an election suggests that that has something to do with it. One of my colleagues was sufficiently good natured to absolve the government from any suspicion of that kind, but I know what this government are capable of doing. Judging from the redistribution bill of last year, which was corrected in two or three particulars in a way as to which I have expressed my appreciation, but which nevertheless was a drastic gerrymander, I say that any government that will take that action will take advantage of this legislation.
There are many ways in which they can do so. We do not forget the wartime election, when certain overseas votes were bunched where they would do the most good. What about the public works program? Can it not be bunched where it will do the most good? If the government are given a free hand and an unnamed amount of money with which to do nearly as they like between now and next session, who can say what may happen? If it is a fact-and it has not been denied- that under this legislation this government can precipitate Canada into a war without calling parliament together, then I am emphatically opposed to it. I do not want to talk about war unnecessarily; I remember the injunction given us some time ago not to

Reliej Act, 1934-Mr. Motherwell
talk about war too much. 1 quite agree, but I can recall the last war, to which the country was committed to the hilt before parliament met. I for one do not want that to occur again, and if this can be done under this legislation-and I believe it can-that alone is sufficient reason for me to make my last protest against it, which I do with all the vigour of which I am capable.
Then there is another point, of which I have spoken at least twice, but the more I think of it the more audacious the conduct of the government seems to have been. I refer to these guarantees in connection with the sale of wheat on the Winnipeg market by Mr. McFarland. Just think of taking the credit of Canada, to an unknown amount, and putting it behind a wheat market stabilization policy with not a report to parliament even once as to the amount involved for three and a half years. I have no doubt the government was well enough intentioned in this matter, but we have had the people's money and the people's credit used continuously for more than three consecutive years, with no accounting to the owners of that credit or the owners of the wheat. The government may have accounted to the pool authorities through Mr. McFarland but they have not accounted to the individual contract signers who owned that wheat, or to parliament. So I repeat that this government, which preaches business ethics to others, is in danger of becoming a castaway itself. They preach nobler ethics for chain stores and mail order houses, but do as they like with unnamed sums of money which they can spend at any time, anywhere, any how. This is done under the direction of one individual, and I do not care how white he is; the whiter he is the worse it is, because he is put in an invidious position in which no straight man would want to be placed, and I do not believe Mr. McFarland wants to be put in that position either. Unquestionably he has the guarantee of this country behind an aggregate credit amounting to at least 8160,000,000. That is our guess; we cannot find out the exact amount, so we have to guess at it. Give anybody, with the knowledge of the market that Mr. McFarland unquestionably possesses, control of practically the whole hedging operations of not only the pool but the entire grain trade and he can do as he likes with the option market in regard to jigging it up or down to the advantage of this or the other class of people. I doubt if any hon. member will challenge that statement. Mr. McFarland has almost entire control of the hedging operations of that market. Has he power to throw it in favour of or 
against any particular class of the community? If he has that power it is no use telling me that he will not use it; if the power is there it is an extremely dangerous power, and I strenuously object to it.
I suppose these words will be interpreted by some as casting some discredit or doubt upon the honour of Mr. McFarland. I am not doing anything of the kind. I happened to have the opportunity at one time of seeing the marvellous vaults of a great insurance company in Montreal. These vaults, with their ponderous electrically operated doors, contained bonds and securities to vast amounts, deposited by many governments and municipalities, corporations, and so forth. I was told that no one, whether an employee or not, ever was given access to those vaults alone. Was that a reflection on the individual, because someone else was sent with him when it was necessary to look into any of those deposits? No, that was a safeguard, and every honourable man in that great insurance company would rather have someone accompany him than have access alone to all those securities. On that occasion I asked a gentleman who was with me how he felt about it, whether he felt that it was a reflection on his honour to have someone accompany him when he went to the vaults. He answered, "No, it is my desire that I should be accompanied; then I will not have to take the whole responsibility alone." So it is with Mr. McFarland. I take the ground, as I think Mr. McFarland would, that he would much rather operate on that market with two or three -associates, especially when he is operating with a government guarantee and a continuous account. I do not see why, for the time being, the government could not make Mr. McFarland a member of the board of grain commissioners, which has the confidence of western Canadians to an exceptional and peculiar degree. I think the people there also have enough confidence in Mr. McFarland to believe that if he were added to the board it would make for the better administration of that line of credit. So there would be more confidence throughout the country than is the case when those operations are handled by one man, even though he be the best that ever stood in shoe leather. We do not forget that Winnipeg was recently the home of a man in whom great confidence was reposed, but who failed his friends and his trust. This shows the danger of unnecessarily placing implicit confidence in any one individual. For these reasons I think the government has done itself a great injustice in defiantly refusing to give this house any information with regard to this wheat guarantee. I give the

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
government this last opportunity, which apparently they are not going to take, to tell them that so far as I am concerned the government is the worst friend Mr. McFarland has, although the right hon. Prime Minister is supposed to be the millionaire chum of Mr. McFarland, another millionaire. That will not make the temper of the people any better at this time. I must again avail myself of the opportunity to speak upon this point, although I wish I had been deprived of that opportunity by a candid statement by the Prime Minister.
I have been predisposed to look upon Mr. McFarland as an honourable man. But just as it is not fair to give such a trust, alone, to the men in the insurance companies to whom I have referred, who have charge of the vaults and are undoubtedly honourable, so in this instance it is not fair to give such great responsibility to Mr. McFarland alone.
I could go on further and make observations regarding some other guarantees. However the right hon. Prime Minister has said that he does not believe any special power which has been granted to this government has been abused. I cite this particular instance as one in which it has been abused-unnecessarily abused-and the people have been audaciously flouted by being refused information in connection with their own business.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill is worthy of some comment, before the house proceeds to third reading. This is one of the most important measures which will come before parliament this session, and the passing of similar legislation is becoming an annual affair. Hon. members interested have in my view a perfect right to express their opinions upon the provisions of the measure now before them. It is quite true that with all the vigour we possess we have opposed the passage of some sections of the bill. We have taken the same action at each session of parliament in which we have considered similar legislation. Further, if we are to have another session of this parliament we will be forced to give further opposition, because I cannot conceive of a complete cure so long as the policies of the present government are in effect.
Without generalizing too much may I state that the government secured its present position by very spacious promises made to the electors. They did not promise to relieve unemployment; they promised to cure it. And not only did they make that promise to the electors in 1930, but they made other promises. They stated that unemployment had reached a stage where it had become a
national question, one which was too great for the provinces or municipalities to handle, and which should be assumed by the federal government. On every platform throughout the country they ridiculed the proposals made by the present leader of the opposition. His statement was that in his opinion the relief problem could be handled only as a provincial undertaking, and if the provinces found it too great the federal government would come to the rescue. A great deal of ridicule was heaped upon the heads of the then government by the present leader of the government and his lieutenants. They said, "When we get into office we will cure this unemployment." So strongly did the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) feel upon the point that he said, "Put us in office and we will cure unemployment in three days." I do not happen to have his statement before me, but I have it on my desk upstairs.


Mr. CANTLEY:: You would have to go a long way to find that statement.


Charles A. Stewart: I can produce it and I do not think the minister will deny it.


Mr. McGIBBON:: He said he would pass legislation in three days.


Charles A. Stewart: He said he would cure unemployment in three days. That is my statement.


Thomas Cantley: You cannot get away with that.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I can. Mr. CANTLEY: No, you cannot.


Charles A. Stewart: And I can
get away with plenty of others. I do not know whether the hon. member who has just interrupted was or was not one of the guilty ones. I do not suppose he would be, because he is too old at the game to be caught in a tight corner like that.


Thomas Cantley: You are trying to get out of it now.


Charles A. Stewart: I now hold in my hand, as I have at three sessions of parliament, the government's cure for unemployment. It is nothing but the thing they derided, the dole. If one agrees that those unfortunates in the camps under the supervision of the Minister of National Defence are not working on any wage scale, then certainly they must be on the dole. The relief handed out by the provinces and municipalities is nothing but a straight dole. No excuse has been made by the present gov-
2190	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
ernment for this condition. I believe that the criticism made this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was justified when he said that we expected something more than we have received. That is one criticism I have to offer, and I must criticize further the unfulfilled pledges of this government. Worse than that however they turned about and adopted the very principle they then condemned, namely, relief through the provinces, and by the provinces to the municipalities. How they expect to escape criticism on that score is beyond me. True, they say that at this late date they have discovered it is impossible to act directly because they have not the jurisdiction. I call to their attention however that in some respects they have acted in a direct manner. Certainly the relief offered in the camps is an instance of direct action. In that connection relief has been granted through agencies in the provinces. I wish to direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that these were not the policies propounded by the present government but are policies which were derided by them. They have found that when in office they have not been able to carry out their promises.
I am not going to take up the time of the house in a long discussion of these matters, but I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members the second important feature of this legislation, namely, the very wide powers sought by the government, despite the fact that they must deal through provincial agencies. What do they want? They want complete power-power to supersede statutes. They want to take unto themselves the only power which parliament has to control the executive. Why do they want this power? They say that in the past they have used it on only one occasion, namely, when Great Britain departed from the gold standard. But year after year they demand this power from the Canadian parliament so that they may have a free hand under the aegis of peace, order and good government to do as they please. They are allowed to do anything they wish under this measure.
I hold in my hand a record showing some of the things for which they have received a blank cheque, and under which they have proceeded to do business. Although I made reference to this point the other day, I shall refer to it again. I shall not take time more than to mention the guarantees to the provinces to assist them through difficult times, but I shall deal at greater length with the government's action in guaranteeing the banks for advances to the Beauharnois power project.


Mr. McOIBBON:: What about wheat?


Charles A. Stewart: Does the
hon. member refer to the guarantee of the banks in connection with the so-called stabilization of the market?
Mr. MoGEBBON: It was to help the western farmer; why differentiate?


Charles A. Stewart: It is just
as obnoxious to say that you delegate to the executive power to guarantee the purchase of wheat as it is to make advances to Beauharnois. It is exactly the same thing. I do not say parliament would have refused these powers, if it had been asked for them-not for a moment. I do not question that there would have been considerable discussion over the question of guaranteeing the banks with respect to advances to Beauharnois to complete construction but-


Peter McGibbon: Beauharnois did not originate here.


Charles A. Stewart: No, but this government took it as its child.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes, it did. Some of these days I Shall discuss the matter fully. Then, do you suppose that when a majority of this parliament delegated to their executive the right to make advances for relief purposes anybody had anticipated that they were going to guarantee the accounts of Newfoundland? I question very much if even my hon. friend who is perhaps just as strong a Conservative as I am a Liberal had any anticipation that this government were going to proceed to pledge the credit of Canada outside of this country altogether for the benefit of the sister dominion of Newfoundland. I know that my hon. friend will agree with the next guarantee that I name, that given in respect of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation for the production of steel rails. I am not going to say very much about that except that if such a step had become necessary there was no reason in the world why the government could not have got their following in this house, even if the opposition had objected, to give this guarantee of one million odd dollars. The same thing applies to the advances in respect to the Algoma Steel Corporation and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Outside of the two steel companies there is not a tittle of evidence that these advances were for the purpose of giving employment. It is true that two million dollars was advanced to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the purpose of providing employment, but there was no employment at all involved

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
in the guarantee of the sixty million dollar loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway. While I do not wish to be misunderstood or for it to be said that I am opposing these guarantees,
I do want it to be distinctly understood that. I am opposing the method by which these guarantees were given. The guarantees were given under the provisions of the Unemployment Relief Act Which everyone in this house assumed was for the purpose of granting relief to distressed Canadians. Perhaps those institutions come within that category. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the house are opposed to every action of that kind being taken under an unemployment relief measure. We do not say what our action would be if these matters were placed before us, although I for one would have opposed many of them. But I do say that the method of pledging the credit of the people of Canada for such huge amounts as was done under the Unemployment Relief Act should be opposed as Strenuously as possible.
The older members of this parliament have some appreciation of the rights of parliament and of the long struggle to obtain them. I for one view with considerable alarm what I see happening all around me these days. I have some appreciation of the battle which the citizens of this and other countries fought for political and individual freedom. But now we have a severe depression and everybody is worried, not only the unemployed, but as I heard stated the other day, many of those engaged in industry from one end of this country to the other because they do not know what next week will bring forth with respect to their particular business. They are in a frame of mind to submit under the present conditions to very drastic action, and I say that this government is taking absolute and full advantage of the state of mind that prevails in this country because they have a very considerable majority in this house.


Thomas Cantley: That is not a fair
statement.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the statement I am going to make.


Thomas Cantley: I know you are going to make it, but that does not make it fair.


Charles A. Stewart: I say it is perfectly fair. Under other conditions I say that the people of this country would not stand for these acts being done. We had one example of the feeling of this country in 1926 when large powers were taken by a majority of this house and exercised by the executive in a manner nothing like so important as this. The peopte of this country spoke in a very emphatic way upon that
occasion when our rights, even in a smaller degree, were attempted to be taken from us. But to-day under this legislation, under the aegis of peace, order and good government this government can do anything. They have all the powers of this parliament conferred upon them, and despite what the Prime Minister said a few evenings ago when he amended section 2 (b) of this act, the executive still have unlimited power conferred upon them under this section. So much for the provision with respect to peace, order and good government.
I turn now to the blank cheque provision. Having been given the right to do anything that parliament has power to do the government are still asking to-day, after four years of experience in administering unemployment relief, that they retain- the power, except that the right to deal with private corporations has been deleted from this particular bill, to spend money just as they please. It is all right for horn, gentlemen opposite to say that no case of maladministration can be pointed to, and I am very glad that we cannot. Indeed, if power were taken for that purpose it would be a tragedy. But there is always the temptation when the power exists, and. unlimited power is being sought in this bill. Why, Mr. Speaker, the constitution itself is there not only for the protection of the individual but for the protection of the executive itself, and the executive now desires to take away the background of protection which they have in -connection with their administrative powers. Under our constitution the executive have no right to spend a single dollar unless it has first been granted to them by parliament in specified amounts, and yet they disregard completely this right which parliament enjoys under our constitution, and which was dearly bought, and- I say, Mr. Speaker, that it could not be done were it not for the desperate situation that now exists in this country.
Mr. -CANTLEY: It would not have been necessary but for that situation.


Charles A. Stewart: Possibly not, but I fail to see the necessity for such drastic powers -being taken even in the present difficult situation of this country. 1-f the government had continued to come to parliament for a stated sum of money, as they asked for twenty million dollars at the special session in 1930, no- one could have had very much criticism to offer, nor was there much criticism offered on that occasion. The government had complete control o-f thie expenditure. True they did not give us details of the expenditure, and since that time up to the
2192	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1934

Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
present we did not know, and I presume the government did not know, how much it was going to spend in any given year. The government remained the sole arbiter of the amount to be- spent, and the sole judge of the necessities of the situation. That is the position they occupy, a position of complete autocracy. The government themselves realize that this is rather a dangerous power now that they see -two of the provincial governments at least seizing the like powers from, their provincial legislatures. Then this government complains. It is very questionable whether the provinces are within their constitutional rights in so doing, but they are doing it nevertheless, and it is questionable also whether this federal government is within its jurisdiction, but they are doing it because they have a maj ority behind them which will see them through in putting this act upon the statute books.
Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, we must have relief in Canada. We cannot -allow our people to starve. I need not repeat that the- policies of this government have added a hundredfold to their difficulties. Yet they refuse to change those policies. It has been mooted that there is -to be a change in policy, that we are to have a right-about-face with respect to the most important matter which parliament will have to consider, the fiscal policy. After four years of excessive restrictions upon trade we will welcome with a great deal of happiness any change in the mental attitude of this government towards this important question. I hope that the report is true. Despite the four years in which they have- consistently and persistently voted for the continuation of a policy which is so destructive, I suppose the majority will now right-about-face and support the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). Perhaps for once I may be able to give them some support and my only hope is that the reductions will be reasonable and be able to cure some of the evils from which we are suffering to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are wrong.


Charles A. Stewart: Someone
remarks that I am wrong, and I am a bit afraid that I am. I can scarcely imagine that anything so acceptable would come from the other side of the chamber.
For these reasons I am opposed to this bill. I am opposed to -the powers which will bring about a usurpation of the rights of parliament. Every once in a while when I think of the monstrous ills of this government and their supporters I am overwhelmed. I am opposed to the actions which this government proposed to take under the guise of relief.

They have turned right-about-face on every promise they made with respect to this important question and I am going to tell them about it at every opportunity. Had we been sitting on that side of the house they would have told us, perhaps much better than I can tell them. One should not be rash in making promises to the electors. That is the unhappy position in which this government find themselves to-day and they will be in that unhappy -position when they face the electorate. The electorate have long memories and it will be a sorry spectacle to see the hon. gentlemen who traversed this country making pleas for support having to justify the stand they have taken in this house, particularly in connection with a measure of this kind. Hon. gentlemen cannot complain if they find themselves in -that position because the public has a right to demand the fulfilment of promises solemnly made. I am opposed to the manner in which the government, under the guise of relief, has taken advantage of this legislation to do any and everything and to usurp the powers of parliament under peace, order and good government. Year af-ter year with this blanket cheque the government has refused to give to parliament its inherent right to control the voting and expenditure of public funds. Therefore, I propose to vote in favour of the amendment.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) has referred to a possible change of policy on the part of the government; I think he called it a rightabout face. If there is anything in conmeiction with which this government have changed their policy, it is unemployment and unemployment relief. I can recall their statements made on the platforms in 1930 that they were going to end unemployment and take it over as a national obligation. During the special session of 1930 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) introduced his bill he told us that it was a measure to provide work and wages. After a term the government decided that the giving of work to provide wages was too expensive and they changed their policy to one of -direct relief. Apparently they have got tired of direct relief and are going to put on a program of public works. In- the short space of four years the government have turned right-about-face several times in connection with unemployment and unemployment relief.
During the course of -his remarks to-day the Prime Minister said that I had agreed with him on Friday evening, and he seemed to take some comfort out of that fact. Either he did not understand What I said or he twisted

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Heenan
my argument around. My argument was in accordance with the one advanced by the right hon. leader of this party (Mr. Mackenzie King), that whatever money this parliament spends should be spent under its own control. My remarks appear in Hansard of Friday, and here is what I said:
To-night the Prime Minister advanced the best argument that I have heard as to why the act should be amended.
I was referring to the British North America Act.
The right hon. gentleman said that if we state a definite amount in this bill the provinces will clamour for what they think is coming to them; even if they need only $2,000,000 if there is $20,000,000 to be divided they will want their share. I think the Prime Minister was right in that argument; I agree with him, and that is just another reason why we in this federal parliament should take care to see to it, when we are spending money, that rve spend our orvn money over which we have control.
If the Prime Minister can get any consolation out of those statements, I am glad to let him have it. The argument I advanced is that which has been advanced continually by the opposition, that when we are spending money we should spend our own money and should take control over it. If the government had carried out their promises to the elecwiv. they would have taken control and assumed the obligation of unemployment and unemployment relief. The government told the people in 1930 that they would make it a national obligation and they received a mandate from the people to take over unemployment and unemployment relief as a national obligation. Will anyone contend that the government of Quebec or of any other province would object to this government taking over full control of and assuming full reponsi-bility for unemployment relief? I am certain that no government would object. The fact that we have this bill before us in 1934, four years after this government was elected to end unemployment, is the best proof that the policies of this government have failed. A policy that has been put into effect by this government and that has lost trade to the extent of SI,768,000,000 in four years, must have been a poor policy and one not in the best interests of Canada.. Surely the policies of a government that has lost trade to that extent in four years, that has added four hundred million to the debt of this country and that has increased taxation until the people are overburdened with it, cannot be good for this dominion. Therefore I repeat that this government has from time to time changed its ideas and its policies, and the worst feature of the matter is that it has not
carried out its direct promise that if it did not do these things it would perish in the attempt.
I do not need to repeat that those who need relief, those who are working under relief measures, are getting by all odds the small end of the deal, and this government, not content with bringing in a measure of this kind for unemployment relief and having it administered by the province of Ontario in the way it has been, have coupled with it the peace, order and good government provision and all those other matters that have no connection with an unemployment relief measure. I agree entirely with the leader of the C.C.F. party in asking: Why include in the relief measure the peace, order and good government provision and ask for additional powers to maintain peace and order in this country over and above what already exists on the statute books. I contend that while the government are handing out relief with one hand, in the other we have a bludgeon that if the people do not like the relief, then they must be quite subservient and take what is handed to them by the Conservative government or suffer the consequences.
Then this government takes power-and I would not mind if it lived up in some way to the powers that we give it-to make regulations. In connection with the fact that I stated a moment ago that the labour men got the small end of these things, I want to point out that the Minister of Labour-and of course that means the government-has changed his position in regard to the wages that are to be paid to men engaged on these works. If we take the report of the dominion director of unemployment for 1930, there will be found on page 15 regulation No. 7 which reads as follows in connection with the wages that are to be paid:
7.	All agreements made with provincial or municipal authorities involving the expenditure of any portion of the moneys appropriated by the act for public works or undertakings shall contain provisions for the payment of fair wages and hours of work in accordance with the intent of the Fair Wages and Eight-Hour Day Act, 1930, and the fair wages policy of the government of Canada as set forth in order in council (P.C. 1206) dated 7th June, 1922, and amendments thereto.
That is what is known as a minimum wage, a fair wage, but at any rate it works out as a minimum wage. According to the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief for 1932, that policy is entirely changed, because we find among the general regulations clause 8 on page 3 as follows:
The federal government will require that a maximum work day of eight hours shall prevail on works and undertakings carried' on under the provisions of the Unemployment

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Heenan
and Farm Relief Act, 1931, unless a modification of this requirement is previously agreed to by the minister; the provincial or municipal authorities may fix rates of wages to be paid provided that such rates be fair and reasonable and not in excess of the rates required to be paid by the federal government for the character or class of work in the district.
In other words, the first regulation that was put there by the dominion government on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour was a minimum rate of wages and when they changed their policy in the following year, as shown in the 1932 report, they had a maximum rate of wages. For the information of hon. members who may not be acquainted with the minimum and maximum rate of wages principle, when an employer is limited to a minimum rate of wages he cannot pay below that, but when there is a maximum wage set, he does not need to go to the maximum, but he can pay as low below it as he sees fit. In other words, it is a destruction of the minimum rate of wages. Here we have a government telling the labour men of this country what they have done for them in the face of the intelligent electors, barefacedly including in their regulations a provision that neither the provincial nor the municipal authorities can pay more than the federal government do for works of a similar character. Had the Minister of Labour and the government required them to pay as much as the federal government did, I would not mind that, because I am sure the minister, so far as federal works are concerned, will have a minimum rate of forty or forty-five cents an hour for labour men in his own riding and, in fact, throughout most of northern Ontario. Yet he allows the provincial government in the case of works for which money is contributed by this government to pay $5 and $10 a month.


Mr. GORDON:: That is not wages at all and never was intended to be.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Peter Heenan: It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to speak in the chamber with the riot that is going on outside. I do not know what the occasion is; it is neither the twelfth of July nor the seventeenth of March-but it must be a Scotchman's day because I hear the bagpipes. If I interpret it aright it is a signal for this government to resign.


Robert James Manion: Your hearing is bad.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You are not seeing the
signals right to-night.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: They will see them tomorrow.


Peter Heenan: Before recess I had pointed out the many ills that have resulted from the policies of this government; how they had lost trade to the extent of $1,768,000,000, increased the national debt to the extent of about $400,000,000, and increased the burden of taxation until the people cannot stand any more of it. I pointed out that when they first introduced their unemployment relief measures the Prime Minister declared that their intention was to supply work and wages, but after following, that policy for a time they changed it to direct relief or the dole; and that they have now changed again and gone back to work and wages. I had pointed out that this government had changed their view with respect to many principles enunciated by them with respect to wages. I showed that in the first regulations formulated by them they provided for what is known as the fair wage or minimum wage, and in the next regulations they changed that to a maximum wage. The Minister of Labour just before recess had interjected some remark that I did not quite catch, but I shall say to the minister that his policy, the policy of the government with respect to $5 a month or $10, has been repudiated as far as I can learn by the electors of South Oxford.


Mr. McINTOSH:: What's the matter with
Rennie!


Peter Heenan: The government can now
realize that 'Canadian boys were not going to work in the bush for the government at $5 or $10 a month and their board. They knew that the Prime Minister had promised to educate these boys so that they could take their part in the public life of Canada, yet I have cheques in my pocket showing that some of these educated boys drew the magnificent wages of $5 and $10 a month. So the government have changed their view; they are now going to give work and wages again.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Too late now.


Peter Heenan: We have been going around this country for several years trying to shame the government of Ontario, which as everyone knows is a Tory government, not a Conservative government, and they have at last hearkened to the voice of the people and are now going to pay the magnificent rate of 25 cents an hour on the eve of an election. I received in to-day's mail from the city of

Relief Act, 1934.-Mr. He'enan
Fort William the Fort William Times Journal of April 11. The local member, Mr. Spence, was speaking at a public meeting. What do you think he said?


Mr. GOLDING:: South Oxford.


Peter Heenan: Never mind South Oxford; listen to this-it will shame them more than South Oxford.
For some of the men the increase had meant a boost of 235 per cent in wages.
That is what the local member of the Ontario legislature for Fort William said to a lot of intelligent men-I know they are because they voted for my hon. friend over there; he tells labouring men without shame that the Tory government is now going to increase their wages 235 per cent. Then he adds that both the Fort William and the Port Arthur members had played a leading role in recent highway legislation. Well, if he takes credit for that now on the eve of an election he must also take the responsibility for the one cent cheques that have been paid for wages by the Ontario government, wages that have been paid now for three years without a protest of any description on their part. I leave it to the electors of Fort William and district whether they are going to be deceived and fooled once more, because they know very well that if by any miracle the Ontario government should be returned to power their wages will be again reduced to starvation point five minutes after the election is over. So the member for Fort William may take what credit he can for the 235 per cent increase, as well as the discredit for what I have designated as slave wages.
A gentleman by the nam of Laverdure, who was sent from Ottawa to live on the public, wrote a letter to the Ottawa Journal which was published in its issue of February 16, taking me to task for a statement I made on the floor of this house. The effect of the letters is that the men were not working; that they were just treated like children; that they got porridge to eat in the morning and pies in the afternoon and sausages for lunch and carrots and something else for dinner.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Well fed.
Mr. HEE1NAN: He said the men in these camps were well fed and well housed; that they had sausages and pies and puddings and carrots. Have I not designated those camps correctly when I call them slave camps? Anyone who reads the history of slavery knows that the slave masters fed their slaves well in order that they could work and produce more.
We know that the slave owners had medical men to look after them and tried to keep the slaves happy and contented because they wanted them to feel comfortable so that they would produce more. Everyone who knows anything about this gentleman to whom I refer knows how he was sent to the camps in our district, what influences were brought to bear to have him sent there and what he was sent for. I may tell you that I have a letter in my possession stating that he is not a $10 a month man but a $70 a month man, who is willing to sign any letters that are prepared for him by the Ontario government. The whole practice is to have two or three men in each camp who are willing to write or sign letters to repudiate anything that may be said by the local member in the Ontario legislature, Mr. Hutchinson, or by myself, so that the people in old Ontario will ask themselves whether we are stating the truth. These men who write or sign these letters do nothing else; they are excused by the bosses and do nothing but lie around the camps. They are treated like children; they are the pets. In the letter I have just received it is said that this man is getting compensation, that he has just been promoted to be assistant superintendent in Algonquin Park. That is the way the organization is carrying on; that is the way they spend the money contributed by this government, and that is where we come in. I do not mind what the Ontario government do with their own money, but I do mind what they do with federal money.
The ex-mayor of Kenora sent a telegram, which the Minister of Labour read on the floor of the house with great gusto, which said that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was not speaking the truth. I wonder if the minister knows that shortly after he received that telegram the man who sent it received an appointment worth $1,200 a year at the hands of the Ontario government as compensation for betraying his own district and his own town.
I could go on and deal with many more of these cases. We have the right to protest because we are protesting against the expenditure of federal money in order to carry on that gigantic political machine in the province of Ontario. Let me read an editorial from the Dryden Observer to indicate that the money is not well spent; the editorial refers to a disaster in which a farmer in a country district was burned to death. Due to the fact that the roads were blocked by snow, though they had plenty of machinery and men to keep the roads open, this man

Relief Act, 1934

Mr. Heenan
was burned to death in his home. There was no communication; they would not spend the money. I read from the editorial column of the Dryden Observer of April 6:
The inconvenience of snow blocked roads in this district was never more apparent than this week when the tragic fire occurred at Minnitaki. It was Sunday forenoon before word of the accident reached here and then it was only by the section foreman, Mr. W. Duncan, coming through by motor ear on the track. Provincial constable Erickson and Coroner Dr. Morison had to use the same mode of conveyance to Minnitaki in order to visit the scene and had a two mile tramp through deep snow before reaching the farmstead. Neighbours who tried to get to the fire to help the Washburn family had to almost crawl through the deep snow to get there and on account of the snow blocked roads, the funeral and _ interment of the late Mr. Washburn's remains had to take place at Dryden instead of at Minnitaki.
They could not even bury the remains in the locality in which this tragedy took place. That is some of the work of the Ontario government, which has dozens if not hundreds of men who are leeches on society, Tories who go round the country living on the proceeds of the taxation of the people and rendering no service to the community, the province or the dominion except writing letters of this description repudiating what has been said by public men.
I could go on at greater length, Mr. Speaker, to describe the situation that prevails in northern Ontario, but I think in the excitement of hearing the returns from South Oxford I have lost my notes. Let me say again, however, that the policies of this government have increased rather than ended unemployment. If the sounds I hear in the corridors behind me indicate what South Oxford has said they indicate a protest not only against the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways, who are adding to unemployment, but against the whole government as well. The Minister of Railways and the Prime Minister went over this country in 1930 making all sorts of promises, according to the newspapers and friends who gave me the information. I was not within hearing of their voices; I was down in Cape Breton at the time Howard Ferguson said I was up in my own bailiwick. He does not know much about the geography of the country. Those gentlemen sitting over there with smiles on their faces went to the railway centres and said to the men, "Look at the engines and cabooses standing on the side tracks, stored away. If we are elected on July 28 these engines will be running up and down the tracks, emitting steam and smoke.
[Air. llcTimn.]
The railway men every month will bring home full pay cheques and their wives will be smiling and happy all day long." Now, however, at the end of almost four years, what is the situation? I am glad to see the Minister of Railways in a good humour tonight; I am glad to see him take his medicine like an Irishman. He actually smiles in face of the fact that he and his government have instituted policies that have brought about the dismissal of sixty-five thousand railway men. What do they offer them to-day? They offer consolation by way of $5 or $10 a month and their -board, with peace, order and good government attached. That is the situation with respect to this government, and in conclusion I want to say that if there is the least bit of shame in the Prime Minister and his government, let them resign at once and go to the country.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I was paired with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Bowen). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HALL:: I was paired with the horn member for Victoria-Ontario (Mr. Stinson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Miss MACPIIAIL:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Porteous). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


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


Mr. HANBURY:: I was paired with the hon. member for W'est Kootenay (Mr. Esling). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.	|


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


Mr. MITCHELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto-High Park (Mr. Anderson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor) . Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Relief Act, 1934-Division


Mr. MacMILLAN (Mackenzie):: I was paired with the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Belec). Had voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion is that the bill be read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On division.


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Sague-ney (Mr. Casgrain). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Mr. CASSBIjMAN : I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


George Hamilton Pettit: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharaois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. FAFARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Maurice Brasset: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DUBUC (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROBERGE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LACROIX (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simeoe (Mr. Rowe). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon member for L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: I was paired with the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Du-maine). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. FOURNIER (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. rMr. Ryerson.]
*See page 2219.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Gordon moves,
seconded by Mr. Dupre, that Bill No. 42, an act respecting relief measures, be read a third time.


Thomas Edward Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I understood that when a number of members stand up the division must be recorded,


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker is now going to put the motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. AHEARN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Spankie). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Wilfred Hanbury: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


John Angus MacMillan: I was paired with the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: I was paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. CASSELMAiN: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Robert McKenzie: I was
paired with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Bowen). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


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


Humphrey Mitchell: I was paired with the
hon. member for Toronto-High Park (Mr. Anderson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I was paired with the
hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

2200	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)


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


Walter Allan Hall: I was paired with the hon.
member for Victoria (Mr. Stinson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was paired
with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Mr. THOMPSON (Simcoe):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Jean). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Fizalam-William Perras: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Arthur Sauvé: I was paired with the hon. member for L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Maurice Dupré: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Fer-land). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Eusèbe Roberge: I was paired with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Édouard Lacroix: I was paired with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Joseph-François Laflèche: I was paired with hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: I was paired with the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Du-maine). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Alphonse Fournier: I was paired with the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Belec). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at any great length on the second reading of this bill, because there will no doubt be ample opportunity to make any observations that I think it necessary to make when the bill is before the committee. It might not be amiss, however, for me to give a very brief review of the history of the marketing of natural products throughout the dominion from the beginning down to the present time, as it will serve to show why we have felt it necessary to introduce this bill. It is for the purpose of remedying some of the conditions that now exist in the marketing of natural products, and which we do not feel are in the interests of the producer.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question? Would the minister kindly tell the house if this bill is to be referred to the committee of the whole house or sent to the agriculture committee?


Robert Weir: The changes that
have taken place in the marketing of agricultural and natural products since before there was any considerable growth of our urban centres will probably be within the memory of most hon. members of the house. In those early days the consumers very largely received their products directly from the producer. When the farmer slaughtered his animals, his own pigs, for example, he would sell and deliver them to the ultimate consumer, and at that time only did the producers in any considerable proportion receive one hundred cents on the dollar of what the consumer paid. Also, at that time the producer realized as perhaps he never has since the quality of the goods that the consumer demanded. But the growth of our urban centres and the increasing distance of the producer from his market necessitated a change in the marketing of natural products in their raw or semi-manufactured state. It was necessary that marketing should become much more specialized.
Jumping across that gap we find at the present time the following conditions in

Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
marketing. We have the producer located on the farm or in the forest or on the sea, or wherever his products are produced.. Then we have assembling agents for the taking over of these products from the producer in less than carload lots or in small quantities. These agents assemble the products in centres where a still further assembling takes place. Then the products are -carried to the wholesalers or in some cases to manufacturers or processors who are also wholesalers. Next the product passes through the hands of the brokers, and from the brokers it goes to the wholesalers who are distributing the particular product. From the wholesaler it goes to the retailer and lastly from the retailer to the consumer. On the one hand, in the majority of cases there is the assembling at a central point, and then the distribution. This means many costs which cannot be eliminated. First, there is the assembling; second, there is the cost of transportation; then there is the cost of storing, the cost of financing, the cost of insurance and also the profit of those who handle the goods in the different stages. There are similar costs in the movement from the manufacturer or from the centre of this process to the consumer. Here again there is the cost of shipping, the cost of insurance and the cost of storing or holding the goods before releasing to the consumer.
The consumers themselves make many demands. They ask to have the goods distributed in very small quantities. For example, they ask for small quantities of cornflakes, of rolled oats or canned goods. They have also demanded that these products be distributed very quickly, within half an hour or an hour of the time they are ordered. As a result of these demands of a higher civilization, and as a result of our higher standards of living, there has grown up a great spread or difference between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays for an article. If we can reduce that cost of distribution or that spread between what the consumer pays and the producer gets to a minimum, without cramping in any way the operation necessary to bring that about, we will have gone as far as any human agency can go in solving the problem of distribution. If a distributor realizes that his success or his profit must take place within a certain range or between certain limits, his whole effort will be gauged by the quantity of goods which he can distribute and the most efficient way in which that distribution can be brought about. Therefore, I say that if that condition can be brought about we shall have gone a long way towards solving what manj- in this house have
stated is the major question at the present time, that is, of distribution rather than of production.
I am not one of those who feel that the spread between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays is due to the profits or costs of the trade alone. I believe that we as producers are to blame to a great extent for this spread. If the cooperative and other organized trade were certain that they could receive a certain quality of goods in a uniform volume, a great deal of the cost entailed under present conditions would be eliminated. The trade could look ahead and build up its supply so that it would have a uniform quantity at its disposal, whereas at present it is not certain that it can get this supply from the producers. As I say, the producers themselves are to blame to a great extent for the spread which does exist.
This development which has taken place in the marketing of natural products is due to the producer finding himself far removed from the consumer. He has not been in a position to know exactly the quality of goods which the consumer desired. Neither could he understand when he picked up a paper why a consumer had paid two or three times what he had received for a product which in some cases he had produced only a week or two weeks before. This condition of affairs has had a very unsettling and disturbing effect upon the primary producers of the country and this effect has been increased and accentuated by the press and by the great number of public and political speakers-no party is free from this-who have gone through the country stirring up the producers by telling them that they were not receiving a fair share of the consumer's dollar and were being exploited by the middlemen, it is because of this that there is such difficulty in having the producer produce goods of the quality required and deliver a uniform and continuous supply. When he is asked to do this in many cases his reply is: What is the use of my trying to produce a higher quality of goods in sufficient quantity, because the trade takes far more than its legitimate share; the more I produce, the more the trade benefits; I do not seem to benefit to any great degree. This attitude has had a bad effect upon the improvement of quality and production. If we can instil into the producer a confidence that he will not be exploited, that he will be given a fair share of the consumer's dollar, or the greatest possible share, without interfering with the necessary cost of distribution, whether it be through cooperatives or government machinery, whether it be by
2202	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
control over the legitimate or organized trade, then and not until then will the primary producer give one hundred per cent of his efforts to the production of a high quality product.
In an effort to overcome the costs which the producer felt were greater than they should be, cooperative agencies were set up throughout the country. The producers combined to control their own products with a view to eliminating some of what they felt to be unnecessary costs. The result desired was that the producer should get for his labour greater return from the consumer's dollar. However, in many cases these cooperative enterprises have not been the success which it was hoped they would be when they were organized. I am a member of a goodly number of these cooperative associations, so that what I say of them in a critical manner will be a criticism of myself and the other members of the associations. The purpose of these associations was very praiseworthy. In idea or theory they were one hundred per cent correct, but in many cases they have fallen short of achieving the purposes for which they were organized. If they had not fallen short of their objectives it would not be necessary for me to be here to-night speaking on the second reading of this marketing bill.
I should like to give the house what I believe to be some of the reasons why these cooperative associations failed. It was first necessary to inspire the producer to join these associations to market his goods and thereby decrease the cost of marketing. In order to carry out this work a man or woman had to have certain qualities-one might almost say missionary or inspirational qualities-in order to inspire the masses with the idea that it was to their own advantage to combine to market their products. In many eases the men who had been responsible for the organization of the association were placed at the head, the members forgetting entirely that it required a different type of man to manage the business. This, I believe, is one reason for the failures of some of them.
Another reason is, I think, that the cooperative organization devoted too much, if not their entire attention to the marketing of the product and in many cases lost sight almost completely of the improvement of quality and the continuity of supply. Had many of those cooperative organizations given the same effort to improvement of the quality of the goods they produced, thus ensuring to the consumer that through the organization he could get this quality of goods, it would have meant the difference between [Mr. R. Weir.l
success and failure of many of those enterprises.
Another reason, I believe, that some cooperative organizations have failed is the constant effort made by private enterprises against the success of the cooperatives, because they recognized in them, and rightly so, one of their most dangerous competitors. The private interests were organized and could combine to meet what they perhaps felt was a keen enemy, so that it is possible that many of the cooperatives met defeat before sufficient reserves had been built up, before an efficient management could be installed and, in fact, even before they got started on their way toward making a success.
I believe another reason for their failure has been that too soon after they were organized the majority of the executive, as a matter of fact, the entire executive in some cases consisted of men well chosen for their business ability, but had not on it people who were vitally, financially interested in the production of the goods, and because there were not people of that type on the executive or at least in a position to advise the management, there was lacking in that management that close touch with the problems of the producer which it was the purpose of the cooperative organizations to solve.
I have omitted perhaps one of the greatest reasons and it is this: we are told and told authoritatively that the reason for the failure of some of those organizations, and especially under certain conditions, is the fact that there has been enough produced outside the cooperative organization to depress the market of those who were inside the organization. That is, a sufficient proportion of the goods produced were not controlled by the cooperative organization and it could be used to depress the market and to make it impossible for the others to carry on as efficiently as they otherwise would.
I may have seemed so far to be a little too harshly critical of the cooperatives, but I have taken the time to discuss the situation, because I feel that this will have a considerable bearing on what we shall have to say later on and also in the working out of the legislation provided for in this bill. Although it seems at first that in many instances the cooperatives have failed, I am not nearly so much discouraged at the failures that have taken place when the obstacles they were up against, wth a complete lack of experience and training are considered, as I am encouraged by the great success that, in spite of those same difficulties, has been made by a very large number of cooperative marketing

Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Melfort)
organizations throughout the dominion. It will be of interest for the house to learn that in 1932, for which year we have the last reliable record, there were 795 cooperative organizations operating actively in the Dominion of Canada with a membership of 2,692 branches. Therefore, although from time to time failures of cooperative marketing organizations have been brought to our attention, I am sure every hon. member will feel that with such a considerable number of cooperatives and their branches still functioning satisfactorily, they have made considerable progress even in spite of almost unsurmountable odds.
If there is within the sound of my voice any person who has given any thought to this question and who feels that with the condition of marketing as it is at the present time, there is nothing to be gained by this bill then there can be no need in his mind for this bill. But I am sure there are many in the house who have given serious thought to the marketing of natural products, who have been surprised at the great wastage, in spite of the combined efforts of private and co-operative organizations, in the marketing of our products. One reason for the wastage, for instance, in the marketing of cattle is that the marketing is not regulated, the production is not planned. Of late there has been a good deal of discussion on that question by different public bodies. Let us take, for example, a veal calf that is ready to be marketed. It is sent to the local stockyards where it is thrown in amongst strange stock before it has even learned how to eat grain or hay. It is sent up the chute and it is lost, not knowing what to do. There it will be buffeted about in being forced into the stock car where it also finds itself among strange surroundings. It may be unloaded again before it gets to the final market. It comes to the market finally but was unable during all this time to maintain the flesh and condition it had when it was sold by the original producer. Someone may say that that is rather an extreme case. It is, perhaps, an extreme case so far as cattle are concerned, but when one considers the hundreds of thousands of calves that are marketed in such a condition, we shall see that it is not by any means so extreme. If this animal is not marketed almost immediately it arrives at the stockyards after the journey which has brought it into such a condition, the loss that is sustained will make it scarcely worth marketing, because any farmer who has experience in raising stock -and the better quality it is the more it is likely to suffer under such conditions-will agree that if it is not marketed within a 74726-140
period of four or five days, it is practically not worth marketing; there is nothing left but skin and bone. The same thing is true of highly finished young cattle that have to go through the same treatment.
Let me give an illustration that will be better understood by hon. members who are not so familiar with the marketing of live stock. It has no doubt come to the attention of every hon. member that if in the summer or the fall one goes down to a Saturday night market, one will find baskets of peaches there just commencing to get overripe and can buy them for almost nothing. The storekeeper considers this to be a sacrifice sale. I maintain there is no product that is more often sold at a sacrifice than cattle, hogs or lambs once they are out of the hands of the producer. If in one breath people claim that everything should be sold through the stockyards and in the next say there are organizations in this country that agree among themselves as to what they shall pay for our natural products, we have this picture: we have all the stock forced into the stockyards, as many as 5,000 'head in one yard, and according to the other argument there may be no competition because of an agreement among large purchasers that they will pay just what they wish. All they have to do is to remain off that market foi a day or two and they will be able to buy that product for whatever they want to pay, because it cannot be held without terrific loss. Following this, I would say that the time for a producer to sell his article at the greatest profit is, in the case of the farmer, before it leaves his own farm. If small cooperative units were developed which would stress quality production and could control enough live stock or cattle to enable them to bargain with the trade and arrange that the product should be bought on the farms, then the purchaser would have a greater interest in quality and this would make certain, in a way that the farmer or producer cannot now do, that it would reach its ultimate destination in good condition for manufacture.
The same thing applies in connection with pigs, sheep, or fruit, particularly apples. Those of you who have been engaged in the production or have watched the marketing of apples have seen the great waste that there often is between the time they are ready for sale and the time they are sold. For instance, we have cold storage plants throughout the dominion, erected for the purpose of preserving fruit and apples so that they may be kept in better condition for sale. It is known by those


Mr. NEILL:: Just before the minister sits down will he say something about part II of the bill? He has not mentioned it.


Robert Weir: I thought I had mentioned part II of the bill a number of times.


Mr. GRAY:: Will the bill be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization?


Robert Weir: My own feeling is that there would be no advantage in submitting it to the agriculture committee; I

Marketing Act-Mr. Butcher
do not see any need to bring witnesses, as has been done in connection with some other bills we have brought forward. I think hon. members, other than those belonging to the agriculture committee, will be just as anxious to discuss this bill.


John Vallance: Might I ask the minister a question?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would remind the hon. member that the house is not in committee. The minister has moved the second reading of the bill, and he has completed his remarks.


John Vallance: If the minister does not wish to answer my question I am quite content to let it stand.


Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain):: At the very outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I agree with practically every word spoken by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to-night. I agree as to the necessity for some action on the part of the government; I agree on the need for some improvement in marketing methods; I agree that there has been great wastage in our marketing practices and I agree that the producer must get more for his product if this country is to prosper. I agree that the quality of our products must be maintained, and I agree that three steps in that direction have been taken this session in the passing of the Dairy Products Act, the Fruit and Honey Act and the act with respect to live stock. I agree as to the merits of the cooperative organizations we have had in Canada during the past few years. Some of those organizations have been highly successful, and some have not been so successful. I believe that the organizations which have not been successful have failed for the very reasons the minister has described. I am convinced that there is great need for improvement in our marketing methods, but I am sorry to say I must disagree with the minister when he concludes that the bill before us to-night, if enacted, will result in very great improvement in them. I am a firm believer in cooperation, and without hesitation I say there is no man in this House of Commons who believes more than I do in cooperation between the producers and consumers, and on the part of all who trade with each other. I am not convinced, however, that this measure will in any degree or to any extent improve upon voluntary cooperation properly managed and well directed. I believe in government assistance to cooperation, but when we come to regimentation of men, as I fancy I see in this bill, 
whether proposed by people who believe in it or people Who do not, then I most strenuously object.
In the preamble to the bill I find it described as follows:
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.
If I believed that this bill, if brought into operation, would result in that which is set forth in the preamble, I would heartily support it, but unfortunately there are so many features in the bill to which I must object that I am going to accept the invitation of the minister and enter into a controversy here and now in connection with some of the principles embodied in it.
To begin with, I believe the main principle of the bill may be described as being one of compulsory cooperation, which I regard as a contradiction in terms, although it is an expression commonly used. I do not think that the people of Canada are yet ready for this type of legislation. I am not willing to believe that it would be acceptable to the people of Canada as a whole. I know that from east to west much approval of the bill has been expressed. The subject with which most of the people in the prairie provinces are concerned is that of wheat, and at this moment many of the farmers re-gard this measure as applicable principally to that commodity. In supporting the measure now before us they have in mind the old wheat board which functioned some years ago, and regard this measure as a sort of reincarnation of that board. However I cannot imagine any two bodies which could be more different than a board under a marketing scheme to be set up under this bill and the old wheat board to which I have just referred. In my view there is no comparison at all. When the wheat board was operating no restrictions of any kind were placed upon the grower. On the other hand, he was encouraged to increase his acreage; he was encouraged to grow as much wheat as he possibly could. The desire of the country and that of the allies was that as much wheat as possible should be raised in Canada. The farmer in those days could grow as much of any variety of wheat as he wished. He was assured of a market for every bushel of it. Best of all he knew he would receive a big price for his product. The farmer to-day has in mind that some of those results will be achieved through this legislation. In my opinion however exactly the reverse will be the case. I firmly believe that the farmer who acquaints himself with the provisions of the bill will

Marketing Act-Mr. Butcher
come to the conclusion that it is distinctly against his interests. Those who already have approved have done so, in my opinion, either without knowledge of the contents of the bill or without due appreciation of their significance.
When the bill was placed on my file I availed myself of the first opportunity to take it to my room, read it and study it. I tried first to discover how a marketing scheme would be brought into existence, then the kind of products which would be regulated, then the degree of regulation, and finally the nature of the regulating authority. I found, as all members who will study the bill will find, that the products to be regulated are natural products, products of agriculture, the forest, the sea, and of the lakes or rivers.
Probably at this point I would do well to read the section to which I have referred, namely, subsection (e) of section 2:
"natural products" means any product of agriculture or of the forest, sea, lake or river, and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product.
I believe if hon. members will examine this section they will find that the expressions contained therein cover practically all the food we use. They include wheat and other grains, milk and eggs, fruit, live stock and cattle, hogs, either in their natural condition or processed.
Then as to how the scheme may be brought into operation, I find that a representative number of persons engaged in the production and marketing or in the production or marketing of any one of these natural products may approach the governor in council with a petition asking that a scheme be set up. I suggest the proposed legislation is deficient in that it does not define what may be a representative number of persons. My suggestion is that it should be more definite in that respect. Perhaps the president and two or. three directors of an organization may approach the minister with a petition. May I add at this point that I am not referring to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) because the act does not state what particular minister shall control this legislation when it becomes law. The fact remains however that a representative number of persons may ask for a marketing scheme, and the minister is the sole judge as to whether these petitioners really represent the whole of the producers of that product. In his wisdom he may decide that these three or four officials who have approached him are really representatives. In fact, they may assure him that they represent 20.000. 30.000 or 40,000 producers. I suggest
however that that would be no evidence that they do represent those producers. Within the past few years there have 'been instances where the directors and officers 'of organizations have represented themselves as speaking for the whole of those organizations when, in fact, the truth was that in many of those cases the majority of the producers have not held the same views as were held by their officers. I suggest the bill should be much more specific in this regard, and at a later point in my remarks I shall compare this legislation with the British marketing legislation in this respect.	[DOT]
Then, I believe that only those who are engaged in the production of one of these natural products should decide whether or not there should be a marketing scheme in connection therewith. That decision should not be left to those who are simply marketing the product. The minister has to decide, but the measure does not state what shall be the basis of his decision. If the minister is satisfied that the petitioners represent the whole of the producers he may refer the matter to the marketing board. The board may report to the minister who if the report is favourable will bring the matter before the governor in, council. The scheme will then be put in force subject to two reservations only. I think there is a great weakness in the bill in that respect, but I propose to touch on that a little later when referring to the British marketing act.	:
There is another section of this bill to which I object even more strenuously, and that is section 9. Without offence I would say that the discretion provided for in this section should not be left to the minister. Section 9 reads:
Notwithstanding that no petition in relation to any natural product has been filed, the minister may, if he is satisfied that the trade and commerce in the said product is injuriously affected by the lack of a local board to regulate such product, at any time propose a scheme for the marketing of such product, and the governor in council may approve of such scheme and authorize the board to administer such scheme directly or through any agency which it may establish. Such scheme shall continue in force until terminated by the governor in council.
It may be observed that the minister does not have to invite the board to make a.report on the proposed scheme. He proceeds to propose the scheme to the governor in council and the governor in council may authorize it. Again I intend to refer to the provisions of the British Marketing Act a little later on in connection with that feature of the bill.

Marketing Act*-Mr. Butcher
As to the kind and degree of regulation made possible under this act we find by section 4 (1) that the powers of the board are exceedingly broad:
The board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power
(a)	to regulate the time and place of marketing the regulated product, and to determine the manner of distribution and the quantity and quality or grade of the regulated product that shall be marketed by any person at any time, and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade or quality.
That is to my mind a tremendous power to place in the hands of the board, a power that I certainly should not be willing to place there. Section 4 continues:
(b)	to exempt from any determination or order any person or class of persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product or any class, variety or grade of such product.
Then follow three or four paragraphs to which I have no objection. But here is one to which I think decided objection should be offered:
(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;
If it is the intention that a poll should be held in accordance with the provisions of the Marketing Act in Great Britain, it will be necessary of course for the producers to be registered, but if there are to be no steps other than those already proposed in this bill for the formation of the scheme, I think this provision is highly unnecessary. It should not be necessary for the small farmer who produces a few pounds of butter weekly or raises one or two head of cattle occasionally to have to procure a licence from the board to produce these products. I do not think there is anything suggested with regard to the other powers of the board to which I would raise objection.
A few words now with regard to the regulating authority. We have first the marketing board. If the act should pass and the dominion marketing board be set up I do not see that there could be any objection raised to the constitution of the board as provided by this bill, or as to the manner of the creation of that board. But with regard to the local boards I think we may justly raise objection.
Section 5 provides for the erection of a local board. A petition may be presented by a representative number of persons which shall

state first of all the natural product to be the subject of the scheme of regulation; it shall present the proposed scheme in sufficient detail, including arrangements for organization and administration under the supervision of the board, to enable the governor in council to consider its expediency; it must set out "the powers hereinbefore mentioned"-that is the powers conferred upon the board in section 4, "which it is proposed shall be exercised by the local board under the board"; also full information respecting the quantity of the product produced and the markets therefor; the number of persons who shall comprise the local board and the basis of their selection, and so on.
I can imagine that local boards being set up all over the country will be an intolerable nuisance to the farmers whose products they handle. That is my profound conviction. It seems to me that by this bill we are creating a large number of officials who, as I have said, will be a nuisance to the producers.
I want for a few moments to compare the provisions of this bill with those of the Agricultural Marketing Act of Great Britain. I firmly believe that majorities should rule, and if our act were framed somewhat on the basis of the British act, and if the scheme could be brought into force in Canada only by the same means as a similar one can be in Great Britain, I think I should have to support the bill.
I find that in Great Britain this is what happens. First of all there must be submitted to the minister the scheme that is the mind of the producer or producers. Any number may submit the scheme, but they must satisfy the minister that they substantially represent the producers of the product sought to be regulated, both as to number of persons and quantity of product. Any petitioner or body of petitioners may present a scheme to the minister. That step is precisely the same as must be taken in Canada.
But now we find a difference in the operations of the British Marketing Act as compared with ours. The minister must cause to be published in the Gazette and elsewhere at his discretion a notice of the submission of the scheme, and of the place where copies thereof may be obtained. The minister in that notice invites objections and suggested modifications. When the modifications suggested and the objections offered have been made known to him it is the minister's duty to consider them, and unless he considers them frivolous he shall direct a public inquiry to be held and shall consider the report of the person holding the inquiry. I might state

Marketing Act-Mr. Butcher
that I am summarizing the provisions of the British Act, paraphrasing, not quoting, the sections.	_
This inquiry must be held in accordance with certain rules which have been made by the minister and approved by both houses of parliament.
If the report following the inquiry should lead the minister to make modifications in the scheme these modifications shall be submitted for the approval of from nine to twenty-one persons nominated by the persons submitting the scheme.
If the minister is now satisfied that the scheme will " conduce to the work of efficient production and marketing of the regulated product " he shall " lay before each house of parliament a draft of the scheme," and if each house approves the minister shall make an order approving the scheme. But it is to be noted that when the minister lays the scheme before the houses of parliament for their consideration he must lay before each house a report as to the evidence by which he has been satisfied that the persons submitting the scheme were duly representative of the producers.
Both houses of parliament having approved the scheme the minister shall make an order approving it. The operation of the scheme shall be suspended during what is known as a "suspensory period," beginning when the scheme is approved and ending not less than one month nor more than two months after the poll has been taken.
The minister on laying before the houses of parliament a draft of the scheme-I have outlined this provision already but I will repeat it-must lay before each a report " as to the evidence by which he has been satisfied that the persons submitting the scheme were duly representative." The scheme shall provide for the constitution of a board to administer this scheme, which board shall be composed of registered producers elected by them in such manner as may be provided in the scheme. All this having been done, the minister now shall cause to be published in such newspapers, published in the area in which the scheme is applicable, as the minister may direct, a form of application for registration as a producer under the scheme. It may be pointed out here that any producer who is not registered is prohibited from selling his product. This form of application shall state that a poll of registered producers is to be taken on the question whether the scheme shall remain in force, and specifying the date. A poll of registered producers is then held and the scheme shall come into force at the expiration of the suspensory
period if the poll shows that there have voted in favour of the scheme, first, not less than two-thirds of the total number of registered producers voting on the poll and, second, registered producers who are capable of producing not less than two-thirds of the regulated product which all the registered producers voting on the poll are capable of producing. It is also provided that if it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the minister that the number of producers voting on the poll was less than half the total number of producers, he shall forthwith by order revoke the scheme. It will be seen that this act provides that a small minority of producers cannot act against the will of the majority. The safeguards are quite ample in that respect.
There are certain safeguarding provisions from the consumer's standpoint. While our bill contains certain provisions for the protection of the consumer, I think the British act is much better with respect to price spreads. A chairman and six members to represent the interests of the consumers shall be appointed by the minister and shall be called a consumers' committee. They shall be charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the minister on, first, the effect of any scheme on consumers of the regulated product and, second, any complaints made to the committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of the regulated product. Another committee is to be appointed, an investigating committee. The minister shall appoint a committee of investigation, consisting of a chairman and four members, to consider and report to the minister on any report made by a consumers' committee. If a committee of investigation reports to the minister that any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board is contrary to the interests of consumers of a regulated product, or contrary to the interests of the public, the minister may, after consultation with the board of trade, first, by order make such amendments as he considers necessary or expedient or, second, revoke the scheme. This cannot be done unless and until it has been approved by a resolution passed by each house of parliament.
I consider that to be a really democratic bill. It provides that at least two-thirds of the producers must be in favour of a marketing scheme before it can be brought into force. I believe that the majority should rule and I should be content if this bill contained similar safeguards. Even if that were done, I still believe that within a few years the producers themselves will regret the
Marketing Act-Mr. llsley

enactment of this bill and will ask for a revocation of the scheme.
This bill contains principles to which I cannot subscribe and I shall have to say quite reluctantly that I cannot support it. I believe in the sincerity of the minister and I am confident that there is no hon. member more desirous of doing the very best that can be done for farm and other producers.


Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I come from a part of the Dominion of Canada in which there has been some demand for the establishing of a marketing board for the natural products of this country, therefore I have watched with a great deal of interest the introduction of this bill and followed closely the explanation given by the minister on the motion for second reading. During the Easter recess I took the opportunity of consulting with fruit growers' organizations in Nova Scotia and with other people who are interested in the fruit industry. I discussed the provisions of this bill and received a variety of representations. Some of those interested in the fruit industry were disposed to be exceedingly critical of the bill, while others were disposed to be friendly to it. However, as a member of parliament representing the largest fruit exporting district in Canada it becomes my duty to exercise my individual judgment upon the bill.
I have been endeavouring to do this during the past few days with a view to deciding what stand I should take upon the motion for second reading.
While I am disposed to compliment the minister upon the tone and character of his speech, I cannot help regretting that he did not take up the bill itself and give the reasons why various clauses had been inserted

particularly section 4-and an explanation for his departure from the Agricultural Marketing Act of Great Britain, which has been so fully and ably dealt with by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher). If we pass this bill we will be delegating immense powers to some minister, presumably the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) although it may possibly be the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). The operation of the legislation will depend upon how the minister exercises those powers. I think the minister owed it to those of us who are deeply interested in this legislation to give us a much fuller explanation of the clauses of the bill and the intentions of the government when the bill has become law. It has been suggested that the legislation is intended to remain a dead letter, its introduction being on the eve of an election and the government I Mr. Butcher.]
having no intention of taking any effective action under it. I have no grounds for saying that that is the case, but if the government has a well thought out and defined policy of marketing, the minister should give us information in that regard on the second reading of the bill. But the minister did not do so, and we have to take the bill as it stands. We cannot assume that the drastic powers which are conferred upon the government by this measure will not be exercised. Some of those in my constituency who urged that I support this bill have said: "Yes, these powers are exceedingly drastic, and we can understand how in their working out great injustice might be done or great inconvenience suffered, but we must not assume that the government will misuse the powers granted under the bill or need not assume that the government will invoke those powers." I do not think a member of parliament should vote to confer powers the exercise of which he disapproves. For this reason I am afraid that I shall have to oppose the bill as it stands.
Having gone so far, I think I owe it to my constituents and perhaps to the house to give the reasons for the position I take. In order to do that I must put before the house what I consider to be a picture of the legislation.
I want to make it clear that this bill does not set up only one board. Some of the language, particularly that in clause 4, seems to be especially applicable to the fruit industry, and for that reason it may be convenient to set forth what I understand to be the plan or intention of the government in reference to that industry.
In the first place, and at the top of the system,, there will be a dominion marketing board consisting probably of three members. Beneath that dominion marketing board, which will have to do, of course, not only with apples but with natural products as a whole, there shall or may be a commodity board which will have to do with apples or fruit alone, and it will be the duty of that commodity board to reconcile the conflicting interests and coordinate the different demands of the various apple producing provinces. That will be necessary; the only alternative will be another fruit branch under the dominion marketing board itself. It does not make much difference which you have; extensive machinery will be required to look after the fruit industry as such if fruit is brought within the provisions of this measure.
That is the second board. Under those two boards will be of necessity a provincial board dealing with fruit, and the provincial board

Marketing Act-Mr. Ilsley
will formulate its demands and make its recommendations. The recommendations will go up to the second board, which will approve or disapprove or modify them, as the case may be, and then pass on to the uppermost board of all, .the dominion marketing board, which will issue the effective orders and directions. That machinery is complicated, cumbersome and of necessity will be expensive. The first point, however, that I want to make is not precisely that, but the fact that we are talking about setting up in the dominion not one board, but many boards, not only in the fruit industry, but in all the other natural products industries.
A second feature of the proposed legislation we should have clearly before us is that it is designed to deal only with natural products. But the definition of natural products is, I am afraid, not clear as given in the bill. It certainly applies to the products of the farm, the forest, the sea, the lake and the river, but it also applies to certain manufactured products, namely, " any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product." One question I should like to ask the minister is this: Is the proposed legislation confined to manufactured products so defined or is it applicable also to other manufactured products which arguably may be products of agriculture, the forest, the sea, the lake or the river? Does it apply to lumber, or is that a manufactured product and not within the section because it is not a food or a drink? Does it apply to pulp or paper? Will they be considered products of the forest or manufactured or derivative products and not within the section because they are not food or drink? That point should be cleared up. There is no such ambiguity in the British act which applies to agricultural products alone.
A third feature of the bill to which I desire to draw attention is that these marketing boards are not to take the natural products of Canada and market them. They do not buy them, handle them, process them, or sell them; they leave the marketing of the products in the hands of the producers or shippers themselves. They issue a series of orders to the shippers; they say to them: You shall send your goods to this, that or the other market; you shall keep a certain quantity of them at home; you shall feed your goods on to the market both in and out of this country in accordance with this series of orders or directions which we shall issue to you from time to time. If the system were one under which the marketing boards acquired, handled, processed and disposed of
the total natural products of the country, it might to some extent be a more effective way of dealing with the matter. It would be far more socialistic than this, but perhaps not any worse on that account. I am not advocating that alternative; I am merely pointing out that this measure imposes upon a competitive capitalistic economy such as we have in this country a bureaucratic interference from above through a series of marketing boards.
The fourth point I should like to mention is that this bill does not follow the British marketing act. The hon: member for Last Mountain made that very clear, and he read the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act. He watched, as we watched, very carefully the provisions of this legislation to see in what respects it departed from the British marketing act, and without going into technicalities I think the matter may be summed up by saying that there are four points of departure. They can be stated very simply. The first is that the Agricultural Marketing Act of Great Britain does not set up a marketing board at all. There the minister and the department, subject to parliament, preserve full sovereignty and authority over marketing activities so that there is no duplication of governmental machinery as there will be under this bill. That is the first point of difference between, the Agricultural Marketing Act of Great Britain and the legislation now proposed for Canada.
The second is that the producers in Great Britain are protected under their legislation and our producers are not protected under ours-and I use the word "protection" not in the fiscal or tariff sense but in the ordinary dictionary sense. The hon. member for Last Mountain indicated the manner in which the producers over there are protected under the British legislation. In Great Britain they must originate the scheme; it cannot be forced upon them from above as it may be under this legislation by the minister himself, and elaborate .provisions are made for voting by polls. Two thirds in number and two-thirds in productive capacity must approve a scheme in Great Britain before it can be forced upon the other one-third; and not only that, but half the registered producers in the industry must vote at the polls. There is no such protective provision in this legislation; it is wide open. Moreover, there is no provision for any particular majority or even for a majority at all. A number of persons in the industry may come forward with a scheme, and if the minister thinks they constitute a representative number he may approve the scheme or may himself originate a scheme without any-
Marketing Act-Mr. llsley

body in the industry wanting it. In that respect the producers in Canada have no protection whereas British producers are protected under the British legislation.
The third respect in which this bill differs from the British act is that the British consumer is protected, whereas there is no protection for the Canadian consumer-and again I am speaking of protection not in the fiscal but in the dictionary sense. I would refer the minister to the provisions of the British act, section 9, subsection 2:	.
A consumers' committee shall

(b) be charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the minister on-
(i)	the effect of any scheme approved by the minister, which is for the time being in force, on consumers of the regulated product; and
(ii)	any complaints made to the committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of the regulated product.
In other words, the British legislators have recognized that the consumer has some rights and some interest in marketing legislation, but under the substantial sections of this bill, the consumer is not recognized. That is a very notable and serious and fundamental omission.
The fourth, and perhaps the most important difference of all between the legislation of Great Britain and this bill, is that in Great Britain the rights and the supremacy of parliament are preserved. Under the British Act a scheme, which must originate with the producers, and be sanctioned by a majority of them, and be not inconsistent with the interests of consumers, goes before both houses of parliament, and the draft of the scheme must be sanctioned by parliament before it is even submitted to a vote of the producers. In this as in so much other legislation which has originated with the government now in office parliament is completely left out of the picture. That is a fundamental and important feature of the proposal now before us. One by one measures are introduced which take away the powers and authority of parliament. I certainly cannot approve, nor do I think my constituents or the producers of this country will approve, of the taking away from parliament of its time-honoured rights and privileges, its function of legislating for and protecting the interests of all classes in the community.
So much by way of introduction to a consideration of the legislation itself. Under this bill, as I have said, a series of orders will be issued to the producers. Perhaps I have dealt with that feature fully enough and need not go further into it. Then what are the objectionable features of the bill from an economic
[Mr. Ilsley.l
point of view? This is an economic measure.
I am dealing with it not on a theoretical basis at all but on a practical basis. T o begin with I regard as unnecessary, at least so far as the interests of the producers I represent are concerned, the power to determine the quantity of the regulated products that shall be marketed by any person at any time. I refer to section 4, subsection (1) (a):
The board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power
(a) to regulate the time and place of marketing the regulated product, and to determine the manner of distribution and the quantity and quality of grade of the regulated product that shall be marketed by any person at any time, and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade or quality.
Right here let me say that I think there is a fundamental distinction between the power to regulate quantities and the power to regulate quality. In the Fruit Act we have a provision that no cull apples may be placed upon the market except for processing or some similar purpose. I think it is a sound thing to have authority vested in some governmental or other authority to keep poor quality goods and commodities off the market. It puts the producers on the stretch to produce commodities of good quality; it benefits the consumer because it gives him good articles. It is one indication of the progress of our civilization that we improve the product that goes on the market; therefore I cannot object to a power to regulate quality. But I think that is as far as we should go. When this bill goes further and vests in a board the power to determine the quantity of the regulated product which shall be marketed by any person at any time, I think it goes too far. What is the effect of the regulation of quantity? It simply means that the board will have power to withhold goods from the market in order to create a scarcity value, temporarily enhancing the return to the producer at the expense of the consumer. I refer the minister to the experiments in curtailing production by withholding goods from the market that have been tried in various parts of the world during the past fifteen years. The proceedings of the Canadian Political Science Association of 1933 contain three very able speeches on this question, and if the statements made at that meeting are correct, such experiments have uniformly been failures from the standpoint of the producers themselves. I wonder if members of this house are acquainted with what happened in the rubber industry between 1922 and 1928, when the British producers of rubber, seeing that they were producing seventy-five per cent of the world's output, thought they could do

Marketing Act-Mr. Ilsley
what they liked with the market for rubber and decided to curtail production. They did so; they enhanced the price for the time being, but whereas at the beginning of the period they were producing seventy-five per cent of the world's rubber, by 1928 they were producing only forty-eight per cent. The control of the world's rubber market passed out of their hands; the Dutch production rose from sixteen to thirty-four per cent of the world's total. Then the British in alarm again threw themselves into the production of rubber in an effort to regain control of the world's market, and there resulted an overproduction in 1928, 1929 and 1930 which caused the greatest glut of rubber in the world's history and ruined plantations all over the world. That is only one example. The same thing happened with regard to coffee in Brazil.
I want to read from a speech of Professor Drummond before the Canadian Political Science Association, found on page 127 of the proceedings of the 1933 meeting. I read at page 130:
The Stevenson plan is illustrative of the doubtful wisdom of trying to raise prices by the simple expedient of reducing exports. Substantially similar if not more serious results have followed the adoption of the same principle when applied to the marketing of Brazilian coffee. The chief differences seem to be that in the ease of coffee government restriction. instead of raising prices, has finally so reduced them and incidentally reduced the governments to such a degree of financial embarrassment that they are now forced to make the best of a very bad job by carrying out monthly a policy of positive wholesale destruction.
Then on this continent we have had instance after instance of attempts to curtail production by withholding goods from the markets. I am not well versed in the operation of the wheat pools in the west, but I have always understood that their plan of withholding wheat from the markets worked out disastrously. I am subject to the judgment of the western members when I say that, but I have always understood that this attempt to take the world by the throat did not work. Following as well as I can the proceedings of the banking and commerce committee, I do not think that the plan followed since of buying wheat and holding it and the government attempting to support the market has been a conspicuous success. I understand that this government are committed to somewhere around $130,000,000 on guarantees for wheat; that they have an enormous quantity of wheat which they dare not put on the market because it would break the market and that if they could get out at present prices the loss would be only between $12,000,000 and $20,000,000;
but they cannot get out because of the impossibility of putting the wheat on the market without disastrous consequences. The same thing happened in the United States under the Hoover regime; they attempted to purchase wheat on a large scale and keep it off the market in order to hold the price up. The election literature in the United States shows clearly what the people of the United States thought of that. They gave up the scheme because it worked as the curtailment of production and the withholding of products from the market always works. They may succeed at the outset, but in the end they prove disastrous; it is a case as Professor Drummond suggests of winning a battle but losing the war. That is one principle of this bill, the power to regulate quantity, which I think is essentially wrong.
Coupled with that provision are the provisions for compensation. This goes to the very vitals of the act:
(c)	to compensate any person for loss sustained by exporting, storing or withholding from the market any product pursuant to any determination or order of the board;
I want to give a little picture of how that would work in the apple industry. To make it very concrete and specific, take the variety known as the Ben Davis, not a very high quality apple but one with a good appearance, and produced in Canada in large quantities. The season for marketing, roughly, is from October 15 to March 15. Let us assume that this federation of marketing boards decides to regulate the marketing of Ben Davis apples. First they must find out how many Ben Davis apples there are likely to be in Canada during the season, and they can only do this by sending a small army of investigators around the country, who will go into the orchards, the warehouses and wherever these apples may be graded or stored. They will have to make estimates of the quantity and the quality, that is to say the pack out, so as to estimate the number of barrels of particular grades there will be. They will decide, possibly, that the number is too large to go on the foreign market, that some of the apples should be kept off that market. Then the question comes up of who are to ship, who are to get in the class of persons who ship to that market. They will have to allot quotas to the shippers, and there are so many thousands of small shippers that inevitably there will be a great deal of injustice. The board also will have to say that so many apples will go forward this week, so many, next week and so many the following week during the period from October 15 in the fall

Marketing Act-Mr. llsley
to March 15 in the spring. The shippers who strike the low markets will be aggrieved; the shippers who strike the high market will be satisfied, but those who strike the low markets will want compensation for doing what they could not refuse to do, what they were obliged to do by order of the board.
Then you will have the spectacle of thousands of persons bringing in their affidavits and statutory declarations in order to get compensation. I put that proposition to one gentleman who was speaking in favour of the bill, and he said that was not what was contemplated, that it was compensation from a fund to be provided by the other shippers of Ben Davis apples. In other words there is to be a compulsory pooling of the proceeds. All I can say is that the same principle applies in that case as applies in compensation by the government. I would refer the minister to the experiment of the grape producers in the United States. There are numerous similar instances where all the shippers contribute something to a fund, which fund is paid out to a certain class of the shippers. The Patterson plan in Australia is another example; it is not a success, according to the most recent literature on the subject. That is how this will work out under these compensation provisions.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that merely to describe this situation shows the absolutely unworkability of this act. Perhaps it might be carried out, but if so it will be at tremendous expense. I may say that in the apple industry a scheme of compulsory pooling will put a premium on bad grading, because shippers will desire to get as many No. l's out of their crop as possible, in order to share in that No. 1 pool. That always has been the result in the past, and undoubtedly it will be the result in the future. That is a provision in the act which I think is unsound. If the minister can give a different interpretation of it or if he can explain it in some other way I should be very glad, but it does seem to me that is exactly how it will work out if this scheme is put into operation at all.
There is another feature to which I should like to refer, and that is the tremendous duplication of facilities that will be brought about. I wonder why this clause was included:
(e) to assist by grant or loan the construction or operation of facilities for preserving, storing, or conditioning the regulated product and to assist research work relating to the marketing of such product;
These are very laudable objects indeed, but cold storage is looked after by the cold storage
[Mr. llsley. 1
branch of the Department of Agriculture at the present time; research is attended to by the national research council, so why are we to set up this expensive machinery to do what we have hundreds of civil servants attending to at the present time? This bill not only sets up a very expensive piece of machinery in itself; in addition this machinery duplicates machinery already set up for these very purposes.
My time is drawing to a close and I cannot deal with many other features of this act. I will wait until the bill is discussed in committee to take up some of the other points to which I desire to take exception. I do want to say something now, however, with regard to conditions which exist in that part of the province of Nova Scotia from which I come. I hope I will not bore the members of the house by talking of conditions peculiar to Nova Scotia, but I do want to make a few suggestions as to how I think the objects sought by this bill can be attained in a very much simpler, less expensive and more effective manner so far as my part of that province is concerned, and I offer these suggestions to the minister in all seriousness.
There is no question but that there is a great demand on the part of many of the shippers and producers of apples in Nova Scotia for a marketing board or for some control over the shipment of fruit. That is beyond question, but if I understand the matter correctly it seems to me that what is needed by the apple business in Nova Scotia can be pretty well summed up under three headings without resorting to all this complicated machinery at all. As I tried to say the other night the first is proper inspection. There is an idea prevalent among some persons that the apple crop of Nova Scotia will receive very much better inspection and will be graded and packed a great deal better if we have some marketing boards than would be the case otherwise. That is not so at all. The fruit branch of the Department of Agriculture has charge of the inspection of fruit, and other branches of that department have charge of the inspection and grading of other products. If that work is not being carried out as it should be the department is not doing its duty; that is all. There is a great tendency on the part of many persons throughout the country at the present time to pass new laws and to set up new machinery instead of enforcing the present laws and making use of the present machinery. We have many laws on our statute books at the present time in regard to these matters of inspection, packing and grading, and we have a great deal of machinery as well. But in

Marketing Act-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
the province of Nova Scotia the machinery with regard to inspection did not operate well this year. I want to make it very clear that I am not attacking the inspectors individually. There may have been a dozen reasons why, under existing conditions, the inspectors could not do their duty. They may have been too few in number; they may not have had proper supervision; they may not have had the proper morale instilled into them or the proper impetus given them by their superiors. I do not know the reason, but I do know that the inspection certificates issued for fruit this year could not be depended upon. A great many of the packers, in fact the majority, did well; it was a matter of pride to them to have their products open on the British market so well. But side by side with their fruit was other fruit not so well packed. Whose fault was that? In the first place it was the fault of the shippers, and in the second place it was the fault of the government inspectors, or rather, I should say, of the service. The inspectors may have been overworked; there may have been other reasons, but for some reason this year that service did not function as it should.
That is the greatest problem in the fruit industry in the province of Nova Scotia. That problem can be overcome without a dominion marketing board at all; it should be taken in hand by the fruit branch, and the regulations should fee enforced in an effective manner . That is point number one. Number two: By a simple amendment to the Fruit Act the Minister of Agriculture, on the advice of the local board in the province of Nova Scotia, could have the power to keep poor fruit off the British market. That is to say, he could make qualitative regulations as to the export of fruit, rather than go further and attempt to say by what boats the shippers shall send their apples, how much they shall send, in what weeks they shall send them, and so on.
Then, number three:	The government
should pursue a more liberal and to my mind a more sensible British preference policy than they have since the passing of the Ottawa preference agreements. The policy of the government, so far as British goods are concerned, seems to be an exclusionist policy. They should abandon that stand. If they will encourage trade with Great Britain instead of pursuing a policy which may run us into exclusion from the British market they will do more than they could do in almost any other way for the fruit industry of the province of Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia they are now talking about the danger of quotas. They
refer to Major Elliott, who is attempting to make the United Kingdom self sufficient and who is intimating that certain commodities will be subject to embargo and kept out of the British market. We should do everything possible to encourage freedom of trade between this country and the mother country. That policy would do more than any other to remedy the evils of the fruit situation in the province of Nova Scotia.
I have concluded my observations, Mr. Speaker, on the bill at this stage. I must say that because of the meagreness of the explanation given by the minister it is a difficult stage at which to speak. There may be some reasons for the apparent anomalies in the bill, but standing as it does now it is so bad that I for one do not feel that I can support it.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. members on this side of the house who have preceded me upon their criticisms of this bill. My criticism would be in common with theirs, that while the minister gave us a very fine dissertation upon the marketing of natural products he said very little about the provisions of the legislation under which he purposes carrying on such marketing. I believe one of the difficulties this government are encountering all along the line lies in the fact that they have attempted by way of excessive tariff protection to preserve the price levels in the secondary industries. No attention has been paid the primary industries, with the exception of the assistance they were given by tfhe empire agreements. At the inception of those agreements we were promised that through them very great benefits would accrue to the producers of natural products. We have now had two years of experience with the agreements, and since their inception with very few exceptions there has not been any material benefit, particularly in price levels, to the producers of natural products in Canada. On the contrary wheat prices have gone to the lowest level they have ever reached in the history of Canada, and the producers of that commodity find themselves in a very unfortunate and uncomfortable position.
On the other hand I doubt very much if the excessive tariffs imposed by this government for the protection of the secondary industries have had the desired results, for the very good reason that still over fifty per cent of our population in Canada are engaged in the primary industries. If they are impoverished there is no purchasing power for the products of the secondary industries. True, it may be
2216	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Steimrt (Edmonton)
pointed out that there is some improvement in tlhe price level, but generally speaking such improvement is not sufficient to be of any particular value in improving the employment situation or the general business conditions throughout the country.
From time to time I see statements published by the statistical branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce indicating that there have been tremendous improvements in economic conditions in Canada. I believe the whole scheme adopted by this government for the purpose of improving prices and improving economic conditions in Canada has up to date been a dismal failure. It is quite true that considerable quantities of lumber have been sold during the present year under the empire agreements, but they have been sold at prices which brought no profits to the producers; on the contrary those sales entailed very heavy losses. It is to be hoped that under manufacturing, wage and other prevailing conditions the cut which will be processed this summer may produce better results than the stocks on hand which had to be sold under depressed circumstances.
It is needless to describe the condition of agriculture. A carry-over of more than 200 million bushels of wheat hangs like a black cloud over the markets of the world. No matter what kind of marketing board the minister sets up, there can be no decided increase in wheat prices and the condition of the wheat farmer will not be greatly improved until, as pointed out by one hon. member, some disposition of this carry-over takes place. I am inclined to agree with the statement of the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Ilsley) that perhaps in an attempt on the part of certain bodies in Canada to control prices we had the beginning of our difficulties in connection with wheat. To some extent this government is reaping the results of those attempts. I know that as far back as 1929 very serious reports were coming from Great Britain with respect to this matter. We were bound to lose some of the markets we formerly enjoyed for the sale of this very important commodity; I shall not go into details in that connection. No doubt the government made a laudable attempt to prevent an absolute breakdown in the purchasing of our grain, but at the same time there does appear to have been an attempt to keep prices in Canada slightly beyond world prices, a procedure which in my opinion-and I may be wrong- seems to have had the effect of piling up this surplus from year to year. I do not agree with the statement that we cannot sell wheat, or that we cannot sell more wheat than we are selling. We certainly will not sell wheat
fMr. C. A. Stewart.]
if we are not willing to take goods in return. I was shocked to-day upon receiving a statement from some of my friends from western Canada who of necessity must import goods. When I saw the details as to the duty, sales and excise tax, and other charges that were paid, and found that duties amounted to more than one-half of the purchase price of the article, it was clear to me that these people would not purchase abroad again. Every time we Canadians refuse to purchase abroad we narrow the opportunity to sell our goods abroad. If we will not buy, we cannot sell. We are frequently told in this house that foreign countries are refusing to take our grain, but I believe that if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), who is a good trader, were given power to say that Canada is willing to take goods from countries that formerly took our wheat, we could make a trade to-day that would mean a great deal to the wheat growers and farmers of western Canada. I am confident of that despite the fact that we are often told in this house that European countries are producing more wheat than they ever did. That is true, but at the same time they have been using our grain for mixing purposes and selling their own lower grades, and I believe that they would be willing again to deal with us on a fair and equitable basis. But we cannot expect that if we continue the imposts on imports that have been levied by this government.
I know some of the precautions that have been taken by this government to prevent the importation even of empire goods. That is very much to be deplored. The British market is the one market we have left for our western producers, but day by day we see it slipping away from us. What is a marketing board going to be able to do in promoting the sale of eur products in Great Britain if at the same time there is a feeling in Great Britain, as there undoubtedly is, that they are not getting a square deal from Canada in the matter of imposts upon British goods coming into this country? Such imposts can have nothing but a deterrent effect on trade even within the empire, and of course countries outside the empire are going to trade with countries that are willing to trade with them.
I believe, however, that both for our export and for our domestic business a marketing board properly constituted would be very helpful in the marketing of our natural products. I agree absolutely with everything the Minister of Agriculture said to-night with respect to the spread between what the producer receives and what the consumer pays.

Marketing Act-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
It is altogether too great, and it has been a matter for consideration for a number of years. Many contributing factors come in between the producer and the consumer which it would be very difficult to eliminate, and a marketing board, no matter how well organized, or how well clothed with all the necessary authority, will find it very difficult to wipe out entirely all these in-between costs. True, as the minister has pointed out, marketing conditions have changed completely within the last fifteen or eighteen years. They have changed completely within my lifetime. I remember when I marketed the produce of my farm under exactly the same conditions as the minister described to-night, but I cannot do it to-day, and I doubt very much if I shall ever be able to do it again. Why? Because in our endeavours to protect both the producer and the consumer, to ensure the marketing of a higher quality of goods, we have established an elaborate system of inspection from one end of this country to the other. As was stated by a previous speaker, we know that in every stockyard in Canada there are inspectors of our live stock. Our poultry and poultry products, our milk and other dairy products, are all subjected to inspection before going on the local market. To-day it is not as it was in former days when our wives would go and sell our produce on the market without any inspection whatever. Unfortunately sometimes they were sold short. I do not want to be misunderstood; I am not decrying the value of inspection. I believe it is all to the good, but I merely point out that we have set up this very elaborate system of inspection for practically all our produce going on the domestic market, and this system makes it impossible for me as a producer to avoid certain costs that are inevitably entailed. These costs, of course, must be paid by someone and they usually come back to the producer himself.
But if a reasonable board is set up, an in-between board, that will seek to reduce some of the costs that are entailed to-day and yet maintain all the necessary inspection services, I am all for it. I sincerely believe that a board of that kind could be very helpful. On the other hand, I agree with those hon. gentlemen who have criticized, and to my mind so effectively, the provisions of this bill and have said that we have entirely too much machinery, too much duplication of effort all along the line. I am of the opinion that had Mr. McFarland, who to-day is a marketing board in his own person, equipped with the necessary facilities and supplied with plenty of money to carry on the business, been given
control at the very inception of the marketing of our wheat we would not have had so much wheat on our hands as we are carrying in Canada at the present moment.
I do not see that all this elaborate machinery of local boards right back to the producer is needed unless it is for the purpose of making this marketing act compulsory upon those who do not wish to come under its benefits, and therein I foresee serious difficulty. I believe that in British Columbia there is a milk prdoucers' organization comprising all but about ten per cent of the producers, and the complaint is that that ten per cent causes all the difficulty and makes the work of that organization of no effect. Just as I object to compulsory, coercive methods anywhere, I object to the provision of this bill that when a majority of those interested in any given locality decide to organize a marketing board, then by the authority of the minister the remainder of the producers of the community must come in or suffer the consequences, and under some of the provisions of this measure the consequences of refusal on the part of the individual producer are serious. I may be wrong, but in my judgment he will have to submit or go out of business, one or the other. That does not sound very good to what my hon. friends across the way used to call red-blooded Canadians. It does not sound very good to me. I do not think we in Canada have arrived at the stage where we can afford to take action of that sort.
There are a good many provisions in this bill which I do not like. I am not going to traverse the ground which has been covered by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, but while I am on the compulsory features of the act, when it is realized that by section 9 the minister himself, upon request or otherwise, without consulting the community involved at all, may by order in council impose willy-nilly upon that community a marketing board without any vote on the part of the producers, without the consent of any of them, I think it will be agreed that that is pretty drastic. The minister may think that he requires these drastic provisions. I am bound to say that in my opinion in any community where that is tried the scheme is bound to be a dismal failure; it could not be otherwise, because Canadians will not submit to that kind of thing.
Perhaps the minister will explain when the time comes, but all along I have failed to understand the necessity for so much compulsion being embodied in this bill. Perhaps inherently I am one of those who believe
2218	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
in freedom and personal liberty. Whatever may be the intentions of my neighbours, I do not like the idea of finding myself having to comply, whether or not I like it, with the carrying on of agriculture along certain defined lines both as to quality and quantity. To-day I have to raise grain of a certain standard of quality, I have to produce bacon of a standard quality or I do not receive the price that I should receive. There is a real incentive to me as an individual to raise the quality of my goods in order that I may receive the highest prices, and that is all to the good. But under this bill if I do not do that I may be told that my goods will not be marketed, that they will be delayed, or that anything may be done with them. I may be allowed to sell only so much and told to hold the rest. Not only is quality involved, but quantity is involved as well. This seems to me to be the most drastic provision of all.
Have conditions come to such a point in Canada that we must be regulated not only with regard to the production of natural products but with regard to the production of our secondary industries? We are to be regulated from the top to the bottom. These are the days of societies and associations for all sorts of purposes. Personal liberty is to go in the interests of the . state. This is a splendid socialistic idea but may I say to my hon. friends opposite that it sounds rather curious coming from them. Ever since I have been engaged in political controversy with them they have been the custodians of personal liberty and loyalty. Again I say, have our fiscal and trade policies brought us to such a condition that we find we have a superabundance of labour, a superabundance of natural products and superabundance of secondary industries? Is it not a tragedy of statesmanship when we find ourselves in this unhappy position? We have more goods than we know what to do with, and yet throughout the world millions of people are starving.
The method adopted by the government is curtailment all along the line in order that consumption may catch up with production. We are not the only country in this unfortunate predicament; it appears to be common to the world at large. We seem to be a country willing to adopt the most drastic measures of control. We have swung from a country standing for freedom of individual action to a country which is to be regulated in every
regard. We are to be regulated by boards under the authority of the minister in the production of our natural products, and we are to have our secondary industries regulated as well.	r
I do not think this is the way out. While a properly constituted marketing board, not one as outlined in this bill, could be helpful, I doubt whether it would be of any material benefit. The drastic control provided by this bill may prove to be a boomerang rather than helpful, may do more harm than good. As has been pointed out by the hon. member who preceded me, this has been the result of regulation in other countries. There are many aspects of the bill which I do not like. I do not like the drastic measures which will be employed against me as a farmer if I do not take out a licence and all that that entails. The government pointed out this afternoon that it did not intend to put into execution all the extraordinary provisions of the relief bill, and I do not say that this board will enforce all these regulations. But why set up bugaboos if you do not intend to use the powers provided? Everything the government wants to do can be done after these drastic provisions for dealing with individuals who do not agree to come under the provisions of the bill have been eliminated. I ask the minister to consider this. I agree with practically every word of the minister's statement, but he carefully avoided a discussion of the intimate details of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rules of the house
require a discussion of the principle only on second reading.


Charles A. Stewart: We did not even discuss the principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes.


Charles A. Stewart: Then the
bill contains very wide provisions because the minister covered the marketing of live stock, of dairy products and of natural products. If the compulsory features of the bill were mentioned, I did not hear them, and yet they are the principal features of the bill. Eor these reasons I intend to oppose the second reading of the bill.
On motion of Mr. Stirling the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.