PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister) moved:
That when this house adjourns this day it stand adjourned until Friday, May the eleventh, 1934.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. EULER:: 5-as %L radio commission leased' station CKLW at Windsor, Ontario?
2.	If so, what are the terms of the lease as to time and rental payable?
3.	How much time daily will be allotted to the radio commission on this station?
4.	Has the radio commission issued, or does it intend to issue, an additional licence in the Border Cities to the owners of CKLW?
5.	If so, why is such additional licence issued ?
6. Will Columbia chain programs be broadcast over this new station, and does the commission receive any fee for the privilege, and for what amount?
7. Who are the owners of CKLW, and of the new station which is to be established, and what is the proportion of stock owned by each, including the Columbia Broadcasting chain's share, if any?


Mr. BENNETT:: With respect to the sixth question I submit to the house that it is not desirable that that question should be answered if the commission is to maintain its efficiency. I think the house will at once see the purpose and reason of my making that observation because in all these matters where the commission makes arrangements with broadcasting stations of either the Columbia or National chain or others for the exchange of programs a statement of the payments made becomes a matter of interest at once to competitors and injures the broadcasting company's opportunities for doing business. I notice that the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) is not present. I thought he was. I shall say nothing further until he is here.

Public Works Program


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Perhaps the question had better stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.
Question stands.


MR. EUGENE LAUZON
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Is Eugene Lauzon employed in the Department of National Revenue?
2.	If so, did the department receive a complaint from J. D. Gagne, mayor and manufacturer, of Yictoriaville, respecting the impoliteness and rudeness of such employee m the discharge of his duties?
3.	What is the salary of such employee'
4 What do his expenses amount to?
5.	Since what date has he been employed by the Department of National Revenue?
6.	Upon -whose recommendation was appointed auditor?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: he
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	$2,640 per annum less ten per cent.
4.	Fiscal year 1933-34, $980.81.
5.	March 3, 1928.	_
6.	He was appointed by the civil service commission.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BOUCHER:: What amounts were expended in the Abenakis reservation, county of Yamaska, in each of the following years, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, in .respect of:	(a) medical care; (b)
hospital costs; (e) relief; (d) for other purposes?


Mr. MURPHY:: Return tabled herewith.


LETTER CARRIERS-COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Did the civil service commission advertise competitive examinations for the position of letter carrier in the Post Office Department, from June 1, 1931, to May 1, 1934?
2.	If examinations were held m respect or such position, on what date were the examinations for the district of Montreal held?


Mr. SAUVE:: Return tabled herewith.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mt. MUNN:: For a copy of all correspondence between any member of the government, and any other person or persons or corporation, with reference to the application made under the
Navigable Waters Protection Act for the construction of the First Narrows bridge at Vancouver, British Columbia.


FINANCIAL LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: With respect to the amendments
that are to be made to the Dominion Notes Act, the Finance Act, and the Currency Act, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention to refer them to the committee on banking and commerce.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not discussed the matter
with my colleagues but in view of the discussion that has taken place in the committee with respect to the provisions of the Bank Act and also with respect to the Bank of Canada Act I would have thought with respect to the amendments to which my hon. friend refers, following as they do as a matter of course from the enactment of that legislation, that it would not be necessary to refer them to the committee. That was my view.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the Minister of Marine
when we may expect the Canada Shipping Act to arrive in this house?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The Canada Shipping Act has
been before a subcommittee of the Senate and is now being reprinted. It will go before the banking and commerce committee probably next week.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of this
house?


Alfred Duranleau: Of the Senate.



PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Referring to the program of legislation given earlier in the week I notice that no reference was made to the public works construction program. Can the Prime Minister now indicate when the program is likely to be brought down? I mean the program he described as being like Jonah's gourd.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Jonah's gourd grew up in the
night and afforded shelter from the sun.


Mr. NEILL:: And perished in the night.
Wednesday Evening Sittings


Richard Bedford Bennett: The gourd did, but not Jonah. He suffered a different fate. I should think that between now and Saturday we shall be able to settle the schedule. It is only a question of settling the schedule. The plans and specifications with respect to many of the works have been completed, and everything is ready to call for tenders when the enactment receives the approval of this house. All that remains is the question of what is to be included in the schedule, and what not. That has not been definitely settled, and I am sure that the experience of the right hon. gentleman on more than one occasion will indicate to him just how difficult that task has been.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the right hon. gentleman is able to settle upon the schedules by the end of the week, would it be possible to have them brought into the house early next week? I ask this because we are still looking for the amendment to the elections act which I understand has been settled for some time but which has not been brought down as yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I should not like the right hon. gentleman to understand that; I did not say it was settled. I said it had been revised.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And was being printed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And had been printed, yes.
I hope it will be in the house some day next week. I hope to have a copy in the hands of the right hon. gentleman by next week at any rate. So far as the schedules are concerned, I cannot promise when they will be submitted to the house. They will have to be preceded by a resolution which will be put on the order paper next week.



ONTARIO ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: 
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND:: I do not think that statement requires any answer particularly.
LEGISLATION TO BE ANNOUNCED On the orders of the day:


Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if he is in a position to give the details of the legislation or the bill yet to be brought down which he was not able to give last week. He said he would give this information at a later date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said I would state whether or not it would be introduced. This depends upon the completion of certain information which I am obtaining; part of this information I have since obtained, part I have not. I hope to be able to make a statement next week.
WEDNESDAY EVENING SITTINGS On the orders of the day:


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if any consideration has been given to having the house sit on Wednesday nights. A number of us who come from the far parts of this country do not know what to do after six o'clock on Wednesday. Most of us get into mischief and I think it would be in the interests of the country if the Prime Minister would move a resolution that this house sit on Wednesday evenings.


An hon. MEMBER:: And on Saturdays.


William Duff: I won't go that far at the moment. Wednesday evenings first, one step at a time. As the session has advanced to May 9, I think it would be in the' interests of the country and of hon. members to sit Wednesday nights starting next week.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations of the hon. gentleman are always listened to with interest. If he finds it difficult to shape his course, I suggest that perhaps his ship be brought up three sheets in the wind.


William Duff: That is the difficulty now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps if his ship were close hauled a little and the course changed a point or two it might be possible for the hon. member to reach a haven of refuge much more readily than he now seems able to do.

Marketing Act
It seems to me that the time which expires between six o'clock on Wednesday and three o'clock on Thursday should enable the hon. gentleman to add knowledge to his vast store of wisdom and perhaps shape a course which would be of great use to us.


William Duff: I could associate myself with the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the difficulties of sitting on Wednesday evening is that we have so much to do, for reasons which need not be mentioned. I have no difficulty in filling in the night in an endeavour to prepare for the day. However, I shall give every consideration to what the hon. gentleman has said. In the meantime, perhaps if he reefs down to the second reefing point and close hauls his ship, he will have no difficulty in getting past Wednesday nights.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith-Mr. Weir (Melfort)-Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
On section 1-short title.
Pierre-François Casgrain: As has been pointed out by the leader of the opposition, the government has intimated that in all likelihood certain amendments will be proposed as we proceed with this bill. I think matters would be expedited if those amendments were submitted to the committee. We would then be in a position to examine them and find out if they meet with the suggestions made by hon. members in all sections of the committee.
I think the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition and referred to by hon. members in the far corner merits consideration.
I think these amendments should be produced so that we may know what they are.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture would permit me to say a word in reply to my hon. friend, as I am under some obligation in regard to these suggested amendments. There is no doubt that the protracted discussion which has taken place in connection with this bill has given rise to certain suggestions from various parts of the committee which are worthy of consideration, I have been engaged with certain law officers
of my staff practically all morning in the preparation and revision of certain suggested amendments to various clauses of the bill. It was impossible to have them ready for to-day, but after a conference with the Minister of Agriculture shortly before the house met this afternoon I think we can say that they will be printed in the votes and proceedings for use on Friday. I do not think this need delay the discussion of the majority of the proposals contained in the bill, but some of the amendments are rather important and will probably require some discussion. I do not think it will be possible to have them in proper form before Friday afternoon's sitting.


Mr. RALSTON:: Could the Minister of
Justice indicate the general nature of the amendments and the sections to which they refer?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: The nature of the amendments has been explained before. They do not change the principle of the bill to any extent as they are framed for the purpose of clarifying what we feel is already in the bill but in connection with which there appear to be certain misunderstandings. There is an amendment with reference to the definitions; there is a change dealing more explicity with the provisions for pools or the manner in which products are to be marketed or regulated, and there is one which concerns the power of the local boards to raise funds. But in effect there is no material change in principle in the amendments. The only purpose is that of clarification.


James Layton Ralston: Has the minister in mind any amendments to section 9?


Robert Weir: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: What is their effect?


Robert Weir: It is not in final form to move as an amendment.


James Layton Ralston: But could the minister
give the general effect of them?


Mr. POULIOT:: Is the minister ready to answer my question of yesterday?


Robert Weir: The principle under consideration in the wording of clause 9 is to confine the application of power to the creation of interprovincial and export trade.


James Layton Ralston: That is a limitation of the section as it stands now.


Robert Weir: We think not.


James Layton Ralston: When the minister says that there is no change in principle, he will
Marketing Act

remember, as the committee remembers, that there are a number of principles in this bill, and I take it that there is some change in principle even in what he has indicated to us.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I have one or two questions to ask the minister before we leave this clause. So far I have taken no part in this discussion and it appears that a certain section of the press in my own province is sitting up nights and worrying because I have not taken a stand on the bill. As far as this marketing bill is concerned, if it will improve the position of the primary producer in helping him to market his products profitably, then I am for the bill. But I feel sure that some of our farmers and fishermen too will have to be prepared1 to make some concessions and perhaps some sacrifices if the bill is put into effect in that province in the way it stands at the present time. I am glad however that the minister has declared today that the government is prepared to bring in some amendments to the bill. This I think will justify the criticism that has been offered not only from this side of the house but in the press of the country in connection with this matter. If we get a bill that is workable, it seems to me that this criticism should be gratefully accepted by the government; the country should be thankful for what has been said on this side of the house in having the bill amended to make it as satisfactory as possible.
As I say, if the bill is put into effect as it stands there is no doubt that some of our potato growers in Prince Edward Island will have to be prepared to make sacrifices. They must make sacrifices if the bill as it stands is adopted by a majority of the growers or even by a minority and the rest are forced to comply with the regulations, because they will have to give up some privileges which they enjoy at the present time. There is however one thing I can say for our farmers in this respect and that is that they have always been prepared to make sacrifices personally whenever they have been convinced that cooperative selling was in the interests of all, and I feel sure in this connection that they will be prepared to give the same cooperation as they have given in the past. But there is one difficulty which I see. Under present conditions in that province, very often we have United States buyers coming in the summer months. They look over the growing crop and if they see some exceptionally good fields of certified seed potatoes which they would like to buy they endeavour to buy these direct from the grower. In other words, they take an option on the crop. Possibly the price is set at 75

cents per bushel and they pay 25 cents per bushel down, the balance to be paid when the crop is delivered in the fall. Whether the grower who has been in the habit of doing this will be prevented from continuing the practice is more than I can say, but it would seem that if the whole province came under the operation of this marketing bill then all the potatoes would have to be sold through the one marketing organization.
There is a similar situation in connection with the fisheries. We have some small cooperative fishery unions which handle to a small extent the product of some of the factories. Whether the big dealer who has been backing the fishermen for a great many years and building up an individual trade will be injured in any degree should the fishermen adopt the scheme I cannot say; I do not know whether he would be willing to come under the act.
I may point out that in addition to the potato growers' association, which is a very large organization in that province, we have another quite considerable organization, the associated shippers, and there are also large private firms which advance the potato grower his fertilizer and possibly seed for putting in his crop. Under local legislation there has been evolved a plan whereby these men can be protected through what is known as the first mortgage plan with respect to crop. That mortgage on the crop is intended to protect the man who advances fertilizer and seed to the grower, and it provides that the crop must go to the person making such advances. Personally I should not like to see anything done that would interfere with the rights of these men, because our farmers cannot carry on very well without their assistance. If there are no compulsory features in the bill, as the minister said yesterday, I think it is all to the good.


Robert Weir: May I interrupt? I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken when he says that I gave the impression that there were no compulsory features in the bill.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I am sorry that the
minister has not been more definite in all these things, because yesterday when the question was put to him on different occasions he skated all round it; he would not say yes or no in answer to the question.


Robert Weir: I must object to the statement the hon. gentleman is making; I think he is doing the skating all round the question. I stated definitely that there was

Marketing Act
a possibility, as the bill stands, for producers to submit a scheme under which there would be compulsion on those under it.
Mr. MaoLEAN: I am glad the minister has cleared up that point because it is a very important one, and one in regard to which we have been endeavouring to get information ever since the bill was introduced. We on this side understood that there were compulsory features in the bill to which I am opposed, and I am glad that the minister admits now that it is so. However, all I can say is that as far as the potato growers of Prince Edward Island are concerned, their produce is largely exported either to the United States or to the different provinces of the dominion. Under this cooperative plan of shipping through the potato growers' association, the work has been proceeding fairly satisfactorily, although there are always some who pull out from their association and are not satisfied. Perhaps the result will be the same under this plan if it is put into operation. But I would like to ask the minister whether in his opinion, if the bill is put into effect and if, say, forty or fifty per cent of the producers in the province ask for the scheme, it is the hope of the government that the board then will control the total output of the province and that those who do not come under the scheme willingly will be forced to come under it and market their products through the organization.


Robert Weir: I am rather more
hopeful to-day than I was yesterday because after four explanations and answers to questions asked with reference to what compulsion there was in the bill, at least some hon. members admit that they now understand that part of it.
With reference to the question asked by the hon. member in connection with compulsion,^ whether it is my opinion that if forty or sixty per cent of the producers voted in favour of a scheme they would have control over the remainder, I have stated over and over again that the basis of this bill is the scheme that the producers themselves submit and they themselves in their scheme will state the action that they feel should be taken in that connection.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it the intention to have uniformity in regard to the practice among the various boards as to the percentage that will be required for compulsion?


Robert Weir: That is in many
cases entirely up to the provincial government. So far as interprovincial and export trade is concerned there will be uniformity with reference to the workings of the board, but schemes may be submitted within a province and a provincial marketing board based on those schemes, set up. The dominion board may name or use that provincial board as their local board or agency.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So that ior purposes of operation the majority percentage might be quite different in British Columbia from what it was in Nova Scotia?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Yesterday I asked this
question:
Mr. Beaubien: Suppose sixty or seventy-five per cent of the growers of any natural product desire to form themselves into a cooperative marketing organization and through their local or provincial boards come to the minister here with a scheme for the marketing of that product: can the marketing board under this bill compel the other forty or twenty-five per cent that are growing the same commodity to go into this marketing scheme, or can it not? I would like to have a direct answer to that question.
Mr. Weir (Melfort): That is a possibility under certain conditions.
And further on:
Mr. Beaubien: The minister said: "that is a possibility under certain conditions." Are the conditions under which it might happen mentioned anywhere in the bill? What are the conditions?
Mr. Weir (Melfort): They are in so far as they can be set out in detail.
May I ask the minister this question: I think he is firmly convinced that the only way that any marketing scheme in respect of any product can be brought about is through compulsion-compulsory cooperation; and the percentage that do not wish to go in will have to be compelled to go in. Suppose we assume that sixty per cent of the producers of a commodity get together and come to the minister with a scheme for cooperative marketing: can he by legislation put the scheme into effect without the sanction of the province?


Robert Weir: The question raised by the hon. member for Provencher is dependent upon so many different conditions that I am sure he would not ask me to give one specific answer to it. I think, as we proceed with this bill, he will realize that every effort has been made to prevent any conflict between provincial and federal jurisdiction in this matter. A province may use a board set up by the federal government or we may
Marketing Act

use one of the provincial boards, as the case may be. One of the big tasks in framing this legislation has been to try to get over the difficulty that is confronting the hon. member.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I would like to get this clear in my mind. If the minister approves a scheme submitted to him by a majority, can he, without provincial legislation, compel the minority w'hich does not wish the scheme, to go into it? If he cannot answer the question,
I shall not insist on it.


Robert Weir: My understanding is that the matter would be a provincial one.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the minister in receipt of copies of the various legislative acts passed by the provinces with respect to this legislation, and could those copies be tabled by Friday? I understand the various provinces have passed different pieces of legislation to enable them to implement or to proceed under this measure.


Robert Weir: That is correct. My understanding is that we have copies of the legislation passed by the various provinces, and I shall be glad to table all we have.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Suppose a majority of the growers of a particular commodity ask for a scheme, and the minority, who have not endorsed it, are compelled to go into it: Are there any provisions in this bill or will provisions have to be made by the provincial legislature to give this minority, let us say of forty or twenty-five per cent, some board or representation of some kind? The reason I ask the question is this: If you are going to have cooperation and if a certain percentage of the growers of the particular commodity formulate a scheme and force the minority into it, unless you give the latter some leeway I do not see how you are going to have any harmony in connection with the scheme.


Hugh Guthrie: If the question my hon. friend has just asked involves only trade within the province in which the board is set up, then the provincial authorities would have to grant any protection such as he thinks should be granted. But if the trade in the commodity produced in the province is to be carried on interprovincially or internationally, the jurisdiction is with the federal government. I understood from his question that he referred to trade within a particular province by producers in that province. If he did, that trade would be under provincial authority; if it is interprovincial or international trade, it would be under federal authority.
(Mr. R. Weir.]


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Practically every natural product which is grown to-day is traded in interprovincially as well as internationally. There is no question about that. There is no commodity produced in any province the consumption of which is restricted to that province.


Hugh Guthrie: Then if it is interprovincial it is a federal matter and not provincial, But it is not right to say that every article produced! is traded in interprovincially. There are cases in the courts deciding that very point; where the trade is provincial it has been held that the federal government has nothing to do with it. The fruit case from British Columbia is one; that was a decision of the supreme court of Canada, not of the judicial committee of the privy council, and I do not know that the case will ever go further than the supreme court of Canada. This bill is drafted on the basis of the decision in the fruit case that interprovincial trade in Canada is under the authority of the federal government.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then from the remarks of the Minister of Justice I take it that the claim that provincial legislation will control the compulsory features, on account of the provinces having jurisdiction over civil rights, is only drawing a herring across the trail. If trade in any commodity which comes under this scheme is interprovincial or international, the provincial jurisdiction will be nil if the dominion government have full power.


Hugh Guthrie: With regard to such
part as goes beyond the confines of the province, that is right.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I think the minister
will admit that very few commodities that will come under this measure are not traded in interprovincially. I do not know of any.


Hugh Guthrie: Take the fruit crop in
Ontario; the greater part by far is sold in Ontario.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: We consume some of
it in Manitoba.


Hugh Guthrie: That part is federal. But the trade in the province of Ontario will be under the control of the provincial government.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But may I ask-I do
this for information, not to obstruct the bill -with regard to a commodity such as apples, grown in Ontario and consumed all over the dominion-


Jean-François Pouliot: And outside.

Marketing Act


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: And outside, but limiting it to the Dominion of Canada for the sake of argument. If the fruit growers of Ontario organize themselves into a body and come to the minister with a scheme, will that compel all the growers to go into the scheme? The minister made the statement in answer to a question of the hon. member for Bonaven-ture that provincial jurisdiction would take care of the compulsory feature-he did not say that in so many words, but that was the effect. Suppose a certain percentage of the growers ask for a scheme and compel those who are not in favour to go into it, will the province have any jurisdiction, or will the whole jurisdiction be in the federal government to compel the growers who are opposed to come into the scheme?


Hugh Guthrie: The whole jurisdiction
will be in the federal government in regard to all portions of the scheme which apply to interprovincial or international trade; but as far as the marketing in the province of Ontario is concerned, that part will still remain under provincial control. But there is power given in this bill for cooperation between the provincial and federal governments.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: In such a case this
bill will not be operative; there would have to be another provincial bill?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, for anything pertaining to provincial trade.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Take for example the producers of wheat trying to get a one hundred per cent pool, as they did some years ago; they come to the minister and say that sixty per cent are in favour of a compulsory wheat pool. They form a body and present their scheme to the minister, and he puts it under this legislation. He will be able to compel the other forty per cent to go into the scheme, will he?


Robert Weir: My understanding is that the question has been already answered. We can for interprovincial or export trade.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then I would like to get this clear; I have been aked by a large number of my electors to find out about it. If the wheat growers of Canada decide to form themselves into a cooperative marketing organization and come to the minister with the scheme, and forty per cent of the growers do not want to go into the scheme, can the minister compel that forty per cent to go into it? Because wheat is international in scope and also interprovincial.


Hugh Guthrie: I think he can.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then is there any provision in the bill that will give this minority representation of some kind?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Pierre-François Casgrain: It is a compulsory bill.


Robert Weir: The scheme as submitted must set out the manner in which the board is to be selected. It may be by election, or it may be otherwise, but the whole scheme must first be approved by the dominion board, the minister and the governor in council, and will be dealt with on its merits. In a case like that I would say it would be as the hon. member suggests, because it is the only rational thing that everyone should have representation as far as possible. I believe that certain schemes will be brought forward, not only asking that the minority be represented on the board, but also that the trade may be represented, and consumers represented. But all that depends on the particular problems that are at issue.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Would not the minister think it advisable to put something in the bill to that effect? The minister knows as well as I do that some years ago there was propaganda throughout western Canada for a one hundred per cent pool. I think my record stands as having done a great deal of work in attempting to bring about wheat pools amongst the French speaking people of western Canada. I am in favour of cooperative marketing; I have always been in favour of it, but I have always been against compulsion, and am to-day. The minister knows that the scheme for the hundred per cent pool was not well received, especially in Manitoba. In view of the explanation given by the Minister of Justice there ought to be some provision in this bill by which the minority, which might be twenty-five, thirty or forty per cent, should be given representation. I do not ask the minister to give it right now but I suggest that before we finish with this bill an amendment should be introduced to give that minority some rights.


Robert Weir: I think the hon. member will agree that the discussion so far has disclosed a great number of problems that must be dealt with. We have discarded many clauses which seemed to fit one commodity because, by inserting such clauses, we seemed to make it less possible to get a bill that would meet the requirements of other commodities. I appreciate that what the
Marketing Act

hon. member says is worthy of consideration. It has been given consideration, but I think the hon. gentleman will agree also that no reasonable person would feel but that if a percentage were forced into any scheme they should be given full representation in that scheme. I do not think the producers of this country are so unreasonable that they would submit any other scheme for approval. I will give further consideration to what the hon. gentleman has said. My only objection to inserting such a clause would be that it might interfere in some way with the desires of the producers in regard to the different problems they must meet.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: You have compulsion
under this bill; you give these boards the right to do almost anything.


Robert Weir: Only the rights for which they ask to handle their own business.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I know that, but the minister can appoint a board without anyone asking for a scheme. We are giving this central marketing board all the powers that possibly can be given any board. They can restrict imports or exports; they can license the growers; they can hold a portion of a commodity off the market, and so on. If you are going to give this board the powers set out in section 4 of this bill, under which they may compel people to come under these schemes, I think some provision such as I have suggested should be included. I know the mind of my electors and I think I speak it when I say that if the minister is going to insert these compulsory clauses-and he cannot deny that they are here-and if the explanation given by the Minister of Justice is correct, as I believe it is, then something ought to be done to give the minorities some rights. I urge that very strongly, and I do not think I can repeat it too often. It may be very well for sixty per cent of the growers of a commodity to say, "We want this scheme; it must be given us," and force the other forty per cent to accept it. Surely the forty per cent ought to have some protection in a free country. We give protection to the minorities in this country in practically everything we do.


Mr. MARCIL:: Not in this parliament.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Perhaps we do not recognize them as much as we should, but when we are going to change the whole economic life of the growers of a commodity I think the minorities should have some rights under this bill. I do not think the bill should go through without giving some protection of
IMr. R. Werir.]
this kind, and I do not think the minister dreams for a moment that he will ever put this bill into force without using compulsion, coercion or whatever he calls it. If you are going to have this compulsion you should give the minorities some rights.


Mr. HEENAN:: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. BURY:: Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to catch your eye six or seven times.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacNicol):: The
hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has the floor.


Peter Heenan: The more we discuss this legislation the more angles we see or, as the hon. member for East Hamilton said last night, the more slants we discover. Since this is a measure to compel the organization of those who produce our natural products in order to regulate marketing, prices and so on, I was wondering if the minister would give consideration to the fact that the labour men of this country are producers as well. They have labour organizations, but they are voluntary organizations; no man joins an organization unless he does so of his own free will.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask if the
hon. gentleman believes in the closed shop?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Do you?


Peter Heenan: Because of that fact only about seven per cent of the labour men of Canada are organized and the producers, or the men who employ these workmen, take advantage of the fact that the men are not organized properly. If they were organized properly they would not be working for the wages they are receiving to-day; if they were organized properly there would be no need for minimum wage laws in this country. I am sure the minister and the government will admit that the labour men of Canada are producers, and I am going to ask the minister now if the labour men of Canada hold a meeting and request to be included under this bill, will they come under the bill? If the majority of the men in any craft organize will the minister and the government force the remainder into that organization so that they may regulate their production and their prices, which would be in the nature of wages?


Robert Weir: I think that question was well answered by the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hesitation of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who did not reply. I can say also that I believe the producers of this country would be reasonably well satisfied if they had the same amount of

Marketing Act
organization and the same control of their products that the labour unions in Canada have with regard to wages. As to whether or not such a scheme would be considered in regard to the workingmen of Canada, I may say that it would be considered under the provisions of this act and in accordance with what is set out in the act.


Peter Heenan: Did I understand the
minister to say that if the labour men requested that they be allowed to come under this bill the government would accept that request?


Robert Weir: As far as the provisions of the bill go. This bill is for the regulation of the marketing of natural products.


Peter Heenan: But the minister must
recognize the fact that the labour men of Canada are consumers as well. I want to point out that the labour men are producers; they produce natural products too. They work in the forests, in the mines, in the fisheries, and so on, but I spoke generally of organized labour. I want to point out that the minister was wrong when he said the farmers would be satisfied if they had the protection the labour men have, because the labour men of this country have very little protection, with the exception of a very few unions. There are only about seven per cent of them organized, and because of the fact that they have very little organization in Canada advantage is taken of them with respect to their employment, wages and working conditions. The principle is just the same. If we are going to organize a body of men to regulate their products and say how much shall be produced and what the price shall be, which corresponds, of course, to the wages of the working man, then we should take in all our citizens; we should not neglect any of them.
I have not any authority to ask this question; I have not been asked to ask it, but the reason why I ask it of the minister is to secure information. If the working men of this country get together and ask the minister to give them the same kind of treatment as is being accorded to other producers under this bill, will the minister consider including them in this bill or bringing down another bill to include them and to provide that where a certain percentage of men join an organization of labour men the minority will be forced to do likewise, and the law protect them in the wages they demand for their work, and so forth? For the information of the minister I may say we have a law on the
statute books with respect to labour unions, but the law only gives the men the right to join labour unions. It simply says that it is not illegal for them to join unions. The Prime Minister of Canada signed the treaty of Versailles under which working men, as well as employers, are given the right to organize, but the treaty does not compel anyone to recognize those organizations. If the minister will say that he will include working men, the labour men, as producers either in this bill or in a supplementary bill that he will bring down, I think I could support this bill.


Mr. TURNBULL:: If my hon. friend will read section five of the bill he will see that it provides:
A representative number of persons engaged in the production and marketing or the production or marketing of a natural product may petition the governor in council to approve a scheme.
If the labouring men are engaged in the production of a natural product, as my hon. friend says, or in the marketing of a natural product, they can produce a scheme, and if they get the support of all others engaged there will be a board.


Peter Heenan: Is that answer from the minister?


Franklin White Turnbull: It is from the bill itself.


Peter Heenan: Will the Minister of Agriculture put that same interpretation on section five?


Robert Weir: That is the interpretation I have already given the hon. member in connection with it, namely, that this bill provides that a representative number of producers can submit a plan for the marketing of the product they produce, and so far as the people to whom the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River refers, if they come under the provisions of this bill, they will be included in it as producers of their own products.


Peter Heenan: That is not the interpretation the hon. member for Regina placed on that section. If they are working in the lumber mills, for instance, they are not producing their own product; they are working for some other man.


Robert Weir: They could not sell a product if it was not theirs.
Mr. HEiENAN: Surely they can regulate the price of their work; that is, regulate their wages. The man who employs them is going to be allowed to regulate the sale of his product. Then why not the men who are
Marketing Act

employed by him? I would like the minister to see if he cannot put the same interpretation on section five as was given by the hon. member for Regina.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Mr. Chairman, the point I wish to deal with is the one which was raised by the hon. member for Provencher. I do not know whether it is yet clear in the minds of some of us, but as I see it, the real term that we should emphasize in considering this bill is the regulated product. The scheme as it is now embodied in the bill, and perhaps the minister will correct me if I am wrong, is that the producer of wheat, we will say, will come under the federal law in so far as his product becomes a regulated product within the terms of that law; that is to say, in so far as his product goes into international or into interprovincial trade. But that portion of his product that does not go into intenprovincial or international trade is not a regulated product within the meaning of the federal bill. Therefore, a producer of that product in a province who sells it inside the province and who, if he had sold it outside the province, either in another province or abroad, would be committing a breach of the regulations passed under the bill, would not be committing a breach by reason of the product not being a regulated product, and going purely into intra-provincial trade. In other words, I do not think that the distinction we have to make-
Mr. VEN'IOT: Might I ask the hon. member a question for information? As I understand him, he says that the product sold within the province is to be dealt with within the province by provincial jurisdiction.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The product that is traded or sold within the province.


Mr. VENIOT:: Therefore the dominion has no right to interfere?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: Will my hon. friend look at section ten of the bill? I will read it to him and then ask his explanation of it as a lawyer:
Whenever a scheme relates to an area of production which is confined' within the limits of one province, the governor in council may authorize any marketing board or agency under the law of the said province to be, and to exercise the functions of, a local board with reference to the said scheme, and such provincial board or agency may be authorized to collect charges for services rendered in respect of all or any of the products subject to its regulation by reason of the aforesaid scheme.

What right has the governor in council to interfere if the interpretation of the hon. member is right?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: My hon. friend has overlooked the one important point in that clause which is "production." The word at the very commencement of the clause shows that the clause is confined to an area of production within a province not an area of trade.


Peter John Veniot: Then you would require
two schemes?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Will my hon. friend allow me to finish? Every area of production in Canada must be either inside one province or partly inside one and partly inside another. Therefore every part of the area of production must be in some one province. The provision of the bill, as I understand it, is that where an area of production comes inside a province the terms of the clause which my hon. friend has just read apply. But I am not talking of the area of production; I am talking of the area of sale. Where the trading in or sale of that article produced within a province, as it has got to be, is in another province or outside of Canada in a foreign country, then if there is a scheme especially in relation to it, that product becomes a regulated product, and it is only in respect of regulated products that offences can be committed under the act to be founded on this bill. The products raised within a province and sold within the same province will not come within the purview of this bill and cannot be considered as regulated products. There could foe no offence committed under this bill. Even when a man is in a scheme he may produce regulated and unregulated products unless there is provincial legislation to affect the marketing of his products inside the province in which they are raised. The important distinction is not as between the particular products which a man may raise; it is the question whether oi not the product he raises is a regulated product. If it is a regulated product under the bill it must be a product sold outside the province, whether it is sold in another province or abroad.


William Duff: Suppose half a man's crop is sold within the province, a quarter sold inter-provincially and a quarter sold on foreign markets; will there be three boards, one board or no board?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: My hon. friend ought to
know.


William Duff: I do know.

Marketing Act


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I do not know whether he
means half an apple or half a crop of apples. If he means half a crop of apples and there is a scheme in connection with the marketing in that district, the apples sold outside the province will be a regulated product. The half crop that is sold in another province or in another country will come under the description of a regulated product.


William Duff: I am sure I appreciate my
hon. friend's explanation. He has taken it upon himself to show me that he is much smarter but he did not seem to know whether a product meant half an apple or ten apples. I appreciate my hon. friend's lecture. I thought that a product meant the product sf a certain industry or of a certain individual within the industry, whether it was one apple or 10,000 barrels of apples.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Did I not answer the hon. gentleman?


William Duff: You did, but not in a very courteous manner.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If my hon. friend objects to the first part of my answer, I will gladly withdraw it.


William Duff: Thank you very much, that is better.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: While I am on my feet I should like to refer to this question of compulsion in connection with which we had a good deal of discussion yesterday. I submit that we are accustomed to compulsion as a perfectly proper principle wherever it is necessary for the protection of a market. We are accustomed to the principle of compulsion to prevent diseased cattle, diseased stock of all kinds, diseased fruits or vegetables, or any other products coming on to a market. The other day the hon. member for Weybum argued that as his farm was his own he should not be interfered with, even by parliament, and should be allowed to operate his farm exactly as he chooses. Unfortunately he is not allowed to do that. If he operates his farm in such a way that weeds grow up and spread to any extent he will very soon find a weed inspector down on his back. Whether or not he likes it, he will be forced to clean his farm of weeds. Why? The inspector will not be so much concerned with the injury done by the weeds to the property of my hon. friend who has permitted them to grow; he will be concerned with the injury being done to his neighbours' farms. We have the same principle of compulsion in this bill. The purpose of the bill is to prevent a producer from introducing into a market, whether 74726-186
it be the home market, a market outside of the province of production or a foreign market, any product which will injure the market for his fellow producers or fellow exporters. That is a perfectly sane and sound principle and one which is quite common and recognized by all. It is one which we have had to recognize, whether we like it or not. I do not see anything in this bill which goes beyond the principles which have been well established in connection with the operation of our agriculture and other industries for years.
I give one illustration. There was a time when under our criminal law a co-owner could not be charged with theft from from a fellow co-owner in respect to joint property. This could not be done because of the relationship which existed between them and between each of them and the subject matter of their ownership. But in our criminal code the law has been changed and a co-owner may now be charged with theft in connection with the subject matter of the co-ownership. He is not protected from being convicted and fined or imprisoned. We have the same principle in this bill. The markets on the other side of the channel in the old country, in Europe, in the United States or in the other provinces do not belong to any one exporter. He should not be permitted to ship an unregulated product to those markets which will have the inevitable result of destroying the property of his fellow exporters. It is a sound and logical principle of law that the law should step in and prevent that man from stealing-that is what it is-from his fellow exporters some of the benefits which belong to that common market. I cannot see why there should have been all this trouble and controversy about this principle of compulsion with which we have been familiar for years and which is in keeping with the ordinary principles of law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apparently the hon. member has a comprehensive view of this matter, and I should like to ask him if a provincial scheme were applied to some crop which is consumed in part within a province, consumed in part within other provinces and exported in part, would not the effect of any provincial scheme which limited production or restricted sales within a province be to affect as well interprovincial and export trade?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am not speaking for the minister. I stated expressly that I was giving my own opinion of the purpose of the bill and I asked to be corrected if I was wrong.

Marketing Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am simply
asking my hon. friend for his expert opinion.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I thank the right hon. gentleman for the compliment, but perhaps it is not deserved. If the provincial scheme was such as to restrict production, I assume that it would restrict not only the production of the product within the province but also the production outside the province. I have no doubt personally that that would be the effect of a provincial scheme.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: As the provincial
aspect of this matter has been raised I should like to ask the minister if he has conferred with the various premiers in connection with the principle of this marketing bill. I understand that at least one premier has put himself on record as being in favour of the principle of the bill. I refer to Premier Brownlee of Alberta. Has any enabling legislation been passed in the various legislatures, or have those legislatures passed any skeleton legislation?
My second question refers to the position of minorities. Does the minister feel that a vicious or recalcitrant minority could impose upon or jeopardize the welfare of the majority of producers of the country? Last night I said that the leader of the opposition had made the statement that bad money drives out good money, and it is possible that a small minority might drive out of business a large section of the producers. The question was raised by the hon. member for Proven-cher that some provision should be made in this legislation to enable minorities to have some say. May I ask the hon. member for Provencher this question. If the Liberal party is successful at the next election will it include in the cabinet one or two Conservatives and a Labour and Farmer member, say, in order to allow the minority in this house to have a say?


Robert Weir: We have been in
consultation for a considerable time with the different provinces-the ministers of agriculture, the cooperative organizations and others. I understand that at least six out of the nine legislatures have passed legislation along the lines indicated by the hon. member.


Michael Luchkovich: Which provinces?


Robert Weir: We have not received copies of legislation passed, nor have we any definite information from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Manitoba.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I frankly admit that I am no lawyer, that my legal knowledge is limited; however, in study-
[M** Bury.]
ing the British North America Act, I learned that the provinces comprised in the confederation, enjoyed a certain commercial liberty and had the right not only to organize their interior trade but also their interprovincial and international trade. Ever since the outset of this debate on the bill to improve the methods and practices of marketing natural products, the impression I gathered, by listening to the speeches of members opposite, was that the government intended to restrict the commercial liberty of the provinces which was guaranteed by the British North America Act. According to this bill the provinces will only have the right to regulate their own interior commerce, but when it is a matter of trading between provinces or countries, they will be obliged to submit to the National Products Marketing Board. This bill is another step towards the crippling of the provinces in connection with their commercial organization, it restricts the liberty of the provinces, and I wish to warn the government that should it persist, by means of this bill, in decreasing, restricting and paralyzing the liberty of the provinces in commercial matters, we shall be forced to take the means necessary to throw off the bondage of this government which encroaches on the prerogatives and the liberty of provinces. It is high time to throw off the government's yoke and seek the means to organize differently so as to safeguard the liberty to which the provinces have a right.


Robert Weir: The hon. member, I understand, asks in what way this bill will interfere with provincial rights or interprovincial trade. There is of course nothing in the bill that could in any way affect the British North America Act with respect to trade and the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial authorities. As I have said on a number of occasions, the basis is cooperation between the provinces and the federal department. But nothing in this bill can in any way interfere with the present law with respect to provincial and interprovincial trade.


Frederick George Sanderson: What effect will this bill have on the flour milling industry? Most of the flour mills now carry on a local provincial trade and an export trade. Will they have to come under the provisions of this bill? That is one question. Another is this: What effect will this legislation have on the cold storage industry? There are many cold storage plants that are privately owned. The

Marketing Act
owner buys up a quantity of butter, cheese, eggs, celery and so on and that is his own property. He keeps it in cold storage and sells it when he thinks the market is right. What will be the effect on his business? Will he have to come under this bill and be compelled to sell his product whenever the local board sees fit to tell him he can?


Robert Weir: In so far as the flour milling industry represents producers coming under the provisions of this act, if they wish to be organized and to submit a scheme in accordance with the provisions of the legislation, that will be given every consideration-


Frederick George Sanderson: Pardon me. The milling industry, as I understand, would have to come in in a local way to sell their product, and they would have to come in also in order to sell it provincially and nationally in the other provinces, as well as in export. Will provision be made with respect to them?


Robert Weir: They would be in no different position from that of any other producer.


Frederick George Sanderson: With all due respect to the minister, it is no answer to say that they are in no different position from that of any other producer. I am asking in regard to one of the chief industries of the country-the flour milling industry. Surely the minister has some answer other than that to give me. I am not being critical. I want to tell the minister in all seriousness that among the flour millers there is a feeling that this legislation is going to work havoc with their business. Surely he can give the committee some information as to how they will be treated, what they will have to do and how this bill will affect them.


Robert Weir: As I have stated before, if they come under its provisions, it will affect them in exactly the same way as it would any other producer or body of producers coming under the provisions of this legislation. As I have stated on a number of occasions, the purpose is not to disrupt trade but rather to assist in bringing about a more economical system of trading.
As regards the hon. member's further question with reference to storage plants, this legislation will in no way interfere with private storage plants as they now exist, except as they are service organizations of a local board under this measure; they will be utilized as they are being now.


Frederick George Sanderson: Am I to understand from the answer of the minister in regard to the milling industry that it will be treated just the same as any other producer? Am I right in that?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: Would the minister be good enough to tell me how the producer will be treated? I am trying to follow the discussion but I must confess that so far I have no enlightenment.
Mr. WiEIR (Melfort): I regret the hon. member has not been able to follow this because it has been discussed and repeated over and over again. I will, however, present it once more as I see it. If a number of producers, considered sufficiently representative, submit to the board in accordance with the provisions of this legislation a scheme that they think will be to their benefit as producers, setting out the details of the scheme, and if it meets with the approval of the board, it will be submitted to the minister and approved by order in council. The scheme came from the producers themselves. It might be necessary to have a poll or some other means might be decided upon as necessary to ensure that the body of producers would be sufficiently representative. It is the producers' own plan that they submit as being what they think will be in their best interests in regulating the marketing of their product.


Frederick George Sanderson: Getting back to the flour milling industry again, am I to under-stnd that it will not be affected at all by this bill unless a request is made by a certain number of the millers to come in under its provisions? Am I right in that?


Robert Weir: That would be my understanding.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then, supposing sixty per cent of the flour milling industry, let us say of Ontario, came under it and forty per cent did not: what would happen to the forty per cent in regard to export trade, local trade and trade with other provinces? Can the forty per cent who hold out in the first instance and do not come in under the scheme, be compelled to come in?


Robert Weir: No definite answer could be given unless the details of the scheme were submitted. It would be on the basis of that that a decision would be made.
Marketing Act


Frederick George Sanderson: The details of the scheme submitted to whom?


Robert Weir: To the marketing board.


Frederick George Sanderson: To the local board?


Robert Weir: No, there would be no local board until after the scheme had been approved and a board set up. It might be submitted to the provincial government.


Frederick George Sanderson: In regard to the milling industry, if sixty per cent requested permission to come in and the other forty per cent saw fit to remain out, if the board says so, can the forty per cent 'be compelled to come in?


Robert Weir: My understanding
is that if such a scheme were submitted to a provincial government-*


Peter John Veniot: Provincial board.


Robert Weir: -provincial board or provincial government, they would have the authority to force in the others. They would have that now.


Frederick George Sanderson: In regard to the
enabling legislation that has been passed by some of the provinces, has the minister copies of the acts that have been passed? I understand one has been passed in Toronto.


Robert Weir: I have already
answered that and we have agreed to table on Friday any copies of legislation we have received. I believe we have copies of acts passed by six provinces.


Frederick George Sanderson: I did not understand that; I am glad to get the information.


Peter John Veniot: The minister has informed the committee that some amendments to this bill are pending but we do not yet know the contents of them. Might I draw his attention to paragraph (f) of clause 4? In doing so, I wish to take up the battle on behalf of the fishermen. If not for all the maritime provinces, I believe I am entitled to speak for my own constituency which is one that I believe ranks second in the maritime provinces in the number of its fishing fleet, it having 250 to 300 vessels. I find in this measure definitions for many things, but I do not find any definition relating to the primary producer. Let me put this case to the minister: In the constituency of Gloucester we have men who hire aboard fishing vessels. Paragraph (f) of clause 4 reads:
To require any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses and occupations with the board-

And so forth. Who is the primary producer there who must register? Must each member of the crew register or is it only necessary that the captain or owner of the vessel do so? I take it that the crew constitute the primary producers and if that be the case, the crew should not have to register.
Let me give the minister another case. We have been talking about agriculture ever since this bill has been under discussion. I am now going to talk about fishing. It is an industry which, so far as the maritime provinces are concerned, is just as important as agriculture and, indeed, more important in some sections. You cannot deal with fish as a primary product in the same way as you can deal with agricultural primary products; you must have a different way of coming at the matter. There are too many complicated conditions arising in the fishing industry in the way of catching, curing and marketing that are not common to the system involved in the production or marketing of agricultural products. For instance we are fishing cod from early in the spring until August 15 when what is known as the weighing season comes in. Cod is fished in our section by fishermen under wages, with the captain in charge. But after the weighing season begins, August 15, men go on half-line -until the fall. Now where does the primary- producer come in? Is the man who is engaged by the month the primary producer, or is it the owner or captain of the vessel, who is responsible for the fishing? When they are on half-line the sailor would be the primary producer. He is no longer engaged by the month; he is engaged on half-line-that is to get one-half the product. He is really as much a primary producer as the captain who owns the vessel; there is no distinction. Will you require the sailor, the man fishing under wages, to register under this act? I say it is an injustice, and you will never succeed in having it done.
Then take in our inshore fishermen, or those who fish for lobsters. The traps are provided by the owner of the cannery. The owner of the traps says to these men: You fish and I will pay you so much a pound for the lobsters; you have to give me all the product because I furnish the traps. That is the agreement they sign. Who is the primary producer there?


Mr. CAHAN:: Who has the disposal of
the fish in each case?


Peter John Veniot: The proprietor of the cannery. But he is not a primary producer.

Marketing Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think he is as much a
primary producer as the farmer who engages people to work his farm.


Mr. YENIOT:: Then under this bill the
man who engages farm help must have his farm help registered?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Oh, no.


Peter John Veniot: Well, that is the information that I am looking for. Then take the smelt fishing in the winter, which is a very important industry, bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars to the north shore of New Brunswick. In that fishing there is scarcely a man that can be called a primary producer by himself. The man who really does the fishing is provided with nets belonging to some wholesale merchant who ships the product to the market in Boston, Montreal, Toronto and elsewhere. Under this bill, section 4, subparagraph (f), are these men compelled to register? Are they compelled to keep books? Are they compelled to give their addresses?


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly they are.


Peter John Veniot: Are they compelled to do
all that subparagraph (f) says shall be done in the case of the primary producer, or the producer of primary products? It is in regard to points such as this that had the bill gone before a special committee we could have had representatives of the fishing industry show where the bill would be good for this industry or where it would be injurious. I say in all seriousness that this bill cannot be complied with by the fishermen of the county of Gloucester which I have the honour to represent. The terms of the bill cannot be carried out; I know whereof I speak.


Franklin White Turnbull: In that case there would not be much chance of their applying for a scheme, would there?


Peter John Veniot: That is just where the
trouble will come. If the lone fisherman does not apply for a scheme the man who holds him by the throat by means of advances, who will call himself the primary producer, the wholesaler who is acting as intermediary for the sale of the product to markets outside the province, will have a greater hold on that fisherman than he ever had.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: That is where the trouble
will come in. The wholesaler will organize himself. In northern New Brunswick there are three or four companies who say to the fishermen: You fish for us; we will provide the wherewithal for you to fish, but all your fish must be sold to us and to no one else.
Those men can combine, form a scheme, come before the provincial board and have it approved, and the moment it is approved they have a stranglehold on the men who, after all, are the primary producers, the men who risk their lives on the deep seas to bring this product to land. Under that scheme these wholesalers will have the upper hand of those whom I call the primary producers in the fish business, and that is why I am opposing this measure.


Mr. GAGNON:: Do I understand that the lobster fishermen of Gloucester and neighbouring counties are ill treated by wholesalers?


Peter John Veniot: I am not saying anything
of the kind; I am stating the facts, and you can form your own judgment. I say that where the lobster fishermen are provided with the traps by the owners of the canneries, who are the wholesalers of this product outside of New Brunswick, either to Montreal, Toronto or other markets or for export, the canners have complete control of the industry and can do as they like with those who are the primary producers, the men who do the actual work of taking the lobsters from the sea.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: What property or right has
the actual fisherman in his boat? Is he simply working the boat for the canner?


Peter John Veniot: He does not own the boat.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Has he not even a lease?


Peter John Veniot: In some cases he may lease it.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If he has it on lease he owns it during the term of his lease.


Peter John Veniot: There are not five per cent of them who have.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Any man working a boat if he has any sense has control of the boat as his own for the time being. I would not think there would be any trouble in holding that he is the producer.


Peter John Veniot: I do not think the hon. gentleman would put it as he does if he had any sense, and I think the fishermen have as much sense as the hon. member as far as their calling is concerned. Having made that reply let me go a step further and say that twenty-five or thirty years ago there was in the county of Gloucester hardly a fisherman fishing the deep sea that owned the vessel in which he did his fishing. Those vessels were all owned by the wholesale merchants. But these people have progressed, and in the last fifteen years, so far as deep sea fishing
Marketing Act

is concerned, have become the owners of their craft. That does not apply to the inshore fishing that I referred to a little while ago, the lobster fishing and so on. And they in turn engage men as sailors, hire them by the month to run their vessels and fish for them, the proprietors being the captains of the vessels. They have been able to get clear of the drudgery, the slavery that they were subjected to some twenty-five years ago. But when they come to sell their product the sale is regulated by the men who buy wholesale, it cannot be otherwise under this bill. I claim that these wholesalers can organize a scheme as primary producers under this bill and take advantage of the real fishermen, and in that way the real fishermen, who to my mind should be called the primary producers, will be once more subjected to the trials and tribulations that they suffered in years gone by.
While I am on my feet let me say that I am in favour of cooperative marketing. I am not going to talk about the compulsion clauses of this bill, but this is compulsory cooperation, to which I am opposed. In my county we started a cooperative society by which our people were instructed each year in the curing of fish and the securing of markets. In 1928 and 1929 the dominion government, favouring voluntary cooperative marketing, voted a sum of money which was expended by appointed officials who went through the maritime provinces getting the fishermen together to form cooperative societies, and these fishermen were given instruction in the curing of fish. At the same time the government had expert fishermen working in the county of Gaspe, along the Gaspe coast and in the counties of northern New Brunswick as well as the Magdalen islands, teaching our fishermen how to cure fish so that they would be of uniform quality. To-day what is known as the Gaspe cure or the Gaspe cut of codfish has enhanced the value of the codfish industry of the maritime provinces. At that time the Liberal government encouraged cooperation, not compulsory but voluntary cooperation, and wherever such cooperation was established we have had good results. We can have good results to-day if the government of this country will carry on the work that was started in 1928.


Alan Webster Neill: I entirely agree with what the hon. member for Gloucester has said with regard to the fishing industry, and if he looks up Hansard he will see that I visualized the situation when I first spoke on the bill some two weeks ago. I do not believe the bill fits in with the fishing industry so that it

could be applied; I doubt very much whether the fishing industry was in the mind of the minister when the bill was framed. The hon. member for Gloucester has said that he does not believe the act can be made workable with regard to the fishing industry, and I do not know that this is not the best thing about the bill so far as the fishing industry is concerned, because I believe it will only work against the interests of what I would call the common, ordinary fishermen. It lends itself to manipulation by those interested only in marketing; it almost invites it. I need not go into details-


Robert Weir: When the hon. member refers to fishermen does he mean men fishing on their own, small fishermen on their own?


Alan Webster Neill: I refer to the men who actually catch the fish.


Robert Weir: As labourers or on their own?


Alan Webster Neill: Sometimes they are entirely on their own; sometimes they have cannery gear on shares but not leased, as the hon. member for East Edmonton said. They do not lease the boat; the cannery lends the boat to them on shares. They are the men to whom I refer, the men who catch fish individually, whether they own their own boats or whether they use cannery gear. Those are the men who are not going to enter into this picture. There is every opportunity for a board to be formed having regard to the interests of the marketing end only, and I will give an illustration that has come to my notice.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: May I interrupt my hon. friend for a moment? Surely he agrees that even * though a boat is loaned to a fisherman, if the catch belongs either wholly or in part to the fisherman so that he can sell it and get the money for it, then he is a producer; the fish are the product of his work, and he comes within the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly he is a producer; I do not deny that, but I say he will not get a look in. That is the point. The scheme will be over his head; he will not be invited,- he will be told. That is what will happen to him. I was about to give an illustration;
I need not name the province, though I suppose there is no reason why I should not do so. Here is a provincial marketing board that has been set up already, and how is it constituted? One member is the deputy minister of agriculture; naturally he is associated with

Marketing Act
fanning rather than with fishing. Of the other two members one is the president of a big fish canning company-a very worthy man, no doubt, but still the president of a fish canning company-and the other is a commission merchant. Considering the place from which that gentleman comes I think the chances are that his commission business is connected with the sale of fish. So on this board we have a man ignorant of the fishing business and two men whose interests lie in the marketing of the product rather than in the industry itself. That is only an illustration I happen to pick up, but that is how it is going to work out right along.
To go back to what I wanted to say, Mr Chairman, we now have it stated by the opposition and admitted by the government that this act contains compulsory features. I do not know why on earth there was so much delay in admitting that fact, because to anyone reading the bill it was quite obvious that compulsion was there or it would not be worth the paper on which it was written. Personally I am not nearly so much afraid of the compulsory features as my hon. friends to the right are. I have seen cases where it might be necessary for the majority to exercise some compulsion over the minority. I am not so much afraid of that feature, but I am very much afraid of the way in which these men will be appointed who will exercise these very extensive powers. That is the danger of the situation. The hon. member for Pro-vencher spoke of sixty per cent and forty per cent of the producers. The British act says there must be two-thirds in favour, which would be 66i per cent. Considering the different conditions in this country I would go further and make it seventy-five per cent here, but there is nothing in the act that guarantees that even any percentage will be required.
Now that the minister has somewhat come down from what he wrongly believed was the proper attitude of ministerial reserve and told us something of what he thinks of the bill and of his intentions and motives, I understand and grasp his troubles more than I did previously. He is up against this question of dual control, which hampers him at every turn. Then take the dominion board. What is the use of talking about sixty per cent or forty per cent in that case? They will be all appointed by the dominion government, and we are not even told whether the board will consist of three or of thirty members; we are not even told what they will be paid or who they will be, though we might hazard a shrewd guess. In the New Zealand and British acts that is all laid down to the very
last degree. As the hon. member for Last Mountain pointed out, there are eight or nine different procedures, safeguards and channels in Great Britain which had to be gone through before the scheme is finally passed, but the dominion board will be nominated entirely by the government. The same thing may be said with regard to the provincial board. The minister says that he feels that he cannot exercise many of these powers because of the British North America Act, they will have to originate in what he calls the local board, and the local boards will have to do with the schemes. In the meantime we have no control over them, and in the end I always run up against this vicious section 9, where the bill after setting out this elaborate yet vague-and perhaps necessarily so-system of constituting these boards, wipes it all out of the picture bysaying in section 9 that the minister can do the whole thing himself.
I believe the trouble is largely one of dual jurisdiction. The minister says there are these two boards, and he will not be able to dictate to any great extent to the local or provincial board because under the British North America Act it comes under provincial jurisdiction. The Minister of Justice, replying to the hon. member for Provencher, went very fully into the question, and finally he said that there may well be a scheme, not two schemes but one scheme, one part of which-and I think this would often happen-would be administered under provincial regulations and provincial authority and perhaps under provincial law, under provincial control, at any rate, and the other part of which would be administered under this act and by dominion authority. Just follow that out and think of two jurisdictions, one in British Columbia and the other in Ottawa, different jurisdictions more or less antagonistic, at least with each uninformed of the troubles of the other, and attempting to deal with the same product. Who is going to sit by and say, with the voice of omniscience:	at this particular
moment and on this particular point of a railway the jurisdiction of the province ceases and that of the dominion begins? There is going to be one grand, enormous muddle.
I would suggest to the minister that he could have proceeded along the line followed in the Old Age Pensions Act. There we had dual jurisdiction and much of the trouble that has been suggested here. But that was got around by the dominion government saying: We will put out a skeleton agreement or a skeleton act applying to all the provinces and this skeleton act must be the basis, and if
Marketing Act

you care to come in, all right, we will make a deal. Of course, the situation was easier there because the dominion government was making a grant of money and made acceptance of the skeleton act a condition for receiving the money. They had no trouble at all with the provinces. The provinces had to agree to it, and they said: We will accept those terms. It was the easiest way a thing of that kind could be handled. I suggest to the Minister of Justice that we might have proceeded along similar lines in this case, and that if we had put forward a skeleton act we could have covered many of the objections I have already named. We could stipulate for a local board composed of so many members, elected in a specified way, and could have said: If you do thus and so, we the dominion government will do our share in cooperating along these prescribed lines. That would have been the price of dominion cooperation. But as it is now, we may have a board in British Columbia composed of three men, and one in Nova Scotia composed of ten men. We may have the British Columbia board elected by the producers, and the Nova Scotia board appointed by the government.
As I said before, I do not want to be a pessimist. There is some good principle in this bill, but unless some enormous changes are made in the bill I do not know if it is possible, on account of the dual jurisdiction, to accomplish anything. In fact, I think it is going to be a complete fizzle, and impossible to work out, and that it will only make us a laughing stock from almost every point of view.
What I suggest is this. I go a long way with the minister when he says that there is need for some of the features of this bill. He could not have made a better argument when he said some days ago: We must have some act to deal with the need for restricted quotas. The British government and other governments have decided that we must cut down on our export of certain articles, beef, for instance. In that case there was some form of negotiations I believe, involving some trouble for the minister. Those troubles will increase. The British government will from time to time simply notify us: You must cut down on your quota of this or that article. But as the minister said, how can we cut down on a quota when we have no means of regulating that particular product? il admit that there is need for an act of this kind so far as that is concerned, but I suggest that it should be limited to our export trade. Let us walk before we run. It is very like seeing a 
man walking along the road. We want to help him, and instead of giving him a team or a truck or a motor car, or even an aeroplane, we suggest that he proceed by way of a rocket. That method of transportation is very much in the clouds at present. We do not know much about it. It has not met with any success. Would it not be much better to start by giving the man a team or a truck to help him along, and then as we learn by experience we could impose more and more restrictions? We have precedents for that, and we could regulate not only the quantity but the quality exported. We have, for instance, the New Zealand precedent. They have two acts, one dealing with frozen mutton and the other with dairy products. One has been in force since 1913, and the other since 1921, and both have been an unqualified success. New Zealand went slowly and moderately at it. They said: No mutton and no dairy products unless it is of a standard grade shall leave New Zealand, and none shall leave without permission, so as to prevent the flooding of the market in Great Britain at the wrong time. Their acts have worked well. New Zealand, of course, is one corporate body. It has not the divisions that we have, with our nine provinces and conflicting jurisdictions. We could avoid all that by following New Zealand's example and dealing only with the export trade to start with until we see how the thing works, and then we could develop it in the future if necessary.
People are asking: Where does the producer come in? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out the other day that in the British act the individual producer is protected. After going through no end of formalities and procedure, if the minority producer does not think he has a fair deal, he can go before a board of arbiters and they will deal with the situation. There are also no less than two boards dealing with the rights of consumers.
How does New Zealand handle it? Instead of having a board appointed by the government, political appointments with all that that suggests even if it is not carried out, they have a board composed in the one ease of twelve members, and I forget how many in the other. The board of twelve is appointed in this way. Two are appointed by the government, but must be approved by the producers. Probably they would be government officials and no one could object to that. Then nine, I think, are appointed by the producers, and mark this, please. Mr. MAY 9, 1934
Marketing Act
Minister; they are appointed by and from the producers, not from the marketing end. They must be producers and elected by them, and the government appoints them on the recommendation of the producers. Having eleven so appointed, a twelfth can be appointed by the government as a representative of the marketing end. That is fair enough surely. Their interests are looked after.
But it is not possible under the New Zealand act to have a board such as my hon. friend from Gloucester suggests. A board composed entirely of the marketing end could simply deliver the producer, in the case of the fishermen, into the hands of the marketing end, which has happened in the past, as we know, and can be a source of abuse, if you want to put it plainly.
I do suggest that the minister might consider, after all the trouble he has seen develop both in this house and outside, for I know that he is having representations made to him, whether it would not be wise to confine this act for the present to dealing with our export trade only, and then once the scheme has got started and we see how it is going to work, and the early troubles have been smoothed out, we should be in a much better position to go on with a scheme of this kind. That suggestion would do away with all these troubles 'that are likely to arise from dual jurisdiction. I think double jurisdiction is the thing that is going to wreck this bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, following the remarks of the hon. member for South Perth with regard to a combination of the milling industry, it seemed to me that the minister sidestepped a little in his reply by saying that if a scheme were presented to a provincial government a provincial government might authorize it, that they had that power anyway at the present time. But he did not make any reference to what would be the effect of the scheme if presented to the board that is contemplated being established under this act.
I would like to ask the minister this question: If a majority of the milling industry in a province were to apply to the board for a scheme to be put into operation-


Robert Weir: Federal or provincial board?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Federal board, and the federal board approved the scheme, and the .minister and the governor in council approved it, would the remaining members
of the milling interest be obliged to come under the regulations that would be laid down under the scheme?


Robert Weir: It would depend
what the scheme was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would depend what the scheme was, but I say assuming that the scheme is approved by the federal board, by the minister and by the governor in council. I do not imagine they would approve it unless they were satisfied it should be approved. But if it were approved and say sixty per cent had put forward the proposed scheme, would not the remaining forty per cent be obliged to enter the organization and come under the regulations?


Robert Weir: My understanding
is that if that was one of the conditions of the scheme, the remainder could be forced to come in. Hon. members opposite have been repeating themselves with their references to sixty and forty per cent. I hope those references were made only by way of illustration. I think we are all agreed that the success of any scheme under which compulsion would be necessary would be more likely if there was the highest possible percentage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am obliged to the minister for his direct answer. It brings out an all-important feature to which sufficient attention has not been given as yet. As the minister says, the government may require a majority of seventy-five or eighty per cent, or it may require a majority of only fifty-one per cent, but the effect will be that if a majority in any industry having to do with natural products present a scheme to the minister and that scheme is approved by the board, by the minister and by the governor in council, it 'then becomes so far as the locality to which it applies is concerned the law of the land, and others engaged in the same pursuits will be obliged to obey whatever regulations may be thus laid down. That will be true of the milling industry. It will be true also of the canning industry, whether it relates to the canning of vegetables, the canning of fruits, the preserving of the products of the orchards or the gardens. It will apply also to dairy products. It will apply also to the canning of fish. It will apply also to lumber mills and like concerns. But it goes even further; it will apply to the storing of any or all of the things mentioned under "natural products." A majority of those engaged in the storing of any natural product may present a scheme to the government.
Marketing Act

Once it is accepted in the way I have indicated it becomes law and the remaining concerns will be obliged to come into this scheme or be subject to penalties of both fine and imprisonment. But it goes beyond storing; it takes in cold storage and those who are in the warehousing business in connection with any of these natural products or derivative products. It goes beyond that; it takes in shipping. The definition of a natural product is:
"Natural product" 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.
The definition of marketing is:
"Marketing" includes buying and selling, shipping for sale or storage and offering for sale.
We know now that the act may be used in the way I have indicated. Surely it is going pretty far to ask this house to enact legislation of that kind. It must be remembered that this action may be taken when parliament is not in session and without any power on the part of parliament, until it repeals the act, to alter the effect of a scheme put into force in that way. This is an aspect of the matter which I think may surprise some hon. gentlemen opposite and should of itself be sufficient reason for altering very materially many of the provisions of this bill. The power is specifically given for the creation of monopolies in large numbers of industries, and such power should never be given in this country. The act might well be termed an act to create combines and monopolies. After listening to the remarks the other day of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reference to the importance of large organizations, I begin to wonder whether it is not the intention of this legislation to bring about consolidations in some of these industries I have mentioned, or others which might be included, and to prevent competition not only between primary producers but between many of the manufacturing concerns engaged in the manufacturing of natural products. It is important that we should understand that this bill goes that far, that it enables that kind of thing to be done.


James Layton Ralston: I desire to join with the hon. member for Comox-Albemi in what he said as to the application of this bill to the fishing industry. If this bill means what it appears to mean, I think it would be far better if it were not applied to that industry. Applying it to my own constituency, it would mean that the men engaged in the lobster
[Mr. Mackenzie King.)
industry who own their own boats and carry on their own operations will be subject to possibly three different authorities in connection with the marketing of lobsters and lobster products.


Robert Weir: Only if they request it.


James Layton Ralston: I thought perhaps the minister might make that answer. I should like him to point out anything in this bill which states expressly that the dominion marketing board, constituted and empowered by section 4, has not the full authority without any request being made by anyone to exercise the powers contained in section 4. Perhaps I have missed it altogether, but I should like the minister to tell me if there is anything in the act which restricts the board.


Pierre-François Casgrain: There is nothing.


Alan Webster Neill: There is only the hope.


Robert Weir: As I have stated on a number of occasions, where an industry desires to organize in order to assist in the regular marketing of its products, the dominion marketing board may in certain emergencies take steps which it sees fit to assist the marketing of those products.


James Layton Ralston: As I understand it, under section 9 the minister himself may devise a scheme and authorize the dominion marketing board to carry it into effect. But in addition to that section 4 gives unlimited powers to the board. Under that section, three, five, seven or nine people appointed by this government are to be given the power to do the things mentioned in the section. I come back to my fishermen again. So far as the dominion marketing board is concerned, it may say to John Jones who is fishing lobsters, "You cannot ship your lobsters to-day; you must hold them." It can say, "You must ship them in such and such a manner; you must ship them by well smack or by the Boston boat." It may prescribe the quantity which can be shipped as well as decide upon the quality. I assume that would include the measurement of the lobster. These things may be done. One fisherman may be allowed to ship his product subject to certain regulations, which another may not be required to comply with. As I understand it, the bill in the first place gives these extraordinary powers, and I want the minister to be definite when giving me an answer, to the dominion marketing board constituted by the governor in council under section 4.


William Duff: The local board.

Marketing Act


James Layton Ralston: No, that is the dominion marketing board. Secondly, a group of men who are considered by somebody as being properly representative-


Alan Webster Neill: So considered by themselves.


James Layton Ralston: No; they are to be
passed on by the governor in council as representative of the industry; and they may themselves promote a scheme and submit it for approval, in which event the dominion marketing board may delegate to the local board the powers which the dominion marketing board have. That is the second body which may regulate. The third is that the minister under section 9 may himself devise a scheme and then instruct the dominion board to carry it into effect. But I do not see in this act anything which requires any body to propose a scheme before the dominion board can exercise these almost unheard of powers. It seems to me that the dominion board has full power to operate with or without a scheme as it sees fit, and the result is that all sorts of discrimination can take place as between various lobster shippers.
Now what is going to happen? The men are there, individuals operating lobster boats. There are companies who are operating in a large way, somewhat in the same manner as the hon. member for Gloucester indicated. They possibly may get the preference, with the result that the small man is forced to come in and accept regulations which are perhaps more beneficial to the man shipping on a large scale.
I submit that the element of arbitrary compulsion appears all through the act, and the suggestion of this being done at the request of someone does not quite paint the true picture of the effect of this legislation. Let me give another example. I know that at the present time certain people in Nova Scotia are negotiating with regard to the shipment of fish to Brazil. They hear that Newfoundland is under royal commission, and it is possible there may be regulation of export from there. Nova Scotia at the moment is free of export restrictions; there is no regulation of any kind in that province relating to the export of fish. This firm is being asked now whether or not they can handle shipments of fish to Brazil in view of the fact that shipments from Newfoundland are likely to be restricted. They are faced however with the possibility that one of these three authorities may exercise power over them and say to them, "You cannot ship fish to Brazil or you can only ship a certain quantity or at a certain time," with the result that they lose that market. The other day I saw a
letter, written by a Nova Scotian fish firm after the introduction of this bill, indicating to the Brazilian importer that there was no use attempting to give any guarantee about delivery with this bill hanging over the producers. Perhaps I misapprehend the bill entirely, but it seems to me that there are three different authorities, and the dominion marketing board has absolute authority without any request from the producers and whether they want it or not.


Charles Marcil: I agree with the criticism made by the leader of the opposition, by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth with regard to fishing. It must be evident to the government, at this stage of the proceedings, that when a member who voted for the second reading of the bill, a man of the competency in fishing matters which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni possesses, takes exception to the bill in committee, the house is not in a position to deal with the matter properly, especially in view of the fact that the announcement has been made several times that the bill will be amended in some very material respects. I submit that it is not fair to those who voted for the second reading of the bill-such members as my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni, who threatens now, if certain amendments are not made, to oppose the bill altogether-to ask us now to pronounce upon it before the whole measure is submitted to the house. I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice would be wise to report progress until we have the full measure before us so that we may be in a position to know just where we are. Some hon. members have said over and over again that if the bill is amended in certain respects they will support it; other members who voted for the second reading threaten now to vote against the bill if those amendments are not made.
An allusion has been made ito the Gaspe peninsula. There are two classes of men connected with fishing in that part of the country-the fisherman proper, who is of course the producer, and the dealer in fish. Is the local marketing board going to be composed of fish dealers or of fishermen or will it be a combination of both? The fisheries in the province of Quebec are under the control of the provincial government. Now, the province has commercial agents throughout the world, in London, Paris and elsewhere, and lately it has sent a commercial agent to Italy to find a market for dried Quebec codfish. So that once we deal with interprovincial or international trade the
Marketing Act

question becomes one of federal concern, and is not in accordance with the situation that exists at the present time, because for years, as I say, Quebec has had commercial agents in London and Paris and in Brussels as well, and still has. I repeat, it has sent a man lately to Italy to have them deal directly with the Quebec fisheries.
The Minister of Fisheries, pro tern, declared the other day in response to a hundred or more petitions from the province of Quebec, asking that this dual control over the fisheries of that province be cleared up, that he could do nothing unless the government of Quebec abdicated its control over those fisheries. The Quebec government does not seem disposed to do this. It is trying to find markets at the present time for fish produced in the province. I should like the government, in view of the situation as I have outlined it, to deal fairlv by these fishermen.
When the hon. member for Lun,enbui)g suggested that fishing be investigated by the price spreads committee, I supported the application, but no evidence has been heard yet before that committee with respect to the fisheries. This bill I submit should have been sent to a special committee before whom men competent to speak for the various industries could have been heard. We all want to build up trade; that is important and we need it badly. The condition of trade in this country at the present time is without parallel in Canadian history, and therefore we wish to cooperate with the government. But, I submit, we want first of all to know what they propose to do. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that we should have before us in its entirety the bill as they intend to amend it so that we can understand it and discuss it intelligently.
The Minister of Agriculture need not be surprised if those who voted against the second reading of the bill persist in their criticism of it when those who voted for the second reading are now lining up against it and threatening to vote against the third reading unless the bill is materially altered.
This bill deals with two things, production and marketing. The producers in my constituency are the fishermen who take the fish out of the water; the marketing is done by the fish dealers. Who will constitute the local board in that constituency? Will it be the fishermen or the fish dealers or the province of Quebec, or will it be partisans appointed by the government? We find ourselves in this position. That province is itself marketing abroad. Will you pass legislation here to prevent the province from finding a

market for the product of fisheries which are entirely under their control? If you do this you run up immediately against divided jurisdiction. There will be an appeal to the courts and the constitutionality of the act will be attacked. No act of parliament is worth the paper it is written on unless it is backed up by public opinion, and where there is substantial opposition to a measure in parliament the government of the day is warned that it cannot in fairness ask the house to pronounce finally upon the bill unless the whole bill is before us. Once more I suggest to the minister that if he is properly advised he will report progress and in the meantime bring down the amendments.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Section 5 deals with
the submission of petitions. The petition must be made by " a representative number of persons engaged in the production and marketing " and so on. Can the minister tell us what is meant by a representative number of persons asking that a board be set up to regulate the marketing of a certain product? What would be the number considered necessary to constitute " a representative number of persons" in accordance with the terms of the bill?


Robert Weir: That would depend upon the scheme submitted, and the conditions with which it was dealing, and the extent of the representative number of persons would be finally decided by the governor in council on the recommendation of the board through the minister.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The minister has not answered my question. No doubt when this bill originated in the minds of the minister and the other members of the government they must have had explanations and information submitted to them either by the trade or by the local people or by a certain class of persons connected with some commodity. They must now have in mind some idea of how many are to constitute this representative number of persons. At this stage of the proceedings, after we have discussed the bill in the full house and have debated it in committee of the whole for a few days, the minister says: "I do not know exactly; that will depend upon the scheme submitted, upon the circumstances, and the government will pass an order in council." I cannot believe that the minister is not in a position to tell us: When a scheme will be presented to us in connection with a certain commodity, for instance, for the sale of potatoes or fish or wheat or lumber, we will reqiire that say fifty-five

Marketing Act
or sixty per cent of the persons connected therewith is necessary to constitute a representative number in order tha/t we may consider their proposal. It is not an answer for the minister to say: "I do not know just now; that will depend upon circumstances."


Robert Weir: If we did not have the difficulty of trying to frame a bill that would fit into the provincial as well as the federal picture, such a question would be easily answered. But suppose we were to place in this bill, as we did at the beginning, the percentage that it was thought would be desirable to give effect to a scheme, that is, so that there would not be too great opposition from those who would be forced in, that would have meant this: in Quebec if a certain number of producers applied to the provincial government with a scheme for the formation of a board, we would then be forcing our opinions on what might not be the judgment of the government of Quebec. That is one reason we did not set out in the measure any definite percentage. There is freedom within any province for the formation of a provincial marketing board with conditions imposed as the provincial government in its wisdom sees fit and it is in a better position to deal with matters in its own province. We in turn cooperate with them and use, not two or three boards as some speakers have suggested, but the one board with a dual power. For that reason the percentage might vary in the different provinces. We have at present dual jurisdiction with reference to grading, for instance the fruit and vegetables act, the different live stock acts. Our purpose in not stating any definite percentage was just to overcome any difficulty as between the two jurisdictions and so far as possible to leave to the producers and those entrusted with the administration of the provincial legislation, their own judgment in the matter.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I am not convinced and I do not think the members of the committee are convinced that the minister has answered my question in saying that the provinces have to be consulted and considered as to the number of persons who are to come in and present a certain scheme.


Robert Weir: Not that we would consult the provinces as to who, would constitute a representative number of persons. The producers in a province wait on the provincial minister, or the provincial marketing board if one is established in the province; they submit their scheme; in that scheme they may state what percentage would be
considered a representative number, but the responsibility for the decision would be on the provincial government and, I think, rightly so, because they are closer -to the problem.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I do not understand the minister's last statement.


Robert Weir: Might I ask the
hon. member a question? Had he decided he would not understand before or after I answered?


Pierre-François Casgrain: I do not think it is
right for the minister to say that, because ever since he has been in the house I have always treated him well. I might have been harder on him but I have acted like a gentleman towards him.
-Clause 5 states:
A representative number of persons engaged in the production and marketing or the production or marketing of a natural product may petition the governor in council to approve a scheme-
And so forth-not the provincial government. It does not say that they have to submit their scheme to the provincial government. This representative number of persons has to deal only with the minister who is in charge of the bill and who will be in charge of the administration of the act. He submits the scheme to the governor in council; then an order in council is passed, and finally the scheme goes to the board to be administered.
The clause provides that the petition must be filed at the office of the minister and if he decides that the persons connected with the production or marketing of this natural product are sufficiently represented by the petitioners, then the project is sent to the council with a request that it be approved. There is not a word in that clause providing for consultation with the provincial government in connection with the matter.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
is not referring to the whole bill. If he reads the whole bill, he will find that reference is made to a provincial board-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Or local board.


Robert Weir: -local board set up within the province. This reciprocal arrangement is made between the federal and provincial governments.


Ernest Lapointe: The minister says that
the bill when first drafted contained a provision as to the proportion which would be
Marketing Act

required for the establishment of a board and that because of possible difficulties with the provinces concerning jurisdiction the provision was dropped and the words " a representative number of persons " was inserted. Would the minister have any objection to telling us what was the proportion that he or the government had in mind?


Robert Weir: I do not see that any purpose would be served by my giving my personal opinion, any more than any other hon. member. But I would say seventy-five to eighty per cent. The greater the number that could be brought in voluntarily the easier the plan would be to operate. I know that in one instance at least the producers themselves in our discussions suggested eighty per cent, and some I believe, would go even higher than that.


Pierre-François Casgrain: In certain parts of the province of Quebec, I would not say unorganized districts but territories that are very large, such for instance as the district I have the honour to represent, extending for four or five hundred miles, will there be any local board constituted? In these districts the people live in small communities, in some places thirty or forty or fifty fishermen. I think the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough will bear me out because he has dealt with these people, more especially from Havre St. Pierre and down below. How will these people be enabled to take advantage of this legislation? Will there be any board set up for instance in such a district as that below Quebec, or will there be only one in Quebec which will have supervision all over the province, or will there be one connected with farming products and another for the marketing of fish that will embrace Gaspe and the north shore, or will there be one division for my county and one for the Gaspe coast? I would like to have this information because it has a certain bearing, on account of the fact that this district is very remote and sparsely settled, and distances are very great. I see the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) who was in this district last summer; he told me he had a great reception there, but he saw that the country is very extensive and sparsely populated.


Robert Weir: If the producers in the district to which the hon. member refers, no matter how distant or how isolated it is, wish to get together and submit a scheme that will assist them in the more effective marketing of their product they may do so, submitting it either to the provincial or the
fMr. Lapointe 1
federal government. They may define the area. There might be another area that also asked for or submitted a similar scheme.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it possible for some local board to apply to the provincial government and reapply to the dominion marketing board under this legislation?


Robert Weir: Yes, that is the intention.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I think what the minister has said is good; if these people want to organize they can set up their scheme and the board might be constituted. But I am saying that in certain places the people live in small and widely scattered communities, where communication is difficult. There is no point of contact, no board of trade, no cooperative organization. I think the bill would have a certain merit in connection with the sale of products for export, because in that case some dealer like my hon. friend the member for Antigonish-Guysborough might come in and give good prices to my people. But many dealers are not as good as he is, thus the fishermen have lost a lot of money because they had to take whatever prices were offered. I see a difficulty for these poor people who are not in a position to organize a board as the minister has mentioned. He has told us that there should be a representative number of persons, in accordance with the size of the enterprise or the district concerned. I am pleading the case of the poorest fishermen of the province of Quebec, those who I dare say, have suffered the greatest hardship for the last four or five years. I am asking the minister if he can tell me the means whereby these people can get the help of this bill. He says it could be done by grouping themselves together, but I do not see how they could do it, because they are isolated, fishing in the sea, and they have no point of contact. I would like to be enlightened as to how these people could proceed to get the benefit of this bill.


Robert Weir: The initiation of
the scheme might start at a different place, where settlement was closer, and in the wisdom of the provincial board or the federal board these isolated communities could be included.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no such term as "provincial board" in this bill.


Mr. McINTOSH:: The minister means
local boards, does he not?

Marketing Act


Robert Weir: The province can
get up a provincial board, and it is provided later in the bill I think that we may use such a local board set up by the province. A local board, if the hon. member wishes to call it that.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I ask if beside the
provincial board you may have a local board?


Robert Weir: Right.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Confusion arises by the
use of these two terms. The terms should be differentiated.


Robert Weir: To finish my reply, it was just to meet a situation similar to that to which the hon. member referred that section 9 was introduced.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Do you think section 9
would apply?


Robert Weir: It could be made
to apply.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Then the same objection might be made, that those people might be forced to come in and submit to some regulation that would not be convenient to them. I do not know which minister will be in charge of this bill. If it were the Minister of Fisheries he would have knowledge of the matter, but if it were the Minister of Agriculture, although I have great respect and admiration for him, I do not think he would be a proper person because he would not know the situation of the fishermen.
We have not yet asked this question; I am going to ask it now. Who is to be the minister who will have charge of the conduct, the administration, the putting into effect of the orders in council and the administration of this whole act? For a minister to exercise the powers vested in him in section 9 he would have to know the conditions that pertain in such districts. If it is to be the Minister of Agriculture, what will he know of conditions in the fishing industry? If it be the Minister of Trade and Commerce he would not know it at all. The only man who would be in a position to know the conditions concerning the fishing industry in Quebec and Gaspe and on the north shore of the St. Lawrence or in the maritime provinces would be the Minister of Fisheries. I would like to know what minister will have charge of the administration of this bill when it is passed.


Robert Weir: The bill states that the minister to administer this act will be the one designated by the governor in council, I believe.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Has the minister any
idea what minister is going to be designated? It is all very well to say that, but we have a right to know. We are called upon to vote for a bill, to enact legislation, and we do not know who is to have the administration of it. As I have explained, it has a great bearing on the matter from the point of view of the district I represent. It is necessary to have a man fully conversant with the situation of a given industry. All the ministers are not qualified, although each separately is well qualified for his work, but he has not studied this special question. The Solicitor General is between the curtains, perhaps he will be the one that will be in charge of this bill.


Mr. DUPRE:: I am sorry, I did not catch what my hon. friend said before I came in.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I am not saying anything disparaging; on the contrary I was only asking who would have charge of this bill. The minister said that would be decided by order in council, and I was pointing out that it should be some person conversant with conditions obtaining in certain territories. I was talking of the fisheries, more especially with reference to the province1 of Quebec, and I was saying that while my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture is well qualified in matters of agriculture he might not be so well qualified in regard to fisheries. Perhaps some other minister would be better qualified than either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Fisheries, but we should like to know who will have charge.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What about the Postmaster General?


Pierre-François Casgrain: The Postmaster General may have developed a taste for that, because he went down the lower St. Lawrence for the first time last summer. He was well received, and he liked it down there, but of course the fishing industry is a rough trade.


Maurice Dupré: Are all these compliments
given because you want to gain time?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Not at all; my hon.
friend knows we do not need to do that. Time is with us in the discussion of the affairs of this country to-day. Your days are numbered; you are dead, but you are not buried yet.


Mr. MANION:: You boasted just as much in 1930.


Pierre-François Casgrain: My hon. friend only has to look at the results of the last few byelections to see how we are standing with the people of this country. That has been shown by the majorities given the members elected
Marketing Act

to this side of the house. The government did not elect one member and they cannot elect one. The government cannot elect anyone in any part of the country to-day; the people do not want them.


Maurice Dupré: My hon. friend still has six
minutes left.
Mr. 'CASGRAIN:	I was just saying that
we want to know who will be in charge of this bill, and it was stated that this will be decided by the governor in council. I see the right hon. Prime Minister in his seat now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I was wondering
why we could not work Wednesday nights.


Pierre-François Casgrain: We have been working all afternoon, and if more ministers had been in the house we might have had some further explanations. Now we have a majority of council here, so perhaps we can find out what minister will be appointed by order in council to administer this bill. I have asked several of the ministers, but they could not give me any answer. Now I am going to ask the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He will answer you at
once, as soon as you sit down.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Very well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is never the practice,
under British constitutional government, to anticipate the action of the governor in council. The hon. gentleman is a student of the constitution, and he should know that.


Ernest Lapointe: The practice is to state in the statute which minister will administer it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. That was not followed by the hon. gentleman himself.


Ernest Lapointe: That has not been the practice of the right hon. gentleman, but there is a difference between his practice and the British constitution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I point out why it is done in this way? Death does sometimes destroy people, and in order that it may be possible to assign to any particular minister the administration of the act this procedure is followed. This is the modern practice with respect to the administration of a bill or a statute. It is administered in the first instance by the minister who takes charge of it, but conditions may change; life is not certain. We simply provide here that action may be taken in this way.


Ernest Lapointe: That is better than the
British constitution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As to the governor in council, I think my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice will admit that it is not customary in any parliamentary institution to anticipate by a statement what action might be taken by the governor in council, because possibly the speaker at the moment might not be a member of that council.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my right hon. friend remember the eloquence he displayed when he was attacking that procedure? He referred to it as the new despotism referred to by Lord Hewart, the doing by regulation or order in council of things which ought to be done by parliament? My right hon. friend was correct at the time, and I hope he will endeavour to make his actions conform to his views and expressions of opinion at that time. I think my right hon. friend was much better when he was leader of the opposition, even so far as the British constitution is concerned, than he is to-day. Power is spoiling my right hon. friend; really I think he ought to go to purgatory for a short time to purify his constitutional soul.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You know, Mr. Chairman, it is so delightful to hear the hon. gentleman speak in these terms, for his genial good humour so much more becomes him than the other attitude he sometimes assumes. When he indicated a moment ago that he thought I was right in the observations which I directed to the house some years ago I only regretted that it took him so long to discover it. I feel perfectly confident that after the same length of time that has elapsed since those observations were made and to-day, he will realize that I am right now. I have no doubt as to that.
I am sure my hon. friend does not desire to confuse this matter with that with which Lord Hewart was dealing. He was dealing with a statute which conferred upon the governor in council the power to legislate, and he said that was going too far. Chief Justice Mulock, of Ontario, took up the matter the other day in an address at a banquet, in which he dealt with it in much the same way. Some of the members of the British government replied to Lord Hewart, pointing out that it is perfectly clear that in these modern days you must have large authority vested in the executive to meet conditions which change every day. We must be able to meet those conditions and that is why regulations having the force of law are passed by the executive. I am sure if the hon. gentleman will just carry his mind back to the administration of law in his time he will realize that without this power it would be practically impossible

Privilege-Mr. Luchkovich
to conduct the government. Supposing you set out your regulations and make them part of the statute; supposing we had done that two years ago-


James Layton Ralston: Naming the minister is what we are talking about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am dealing with what the hon. gentleman was saying. I think it would be impossible to name the minister.


James Layton Ralston: Designate him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Designating the minister is not, it seems to me, imperative by any stretch of the imagination. It might be desirable, but I have explained why it has not been done. With man's uncertain tenure of life, or for other reasons, it may be desirable to transfer the administration of a statute from one minister to another. That happens frequently in Great Britain; it happened here, for instance, in connection with the mounted police. When I first came to this house in 1911 the Prime Minister administered the mounted police, but they were transferred to the Minister of Justice for reasons that are quite obvious. I could name other statutes the administration of which has been changed from time to time by executive action.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there not a [DOT]general statute which empowers the governor in council to make such changes? Did not Sir Robert Borden put through such a statute?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, to enable that to be done, and in order that there might be no question it is so stated in this statute as a matter of abundant precaution. I do not think any complaint should be made because this practice has been followed. It is not important; there is no great principle involved. It is a question as to which minister shall administer the statute, and the minister who will administer it will be that minister who, from the condition of his own department, might have the best training to carry on that administration with the least expense to the country. That is all. There is no sinister motive behind it, or anything like that; there is no sinister design, but merely a desire.


Ernest Lapointe: The trouble is that parliament is unable to secure any information as to what is going to be done. I do not imply that there are sinister motives of any kind, but surely we have the right to some information before giving our assent to legislation of this kind.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order, until Friday, May 11.
Friday, May 11, 1934