[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Lucy Doris Cannon.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Bertha Alice Maude Maher Burke.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of William James Thistle.-Mr. Heaps.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the first reading of Bill No. 72, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Explain.


Mr. RHODES:: I have not had an opportunity as yet to examine the bill and as it will be available to hon. members, my suggestion is that the explanation will come more properly on second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FIRST NARROWS BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) if the government has received an application for the approval of plans for the First Narrows bridge at Vancouver. This project has been endorsed by a majority of the citizens of that city and I should like to know the present status of the application.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: I might state that an application was received some time ago for approval of these plans under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Since the plans were filed representations have been received both in support of and in opposition to the proposition. Engineers are investigating and the applicants are furnishing certain information which has been asked for. Pending the completion of the report the matter is still in abeyance.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, might I mention to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that the press appears to have an account of the Dominion Elections Act. Whether or not that account is correct I cannot say but I should like the Prime Minister to indicate when we may expect to receive a copy of the bill.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I regret more than I can say the fact that a statement has appeared in the press. From what source this statement comes, I know not nor have I been able to ascertain. As soon as a draft is prepared, it is my purpose to hand a copy to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). I am not responsible for what appeared in the press and I deeply regret that such a statement should have been made without any authority. Extraordinary conditions during the past two days have prevented my completing what I was doing with respect to this matter but I hope by the end of the week to be able to hand a copy to the right hon. gentleman.

Marketing Act-Mr. Maclnnis



PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when we may expect to have the program of construction of public works.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We desire to have some of the existing legislation put forward a bit before introducing this matter. The draft of the bill is prepared but the schedule is like Jonah's gourd. The right hon. gentleman will understand what I mean.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Weir (Melfort) for the second reading of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, when this was introduced it was not my intention to say anything at this stage as I was well aware that there are several hon. members of our small group here who are far better qualified than I to speak on matters pertaining to agriculture. However, the opposition to the bill has covered such wide ground and has been so inconsistent at times that I felt I should add my mite, if for no other reason than to answer some of the charges which have been levelled against us in this corner of the house. I think almost every hon. member who has spoken on the bill has stated that it is of very great importance. According to those on my right, it is important for its ill effects, while on the government side of the house it is maintained of course that it is important for its beneficial effects. As a matter of fact I believe that one member, my hon. friend from Nelson (Mr. Stitt), went so far as to say that it was revolutionary and, moreover, that he was glad to take part in this particular revolution. I appreciate that for my hon. friend from Nelson to speak about revolution is much safer than it is for me. I would suggest to him however that he be careful because if the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) hears of it he will certainly use it against him.
	;l *
I am not sure whether the bill is as important as either its opponents or its friends say it is, but I am quite satisfied that it is significant. It is significant in that it shows that an appreciation of the social and economic developments of the past few years are at last percolating through the mental equipment of some people. It is significant also because it is evidently becoming-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would -ask hon. members to desist from loud conversation; it is difficult for the hon. gentleman who is speaking to make himself heard while such conversation is going on.


Angus MacInnis: The bill to me is significant because it is evidently becoming apparent to the advocates of rugged individualism that that very desirable virtue is rapidly leading to ragged individualism.
I favour this bill in principle. I am not saying of course that it is perfect nor that I will vote for it if it is not improved, but I will certainly vote for its second reading because I do agree with the principle. I am in favour of the principle of cooperation. For almost a quarter of a century I have belonged to the trade union movement and I understand and realize the benefits that have accrued to the working class through their association in trade unions. Unfortunately compulsion had sometimes to be used and perhaps unfortunately also there are compulsory clauses in this bill. But I believe that the farmer himself is beginning to realize -the benefits of cooperation and has come to the conclusion that a certain measure of compulsion may be necessary to impress upon the more shortsighted in his own class that it is essential for them to cooperate for the welfare of all.
In my opinion the bill has become necessary for the same reason -that it has become necessary to regulate traffic on city streets and even on country roads. We restrict the freedom of the individual on our streets and roads because it is necessary in the interests and for the safety of all who use the streets and roads that such restriction should be enforced.
I think it was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) who pointed out when introducing the bill that the position of the farmer had changed very considerably during the last generation or so. He pointed out I believe that it was not so long ago when the farmer was producing on his own farm most of the stuff consumed by himself and his family. It was consumed on the farm. What he sold or exchanged he sold to or exchanged direct with the consumer. Now I think we

Marketing Act-Mr. Maclnnis
must realize that the farmer's position has indeed changed considerably, particularly within the last twenty-five years. To-day he is not turning out a complete product; that is to say, he is taking some part in the production of a socially produced commodity. He is producing not for his own consumption and for the consumption of his family but for a market, and the article or commodity he is producing is not finally finished until it has reached the ultimate consumer somewhere within the four comers of the earth.
In recent years the farmer has passed through a stage comparable I think to that which the handicraft worker of other days passed through at the time of the industrial revolution. As a matter of fact he is passing through an agricultural revolution. I think it was Sir Arthur Salter who, in his book Recovery, pointed out that if there had been no financial crisis at all nor an industrial crisis there would have been an agricultural crisis. He also pointed out that the methods which the farmer followed to overcome his difficulties were different from those pursued by financial and industrial interests. He said that when the price of farm commodities fell, the farmer, in order to make up for the loss of revenue through falling prices, instead of reducing the quantity of his product going on the market increased it, with the result that there was a further fall in prices, and so on.
In my opinion the position of the farmer to-day is very close to that of his brother worker in the city. May I for a few moments try to show the similarity. Living under a system of capitalism in which, in order to live, everyone must have something to sell and not only have something to sell but also to find a buyer, the farmers and the industrial workers find themselves in very much the same position. Let us take the industrial worker first. By and large the city and town workers have nothing to sell but their ability to labour, and when they find someone to buy their labour they are said to have found a job. But note this. They have no claim to ownership in what they will produce with their labour. They sell their labour power at its market price, depending like all other commodities to some extent on the law of supply and demand; but what they produce belongs not to themselves but to the person or corporation buying their labour and paying the price therefor-wages. What they produce is left in the plant or factory when they have done their day's work.
The exploitation of the industrial worker is easy to see. I remember years ago when we used to discuss how the industrial worker and
the farmer were exploited. It was easy to see that the industrial worker was exploited at the point of production, but it was not so easy to find where the farmer was exploited. He did not sell his labour direct to anyone. He was a man of property who owned land and machinery and stock of various kinds. But I think it has become more clear since that time how he is being exploited. One thing of course is clear, that he does not sell his labour direct to an employer, but turns that labour, by the use of his land, his machinery and his stock, into various commodities depending upon the particular form of agricultural production in which he is engaged. If he is a grain farmer he turns it into various kinds of grain; if he is a dairy farmer he turns it into dairy products, and if he is a fruit farmer, he turns it into various kinds of fruits. But note this: that the moment he has done that he is under the same compulsion to do what the industrial worker had to do, that is to find someone to buy his commodities. That is where his difficulties begin. He has no say in setting the price of what he has to sell and no say in setting the price of what he has to buy. He is selling in a market that, so far as he is concerned, is absolutely uncontrolled, and on the other hand he is buying in a market that is absolutely controlled. He is, as a matter of fact, selling in a market that is not only not controlled but is sometimes rigged and manipulated against him, and he is buying in a market that is not only controlled by the producers of manufactured articles but is also protected by tariffs of various kinds. So it will be readily seen that the farmer is exploited through the market.
We hear a great deal these days about confiscation and the dangers of confiscation. Let me say that the farmer is confiscated annually at the end of every year because everything except a bare living is taken away from him through the market.
I am quite satisfied that the bill in its present state is not perfect, but I suppose nothing is perfect when it is first conceived. We know that the automobile of to-day is very different from the first automobile and that the airship of to-day is very different from the first airship that was tried out by the Wright brothers. After my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) had spoken on this bill a week or so ago, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) followed and castigated us in this corner for supporting this bill. According to him we< were falling into the Conservative net; I believe the simile he used was that of the spider and the fly. Well, I
2692	COMMONS
Marketing Act*-Mr. Maclnnis
think the leader of the opposition ought to know something about spiders and flies because I remember in 1921 quite a number of Progressives came into this house and fell very readily into the Liberal cobweb. I do not wonder if he feared that possibly those of us in this comer of the house might fall into another web. However, he need not be afraid because we have no such intention; once bitten, twice shy, and we are quite sure we shall never fall into the net again.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: We were
never in it.


Angus MacInnis: Quite so. But that does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we are not going to support any good measure that comes before this house regardless of whether it is introduced by Liberals or Conservatives. So far as I am personally concerned, I made one promise and one only to the electors in my constituency, and that was that I would support any measure which I thought would be to the advantage of those I represent, and on the other hand, that I would oppose any measure which I thought would be to their disadvantage regardless of who introduced it.
The leader of the opposition pretends to be greatly concerned over the undermining of our parliamentary institutions. I think anyone who keeps his ear to the ground these days and realizes how parliaments and democratic institutions have disappeared in other countries must also have realized that they have disappeared because they failed to function to improve the conditions of the people of those countries, and if we in this house of parliament are going to waste our time in mere talk, I think the people will get tired of parliament and use some other means of making available to themselves the great wealth of this country.
May I say to the leader of the opposition that nothing could be more detrimental to the dignity and usefulness of parliament than his own opposition to every measure good, bad or indifferent that is brought before parliament. In his opposition to this bill he went back to the thirteenth century to the time of Magna Charta, and in extolling the rights and privileges conferred on the people by that great document he pointed out that they were endangered by this bill. Now, to be historically accurate, the Magna Charta did not confer any rights or privileges upon the great mass of the British people; it conferred rights and privileges upon only a certain class, upon the barons, the ruling class of that time. So far as the great mass of the people is concerned, they never had any economic rights at 
that time and consequently any political or legal rights for them were quite useless. The leader of the opposition is so enmeshed and so obsessed with the letter of the law that he has lost sight of the spirit of the law; he is so .taken up with the question of legal justice that he is overlooking a greater and more fundamental thing, that is, social justice. He fails to realize that until we have social and economic justice, legal and political justice will be of very little benefit to us. Let me give a little information to the house in regard to the condition of the working class in Great Britain upon whom, according to the leader of the opposition, the Magna Charta conferred such great privileges and benefits. I am speaking not only of the time when Magna Charta was signed, but of conditions six hundred or more years later, or about one hundred years ago. The leader of the opposition quoted from Green's History of England; I shall quote from another book which I believe is a classic of its kind, H. de B. Gibbons' Industrial History of England. Speaking of the condition of the working class in 1834 he says:
But then came the great continental wars and the industrial revolution; and it is a sad but significant fact that, although the total wealth of the nation vastly increased at the end of last century and the beginning of this, none of that wealth came into the hands of the labourers, but went entirely into the hands of the great landlords and new capitalist manufacturers, or was spent in the enormous expenses of foreign war.
Then he says:
Moreover, labour was now more than ever dependent on capital, and the individual labourer was thoroughly under the heel of his employer.
Thoroughly under the heel of his employer despite the privileges of Magna Charta.
This, it will be remembered, was the result of the system of assessment of wages under which the justices of the peace, including of course chiefly manufacturers and landowners, fixed the wages of labour for their own districts, and fixed them at so low a figure that they had nearly always to be supplemented out of the rates paid by the general public. The labourer had no redress, for all combination in the form now known as trades unions was suppressed, and his condition sank to the lowest depth of poverty and degradation.
You notice that at that time the labourers' wages and keep had to be supplemented out of the relief funds of that day, if I may use that term. The same things is happening in the Dominion of Canada at the present time, where the labourers must be sustained to some exteDt out of the relief funds of the

Marketing Act-Mr. Maclnnis
municipalities, as came out before the price spread and mass buying committee a little while ago.
Now we go a little further:
What made the condition of the labourers worse still, was the fact that they could neither go from one place to another to seek work, nor could they combine in industrial partnerships for their mutual interests.
What wonderful privileges these people had, when they could not go from one place to another; if they did not like the master they had they could not go and look for another. Now they blame the workers for not going because forsooth they have more of them than they need. Adam Smith said:
We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work, but many against combining to raise it.
At another place he said:
The workmen, had, of course, no political influence; they could only show their discontent by riots and rick burnings.
So much for the privileges conferred upon the British people by Magna Charta.
Then the right hon. gentleman went further and pointed out that nearly all of the improvements that have come to the working class have come through the Liberal party. That does not agree at all with H. de B. Gibbons. At page 184 of his book he says:
These unions of workmen cried out for the restriction of non-adult labour to ten hours a day, and the Conservative party, who were chiefly interested in the land and not in the mills, supported them readily against the manufacturers, who were mainly Liberals and Radicals.
Then at page 185 he goes on to say:
It is curious to notice how these acts were passed. They all showed the steady advance of the principle of state interference with labour; a doctrine most distasteful to the old Ricardian school of economists, even when that interference was made in the interests of the physical and moral well-being, not only of the industrial classes, but of the community at large. Hence the economists of the day aided the manufacturers in opposing these acts to the utmost of their power, and the laws passed were due to the action of the Tories and landowners. Lord Shaftesbury, Fielden. Oastler, and Sadler were all Tories, though they were accused of being socialists. They were supported by the landed gentry.
We hear just the same thing to-day. Everyone who even suggests that there should be an improvement in the condition of the working masses is termed a socialist or a bolshevist or a communist right away. It does not make any difference whether he belongs to the group here or on the government side of the house.
Then we go a little further. I wish the hon. member for Weyburn were in his seat.
John Bright especially distinguished himself by his violent denunciation of the Ten Hours bill, which he characterized' as "one of the worst measures ever passed in the shape of an act of the legislature."
That was before this bill was introduced, of course. John Bright was the great apostle of free trade, yet he was strongly opposed to any improvement in the condition of the working class through reduction of hours, or possibly increase of wages.


Edward Joseph Garland: So is the hon. member for Weyburn.


Angus MacInnis: Quite so, that is why I wish he were here.
Let me give you one other instance of the privileges conferred upon the working class by Magna Charta. In 1834 there were tried, convicted and transported from England to Australia six agricultural labourers. Among them were George Loveless and James Loveless, brothers. I understand that the descendants of these two brothers are living at present somewhere in Ontario. The crime of these men was that they tried to organize the agricultural workers. George Loveless in court made this statement:
We have injured no man's reputation, character, person or property, we were uniting to preserve ourselves, our wives and children from utter degradation and starvation.
It is a long way from prosecuting people for organizing, to passing laws to compel them to organize for their own good. We certainly are moving, and I hope in the right direction. The judge in passing sentence on them said:
Not for anything you have done, or, as I can prove, that you intended to do, but for example to others, I consider it my duty to pass the sentence of seven years penal transportation across His Majesty's high seas to each and every one of you.
So much then for Magna Charta and the favours it bestowed upon the British people.


Mr. DUPUIS:: That is what will happen to farmers if they do not obey this legislation.


Angus MacInnis: One of the terms of the charter was that:
To no man will we sell or deny or delay right or justice.
I wonder who it was that denied or delayed right and justice to these people even up to seven hundred or more years after Magna Charta was signed? The very class which at the point of the sword compelled King John to sign the charter.

Marketing Act-Mr. Maclnnis
In 1842, coming still further down, I find this in a report made by the children's employment committee, describing the employment of the children in the mines:
Chained, belted, harnessed like dogs in a go-cart, black, saturated with wet and more than half-naked, crawling upon their hand's and feet and dragging their heavy loads behind them, they present an appearance indescribably disgusting and unnatural.
That was in 1842. I wonder who delayed right and justice to these children, and who is denying them right and justice to-day? The very successors of the barons who wrested the charter from King John at the point of the sword.
So much for the leader of the opposition. Now let me turn to something more pleasant. But before turning to that I notice that Sir Basil Blackett in a certain speech made a little time ago on the necessity of cooperation in industry, made this statement:
I know there are a great many people who quarrel with this doctrine, who hanker after the good old times. They will not believe that Queen Victoria is dead. What they say is, "if only the state would stop interfering, if it would stop doles to the unemployed, if it would stop interference with trade and commerce, if it would adopt complete free trade, then all would be well."
Then he goes on to say:
But would it?
I wish someone would take it upon himself to tell the leader of the opposition that Queen Victoria is dead.
Now let me come to something more pleasant. We are told that no matter what progress the C.C.F. may make elsewhere it will never make progress in the province of Quebec. It was my pleasure to have translated, because unfortunately I could not understand the hon. gentleman when he was speaking in his own language-


Vincent Dupuis: Who was that?


Angus MacInnis: Just a moment and I
will give the name. It was my pleasure to have his speech translated before the translation appeared in yesterday's Hansard. I am referring to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), who spoke on April 24, and who had this to say:
The present bill under consideration is one of the most progressive measures ever submitted to the parliament of Canada, and that is what gives it such importance, because by this legislation we are resolutely resorting to regulated economy, particularly in connection with natural products.
That is not exactly the C.CJF. program but it is getting fairly close to it. I have
[Mr. Maclnnis.1
not the pleasure of the acquaintance of the hon. member, but I congratulate him on his advancement. Let me read the first part of our manifesto, which was adopted at Regina last year:
Planning
The establishment of a planned, socialized, economic order, to make possible the most efficient development of the national resources and the most equitable distribution of the national income.
Then the hon. member for QuebeejMont-morency went on to say:
Por too long a time-we are aware of this, to-day, more than ever-the state has neglected to carry out one of its primary functions: to regulate the economic activities of the nation, not in the interest or for the benefit of the private individual or group of persons, but in the interest of the collectivity or community.
Then he goes on to say:
Indeed, it is not sufficient to have discovered new methods of wealth production, the means of specially putting such production in circulation and distributing it must be resorted to.
And one other sentence:
The duty of the state is to regulate the purchasing and marketing of natural products so that those who are short may purchase them from those who already have too much.
But why confine it to natural products? Let me quote again from the Regina manifesto, to show how close we are together.


An hon. MEMBER:: The last one?


Angus MacInnis: Yes, we have only one. The Liberal party have several. When I hear them talking about Liberal policies and principles I wonder which party they really mean, whether they mean Taschereau's policies and principles in Quebec, Pattullo's in British Columbia, Gerry McGeer's, or Mr. King's in this house. There are several others as well, notably those of the hon. member for Wey-burn and the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh). I heard that hon. gentleman say the other day, while talking about Liberal policies and principles, that Laurier cured the depression in 1896 by opening up the western provinces. The hon. gentleman forgets that there are no more new western provinces to be opened up, and that if Laurier were back here he would find himself in the same difficulty in which the present leader of the Liberal party finds himself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read briefly from the Regina program, to show how closely the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency approaches it in principle.

Marketing Act-Mr. Oobeil


Vincent Dupuis: Is that hon. member ready to pass the third degree of the C.C.F.?


Angus MacInnis: I do not know; you will have to ask him, but it makes no difference whether or not he is willing. The difference between those in this comer and those to my right is this: We do not care who improves conditions or who brings in the new social order, so long as it is brought in, while hon. gentlemen to my right want to bring it in themselves.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, they
want to sit still and just let it happen.


Angus MacInnis: Perhaps they want to sit still and prevent it from happening. I read from the manifesto:
It is now certain that in every industrial country, some form of planning will replace the disintegrating capitalist system. The C.C.F. will provide that in Canada the planning shall be done, not by a small group of capitalist magnates in their own interests, but by public servants, acting in the public interest and responsible to the people as a whole.
So far as this bill represents that point of view we are in favour of it. In conclusion let me say that we are certainly and definitely reaching the stage in human society where cooperation will have to displace competition. Yesterday I heard someone on the other side of the house speak of the necessity of international cooperation, but we can never have international cooperation so long as we have competition at home. Cooperation, like charity, should begin at home.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at great length, at this stage of the discussion, on the present bill. To my minid, the details, of the bill should be discussed in committee of the whole house. However, owing to the systematic opposition to the principle of the bill by hon. members opposite-especially, I regret to state, by the Quebec members-


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: Especially !


Samuel Gobeil: -I deem it my duty, as a representative of a rural county to express, briefly, what I think are the views of my constituents.
I frankly state, sir, that I cannot imagine what purpose' hon. members of the opposition have in view, especially those from Quebec, in prolonging the debate on the second reading of this bill-


Joseph Georges Bouchard: So much the better!


Samuel Gobeil: [DOT]-because, of all the provinces, Quebec is, in my opinion, the one which requires the most a measure of this kind, the spirit of cooperation being apparently, less developed than elsewhere. What is the first object of this bill? It is to grant the farming class better regulations for its products and marketing.
This is my interpretation of the bill.
The second object is to reduce the spread between the prices paid to producers and those paid by consumers.
The third object is to furnish the farming class with the necessary mechanism to attain such a purpose.
If we wish, sir, to attain these three objects, why so much discussion, why this obstruction for the last ten days, by members of the opposition, especially by those of Quebec? A number of members opposite hailing from other provinces, while criticizing the bill, have found some good points in it. They admitted, that, even granting the bill not to be perfect -no one, heretofore, made such a claim-the object, at least, was a good one.
I closely followed all the speeches made, in this respect, by hon. members from Quebec and, unless one of them spoke in my absence, I regret to note that not one of them had a good word to say for this bill.
As I stated a moment ago, this bill is, perhaps, not perfect; the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) made such a statement when introducing it. Moreover, as nothing is perfect on earth, it would be futile to contend that this bill is perfect. However, the government and the hon. Minister of Agriculture, in particular, are willing to accept any constructive suggestion which the opposition may make to improve it. This bill was drafted by the hon. Minister of Agriculture-who, indeed, is well posted on agricultural questions, our friends opposite, on various occasions, have praised him for his attainments in that connection- after consulting with the various farming associations of this country, growers of fruit, potatoes and other products of the farm, associations which represent the elite of our farmers, with the cooperation also of all the officials of his department, experts in agricultural matters, who were not appointed by the hon. minister, but were in the department, long before he took it over, 10, 20 and 25 years before. The hon. Minister of Agriculture devoted more than six months of his time in drafting and improving this bill. Notwithstanding all this, is it not most astonishing

Marketing Act-Mr. Gobeil
that our friends opposite contend, in the house and throughout the country, that this bill contains nothing worth while.
Unless, sir, hon. members opposite are prepared to state in the house that the Minister of Agriculture and those who draughted this bill deliberately intended to harm, ruin and enslave the farming class, no one will believe, in Quebec or elsewhere, that such a group of experts and agriculturists could have laboured so long to prepare this bill and reach practically no result.
May I recall to hon. members opposite that this scheme is not a new one. Farmers have been requesting a measure of this kind, not only since a month, six months, a year or three years but for ten, fifteen and twenty years past. For a number of years the farmers have been asking the government for some measure which will permit them to market profitably their products and receive a better price proportionately to the price paid by the consumer.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: More
promises!


Samuel Gobeil: That is the
object of this bill. If we are to judge, not by the speeches of hon. members opposite, but by the requests of farmers, producers and experts from every province, even those from Quebec, in fact all who are experts in the matter entertain great hopes in the results which this measure will bring about. A large number of farmers and producers do not share the views of our friends opposite and think that such a bill is necessary, that it will help to regulate the price and enhance the output of farm products.
I do not intend to delay the house nor do I intend to quote excerpts from statements made by hon. members opposite. May I simply refer to the last speeches delivered last Thursday by two members from Quebec: the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) and the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume). The hon. member for St. Henri, in the course of his remarks, asserted that this bill would not improve farm products or their grading.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: He did
not grasp the purport of the bill.


Samuel Gobeil: Is there a
member in the house who can contend that this bill embodies any provision which might prevent the improvement of farm products? Is there any provision of this bill which affects the grading of products? Notwithstanding the intellectual gifts and legal

science of my hon. friend from St. Henri, the elite of the farming class of my province, who approve this bill are in the following situation: A gentleman who has lived all his life in the city, a lawyer, no matter how eminent he may be, states in the House of Commons: Farmers of the province of Quebec and Canada, you do not know what you require, you do not know what will improve your lot; I, as a Montreal lawyer, do not hesitate to make this statement. I have no intention to hurt the feelings of anybody in saying this, because were I to give any advice to lawyers who sit in this house, they could rightly retort that I am not well informed. But such is the situation; our agricultural experts hear of a lawyer who states in this house: Gentlemen, you do not know what you require, and it is I, a Montreal lawyer, who tells you so; the bill that you have loudly insisted on for ten or fifteen years, will not improve your lot, it will be detrimental to farming.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: According to this, if you discuss universities, you should be a member of a university!


Samuel Gobeil: If the hon.
member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard) wishes to discuss the university question in the house we can again do so.
Another member, sir-I mentioned his name just now and I am pleased to see him in his seat-the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville, delivered a speech on Thursday last. He made many statements. He should be acquainted with the farming question, and I think he is. The hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville, although not a farmer himself, is continuously in touch with farmers, he must be acquainted with their requirements. To my mind, the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville, in making the comments which are to be found in his speech, proves that he takes no interest in his constituents.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: His mistake.


Vincent Dupuis: Very sad.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville stated that farmers had been deprived of their markets, that markets had to be found. The hon. member gave facts. He even pointed out that the farmers owing to the Fordney-McCumber tariff had been deprived of the United States market, our farmers' best market.

Marketing Act-Mr. Gobeil


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: I said no such thing, it is Mr. McLean, of Toronto, a good Tory, who makes the statement.


Samuel Gobeil: And the hon. member repeated it.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Yes, I did.


Samuel Gobeil: And it is a fact.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Then, you both said so.


Samuel Gobeil: Will the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville, admit to his constituents that the Fordney-McCumber tariff was put into force when the right hon. Mr. Mackenzie King was in office? Will the hon. member explain to his constituents that, under the King regime, the United States increased their tariff on farm products from 100 to 200 per cent?


Vincent Dupuis: Tories were in power in the U.S.!


Samuel Gobeil: Will the hon. member remind his constituents, that the then government under the present leader of the opposition, did not protest or even endeavour to remedy the situation? It is a fact that our farmers were deprived of the United States market, I agree on this point with the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville. Only, thej'-did not lose it under this government, they lost, it under the government of which he was a follower, in 1922 and. in 1929-30. Why make such statements, when all are aware, farmers like others, of what transpired in connection with the United States tariff?
The hon. member made numerous statements which I do not intend to discuss.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: He stated a fact.


Samuel Gobeil: Some of his statements were facts, while a large number of them were purely imaginary or conjectural. When one resorts to conjectures, any statement may be made.
The best argument in favour of this bill would be for the farmers of Quebec and Canada, to read, if it were possible, all the speeches delivered by hon. members of the opposition, especially those of Quebec, in this respect.


Vincent Dupuis: There would be no more Tories, after that!


Samuel Gobeil: Not one of them found anything worth while in the bill.
They made all manner of conjectures; that this bill would restrict exports and paralyse trade. They imagined numerous things which are not mentioned in the bill and that no one in good faith can find there. I could imagine that my hon. friend from Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche) would send some one to murder me when I am through with my speech.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: There is no danger!


Samuel Gobeil: I might fancy so, but this does not mean that the hon. member has any such intention. When certain members attribute such thoughts to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, who worked so hard and did his best to find a remedy for the ills of the farming class, I state it is impossible to believe they are sincere.
One reason only could have influenced the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville to put forth such arguments. He probably thought that St. Johns-Iberville is so strongly liberal that he could say what he pleased.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Deny anything which I stated in my speech, I am expecting it.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon.
member's speech from the beginning to the end contains only conjectures. I have just quoted a case which he cannot deny, and the rest of his speech is the same. I may say to the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville that it is, perhaps, not wise to be too confident. Even if the people of St. Johns-Iberville are strongly liberal, I feel certain that a large number are intelligent, and I shall remind the hon. member that, on a previous occasion, his constituents repudiated him.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: When?


Samuel Gobeil: Would the
hon. member wish me to remind him of the occasion?	[DOT]


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Certainly.


Mr. DUPUUIS (Translation):: Certainly.


Samuel Gobeil: I can read
to the hon, member, if he so desires-I do not intend to do so unless he insists-I can read letters to him written by citizens of his constituency and who disapprove his attitude in the house.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: From
Tories (bleus) like you!

Marketing Act-Mr. Gobeil


Samuel Gobeil: From good
Liberals (rouges) 1 Does the hon. member insist?


Mr. LACRIOX:: The hon. member is not
discussing the bill.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member should not interrupt in this way.


Édouard Lacroix: But he is not speaking
about the bill, at all.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I repeat, the hon. member should not interrupt in this way.


Samuel Gobeil: Does the hon. member desire that I should read this letter?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I am
entirely indifferent.


Samuel Gobeil: I shall not
insist. I only wish to point out to the hon. member that there are intelligent people in his county and some are dissatisfied with him.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I have
never looked upon my constituents as idiots, the proof that they are intelligent is that they voted against your program and put no faith in your promises.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. If the hon. member wishes to address the house he may do so, in turn. The hon. member now speaking is trying to be heard.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: The hon. member asked me a question, that is all.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Questions should be asked through the Speaker and not addressed directly to hon. members.


Samuel Gobeil: I am quite satisfied.


Samuel Gobeil: All hon. members will recall that on a previous occasion, the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville stated, when the militia estimates were discussed in the house, that the military school in St. Johns was a disgrace to his county, military men did not behave as respectable persons and were lazy people.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is speaking about the soldiers at St. Johns, and I do not know what connection such reference could have to the marketing bill. His speech should be relevant to the matter before the house.


Samuel Gobeil: Speaking to the point of order may I say that I asked the hon. member if he were satisfied that I should read the letter, and he said yes. If he does not wish me to read it I shall not do so.


Jean-François Pouliot: It could be read only with unanimous consent, and I strongly object to it. If he has something else to say about the bill, let him say it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the letter or communication is not in order, it should not be read, whether hon. members do or do not object.


Samuel Gobeil: I am (not at all anxious to read it, because I do not wish to be unfair.
(Translation):	I do not wish to be harsh
towards my hon. friend, he has always been gracious with me, in the past and on various occasions, I do not wish to cause him unpleasantness; however, I know that these letters would interest greatly hon. members of this house. I shall read them on another occasion.
There is perhaps another reason why the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville should be cautious in his statements, notwithstanding the fact that there are intelligent people in his county. At the next Liberal convention, called for the purpose of choosing a candidate for the dominion election in the counties of St. Johns-Iberville and Laprairie-Napierville, one of the two members who represent these counties will have to sit between two chairs; and, as the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville is an excellent lawyer and a clever politician, I would advise my hon. friend for St. Johns-Iberville to be cautious and keep an eye on his constituents.


Vincent Dupuis: The hon.
member may permit me to tell him that he need not worry about us.


Samuel Gobeil: 
Vincent Dupuis: It is parliament.


Samuel Gobeil: Is it not the provincial legislature or dominion parliament? That is what will happen in this case. Parliament will decide. Parliament will delegate *-no, I am wrong-it delegates its powers to no one, but it decrees that all violations to this act will constitute a criminal offence. The courts of this country, as in any other criminal cases, must decide whether the accused is guilty or not. I am not permitted, nor is any other member of this hon. house, to disrobe on Wellington street, in front of parliament, because the law forbids it.


Mr.   LAPLEOHE@Translation: It would not be proper!


Samuel Gobeil: It is not proper because parliament has so decreed. I also wish to tell my hon. friends that it is also the reason why the Doukhobors, in the west, were imprisoned. It is likewise proper that the provincial government should decree that any one found in possession of a bottle of liquor which has not been purchased from the commission, will be prosecuted and fined or imprisoned. I wonder who, in this country, is authorized to decree that any violation of an act sanctioned by parliament constitutes a criminal offence; I also wonder whether the intelligent citizen of my province will take stock in such an argument.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Are there any beneficial provisions in this bill? Let us hear of them!


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard) heard me state at the outset of my speech that I had no intention to discuss the details of this bill. Had my hon. friends opposite been wiser, it would have been better for them to follow such a policy. If they had waited until this bill was before the committee of the whole house to discuss its provisions, it would have avoided the discussion of all these imaginary things which exist only in their mind, will never be put into practice and which the hon. Minister of Agriculture never had in mind.
One more point and I shall close my remarks. We were faced, these last days, with a most sensational statement. When this bill was introduced in the house, almost every province had enacted a measure authorizing these provinces to give effect to this bill. Quebec also authorized such an act. A day or two after the prorogation of the provincial session, the newspapers-I have one of them here-published a statement made by the hon. Prime Minister of Quebec, to the effect that two measures-I shall only refer to this one-


Vincent Dupuis: Are you re' ferring to " Le Devoir."


Samuel Gobeil: This one is " Le Canada." The hon. member will not impugn the truth of this news item.
I do not intend, sir, to engage in a controversy with the hon. Prime Minister of Quebec so as to find out whether this act is or not ultra vires, because there are, on this side of the house, members who are better qualified than I am to discuss the matter.

Marketing Act-Mr. Gobeil


Joseph-François Laflèche: It is an easy matter.


Samuel Gobeil: However, as an ordinary citizen, not being highly gifted, I read this bill over a number of times. I had the opportunity to discuss it with the hon. Minister of Agriculture and I may frankly state that no citizen of my province will find anything which might affect provincial rights. If I am not mistaken, international and interprovincial trade are the prerogatives of the Dominion government. The government by this bill has no intention to interfere with personal or provincial liberty. This bill is but a tool afforded to the farmers, the rural class so as to better regulate the marketing of their natural products. However, sir, without entering into the question in order to find out whether this bill may affect some provincial rights, I wish to state to hon. members of Quebec that I shall have no scruple in voting in favour of it. There is no proof whatever that provincial rights are threatened. This bill is intended to protect the interests and liberty of the people of this country and I have no hesitation in approving of it. A number of members opposite, in the course of the present session and in the past have suggested that the British North America Act be amended. Why? Because like all earthly things it is not perfect. Would it not be for the same reason that the hon. Minister of Agriculture had no hesitation in stating that this bill was perhaps not perfect, because it was the work of man? I may point out to hon. members of the opposition, to those of Quebec, that a government that has been guilty, I may even say of the crime of allowing the alienation of our forests, as it happened at the last session of the Quebec legislature, that a government who have committed such an act have no right to raise a question like the present one. You may not be aware, sir, that in Quebec, at the last session, the Liberal government which also has the support of our hon. friends opposite, allowed the rights of timber cut to be mortgaged under licence for an amount of almost $500,000,000, with the privilege of increasing this amount to an unlimited figure.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Order 1 Order 1


Samuel Gobeil: It is the public domain, the property of the citizens of my province. No one will contend, no one will endeavour to make us believe that the timber cut rights can be mortgaged without mortgaging the land, because the tree takes root and draws its life from the soil. The

provincial domain which is owned by the people of my province has been mortgaged. If again, by this mortgage of the Quebec national domain, the lumber	industry
had been saved, if this mortgage had only been given after the watered-stock had been withdrawn from the capital of the Quebec pulp mills, perhaps I would have kept silent and said: To save this industry I sacrificed something. But such is not the case. The soil of my province has been mortgaged, the timber lands of Quebec were sold for the sum of $500,000,000 when the actual value of all these mills in this industry does not amount to $150,000,000. After such an act it does not behoove the Prime Minister of Quebec to criticize this government for introducing this measure which has been requested by the farmers for the last fifteen years and from which everybody entertain great hopes. I do not contend that this bill will be an infallible remedy which will cure all ills from which suffer the farming class, that it will raise the price of butter, cheese and eggs from 50 to 75 per cent. I earnestly believe that the proposed act will prevent the repetition of what took place in the past and the sad state of affairs we witness to-day. In the course of last winter, I stated that butter was dear enough, and even I may have said that it was too dear. Some one interjected that I would not make that statement in my county. I replied: Yes, I would. I shall repeat it at any time. And I have already done so. Do hon. members think that it pleases the farmer that butter should sell at 30 cents per pound in February when he produces none, and that it should sell 17 or 18 cents when he produces some? Is there a member in the house who will contend, with facts to support his contention, that there is a reason for butter prices to drop from 20 or 30 cents to.21 cents, in the space of a few days, as in this present case? The object of bill No. 51 is exactly to prevent such fluctuation-


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Another
sop!


Samuel Gobeil: -which should not exist in the prices of farm products.
We exported, in the course of last autumn, from three to four million pounds of butter. We imported, during the winter three or four million pounds, because we were short of this quantity. Would it not have been more profitable for the farmers to have stored three or four million pounds of butter in the course of the summer so as to market it during winter? I do not know whether this

Marketing Act-Mr. Pouliot
bill will have that result; however, such is its purpose for all farm products, that is why-all fruit growers from provinces where fruit is grown have approved of this bill. That is also why the "Union catholique des culti-vateurs de la province de Quebec," which represents the elite of our population and which has as its president a Quebec man, who is very highly rated as an agricultural scientist, Mr. Albert Rioux, has approved this bill. It was also approved by a number of other associations and farming groups in a large number of municipalities. Within the last two weeks, 25 to 30 farmers of my constituency have written to me as follows:	For
heaven's sake see that this bill is enacted, endeavour to have this measure put through, as we have been asking for such a measure for the last ten years and it is much needed.
I only intended to speak for a few minutes and I find that I spoke much longer than I expected. For all the reasons given, I shall vote in favour of the bill, and if it were possible I would vote twice for it.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great patience to the speech of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil), the hon. prophet of Compton.


Samuel Gobeil: Never mind about titles.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have listened also to the speech of the hon.. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis). It is interesting to note that an answer to the speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite from the province of Quebec has been given during this debate by hon. members in the far corner. During last summer members of the Tory party were saying throughout Quebec that there were only two parties, the Tory party and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. We now see the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation kissing the Tory party. They do not seem to be ashamed to kiss each other.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad to hear "hear, hear." That is the best answer which could be made to their speeches of last year. The hon. member for Compton referred to the constituency of St. Johns-Iberville but 'he seems to have forgotten that last session the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume) and myself invited him and the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) to attend a meeting which was to be held in the beautiful city of Iberville. But neither of them showed up at the meeting. If they like these people so much
74726-171J
why did they not come to address them on that occasion? The hon. member for Compton says that he speaks on behalf of the population of Quebec. How can he do that when he is so close to the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan), the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) and other members of the Ku Klux Klan. It is pretty hard for the hon. member to speak on behalf of the province of Quebec when he is associated in the House of Commons with members of the Ku Klux Klan.


Samuel Gobeil: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I Object to the remark made by the hon. member. I think I am a good friend of every hon. member of this house but the hon. member has insinuated that there is something wrong about it, something of which a man should be ashamed. I think he has made a reflection upon certain hon. members of the house Which should not be tolerated.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of order, I do not think it is a reflection. I hope the time taken up in discussing the point of order will not be included in my time allowance.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member to
whom the reference was made objects to the statement that he was associated with members of the Ku Klux Klan. He says he was not, and I think it' was hardly a fair remark to make.


Jean-François Pouliot: All right, Mr. Speaker.
If you say it is unfair, I withdraw it. I always comply with the rulings of the chair and I will immediately withdraw the remark and say that the hon. member for Compton is so close to Long Lake and Regina that he cannot speak any more on behalf of the farmers of Quebec. That is my statement and it is perfectly in order. Now, the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) said the other day that he was ready to cooperate even with Beelzebub if Beelzebub was able to do something good. Well, politics makes strange bedfellows and we know that the hon. gentleman spoke that way jocularly. But the headquarters of Beelzebub is a place from which no one comes, and if one has to cooperate with Beelzebub it will be from long distance.


Vincent Dupuis: Long Lake.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. One reason I object to this bill is that it contains no sort of policy; it is just a scheme. In the bill the word scheme is repeated over and over again. Therefore what have we? Have we a gov-
Marketing Act-Mr. Pouliot

ernment of statesmen? No, sir. Are they even politicians? No, sir. They are just schemers, because the bill which has been introduced to save the farmers is just a scheme. It is a scheme which we are told will work this way and that way and the hon. member for Compton will find it just as good as the wild strawberry jam which his brother sells to the Canadian National Railways in such quantities.


Samuel Gobeil: That is pretty small.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, but it is a small jar.
He likes this bill just as much as he does that jam, but the farmers in that constituency have no opportunity to sell such huge quantities of jam to the Canadian National Railways and other companies, and I can tell him that they will not have such a sweet mind with regard to this bill.


Samuel Gobeil: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I object to the remarks made by the hon. member and I want to make a declaration to the house. I have been, I think-and I put myself in the judgment of the house- very patient with the hon. member, but I want to say to the house that I do not feel belittled at all because one of my brothers takes advantage of the fruit which providence has put at the disposal of the citizens of our province. I feel very much less belittled-in fact, not belittled at all-to see one of my brothers in that business than if one of them were in Mexico in gaol.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know what the
hon. member means. I have no relation in gaol in Mexico, but I would suggest to the hon. member that he be patient. If it hurts him, it will hurt him a lot, and if he is proud of the jam his brother sells in such a quantity, and the government refuses to inform the house, when so many employees are dismissed because it is complained that the Canadian .National Railways have no money -well, the hon. gentleman should be ashamed of himself; he should be ashamed of himself to give such opportunities to his brother when he does not give the same opportunity to the electors in his constituency. The hon. gentleman should not make unwarranted statements about anyone. He said that the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe-


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman might confine himself to the bill before the house instead of indulging in personalities.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of
privilege myself. The hon. gentleman says

I have a brother in gaol in Mexico. I want him to withdraw that.


Samuel Gobeil: I never said such a thing.
I said I am much more honoured to have one of my brothers in that line of business -and by the way, may I tell the house that the business of my brother has been done without my interference in any way, shape or form, and the quantity he has sold is very limited. He' is simply selling what he was asked because they had a demand for it. Coming to what my hon. friend has said, I did not say one of his brothers was in gaol in Mexico; I said I feel much more honoured to have one of my brothers in that line of business than if he was in gaol in Mexico.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want him to withdraw
completely what he said. If he does not refer to any relation of mine I have no objection, but if he meant any relation of mine I want him to withdraw the remark at once.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Stirling):: I suggest to both hon. gentlemen that they leave their mutual relations alone and speak to the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: said by the Prime Minister of this country and the hon. member for South Essex and other people.
We very often see a picture in the paper of the Hon. Howard Ferguson. His name was mentioned in the press on March 1 last, April 11 and on April 20. Here is a letter that was written by John H. English, Canadian government trade commissioner, March 6, 1934, from Trafalgar Square, London:
Total External Trade of Canada
1930		 $2,393,211,652
1931		 1,723,640,743
1932		 1,166,069,421
1933		 887,097,541
Or in 1933 about one-third of what it was in 1930.
Imports	Exports
1930	
$1,248,273,582	$1,144,930,0701931	
906,612,695	817,028,0481932	
578,503,904	587,565.5171933	
406,383,744	480,713,797
Chemicals, Gelatine, Boxes, Etc.
We are in receipt of your letter of 21st ultimo regarding your desire to be placed in touch with United Kingdom manufacturers of the various articles which you enumerate.
While otherwise we should have been glad to render you assistance, we would explain that all matters pertaining to the development of United Kingdom export trade to Canada, are, according to an arrangement made between the two governments, dealt with by the Department of Overseas Trade of the British government, 35 Old Queen street, London, S.W. 1, who in that connection maintain a service of five trade commissioners resident in the dominion.
Under these circumstances the work of this office is practically restricted to the development of Canadian export trade to this country, and we do not possess facilities for handling inquiries relating to import tr-ad'e into Canada. We have, consequently, passed your inquiry on to the comptroller general of the Department of Overseas Trade, and you may expect to hear from him shortly, either direct, or through H.M. Trade Commissioner for Canada, Mr. F. W. Field, 1111 Beaver Hall Hill, Montreal.
Mr. Ferguson's idea is that the Ottawa agreements should work only one way. He is ready to promote Canadian exports to England, but according to the letter I have just read, it is the wish of Canada's High Commissioner to have Canadian imports from Great Britain curtailed. That is the tenor of the whole letter. The information that was sent by Mr. English to this correspondent was so useless that he had to communicate with the American office in order to get the information he required. To sum up, if we take the twenty items mentioned by the Prime Minister in his speech of October 12, 1932, we see, comparing the exports of 1933 with those of 1930 that we have an increase of $11,504,000 compared with a loss of $309,991,660.
Now, sir, I have something else that I would like to put on record, a statement of the total external trade of Canada according to the annual reports of the Department of National Revenue for the years 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933:

Total Duty Collected
1930		 $199,011,628
1931		 149,250,992
1932		 113,997,851
1933		 77,271,964
On the other hand excise taxes had to be increased in order to compensate in a measure for the loss in revenue due to the loss of trade.
Foreign Trade
1930	1933
United States. .$536,688,181
France	 16,693,560
Germany.	.	.	.	25,468,414
Japan	 30,482,483
Belgium.	.	.	.	21,804,282
Italy	 11,391,046
China	 16,548,959
Argentina.	.	.	.	19,206,877

The hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) went on a mission to the Argentine in 1931; since then we have had that falling off in trade. I see him smiling, I am sure that good result was due to his trip. In the case of France a treaty has been signed by this government but there is still a substantial decrease in trade.
We hear a lot about a favourable balance of trade. Comparing each of the last twelve months with the corresponding month in the last year in which the King government was in office, we see that there has been a substantial loss in each month. The comparisons are with the figures for the corresponding months four years earlier, starting with April, 1929 compared with April of 1933.
Month

1933:
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
September	
October	
November	
December	
Month-1934:
January	
February	
March	
Decreases
Imports Exports
$50,944,545 $30,732,487 68,618,187	31.684,220
57,925.076	32.735,508
48,812,555	25,062.497
39,159,264	24.566.976
60,681,432	29,966,230
75,144,938	59.051.829
65,022.138	50.683,742
48,997,602	37,591,499
52.270.953	26.855,310
53,330.277	28.847,414
65,494,505	31,933,696

Marketing Act-Mr. Pouliot
It means that, comparing the statement given by the Department of National Revenue for the month of March this year, with that of the month of March, 1930, we see that there is a decrease of 865,494,000 in imports and a decrease of $31,933,000 in exports.
The total loss in exports is:
From Aug. 31, 1930 to Mar. 31, 1931 From Mar. 31, 1931 to Mar. 31, 1932 From Mar. 31, 1932 to Mar. 31, 1933 From Mar. 31, 1933 to Feb. 28, 1934

$	189,000,000
412,373,365 514,917,712 430,708,409
This is the result of the experiments and schemes of which the government has been so fond. First it was the isolation policy, then the higher tariff, then the Ottawa agreements in 1932 and finally the world conference in 1933. It was all a fiasco. Will it be any better when the Prime Minister goes to sell carrots and turnips on the market square, will he be more successful in handling the trade than he has been hitherto? What I am sorry for is that no one on the other side has enough guts to tell the Prime Minister that he should remove himself gently from the picture and give an opportunity to someone,-to anyone- else. There is my hon. friend the Minister of Railways for instance!, he is in favour of the betterment -of trade conditions, but he cannot do anything, he has in his way the great obstacle, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will not listen to him. Often he has made very good speeches showing his willingness to lower trade barriers, but it is useless to speak about it, the policy can be decided by only one man, and that that one man by the results has been proved wrong. My hon. friend from Compton or anyone else will understand that on behalf of our people we feel indignant when we see the results of the government's policy. We remember what they said, and now seeing what has been done, seeing the decrease in trade with foreign countries and with British countries, who can say that the policy of the government has been successful? Not only that, if my hon. friend will listen a minute, and will look at Hansard, pages 964-5, he will see tables setting out the decrease in production and in home consumption in 1932 compared with 1930. It was such that Mr. R. M. Harrison of Windsor was perfectly justified in writing-


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Have we not increased our trade with the other parts of the British Empire?


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The hon. gentleman has not studied the trade returns, apparently.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask my hon. friend to have enough patience to glance through the reports of the Department of National Revenue for the years 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933; he will see that trade has fallen away almost entirely, even within the British Empire.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Not at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will you, Mr. Speaker, please tell the hon. gentleman to keep quiet and devote himself to those interesting reports?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You would spend
your time better in reading them so as to get correct information.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. R. M. Harrison of Windsor said:
Since, according to Mr. Bennett and other leading economists, restricted farm production is one of the sovereign remedies for our financial and economic ills, it is to be hoped the various fall fairs throughout Ontario offer substantial prizes for the following:
Smallest yield of corn per acre.
Leanest hog.
Sheep with shortest wool.
Cow giving the least milk.
Largest crop of potato bugs.
This was written by a humourist, and only a humourist could deal with the interjections of my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. Macdougall).
Now, sir, we have this most important piece of legislation brought in at this stage of the session. To me this legislation is most dangerous, because it is based on the principles enunciated and proclaimed throughout the country by the C.C.F. group. I might put to the government now the questions I put to the C.C.F. group in February of last year, but the government could not answer those questions. The results of our trade are shown in the reports of the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Trade and Commerce. We find that the press is reluctant to publish the official records concerning home consumption and home production because the decrease is so great that they might lose their advertising. Something should be done, but should it be done by the imposition of legislation which is not justified, which is most dangerous, which encroaches upon the rights of the provinces and which cannot be explained by any hon. gentleman in this house? I take the hon. member for Compton, for instance. I admit that he is intelligent, but his speech this
Marketing Act-Mr. Pouliot

afternoon might be characterized by that delightful French expression, "pot pourri." He is intelligent, as I say, but the only thing he could say about this bill was that he found it good. Is that a reason why we should vote for it? In Quebec they are strongly opposed to this bill because there they abide by the constitution. They respect and stand by the constitution of the land, and they believe that the constitution as it exists is the best protection for all. Therefore, sir, if Mr. Taschereau decided to introduce legislation in accordance with this bill it was in order that the government might not be accused of being unfair or parochial. But there is a reserve in that legislation; Mr. Taschereau wants to hear the illuminating explanations that are to be given by the government, so he has inserted a proviso to the effect that the bill will not come into force until it has been approved by the lieutenant governor in council. I think that was a wise step, because he will have the opportunity of weighing the explanations which may be given by the federal government before imposing that legislation on the province of Quebec.
I am afraid of no one, Mr. Speaker; I fear only God. If anyone in this house tries to impose on me by casting insults or making insinuations of any kind, I am perfectly indifferent. I am above that sort of thing, and I know that when the ministers are unable to answer our questions and when they sit like fence posts there will be some members to interrupt us while we speak. I do not pay any attention to fence posts; I am indifferent to them. I am here to do my duty, and I carry out my duty here in the House of Commons as a loyal citizen of Canada. I do my duty here as my only brother did his duty when he took the first German prisoners to be captured by the 22nd battalion and when he obtained his decoration at Vimy, where he was wounded, as a result of which he remained in the hospital for some time.
I am not ashamed of any member of my family, sir; there are no grafters in my family, and that is why I am not ashamed to speak as I do in this house. I am defending the rights of my own people, which have been encroached upon by this government ever since it has been in power. Now I am speaking on behalf of the poor and the humble, who are not members of the Rideau club and who are never seen by the ministers, who do not hear their complaints or learn how those people suffer. They are happy; they are satisfied and contented, but I am here at a great sacrifice to do my duty on behalf of those humble people, whom I

have always defended. If the hon. member for Compton had been a member of this house for a longer period he would have known that even against the hon. member for Inverness I have defended the rights of the small wage earners of Cape Breton. Sir, I am a very humble citizen, but I am proud of my record and nothing can deter me because I have always done my duty, so I do not have to listen to things of that kind.


Mr. MAODOUGALL:: I rise to a question of privilege.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is no question of
privilege in what I have said.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The hon. gentleman said that at one time he had to defend the rights of the miners of Nova Scotia against me. Without hesitation I say that is an absolute falsehood. He never had to do that; no one ever had to do that, because there never was a man in the House of Commons who stood up for the miners of Nova Scotia more than I have done. I know more about them than is known by ten people like the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: My answer to the hon.
member is that the state in which he appears to be is the only excuse for what he has said.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to direct the hon. gentleman to withdraw that remark unequivocally.


Grote Stirling: The hon. member has made a statement in regard to the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) which he is asked to withdraw.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, sir, if I am to withdraw the hon. member must withdraw the word "falsehood" which is not parliamentary.


John Lorne MacDougall: You withdraw; if you do not I will go over there, and you will do it quickly.


Jean-François Pouliot: If we are to withdraw together, all right; if we are both to withdraw I will do so graciously.


Grote Stirling: The hon. member must withdraw.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you say so, sir, I accept your ruling but on the other hand I may tell you that while we were discussing-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Unequivocally.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking to a question of privilege now, because I am through with my speech. Years ago, Mr. Speaker,

Marketing Act-Mr. Stewart (Lethbridge)
when we were discussing the low wages paid the small wage earners in Nova Scotia I gave a message to the hon. member for Inverness to deliver to the then Premier of Nova Scotia, but he never said a word about it.


John Lorne MacDougall: Did I oppose that? Was I not the first man to see that the eight hour day was instituted on public works throughout Canada?


Jean-François Pouliot: But I gave him a message to the then Premier of Nova Scotia, and the hon. member never delivered it.


Grote Stirling: The hon. member's time has elapsed.


Mr. J. S. STEWART (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I trust the hon. member who has just taken his seat will not think it discourteous on my part if I do not attempt to follow him in the arguments he has brought forward in connection with the bill, because in the time at my disposal I intend to approach the matter from an angle entirely different from that pursued by the hon. member.
Having the honour to represent in this house a constituency in which the majority of the people are engaged in agricultural pursuits, my action in supporting the second reading of this measure, namely one to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, will, I am confident, meet with the approval of a majority of these people. The people in my constituency, irrespective of political leanings-whether they be Conservative, Liberal or supporters of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation-[DOT] desire that this legislation may become law, and that such condition may be brought about as quickly as possible. They realize that from the application of the provisions contained in this measure great good may accrue to the western farmers. I desire therefore to approach my discussion of the matter from the point of view of the farmer of southern Alberta. Even at the risk of repeating some of the arguments already made I desire to place on record the attitude of the men living in that section of Canada which I have the honour to represent. I should like to devote the latter half of the time allotted to me to an exploration of the possibilities of our receiving some assistance from the bill, and particularly the extent to which two important branches of agriculture carried on in southern Alberta may be affected.
First may I inquire as to why it is necessary for us to have this legislation, and why is it termed legislation which is urgently needed?
My first answer would be that the farmers of Canada, together with farmers throughout the whole world, have suffered severely from the drop in commodity prices. I have before me a comparison showing the figure for today as compared with that of the year 1926, and it indicates that farm products in Canada have declined by 47-7 per cent. There is much less decline to-day than there was one year or even two years ago. I find that wheat has fallen to-day to the: extent of 55-7 per cent, giving an index figure of 44'3. When we are dealing with wheat we are dealing with the most important product of western Canada. When we turn to manufactured goods we have to-day the figure of 76 per cent as compared with 100 in 1926. The purchasing power of the dollar has increased 36-7 per cent.
Although the farmers in Canada and the world over have received for their products prices which were unremunerative, yet having to meet the demands of their creditors they have increased rather than reduced their production. They have tried to make up in volume what they lost in value. As a result the world market has been flooded; it has been overloaded with goods and commodity prices have fallen to a very low level. Our domestic market suffered similarly, and many examples could be given to show the wastage which resulted from lack of a definite marketing plan or system of marketing.
My second reason for believing that the present legislation is necessary is that the countries of the world have placed restrictions against the exchange of goods between nations. What are the policies which, having been placed in operation, have restricted international trade? Before the war the most important method by which we restricted imports was through the instrumentality of tariff duties. Since the war, however, various other methods have been adopted and used extensively. The type of restrictions applicable to trade in agricultural products can be divided into two major classes, the first of which consists of import restrictions. Under that heading I make four subdivisions, namely milling regulations, import quotas, licensing of importers and foreign exchange. The second major class is that of export aids and restrictions, and again I make four subdivisions, namely, commercial treaties, export bounties, improvement by inspection in the quality or standard of the article, and restriction of exports.
The effect of these restrictions has been felt in every part of the world, and in that statement Canada must be included. The bureau
2708	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Stewart (Lethbridge)
of statistics of the League of Nations records a loss of twenty-five per cent in volume of world trade, certainly old trade lanes have disappeared and very few new ones have taken their place. These restrictions have had such an effect upon world trade that various countries of the world have found it necessary to pass legislation to effect control of production, marketing and prices. I have before me a file giving the number and names of measures passed by various countries, and enumerating the legislative acts passed to effect control of production, marketing and prices. These figures indicate that thirty-six of the leading countries of the world have passed about one hundred and fifty pieces of legislation similar to that now before this house. I shall not weary the house by giving the names of the countries, but should like to place upon the record what has been done in two of the leading nations of the World. First, in connection with France, we have milling regulations in November, 1929, import quotas in September, 1931, import licences in November, 1931, flax and hemp subsidies in July, 1931, and March, 1932, government purchases of tobacco in December, 1931, seasonal tariffs in March, 1932, and a stabilization decree in October, 1932. It is quite evident from that list that France is not anxious that any imports of any kind shall enter that country.
In connection with Great Britain we have the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931, the Wheat Act of 1932, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1933, and the Agricultural Marketing Act of Northern Ireland of 1933.
What means are provided within this measure to assist in overcoming the difficulties about which I have spoken? First, what does the measure offer towards a solution of the financial troubles with which our farmers are faced? May I say that none has a more intimate knowledge of those troubles than has the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the members of his cabinet. I think the executive were convinced long ago that the suggestions put forward by speakers at the Ottawa conferences that the only way in which to restore prosperity to the world was to increase wholesale commodity prices were sound statements. After a careful survey the government were convinced that the best way to assist the farmer was to give him an opportunity to market his goods in an orderly manner. During the last few days we have been told on several occasions that the farmer sells most of his products in the domestic market. It is therefore necessary that some regulation or

provision should be incorporated into this bill in order to assist the farmer in the marketing of his goods in Canada. I find that such a system is provided by this bill. First, there is the provision whereby we may prevent the manipulation of prices so that in the future there will not be a drop of two cents in the price of hogs within a week, as has happened recently, and that without any apparent reason. Second, the government will have the power to regulate the spread in prices, as a result of which I feel the farmer will receive a larger portion of the consumer's dollar. Third, we will have the power to take surpluses off the market; if there happens to be an excess of a product at any one time, the government will be able to appoint an ageijt to take such surplus off the market, store it and return it to the market when an opportunity is found. .
With regard to the passing of these 150 acts by thirty-six countries, I should like to ask the house if under these circumstances we should remain idle and if, through a fear of violating the Magna Charta of 1215, we should allow these conditions from without to destroy us without making any effort for our preservation. I feel that the government have the support of the majority of the people of Canada and one of the reasons why they have this support is the fact that this is a government of action. The government is alive to world conditions which affect the welfare of our people and is also alive to our domestic difficulties. The government has not failed us in this difficult situation but has produced a bill which will help us to solve the marketing problems of this time.
The bill has two main principles as its foundation. First, there is the orderly marketing of our products, and, second, it enables us to protect ourselves against destructive action by other countries. I think the government should be congratulated for bringing forward this measure. Praise is particularly due to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) who has taken a very prominent part in the construction of the bill. He is an able Minister of Agriculture and has placed in operation many policies which have greatly assisted those engaged in the farming industry. I venture to predict that when his record is written his name in the history of Canada will be more intimately and closely associated with this bill than with any other of his agricultural activities. It is one of the greatest forward steps that has been taken in Canada for the past twenty years.
Many messages have been received by various hon. members from their constituents containing praise for the provisions of this

Marketing Act

Mr. Stewart (Lethbridge)
bill. We have received messages from cooperative organizations, from united farmer organizations, from boards of trade and other public bodies. I should like to place on Hansard some observations which I have gleaned from reading the London Times of April 3. It states:
The natural products marketing bill which the Canadian government has introduced into the federal parliament seems likely to become the principal issue in dominion politics.
So far as the Conservative party is concerned, we should be very glad to have that happen. The article continues:
It is a comprehensive measure applying to all primary products, except those of the mines, the principles which recent marketing legislation in Great Britain has applied to certain selected branches of agriculture.
We are applying the principles of the British act to the products of Canadian agriculture. The article continues:
It may be assumed that the American experiments in economic planning have not been without influence in Canada; but the bill is avowedly based on the British model. If it becomes law and is put into effective operation, Canadian farmers will be organized on the same lines as the British, and the discussion of common problems and the arrangement of satisfactory conditions for mutual aid will be proportionately easier.
That article contains two very important statements. First, it states that our bill is based on the British model. I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite say that they would vote for this measure if it were based on the British model. Here is a statement by the greatest paper published in the English language to the effect that it is based upon the British model. Second, it says that when this measure becomes law the farmers of Canada will 'be organized on the same basis and in the same manner as are the farmers under the British act and that they will be able to get together to discuss common problems and make arrangements for satisfactory conditions for mutual aid to one another. Is not this something in which this government should take great pride? The article closes with the following statement:
The endeavour will no doubt be accompanied with mistakes and maladjustments, with temporary losses and inconveniences, but, given perseverence and discipline, there can in the end be no surer way to stable prosperity.
I do not think it would be possible to find a more eloquent tribute to the provisions of this bill than that statement by the editor of the greatest British paper.
Under this bill a marketing board will supervise our exports and will endeavour to see that our products are standard in quality
and that there is a continuity and uniformity of supply. This will assist greatly in making a success of the Ottawa agreements.. Those agreements gave us what are now the only stable markets we possess. No matter what may be the results hoped for from this legislation, it is important that we should have it now when- we have only restricted markets. It is important that we should have it even though we should have unrestricted markets, but the legislation becomes more important when- we have but the one market. The more restricted our markets are, the more imperative it becomes that we retain them by orderly marketing methods and leave nothing to chance or fortune.
It has been stated by our political opponents that Canada suffers from the restricted market which has been brought about by the fiscal policies of this government, but the history and the dates upon which these restrictions were brought into force proves that these charges are without foundation. Let us consider the history of the trade relations between Canada and the United States. From 1913 to 1921 the Underwood tariff was in force in chat great country and we find that our domestic exports increased from S139,000,000 in 1913 to $542,000,000 in 1921. In 1921 we sent $192,000,000 worth of farm products to the United States, and of all our domestic exports to the United States 88-4 per cent entered that country free, so that we were operating under what would be practically a free trade policy.
The emergency tariff was applied in 1921 and then we had the Fordney-MoCumber tariff from 1922 to 1930. In other words, these policies were in operation when the Liberal government was in power in Canada, and what effect did they have on our exports? Instead of sending $190,000,000 a year of our farm products to the United States, as we had been doing from 1913 to 1921, our exports of farm products to that country dropped to $92,000,000 a year and less. So that while the Mackenzie King government held the reins of power we lost a valuable market for our agricultural products amounting to $100,000,000 a year.
Was it the fiscal policy of hon. gentlemen opposite that brought about this loss? If it is argued that we have lost markets, through our fiscal policy, surely the same argument holds good with respect to their loss of markets. Now the loss of that valuable agricultural market, combined with the restricted
2710	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Stewart (Lethbridge)
wheat market which prevailed when we came in, had serious effects. The restricted wheat market bore fruit in 1930 by seed which was sown in 1925, when the restrictions were put into operation by European countries, and that is the situation which this government found with regard to our foreign markets when the Bennett administration came into power in August, 1930. So far as our foreign markets are concerned, one might say they at that time absolutely spelled ruin for us. But we had a prime minister who was a man of action and he took action in September, 1930. It was an honest effort to save our country, and it certainly has preserved the identity of Canada.
But what action did the former government take to prevent the loss of our agricultural products market in the United States? Did they retaliate or negotiate? Well, if they negotiated they certainly did not make much of a success of it judging by their record as given to this house in the speech delivered by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Lueh-kovich) several evenings ago. They did not negotiate because they lacked the weapon with which to do so; and, what was still worse, they publicly declared that they would not take that weapon into their own hands to compel negotiation. Instead, they said to the United States, "You may do what you like about restricting our exports of agricultural products into your markets, we will not retaliate." Above all, we were counselled not to do anything provocative towards the United States.
I find now that I must turn to local matters in so far as this bill may affect agriculture in the riding which I have the honour to represent. Section 12 has this marginal note, that the governor in council shall have:
Power to restrict importation of natural products which compete with regulated products.
Under the provisions of section 12 I believe that an important branch of agriculture, carried on in the irrigated areas, may receive much needed assistance. I refer to the desire of farmers living in these irrigation districts to have an increase in the acreage sown to sugar beets. Hon. members are well aware that we have 135,000,000 invested in irrigation projects by which we are able to supply irrigation for over 1,000,000 acres in southern Alberta. For many years we have demonstrated that we can grow sugar beets successfully. The cash returns from the sugar beet greatly exceed the returns which the farmer receives for his hay and grain crops. It is

necessary to reduce our wheat acreage, and our farmers are very anxious to replace wheat acreage with sugar beets, and instead of 14,000 acres of sugar beets to have 28,000 or 30,000. We have a market at our door. We supply but twenty-eight per cent of the sugar consumption of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the other sixty-two per cent coming from a refinery not located in either of those provinces but hundreds of miles away in the city of Vancouver, and our desire is to replace raw cane sugar, which is imported into this country from Fiji, with sugar from beets grown by Canadian farmers on Canadian soil.
This sugar beet product is equal to the cane product and sells at ten cents per' hundred pounds less than is commanded by cane sugar. I would submit the following facts to the house for consideration, so that hon. members may have a knowledge of the value of a factory to a community. In 1932, 2| per cent of the lands in the Lethbridge northern irrigation district contributed 24J per cent of the total value of farm products in that area of 100,000 acres, and 2\ per cent of the lands in the Lethbridge northern irrigation district in 1932 contributed 40 per cent of the cash value of the crops grown in that area. In the second place, in 1933, $1,634,000 was spent by the refinery at Raymond for beets, labour, freight and supplies, and it is claimed that the refinery greatly assists in maintaining a population of 10,000 souls. Thirdly, it has been my privilege to examine the contracts made by a privately owned corporation in the sale of lands to farmers. I have examined thirty-eight of these contracts, and after choosing four of the agreements at random I am able to give this information to the house. The four taken are for purchases of land in which the contract price of each amounts to between $4,000 and $4,500. I will take two farmers who have a contract for growing sugar beets and two who have not such contracts but are near neighbours. The first man with a sugar beet contract has, for a period of five years, averaged a payment of over $306 a year on the principal he owes the corporation. The second man with a contract, in the same period of years, has averaged a payment of over $360 a year. Let us turn to the other side of the picture. The first man who has no sugar beet contract has averaged a payment of $50.05 per annum and the second man has averaged a payment of $34.06 over a shorter term of years.
Now you can readily see which class of farmer will be able to discharge the contract he has entered into for the purchase of land from that irrigation company. You can

Marketing Act-Mr. Stewart (Lethbridge)
readily see which class of farmer it is who will soon be able to call his home and his farm his own. Is it any wonder that the farmer who has no beet contract, but who may be just as good a farmer as the man who has a beet contract, is most anxious that we should have an increase in our sugar beet acreage? I find in the Ottawa Citizen of April 27, a dispatch from London as follows:
London, April 26.-Sugar beet yield of nine tons to the acre has been obtained by British beet growers this year. Earl de la Warre, parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture, speaking at a meeting of the Sugar Beet Society in London to-night described this result as "amazing."
Britain could claim a yield equal in efficiency to any country except perhaps Holland, he added'.
The meeting also was told British sugar-producers were delivering sugar at a lower price than in any other country in the world, and one-quarter of the sugar consumed here was being produced in the United Kingdom.
That is a very fine record, but we have surpassed that by a large margin, for in 1932 on a 14.000 acreage sown to sugar beets we had an average yield of 10-7 tons peir acre. Furthermore, we had a sugar content of 18-41 per cent, the highest on the North American continent. Even last year, which was not a good one for sugar beet production, we had an average per ton yield of 9-3 per acre.
A delegation of men from all parts of Canada, from Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan and other provinces who are interested in the extension of the sugar beet industry, met a committee of the cabinet on February 23, 1934, and stressed the great value of and the urgent need for more factories. They also dwelt upon the final paragraph of the report submitted by the select standing committee on agriculture which investigated the sugar beet industry, and reported to the house in 1932. I quote that paragraph:
Your committee further recommends, that if no successful attempt be made in the immediate future by the refineries to increase the facilities for the manufacturing of beet sugar, the government should take into consideration steps to accomplish that end.
That report was adopted unanimously by this house over two years ago, and since that time there has been no effort made by the refineries to increase or improve the facilities for the manufacture of beet sugar. I would therefore respectfully submit to the government that it is now high time it stepped in and took action.
Section 12 of the bill now before the house gives the governor in council power to impose quotas on imports of regulated products. So
far as regulated products are concerned, I may say that the sugar beet is a regulated product. Giving evidence before the committee in 1932, one of the farmers from Ontario was asked if he would like to grow more sugar beets. "Oh my, yes" he said, "just give us the opportunity." We are not allowed to grow any more sugar beets because the sugar refineries cannot take care of the production, and we are asking for an extension of their facilities in order that they may be able to take care of greater production.
I would say that no import lends itself more readily to the quota restrictions than raw cane sugar, for two reasons. First of all, because that import can be replaced by a Canadian product furnished by Canadian farmers, and in the long run it will not cost the consumer one cent more for the refined product which is equally as good as that which is derived from t)he raw cane. Secondly, there are but five industrial corporations interested in refining cane sugar. Might I add that the management of these corporations appear to have divided Canada into zones for distribution purposes and in these zones there is only one class or grade of sugar sold; there is no competition between companies. When application is made on behalf of these farmers, or when they make application themselves to the government, from t'he various parts of Canada that raw cane sugar be placed on a quota basis, I trust that their application will be received with the sympathy it rightly deserves and that the government will see to it that Humanity, spelled with a capital H; and I say that in all seriousness-receives the fair and kindly consideration it rightfully deserves. If a quota is applied, and we would urge that it should be applied, then I am certain that the sugar beet industry will receive the aid it now requires and that within two years we shall be supplying twenty-five per cent of the requirements of the Canadian people instead of the fourteen per cent which we now provide, and that instead of three sugar beet refineries in Canada we shall have five. I am as confident as I am sure that I am standing here, that in the not distant future fifty per cent of our sugar consumption in Canada will be supplied from the products of Canadian farms grown by Canadian farmers, and when that day comes it will be a day of rich blessing for the farmers of our land and the labourers of our country.
May I close by recalling to the attention of the house and the country the statement made by the London Times, a portion of which I have already read. I should like to conclude
Small Loan Company

with this warning, but also with this assurance as to the future of this act: "this endeavour will no doubt be accompanied by mistakes and maladjustments, with temporary losses and inconveniences, but, given perseverance and discipline, there can in the end be no surer way to stable prosperity."
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight' o'clock.



PRIVATE BILES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee on Bill No. 15, to incorporate the Small Loan Company of Canada.
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I understood the Prime Minister to say to the house the other night that these bills would stand until the government gave consideration to the matter of bringing in a general act.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Yes, I think that he did say that.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
have in my hand the statement to which the hon. member for Macleod has made reference. The Prime Minister, speaking to a somewhat similar bill and suggesting that it go to the banking and commerce committee, said, as reported at page 2617 of Hansard:
While it is being considered there the government will decide whether or not it is advisable to enact legislation to provide that the companies which have already secured charters, as mentioned by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), shall be subject to a general law to the effect that the rates which they may receive, including all charges, shall not exceed a fixed percentage somewhat less than the sum mentioned by the hon. member for Battle River.
I took it that the Prime Minister intended that these bills should stand until the government had decided what rate should be allowed to be charged for money loaned by these companies.


Mr. GEARY:: I do not think the Prime
Minister quite said that the bills should all stand, but that, having passed, they might be subject to some general legislation. However, I do not wish to press it or insist on going any further. I withdraw my motion, the bill to stand on the order paper.
Bill stands.



PERSONAL FINANCE CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House in committee on Bill No. 43, entitled an act to incorporate Personal Finance Corporation.-Mr. Hackett.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: This bill will stand for
the same reason.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Weir (Melfort) for the second reading of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith.
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: In rising to speak to this bill let me say at the outset that I differ from many members on this side of the house. But with many hon. members I realize and agree that the days of haphazard marketing of farm products have almost passed. We have come to the age of orderly marketing, which I believe to be necessary to-day in regard to most if not all our farm products. When I think of trying to maintain export markets for our farm products I realize the necessity of some such plan of orderly marketing. We have legislation to take care of quality and grades of many lines of agricultural produce, but I believe we shall have to go a step further and have uniformity of quality from one end of Canada to the other. Not only that, but having once obtained a market abroad that market will have to be retained by continuity of supply. I for one realize that the farmer has seen every other industry organized but his own. The farmer has for many years been forced to buy in the dearest market and to sell his goods in the cheapest market because of not having yet been able to combine or organize for the welfare of himself and his fellow farmers. In these days control is necessary. Farmers should not always leave it to others to market their goods, but every effort on the part of farmers to combine for the betterment of themselves and their class has been bitterly opposed by combines and interests concerned.
The present bill seems to me more of a regulating bill than a marketing bill. I am not altogether surprised at that, because we have recently learned that in Australia and New Zealand similar bills are being put into effect, due to the condition of affairs that has arisen in the old country in connection with agri-

Marketing Act-Mr. Reid
culture. As the premier of Australia is reported to have stated, it is far better to have regulation of agricultural exports than to be told by Great Britain that she will have to discontinue or curtail the import of many agricultural products from the antipodes. So it may well be that the regulating feature in this bill has been embodied with that end in view.
If local boards are to be set up, however, I hope they will not be given the power to control production, because such power in relation to farm products might have disastrous results. I have in mind the condition in my own district and up through the Fraser valley, where to-day more milk is produced than can be sold on the fluid milk market in the larger cities. At one time we had a similar condition in regard to eggs. I should view with alarm any possibility of a local board putting a ring around those areas and telling others: "You cannot come in because to-day we are producing more than we can consume." I think a power like that would be far too drastic. I am sure hon. members from the province of British Columbia will agree on this, that British Columbia fruit and milk men believe that the producers to-day should regulate their own production. I would ask the house to note that in the province of British Columbia neither the fruit men nor the milk producers have so far asked any government to bear any of the expense of helping them to market their products.


Mr. SENN:: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. When he speaks of control does he mean control of production or limitation of production?


Thomas Reid: The two terms are practically the -same; if you limit production you are controlling production, but when I made that statement I had in mind the possibility of a local board coming to the conclusion that there were enough growers in a particular area and that no more should be allowed into it, which might limit the further progress of that section of the country and, of course, limit the production of that commodity.
We in the province of British Columbia, in the Fraser valley at least, are not asking for any finacial help, nor have we asked for it from any government. What we ask is that we be given the right to pool all the proceeds in any organization we may set up, and to make levies. In order to make the position clear and to acquaint the house with the conditions existing in that part of the country I think I should take a few moments to give a resume of the largest organization which exists
in the Fraser valley, namely the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association. Before going on with that, however, just in passing I should like to refer to a statement that has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) both in and out of this house, to the effect thatt he was very glad to see this government adopting planned economy, shall I say, which has been advocated by members in the far corner. Let me tell the hon. gentleman and the members of this house that in British Columbia the farmers were some years ahead of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Long before that organization was thought of we had this Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association, and we had the dairy products act put through in 1929, after being proposed in 1928. So we did not have to depend on that group for the suggestion of planned economy; our farmers were progressive enough, shall I say, to get that act put through.
This organization of which I speak was started in 1913, but there was some difficulty in regard to finances and operations were not commenced until 1917. There are three or four plants. One is in Vancouver, which is the headquarters with regard to wholesale milk and creamery products; cottage cheese is made there; there is a storage warehouse and general offices are maintained. Then in the city of Chilliwack, where the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) resides, they have a utility plant which takes care of butter, cheese, powdered milk, casein and semi-solid butter milk. Then at Abbotsford they have an evaporating milk plant with a capacity of 1,300 cases daily. In 1917 the membership was 848, but by 1932 it had increased to 3,567. The assets, when the company started, amounted to $166,000 in round figures, while to-day they are over $1,000,000. The capital invested at that time totalled $77,000; the present capital is well over $1,000,000. The butter fat handled in 1917 amounted to 1,709,528 pounds, while in 1932 the butter fat handled amounted to 5,724,269 pounds.
Might I point out, Mr. Speaker, that all ihe capital was subscribed by the individual farmers in $50 shares; deferred payments were permitted, at the rate of from one to four cents per pound of butter fat, and if necessary payments were made in stock instead of in cash. Six per cent interest was paid on all paid up capital, but this organization has never received any financial assistance from any government. During the peak of production each year they finance by
Marketing Act-Mr. Reid

means of loans from the bank, the loans being retired as the stocks are reduced. In these years the butter fat handled totals well over 58,000,000 pounds, and the total net value to the farmers concerned has amounted to more than $30,000,000. The average price per pound of butter fat, during the whole period, was 524 cents. I ask hon. members to note particularly what I am about to say, because I think it is very striking indeed; it shows what cooperation can accomplish when farmers get together to market their own product. During the period from 1917 to 1929 the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association was able to reduce the spread allowed for fluid milk distribution from 29 cents to 20 cents per gallon; they were able also to raise the value of the fluid milk to the producer by approximately 23 cents per pound of butter fat, without raising the price to the consumer.
I ask the house to take note of that. Not only was the price of butter fat raised; the price of milk to the consumer was not increased during that period. The table I have before me shows the effect of increased prices with regard to increased production, indicating how the law of supply works out if it is not permitted to run wild. The pool value in 1917 was 45 cents per pound of butter fat; the pool value in 1928-1 am taking the years before the act was declared to be ultra vires- was 60 cents per pound, an increase of 33 per cent. The butter fat production increased from 2.000,000 pounds, in round figures, to roughly 6,000,000 pounds, while the price for which butter was sold was 40 cents per pound in 1928, as it was in 1917. The price of fluid milk to the consumer was the same in both years also; it was 11 cents per quart. Not only was the price the same during those years; the quality of the milk was greatly improved, due to the introduction of more modern methods and greater cooperation among the farmers.
Some difficulty was encountered, however, because only fifty per cent of the milk produced in the valley is consumed as fluid milk, the other fifty per cent being manufactured into lower priced products such as ice cream, butter and so forth. With the pooling of the prices when the organization was standing together the average was raised so that it did not matter whether a farmer shipped his milk to the fluid market or to the factory; prices were pooled and there was an equal distribution among all the farmers. Some dissension started, however, and one or two farmers who did not belong to the association were offered higher prices in outside distMr. Reid.]
tributing centres. A rush was made, which placed too much fluid milk on the market at one time, and as a result the price fell very rapidly. Then the farmers went to the provincial government asking that legislation be enacted which would compel the farmers in any area to come into what was known as the pool. Just here let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we have heard a great deal about the marketing act in Great Britain. It might interest the house to know that the act passed in British Columbia in 1929, which later was declared ultra vires, was the act which guided the farmers in Great Britain. My information is that that act was copied in Great Britain. It would seem therefore that we in British Columbia can take a little credit in this instance for being leaders in an organized effort to control and help the dairy and farming industries.
That legislation was put into effect, and it contained provisions which I believe might well be included in the present measure. I hope that the bill before us, 'before becoming law, may include the provisions which were embodied in the legislation of the province of British Columbia-and I have referred to that legislation (because I think it is as good as the British legislation. Under our scheme sixty-six per cent of the people in an area or attending the public meetings could petition the government so as to compel the other people to subscribe to the scheme. That took place in British Columbia, and there was no great difficulty in obtaining the support of the sixty-six per cent who wished to organize. However there were those who viewed with alarm the fact that farmers were being forced to cooperate. Those people did not want to cooperate, but wished to sell their products by themselves at any and at every time. The bill was attacked and ultimately declared ultra vires of the province because the farmers who were shipping outside the province could not be controlled by the provincial legislation. After the case had been considered at law-and it went to the old country for final consideration-the provincial act was declared ultra vires, because the provincial government could not levy on the farmer anything in the nature of indirect taxation. The act directed the committee to levy upon shippers who sold more than their quota an amount sufficient to compensate those who were obliged to take less than their quota in the fluid milk market. This was called the adjustment levy.
I would ask you to note, Mr. Speaker, that the operation of this plan had a wonderful effect on the maintenance of prices,

Marketing Act-Mr. Reid
because if the farmer sold his milk for less than 73 cents per pound butter fat he would have less than his neighbour who did not sell, for the simple reason that the commission assumed that he got at least 73 cents. The commission were also directed to deduct by levy on every pound of fat produced a sum sufficient to take care of administration costs. Both these levies were found by the privy council to be indirect taxes and declared beyond the competency of the legislature to enact. However, during the period between January 1, 1930, and April 30, 1931, when our markets were operating under that legislation, the parties concerned enjoyed the best market for their products they had ever had or have had since. When the influence of the act ceased to function everyone piled on to the higher priced market-the fluid milk market -which was bringing a rate of 73 cents a pound butter fat, with the result that the price was hammered down within six weeks to 33 cents per pound butter fat, and that low price was maintained for about a year. Then, in April, 1933, the price came up slightly, to 45 cents, and ever since has gradually crumbled away until to-day it is less than 40 cents per pound butter fat. The result has been that with the exception of a very small percentage all the people want to be placed in such a position that they shall be obliged to play the game and not be permitted to abuse the market. I understand that the price now prevailing in the valley is from 12 cents to 14 cents per gallon, away below cost of production.
The position of farmers is different from that of industrialists. When the industrialist has a plant which is not paying he immediately closes the doors, with the result that his deficits and operating expenses cease. But the farmer has his home and his stock; his land cannot be neglected, and he has to continue. In that respect the farmers are different from any other class and are forced to carry on even at a loss. During the past few years most of them have been going deeper and deeper into debt. As to just how long they can carry on at from 12 cents to 14 cents per gallon I should not care to hazard a guess.
After this short resume of conditions we have experienced in the Fraser valley I shall direct my remarks to the bill now under consideration. May I say that I believe in some respects it goes too far, and in others not far enough. Some hon. members seem to think that the bill contains provisions enforcing pooling. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated the bill could deal only in generalities. I am of the opinion that pooling 74726-172
is not at present embodied in the bill. We know that this measure includes products of the forest, sea, lake and mine. Under it assistance might be given to many industries which are in no need of artificial aid. The minister may also set up and dissolve a board. I do not think he should have that right. In Tny view the industry should ask for the board. As stipulated in the Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Act of 1929 such boards should be established only on vote of the people. That procedure would be entirely democratic, and if it were adopted one could not suggest a dictatorship if a majority of people in a certain area voted to come within the provisions of this measure. Moreover, when we place the control of exports and imports of natural products in the hands of a board we are going a great distance. I am somewhat afraid of the words which appear in subsection (1) of section 5:
. . . the production and marketing or the production or marketing . . .
I believe marketers alone should not be allowed to set up boards and have control. I do not at this time intend to set up straw men or to cite hypothetical cases, but if marketers alone are allowed to set up local boards I would view with alarm what might happen to the salmon fishing industry of British Columbia, in which instance the product is handled by cannerymen. If a board were set up to take care of the manufactured product it could and might result in measures to the detriment of the fishermen. The same might apply to fruit canning interests. Being apart from the producers it might well develop that the local industry would eventually control the producers.
The clauses in the bill are obscure, and I should like the Minister of Agriculture to take note of the demands made by people in the province of British Columbia who are asking that the provisions as to pooling be made very very clear and definite. Legal authorities in British Columbia have discussed the bill and have made it clear that in their opinion this measure does not at the present time contain pooling clauses. They believe that the federal government should embody in the bill such a provision because that is what the people in the lower Fraser valley are requesting, and also the power to make levies.
I have taken this opportunity to place myself on record, because in my view the bill is very important. I know some hon. members hold the view that marketing is not the

Marketing Act-Mr. Laurin

principle behind the bill. I have endeavoured' to indicate my belief that there is more regulating than marketing in the bill, but I am prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt and vote for its second reading in the hope that when it gets to committee the matters I have discussed will be- taken into consideration and changes made adequately to take care of the representations and demands of the farmers of the Fraser Valley. If these things are not made abundantly clear I shall be forced to vote against the third reading of the bill, but, as I have stated, I am prepared to permit it to go to committee.
Mr. GEORGES P. LAURIN (Jacques Cartier): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill on marketing I am mindful of the fact that I am the representative of the constituency of Jacques Cartier which has a population of over 140,000 people. The population of one of the provinces, Prince Edward Island, is only 88,000 people, so I think it must be admitted that the constituency of Jacques Cartier has some right to consideration in this House of Commons. That constituency is made up of all the elements which go to make up our fair dominion. We have the humble labourer, the descendant of many Canadian generations. We have the farmer who has inherited his farm from 'his ancestral fathers. We have the immigrant who came from Great Britain or middle or southern Europe who has established himself end has accepted Canada as his only home. We have manufacturers, both large and small, and we have traders, bankers, capitalists and a railway leader. But in discussing this bill I must not forget that the majority of my constituents are consumers like those in the constituency of the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). My constituency is on the island of Montreal and my constituents are made up of French and English speaking Canadians. They are both consumers and producers, and contrary to the expressed opinion of the hon. member for North Timiskaming, I am in favour of the bill. I believe that it represents a step toward the fulfilment of the wishes of both the consumer and the producer.
I believe in due course of time the operations of this legislation will result in a fairer spread between the consumer and the producer. The profits derived from the marketing of our rich natural resources will be more equitable and there will be ensured to the manufacturer, to the trader and to the consumer that sound equilibrium which can come only from regulated markets. Agriculture will obtain a fair return for its investment and

labour while the consumer will be able to purchase at a price commensurate with the wages he receives. The farmer producer and the labourer consumer will both receive fair treatment and there will be a continuous and steady market for the products of the manufacturer. The agricultural producer will be assured of a home market for his products while the wage earner will be able to give to the agricultural producer a fair return for his product. The returns received by both the producer and the consumer will be sufficient to ensure the manufacturer a steady market for his product. The profits which the manufacturer receives may be somewhat lower but his market will be steady. An equilibrium will be preserved among our principal industries, agriculture, manufacturing and labour. These industries will still be capable of acting for themselves for their own common good, but the fact remains that they must of necessity depend upon one another.
Because of our affinity with England and our proximity to the United States we had hopes that one day-this applies particularly to the province of Quebec-we might emulate the great industrial activities of England and the New England States. At one time England admittedly held the premier place in the manufacturing world. It developed its manufacturing, its commercial and trading activities to an immense degree but it crushed every effort brought forward to protect and secure a market for its agricultural industry. This was done in order that the salaries of the wage earners should be kept at a point where the profits of the manufacturer and the trader would be enhanced. But in time its outside manufacturing outjets became gradually decreased and it then realized the necessity of organizing its agricultural and labour consuming population. This necessity formed the basic reason for the establishing of the British marketing board. Here in Canada we have also allowed our agriculture to decline. This has happened in the west but more particularly in the province of Quebec.
If this were simply my own opinion, I would willingly allow hon. members opposite from Quebec to challenge my declaration, but this opinion has been advanced by one who played a very important part in the direction of our provincial affairs between 1920 and 1930. The Minister of Roads, one of the most important portfolios in the province of Quebec, had obtained for his department a vote of $17,500,000 for the construction of roads in that province. He had however the courage to resign that portfolio and to accept instead that of agriculture. A staunch Liberal, he did

Marketing Act*-Mr. Laurin
not shirk from denying the compliments which Mr. Taschereau had been continuously showering upon our farmers, on the eve of every election, and he disregarded the flowery speeches of his colleagues. In his first speech as Minister of Agriculture in 1926, at Sherbrooke, and I believe the hon. member for Sherbrooke will admit it, the Hon. L. Perron- for it is he of whom I speak-declared:
Notre agriculture est dans le marasme.
That is to say, our agriculture is in a state of atrophy. I would add, it appears to be in a bog, sinking at the slightest effort, and drastic means must be taken to save it. Unhappily Mr. Perron died. His successor is a most capable man, but his efforts, encouraged one day by Mr. Taschereau, are thwarted the day following. We saw Mr. Taschereau pass a bill to cooperate with the present government in its efforts to alleviate the state of agriculture. But on Tuesday, April 24, 1934, he comes forward with the assertion that this marketing board will infringe upon provincial rights as regards agriculture, and he declares his strict opposition to this bill. Mr. Taschereau is not only a past master in politics; he is also a noted lawyer. He should know better therefore than to try to incite the people of our province to mistakes-he has done it so often to their detriment. Had he read Hansard he would have received a legal lesson from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who, speaking on this bill, drew the attention of the house to section 95 of the British North America Act, which reads:
In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province, and to immigration into the province; and it is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to agriculture in any or all of the provinces, and to immigration into any or all of the provinces;
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre directed attention particularly to the following provision in this section:
-and any law of the legislature of a province relative to agriculture or to immigration shall have effect in and for the province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any act of the parliament of Canada.
The hon. gentleman added:
So it would' seem to a layman at least that we need not worry too much with regard to the difficulty of jurisdiction if this dominion parliament acts in the matter.
The hon. gentleman may rest assured that that learned lawyer, Mr. Taschereau, will not answer him; Mr. Taschereau will try to 74726-172J
wiggle out of the question but will refuse to face the facts and will play politics as before.
I have said that the Liberal party, with its thirty-seven years of reign in our province, has made a muddle of our farming industry. The same applies to our fisheries, as the hon. members for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and Oharlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) know1 only too well. Having fought to obtain the return of the fisheries to the province, the provincial authorities, I am now informed, would like to return them to the federal government if they could do so without admitting that they had muddled the whole industry. If they could only return them without disclosing their errors and mismanagement of the industry they would do so immediately.
I am sorry to say however that by his actions Mr. Taschereau is not paving the way to conciliation and cooperation.
I could go further and show his blunder in relation to our major national resources and colonization, but I have said enough. Our farmers, and those whose duty it is to deal with them, are now well aware of the insincerity of Mr. Taschereau towards them, and I feel that the hour has come when they will readily approve of the present measure as a first step towards the rehabilitation of their agriculture.
No doubt the bill as drafted is not perfect; it could not be in a country like ours, so vast and with so many different mentalities throughout the nine different provincial units which form its economic expanse. But I really feel that it is made sufficiently elastic to bring the present organizations, whether provincial or private, into cooperation with those which may be formed by the federal government in order that this new form of government in our industry, not only agriculture but, I would say also, manufacturing- and I am referring to the consumers as well -which may in time be established, may accord with the words of John Pym, indicating the best form of government, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has somewhere said, " actuating and disposing every part and member " of our three principal industries " towards the common good " of 'each and every individual in our dominion.
If I may paraphrase the words of the leader of the opposition, in another sphere of his activities, I would say that with time this bill, with the various changes which experience alone will show to be necessary, will realize the practical fundamentals of that cooperation required in the agricultural, manufacturing and labour-consuming industry.
Marketing Act-Mr. Laurin

to ensure for each that purchasing power which, as the right hon. gentleman has stated elsewhere: " is not only a power limited to obtaining commodities but is a power which extends to controlling"-I use his own words -"conditions under which commodities are produced and services rendered."
I must congratulate our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) upon bringing down to this house a bill which embodies the principles laid down to a great extent by the leader of the opposition in his book Industry and Humanity. Yet the Liberal leader continues to attack the bill. He declared chat it was autocratic and gave to the board to be formed powers which were excessive. Will my right hon. friend allow me, referring once more to his book at page 425, to quote his words as follows:
Without permitting wide discretionary authority to the individuals chosen to administer and execute the laws, and without reserving to them ample power to give, and to compel obedience to orders, it would be impossible for the business of government in the state to be carried on.
These principles are embodied in the bill now before the house. Some laws are made for political purposes and, so far as the public are concerned, are a sham, presuming to give them something for which they have been asking; but when the hour arrives for putting the measure into force, those who are called' upon to execute the law find that they are without power. The present measure is not a political sham law; it is one created to bring about action.
The leader of the opposition and his colleagues appear before the house and the public to be adverse to this legislation, yet is it not a law of coordination, of organization toward our economic recovery? The leader of the opposition in one breath said that his Liberal party concurred in the principles of the Liberal party in England, yet are not the principles of the Liberal party in England founded on the Manchester school of laissez-faire? But in the next breath he declared that his party was not in favour of a policy of laissez-faire as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has declared it to be. If the Liberal party is not in favour of the Bennett Conservative principles of peace and good order as laid down by the present government since 1930 and is not in favour of a policy of laissez-faire, may I ask then whether the leader of the opposition has not led his party to bolshevism and chaos, as was charged last November by one of our most eminent men in Quebec?
[Mr. Laurin. 1
One last remark: The hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) and the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Iilsley) have declared that this bill does not protect the consumer, and the hon. member for Hants-Kings would have liked to have a consumers' committee formed. Were an exclusive consumers' committee formed, its mission would have tended solely toward the benefit of the consumer, disregarding the interests of the producer. That is not the purpose of the bill; its aim is to create, not class legislation but the cooperation of all members of the nation towards a common goal-purchasing power.
Before resuming my seat may I say that I shall always have a distinct remembrance of this occasion since to-night I have had the honour ,of making my maiden speech in English.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, this debate has covered a wide range of arguments both for and against the principle of the bill. I therefore do not intend to detain the 'house very long, because I doubt very much whether I could refer to anything particularly new in connection with the matter. The bill of course is drawn in somewhat general terms, and consequently lends itself to a wide scope of imagination on the part of hon. members. I have gone over quite a number of the speeches delivered, and the arguments advanced by some would remind one of the mythological story of Pandora's box which was supposed to contain all the ills that flesh is heir to, while others regard it as full of all the blessings that can come to humanity. The bill, however, is an experiment and necessarily so. We are actually trying something that is new and we must do so because we are living under new conditions. Therefore, if it is possible for critics to sit down and point to this, that and the other danger, I am not surprised, because, no matter how much care is exercised, we cannot get away from danger and the possibility of error. How much more, then, is it possible to say that dangers may arise when we are trying to do something that is new? Everything new in the world has been attacked by somebody-new proposals, new discoveries, the good and the bad, have been laughed at.
A good deal of time has been taken up in the house in arguing about just how much evil this board could do if it really wanted to do that. There is no question about it because if you give any individual or board power to do good you cannot separate from that the power to do evil. Every human

Marketing Act-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
being, every human agency has a potential devil as well as a potential angel and we cannot entirely avoid either in anything we try to do. So I am not at all surprised that certain dangers have been pointed out as possibilities arising from the setting up of this board.
There is need for something of this kind. Producers in various lines throughout the length and breadth of Canada have tried to build up their own cooperative organizations and have succeeded in doing some measure of good, but I do not believe there is in this country to-day a cooperative organization that believes it has or really can get control of the marketing situation without some government assistance. I do not know of any such organization. Cooperative organizations in the last ten years have had their ups and downs. I know hardly any cooperative organization that has been functioning with any measure of success, that intends to go back on cooperation and that is not asking for some further control of marketing conditions in the interest of the producers.
I intend to confine my argument and my illustrations to the subject of live stock, because I am more familiar with the conditions pertaining thereto than with those affecting any of the other commodities that may be handled by boards set up in accordance with the provisions of this legislation and working in cooperation with the provinces and cooperative organizations. In 1931 we had a peculiar situation in Canada; one of the cooperatives had a contract to ship cattle to a cooperative in the old land and was doing well, building up reserves until Britain abandoned the gold standard. Then the change in the value of British currency and the drop in prices relative to all prices in this country at once put the export cattle business of the dominion in jeopardy, because there was no way to protect shippers exporting to the old country from the loss arising out of the difference in exchange. I believe if we had had then a board somewhat along the lines of the board now proposed to be set up we might have adjusted tbajt loss, on the small percentage of our cattle being exported, on the basis of the cattle industry itself carrying the burden, thus preventing the ruinous decline of prices that followed and has continued up to 1933.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested that this measure was evidence of the fact that parliament is losing control over the executive. But parliament
at any session can repeal the act founded upon this bill if it wants to; it can abolish the whole thing, so surely we have parliamentary control. But throughout the whole of his speech, extending over a period of two hours, he did not have a word to say about the plight in which the farmers find themselves due to the very low prices that prevail for their products. The right hon. gentleman said a great deal about liberty. What about liberty? A policeman on the street corner regulating traffic is interfering with liberty, but he is preserving more liberty than he is destroying. The leader of the opposition calls attention to the fact that certain rights were wrested from the crown years ago when the Magna Charta was secured. Then he goes on to say that he is not an advocate of laissez-faire, and points to certain bills passed by Liberals regulating and controlling industry and various groups within industry. The rest of his argument seems to be to the effect that bills passed to regulate industry by other parties should be thrown into the discard or killed. If it was a sound principle in the last century to regulate hours of labour and wages and working conditions, it is just as sound to tackle the problem confronting us to-day, which are creating just as great difficulties for the farmers as were experienced in connection with workers in factories in the centuries past.
The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) the ex-Minister of Agriculture, is supporting the principle of this bill, and I am not surprised that he should do so. He had the responsibility when in office of administering the legislation and organization for the control and elimination of bovine tuberculosis and the maintenance and improvement of the health of live stock generally. Every time you have a government organization coming into the picture there is the possibility of coercion of some individuals. Was there no coercion of individuals in connection with the enforcement of health regulations in regard to live stock? Certainly there was, and there were mistakes made. But I submit that because the government came into the picture we made progress in the matter of health of live stock and a healthful food supply for the people of Canada and the people to whom we export our products, and this could not have been accomplished had it been left to individual farmers throughout the length and breadth of the country. The same thing is true in connection with hogs and the control of hog cholera. I submit that individuals cannot do for themselves what governments can do for
2720	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)
them. It is true that there are some things that can best be left to the individual, but it is also true that the best progress has been made through cooperation, between individuals organized in cooperative associations, and between these organizations and governments, provincial and federal. I believe that marketing conditions in Canada and throughout the world, especially in connection with live stock, make it necessary to-day that governments should assist in that problem. How can individual farmers in Saskatchewan or Manitoba or the Peace River country, handling a few head of live stock, keep abreast of the necessary knowledge concerning quota regulations, tariffs, shipping and market conditions in the various markets of Canada as well as of Great Britain? How can individuals and organizations, without some coordinating body, pick and choose and control the sending of the right type of product to Great Britain and decide upon the right type to keep in Canada and send to the various home markets? In order to do that it is necessary to be able to measure the demand. It requires statistical information that individuals have not the time or the facilities to obtain; other information is required as to health conditions and so on. I submit that with a board of the kind proposed there are possibilities of efficient handling and marketing of our live stock, with a guarantee of quality and consequent protection of the name of Canada in connection with its exports to the British market that would not be possible under any other arrangement.


Mr. MULLINS:: A man who knows his business.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I would like to give a few illustrations that come to my mind as to what "rugged individualism" means in connection with marketing, showing why it is a good thing to limit the right of individuals to do what they like. Years ago there was a very good crop of potatoes in Scotland. The price was very low. But when spring came there was a demand for potatoes in New York; some shipments were going forward, and the price improved. Then a Glasgow dealer with more desire for profit than conscience sent over a load of bad potatoes and ruined the market. Would it have been a good thing for Scotland if there had been a board watching the kind of potatoes that went out, with the right to say to this man; "You cannot send these bad potatoes out of the country"? Yet that would be an interference with his liberty. A few years ago in northern Alberta we had some experience 
with marketing turkeys on the Pacific coast through a government organization. There was what we thought an orderly market, in turkeys going forward in a reasonable flow. Those in charge of the shipments had knowledge of what the market would take and were feeding it, providing enough to meet the demand at reasonable prices. A few others who were interested in shipping turkeys, without any attempt to keep in touch with the conditions, sent out a few extra loads, more than the market would absorb, and the result was they not only took a loss themselves but broke the price generally. It was not good for the producer; it was not good for the consumers, because it certainly interfered with the supply of turkeys from northern Alberta in future years.
I do not believe that this argument about the consumer is well taken. You cannot build a civilization on either producers or consumers alone; you have to consider both. When someone says: "Oh the producers are getting too much; we have got to look at this from the standpoint of the consumer," it seems to me like saying; Here is a man with only one good left leg; all we need is another man with a good right leg. Rather we should say; "We will have a man with two legs, both sound." And so we seek a civilization with two sound legs, represented by producers and consumers. What a body of this kind should aim at is not low prices to the consumers or high prices to the producers, but knowledge of what is a reasonable cost of efficient production, and then see to it that both parties to the bargain get fair treatment. Any other approach to the question of marketing is in my judgment entirely wrong.
It has been said that in this bill the minister is asking for very wide powers. But I would rather ask for powers a little wider than necessary than not wide enough. We Shall have to trust someone to use ordinary common sense in connection with the application of this act to industry. It has been said that we should do exactly as they do in Britain. But Britain is a small country, about the size of my constituency, and there are 244 other constituencies. Britain is a country with stability in practically all lines of production, going on from year to year and from generation to generation, while we have tremendous fluctuations in our production, with changes as between district and district and province and province from year to year. It has been said that we should refer every scheme to parliament, but it has been pointed out also that the British parliament sits about twelve months of

Marketing Act-Mr. Bourgeois
the year while we sit only part of the year, and we have ten parliaments instead of one. It is an entirely different thing, and I want to say that we have to try this measure on the basis of trial and error, if you like, using our best judgment as we proceed and learning by experience as we go along. I believe there are sections in the bill that may be amended in committee, but control through a body set up by the central government, cooperating with the provinces and the producers' organizations, is an absolute essential in practically every line of marketing of which I have knowledge.
The hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Yallance) read into the record two letters which he received, and while in his argument he did not endorse the sentiments they contained they created the impression that the cooperatives of the old country were very much opposed to policies of this sort because we were trying to raise prices to the agriculturists. The hon. member referred to two letters that appeared in the Glasgow Herald, I believe. I think anyone who has sufficient knowledge of the subject to express an opinion must know that agricultural prices must come up; if they do not we had better get ready for wholesale 'bankruptcy and repudiation, because there can be no avoiding it. Agricultural prices have to come up at least to the point where they will pay the cost of efficient production, or we must face the alternative. But I do not think it is true to say that even the Scottish cooperative does not realize that prices of wheat are too low. The Scottish cooperative had some experience in connection with wheat in Saskatchewan, and they went out of business some years ago. I do not think people who have had an experience of that kind would be expected to think wheat prices should not be raised, as well as the prices of other agricultural products. I obtained from the library of the Department of Agricuture the People's Year Book, the 17th annual of the English and Scottish cooperative wholesale societies, 1934. Under the heading " Prices and Debtors" here is what I found:
The farmers, and other producers of raw materials and what are called "primary" articles, have been ruined by the fall in their prices because they habitually work with borrowed money, borrowed on contracts made long ago. So the farmer found that in order to pay interest on his debts, he had to sell twice or three times as much wheat as would have met the charge, if the wheat could be sold at the price current when the debt was contracted. In other words, the fall in prices has undermined the solvency of debtors and made debt contracts inequitable, owing to the change in the value of money since they were
first entered into. Unless prices can be restored to, and maintained at, a level that will enable debtors to meet their liabilities, a general bankruptcy and scaling down of debts was inevitable. This was especially so in America, where during the boom years debts had been contracted on an enormous scale; and so there was a good deal of justification for President Roosevelt, when he decided that the first and most important thing for him to do was to force prices up, and that the restoration of the gold standard' might, as far as America was concerned, wait for a better opportunity.
There we have the clear statement that the Scottish cooperative believes the prices of primary products must be raised, so in setting up a board of this kind I do not think we need fear any danger from that source at all. I wish therefore, Mr. Speaker, to repeat that I support the principle of the bill and congratulate the minister on his attempt to bring something of this kind into effect.


Mr. CHARLES BOURGEOIS (Three Rivers-St. Maurice) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, as representative of the constituency of Three Rivers-St. Maurice, I cannot dissociate myself from the very important measure which the government requests this house to pass in order to create a dominion marketing board.
The constituency which I have the honour of representing, although comprising a relatively large number of industrial factories, particularly those which are engaged in paper manufacturing, is for the most part rural, and the St. Maurice valley includes a large number of parishes the prosperity of which depends especially on farming.
Our country should take pride in the fact that it is our present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) who conceived, prepared and submitted to the consideration of the house, this bill intended to improve the methods and usages in practice in the marketing of our Canadian natural products and in our trade exports. No doubt the house delights in recognizing and admiring the high intellectual and moral merits of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and the pure patriotism which has always inspired him in the course of his public life. However, in considering the present bill, submitted for its approval, the house takes especially into account that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is-and he is entitled to be proud of the fact

a genuine and experienced farmer, possessing all the qualities of the man on the land, and, moreover, is the owner of a very prosperous farm where he puts into practice his knowledge.


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


Charles Bourgeois: It is not
my intention to enter into the minute details

Marketing Act-Mr. Bourgeois
of this bill; others, possessing a wider experience, I frankly admit, have done so. The hon. Minister of Agriculture, numerous members on your right, sir, and some on the extreme left, have enumerated and set forth the benefits which we will derive from this measure.
It meets with opposition, much opposition, and our opponents not only have raised against its adoption all the objections that their imagination could bring to bear, but it also gave them the pretext to launch against the government an unrelenting attack which had its inception not so much because of the deficiencies in the bill as in the well known habit that our friends have developed of criticizing all measures emanating from this side of the house. However, this was to be expected and there is reason to note once more the inherent weakness of our parliamentary regime which causes certain minds to look upon and discuss questions from the strict viewpoint of their narrow political party interests rather than consider them on their merit and, in the present instance, with the idea of finding the most suitable remedy to the present situation which we all deplore.
Many economists have sought the causes of the present crisis; they have found that they are numerous: the world war, frantic overproduction and unrestrained stock speculations. However, it is not sufficient to limit ourselves to inquiry into the causes only and to confine ourselves simply to an academical discussion, what is of the utmost importance is to endeavour to accomplish something, apply the remedies. Heads of nations have recognized that this was an urgent duty. Hitler in Germany; Mussolini in Italy; Roosevelt in the neighbouring republic, have all maintained in their various respective experiments, that they had found the solution to the disheartening problem.
This is not the time to criticize the experiments tried out in other countries. What is important, however, to note-and I wish to draw the attention of the house on this particular point-is the tendency of governments to intervene in the free action of personal endeavours in order to regulate, concentrate them and thereby make them produce greater results, or what is better, results that they could not produce without such intervention.
But, the cry is raised: It is state monopoly, it is an encroachment on the rights of parliament, an attempt against our parliamentary regime and a step towards oligarchy which would suppress, in favour of a few, the authority that parliament must, by virtue of our constitution, possess over the affairs of our country!

The most bitter criticism is, especially directed against these so-called exorbitant powers granted to the governor in council, in the marketing board act. This criticism is, to my mind, most unreasonable. There is no cause for such fears, it is neither a question of state monopoly, such as Plato conceived it in his treatises "The Republic" and "The Laws," or of land nationalization advocated by Henry George. It is a bold measure, I admit, but necessary, the special character of which is justified by the exceptional grave circumstances in which we are situated at present.


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


Charles Bourgeois: Since
Louis Hebert established on the Canadian soil of New France the first farm, up to the settling of the Canadian west, numerous generations of farmers, in ploughing and seeding the land, succeeded in making a livelihood for themselves and their families. No one will truly contend that our soil has since become sterile. Whence comes this depression in farming? How does it happen that our farmers, toiling with the same steadfastness and energy, as in the past, on our lands, have, owing to the low prices of farm products, great difficulty in earning a livelihood, so much so that they can say with the "Chemineau" of Richepin:
Je songe aux bles coupes qui ne sont pas les notres
Et dont les epis murs font du pain pour les autres.
If closely examined we find that it is not, in this instance, so much a question of production as distribution. The establishing of co-operative societies in this country gave rise to great hopes which, unfortunately, were only partly realized. The reason is-as the hon. Minister of Agriculture pointed out-that these co-operative associations did not receive the help to which they were entitled, they were unable to organize on a stable financial basis, they had to meet a disloyal competition by certain corporations which were interested in seeing them disappear and they were also too busy marketing their products without giving a thought to quality and, I shall add,, to labelling and packing. Darwin put forth the famous theory of "the survival of the fittest." I am not called upon to express an opinion on this theory from the view-point of natural sciences; however, it seems to me unquestionable that it is an undoubted maxim as regards natural products and their exportation.
Whether it is a question of local, national or world market, it is the best product which not

Marketing Act-Mr. Bourgeois
only obtains the highest price, but has a better chance of finding a purchaser. That is the first object which is sought by the bill under consideration.
Secondly, it is important, that such a product be packed before being marketed, so as to make it as attractive as possible, regardless of its excellence, because, no matter what its quality may be, it will not find a purchaser, if, on the market, there is a foreign product superior to it in this respect. Moreover, it is necessary that it should be well labelled, the label should indicate the place where made and thus ensuring the best and most convincing advertisement.
If the present act which creates a marketing board, the subsidiary boards could bring about these three results, I think that there would be reason to be amply satisfied.
I do not contend that this bill-nor does the hon. Minister of Agriculture do so, as he plainly stated-is on all points perfect; however, to my mind, it is a loyal, sincere and excellent endeavour made to protect the farmer as much as the manufacturer.
Every farmer, in my constituency, that I consulted on the subject-and I had occasion to talk with a large number of them-look upon this measure favourably and they have expressed their faith in its efficiency. Mr. Albert Rioux, President of "L'Union catholique des cultivateurs" approved of it. Mr. J-S. Royier, President of the Canned Fruit and Vegetable Association, also approved of it.
While Mr. Oscar Gatineau in the "Bulletin des Agriculteurs" in its issue of April 5 last, expresses himself as follows:
No doubt, it is a real extraordinary scheme, a new departure. Some fear that the scheme may lead us too far while others think that the government assumes too much power.
We do not believe that any one can even imagine that the government intends to create a board' detrimental to the farming class. Of all the governments we have had, at Ottawa, the Bennett government is the one which has shown the greatest readiness to help the farmers. Before contending that too much assistance has been given to farmers, there remains a long way to go. Let us not be anxious about others, they are somewhat there to champion their cause.
Mr. Bennett is not afraid to shoulder responsibilities, he has no hesitation in having the necessary powers turned over to him and he is not afraid to resort to whatever means are necessary to remedy the evils from which we suffer.
The farmers have therefore reason to rejoice in this bill which is being enacted for them and from which there is reason to expect much. What Mr. Bennett has done hitherto for the farming class warrants us to repose confidence in him for what he undertakes.
I do not wish to close my remarks without mentioning the fact that Mr. Robert Ryan, one of the most prominent liberals of Three Rivers and the leader of the Municipal Council of that city, has entirely approved of this bill. In a letter which he forwarded to the right hon. Prime Minister on April 13, 1934, Mr. Ryan enclosed a short essay dealing with the question under consideration and expresses himself as follows:
(Text). I believe the creation of the marketing board is a move in the right direction. On page 2, paragraph 4, in my brief, you will notice I made reference to a Co-operative Sales Corporation for the handling of farm products for exports. The marketing board is another, and perhaps a better method of accomplishing the same purpose.
In the above mentioned essay, he made the following judicial remarks.
I am a firm believer that the farmers of each province should produce all the farm products, for which there is a local demand, and for which the soil and climate are suitable. Products for export should be handled by a Co-operative Sales Corporation. These products, should be put up under a uniform trade mark with the name of the province stamped on each package or container. All produce should be graded and packed according to the instructions of the Sales Corporation.
The time has arrived for planned and not lopsided development, if we want Canada to be developed for the benefit of all its inhabitants, a more balanced rural population compared' to the population of the cities and a proper balance between agricultural and industrial production and prices.
A success can only be made of farming when the farmer is decided and follows proper direction. A success can only be made of selling farm produce when the merchants and consumers are convinced that they should purchase such produce on account of quality, regular supply and good service. Therefore, the education of the farmer, merchant and' consumer is absolutely necessary.
What is wanted is organization and leadership in centres that should be selected by the government, as points that should be developed for the collection, processing and distribution of farm products.
In this same essay Mr. Ryan, whose suggestions I entirely agree with, pointed out to the government the opportunity of subsidizing the growing of beets and this, especially, in the Three Rivers district.
In that locality and within a radius of 50 miles the soil is most favourable to the growth of this vegetable.
And he quoted in this respect a resolution adopted on April 1, 1922, by the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, the resolution contained the following recommendation:
Your committee further recommends that, if no successful attempt be made in the immediate
Marketing Act-Mr. Bourassa

future by the refineries to increase the facilities for the manufacture of beet sugar, the government should take into consideration steps to accomplish that end.
I hope-may I casually say so-that the government will find the means to put into practice these suggestions, for it would be an excellent means of increasing the wealth of this country and thereby reduce unemployment in that section.
I shall close my remarks by pointing out that the object of this bill is an excellent one; that if, in principle, the state must abstain to invade the personal activities of citizens, for fear of paralyzing them, there are situations- and the present is one of them-which necessitate the intervention of the state; that this bill owing to its provisions constitutes a sound measure necessitated by the critical circumstances in which we find ourselves and it behooves all members of this house to set aside all party lines and give it their entire approval.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, unable as I was, on account of illness, to follow the debate very closely, I have read most of the speeches which have been delivered in support of or in opposition to this measure. However, it was some time before I could arrive at a decision on the matter, because so many good arguments have been put forward on both sides. I should like to sum up as briefly as possible the decision at which I have arrived.
A olear distinction must be made between the object of the bill and parliamentary procedure. It may be because of my old habits as a British parliamentarian, but I think there is some reason for keeping close to parliamentary tradition. At the present stage, all that is before us is the object of the bill as expressed in the preamble and the title. This measure purports "to improve the methods and practices involved in the marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith." I think I can safely say that, perhaps with the exception of a few ghosts haunting the ruins of Liberal economics, practically the whole house is committed to the principle of this bill. In fact, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), who was most effective in several parts of his speech, indicated that he was in favour of some measure to control the marketing of produce, both inside and outside of Canada. In the manner in which he made that statement he practically admitted the desirability of passing legislation to deal with marketing.

Therefore, it seems to me that the only logical position is that taken by the right hon. gentleman himself on the relief and central bank bills. In connection with both those measures he expressed strong views; he invoked the same arguments as he did against this measure, that they were against the spirit if not the letter of the constitution, that they meant the abdication of the rights of parliament to an irresponsible body or to the executive, as far as the spending of money under the relief act was concerned. However, he voted for the second reading of these bills, reserving to himself the right to oppose them in committee or on third reading if they were not amended according to his views. I followed his example in those two instances. When I spoke quite suddenly on the central bank bill it was to oppose the amendment proposed by my hon. friend to my left. I take the same ground now. Being in favour of some measure to deal with the marketing of produce, I am not opposed to the second reading of the bill.
As regards the measure itself I do not propose to follow the unparliamentary example given by most speakers and enter into a close analysis of all the clauses of the bill. That is the work of the committee after the bill has passed its present stage. But the preamble and title of the bill are not comprehensive enough to justify our voting for or against the second reading without entering into a consideration of at least the main features of the bill. In this connection my opinion comes closer to that of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) than *to any other opinion expressed in the house. I read his speech very carefully and I am pleased to repeat now what I told him in private, that it is the best speech I have heard from him since I came back to this house.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: That may not be
saying very much.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, it is saying a great deal. His speech contained as much wit as any of his others, and perhaps was a little more serious.
The bill contains some provisions which are good or which may produce good. It contains other provisions which may produce good or bad results according to the manner in which the law may be administered, but that may be said of almost all legislation. It contains other provisions which in my humble opinion are decidedly bad.
I shall not deal at any length with the constitutional aspect, although there are two features of the bill which could be considered

Marketing Act-Mr. Bourassa
from that angle. First, there is the one raised by the leader of the opposition, a serious one, of the possible conflict of jurisdiction between this parliament and the provincial legislatures. We come up against that obstacle at every session, and I am afraid the more we have to do with economic and social problems, the more that conflict will be increased. The time will come when, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated so forcibly some weeks ago, the constitution shall have to be revised, in agreement with the provinces. But I shall not deal with that aspect now.
There is a further constitutional issue, the contempt with which the government-I am using the words of the leader of the opposition-treats parliament and parliamentary institutions. Of course, there is some truth in that, 'but no party in this house has the right to throw stones at their opponents. The Liberal government put this country into war in 1899 by an order in council. That was certainly a far deeper breach of the spirit of the constitution than anything I ever heard of until 1914, when the Conservative administration repeated the same crime with the unanimous approval of the Liberal party. Then again, in 1916, when both parties agreed to prolong parliament beyond its constitutional term, thereby preventing the people to pass judgment on their war policy. That action received unanimous approval with the exception of the hon. member for Nicolet, who resigned. That parliament is now defunct and I can repeat what was then said outside the house: through an infamous pact between the two parties, it prolonged its own life for one year, in utter disregard of the people, in order to plunge Canada more deeply into the abyss of war out of which we have not yet emerged. Surely, at that time, some of the tenets of Liberalism were violated far more deeply than they are by this bill. However, I shall not insist on that at the present time.
The only analysis which I wish to make of the bill is to attempt to foresee the possible operations of the central board and the local boards. As regards the central board to be created by the government, no doubt the leader of the opposition is right when he says that it is practically an abdication on the part of parliament, and even of the executive, a surrender of its powers into the hands of a body very distantly responsible to parliament. But this is only a further step in the direction which parliament has followed for many years, unavoidably in many instances, but perhaps avoidably in others. Some weeks ago, in reference to another matter, I reminded
the house that when this parliament created the audit ofBce it abdicated one of its essential functions. It handed over certain powers to a permanent official, nominated by the government and practically independent of the authority of the Commons, inasmuch as he must be impeached by both houses of parliament. In that instance parliament handed over to that official one of its essential functions, namely, the control of its own expenditures. Yet that was considered an extremely wise measure of reform; and on the whole, I think, it has worked for the good of Canada and of this parliament. When the house handed over to the tribunals of the country, to judges irresponsible to the people and to parliament, the power to decide whether in certain circumstances a member of parliament had been properly elected or not, that was again an abdication of an essential function of parliament, which is to control itself and the qualifications of its members. But let us come nearer to our own day. The creation of the railway commission, one of the best administrative acts of the Liberal government headed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was the abdication of a parliamentary function into the hands of an outside body. The creation of the Canadian National corporation was a further abdication of the authority of parliament; so was the creation of the wheat board and of the tariff board as well.
In these days of complicated problems precipitating themselves upon the attention of parliament and of the various classes of our people, and upon the attention of the nation at large, in Canada as in all other countries, the action of parliament would be paralyzed if parliament pretended to deal with all such problems as the parliaments of old dealt with theirs. The world has become mechanized; it has become extremely complicated in matters of trade, finance and so forth; and it requires constant attention, study and the effective work of technicians to cope with all the problems that present themselves. Now, admittedly parliament is unable to do that work; governments are unable to do it; and regretful as it may be to old parliamentarians like the leader of the opposition and myself, attached as we are to those time honoured principles of political liberty, we must recognize that facts are stronger than theories and that we must abide by the necessities of our time. Nevertheless I think that the leader of the opposition and all those who have spoken against this legislation have done their duty
Marketing Act-Mr. Bourassa

and rendered a service to the country in pointing out the dangers in this bill. My friends on the opposite side condemn them for their lack of patriotism because they do not rise above the level of party spirit. Well, I have heard that story from government supporters for the last fifty years; and reading through my parliamentary history of Canada and of England, I find that ministerial supporters have always seen in opposition members a lack of principle, while opposition members have had the same opinion of government supporters. And I suppose that both are equally right and wrong.
It is the duty of an opposition, I will not say to oppose everything, but to criticize; and in order to awaken public opinion they must criticize strongly. It is not the business of the opposition to pass over the defects of ministerial measures. In that regard therefore I would go a little further than the hon. member for Melville. The hon. gentleman balances things. He indicated six good points in the bill, but he did not enumerate the evil points, though he expressed himself quite clearly with regard to some of them. I will not enter into details, but I will state my objections as briefly as possible.
The creation of the central board is I think a necessity in order to cope with such conditions as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has so ably pointed out, such conditions as exist now in every producing and consuming country, in every importing and exporting country with which we deal at present or with which we may deal in the future. To meet those conditions we must create an economic machinery capable of dealing with the means which those countries have at their disposal. All those countries, whether fascistic, communistic, liberal in the broad sense of the word, or conservative-even old England is moving fast in this direction-are creating machinery to control production, distribution, imports and exports. Even if we adopt the broader policy in trading, which is so ably advocated at each session by the opposition, a policy with which I sympathize much more than I do with the ultraprotective policy of the Conservatives-even if the Liberals came into power and succeeded in getting other countries to purchase more of our goods, selling more of their goods to us-the Liberals would need to have in their hands such legislation as would provide an economic machinery capable of dealing with other countries with their own weapons.
All the countries of Europe have some form of organization similar to that which is con-

templated in the first part of this bill, and I think that we are bound to arm ourselves in the same manner. But where my objections are so strong that I will certainly vote against the third reading of the bill if it is not amended, is with respect to all that deals with the organization of local boards. Perhaps in this I am not expressing the views of many on this side of the house, but I must say that I dread much more the tyranny and abuses of power on the part of the local boards than of the central board. The central board will have to deal with the large issues. They will have to follow the trend of trade all the world over in order to find out, as was so well pointed out to-night by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), what the requirements of foreign countries will be, not next year or ten years hence but this year-what this country will purchase of our apples, what that country is prepared to purchase of our wheat, what the other country will purchase of live stock or meat products, and so on. No local board can do that, nor can any individual. That is a truism, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) knows. No individual, no small group of farmers anywhere can do that. Therefore that board must be on the alert and be prepared to inform all producers and exporters throughout the country of the conditions of the market, what produce they should prepare this year for export to this, that and the other country. So far as that is concerned, the creation of the federal board is essential and it must be created as soon as possible; it must set to work from morning to night every day of the week and every week of the month. I repeat: No committee of parliament and no executive power can do that.
But when we come to the question of local boards, I have read with much interest the speech of the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) who, of course, knows of conditions in England and thus is enabled to enlighten the house as to the defects in this bill. The hon. member for Peace River attempted this evening to answer him by again pointing out something which is very true-the difference in conditions between England and Canada. Of course we admit that, but that does not answer two of the contentions of the hon. member for Last Mountain. There is, first, the danger of creating a small bo<?y of men in each locality, in each county, and numerous bodies in each province who, for their own individual or collective interest, may tyrannize over the other producers in the same locality or the same county or, if they arrive at an under-

Marketing Act-Mr. Bourassa
standing with similar bodies in their region, may tyrannize over the whole region, the whole province and eventually the whole country. Therefore, precisely because of the difference in conditions between Canada and England and because of the difficulty a central board will have of knowing what is really going on in each locality, we may within a short time find ourselves faced with a situation that will be very detrimental to a large proportion of the producers; whether it be a majority or a minority, does not matter very much. In that respect I do not follow the hon. member for Last Mountain. I have no more faith in the infallibility of majorities than in that of minorities. Parties in the minority should not insist too much on the infallibility of majorities. As Montesquieu said once, it would be better in tribunals and parliaments generally to give the award or judgment according to the minority, because the minority is generally in the right and the majority generally in the wrong. That is the condition I dread; I dread it for a large proportion of the producers, farmers, small industrialists, who may directly or indirectly be affected by the operations of this legislation. I dread it most of all for the consumers. The hon. member for Peace River said very properly that producers and consumers are not essentially inimical to one another and that, in a body properly constituted, consumers and producers should act as the two legs under the same body. But I am afraid that this legislation has a tendency to set apart the two legs and to split the body in two. As a matter of fact, the consumer is not even mentioned in this bill; there is no proviso whatever to protect him. Let us not forget, if it is true that the body of the producers and the body of the consumers must not be raised in enmity against each other, consumers to a certain extent are producers and all producers are consumers of other goods which they do not produce. If this legislation is to work for the benefit of all, some great changes will have to be made in order to protect people-whether they be a minority or a majority, I repeat, does not matter-who will not agree to any scheme proposed by any five or ten individuals in any locality, against the tyranny or misrepresentation of the body framing the scheme and sending it to Ottawa to be approved.
The board or the minister will of necessity be subjected to all sorts of influences. We must take men and things as they are in our country as elsewhere, perhaps more so in ours than in many other countries. Political influences will be at work. In constituencies
represented by members supporting the government, you will see that schemes will be accepted much more readily if they are recommended either directly by the member or through his friends on those local boards. That will be the case whether my friends to the right or my friends to the left are in power. I have had experience of parties for forty years: the party spirit is the same in every party. Suppose my hon. friends to the extreme left were to come to power and acquire the qualities and defects of the other parties, the same situation would arise. Human nature is always the same.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: That party would be worse than the others.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No; do not pose as the Pharisee. It may be said: Then nothing should be done. No; we cannot remain paralysed because of the danger of party spirit or local tyranny. But I insist very strongly on the necessity of incorporating in this legislation proper safeguards, first, against that disposition of a few individuals to control the affairs of their locality, of their region, to their own interest, to the interest of those who would be associated with them, disregarding that of others; and, second, more especially to protect the consumers in all classes of the community and in all parts of the dominion. That is entirely apart from the necessity so ably pointed out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. His argument applies mainly to foreign trade, and, in that respect, the attitude of the government is in my opinion incontrovertible. Their position is not one of taste; it is one of necessity. They would be remiss in their duty if they did not now cope energetically with this aspect of the problem, dealing with it with a strong hand and creating as powerful a body as they can to handle the situation. But internally the matter is entirely different; internally the views of the leader of the opposition still have great force. Of course you cannot pass legislation controlling any activity without interfering in some degree with individual liberty. But if we want to live under such conditions as we have come to love and as for generations past we have benefited by, not only in this but in the various countries of our origin, we must not interfere with individual liberty beyond the absolutely essential point. This legislation opens the way to all sorts of interferences with the liberty of the farmer, the gardener, the fruit grower, the dairyman, etc., and the consumer.
Marketing Act-Mr. Bourassa

There is one argument made by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) which I think has to be considered very seriously as regards internal business. He said the important thing was not so much the control of quantity as of quality. As regards foreign trade I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce has shown in a manner that cannot be disputed that we must control quantity as well as quality with regard to exports and imports. But as regards the exchange of goods between one county and another in the same province, or between different provinces, if you put in the hands of a few individuals in each locality the power to control all the local activities, the shipping of goods to this town and that and the other from east to west, from west to east, I am afraid you will complicate the economic machinery to a much greater extent than you will serve the interests of the various classes.
With these remarks I think I have made it quite clear that in vofing for the second reading I am not committing mj'self to the support of the legislation, but simply following the example of the leader of the opposition as regards the central bank and the relief act, in fact following the traditions of parliament. I support the purport of this bill; I may oppose most of its provisions.
Before closing I would like to pass a remark for the benefit of my friends of the province of Quebec, especially my good Conservative friends from that province, and even some of my Liberal friends. For the last six months some of them have been very busy depicting the group to the left here as something akin to the bolshevists of Russia. The hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois) has quoted the opinion of the president of the Catholic Union of Farmers in the province of Quebec in favour of this bill, and of course he approves of it entirely because ft is a government bill. But has he reflected that this bill is not only the most socialistic measure that to my knowledge has ever been presented in this parliament, but the one most imbued with the spirit of sovietism, especially that part which I have denounced? The creation of these local boards seems to have been borrowed from the legislation introduced in Russia for the creation of the sovietic local boards which control all local activities. They pretend that they leave each individual farmer to do what he pleases, but they make life impossible to him; the kulak has become a serf on his own land just as much as the member of the kolkhoz. Well, this bill is creating a
(Mr. Bourassa.]
replica of the kolkhoz under the komintern. Curiously enough that approval of the president of the Catholic Union of Farmers- the Catholic Union, mind you-appeared in the same paper which, the week previous, by the pen of an undoubtedly very honest and clever cleric, denounced the bolshevistic tendencies of Mr. Woodsworth and his party. I wonder if those same defenders of the faith and of social order, always on the alert to see cropping up the spirit of Lenin in the province of Quebec, will uphold the position taken by the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice and by the president of the Catholic Union of Farmers. If they do, if they remain silent in face of this legislation, then they will strengthen the opinion growing in the province of Quebec that these defenders of state, church and society, are much more concerned about the defence of the Tory party than of ordered society. It will be a new example of that display of zeal for religion which took place at the time an order in council was passed prohibiting the importation of Russian coal in order to enable Senator Webster and his associates to maintain their infernal monopoly in the city of Montreal, thereby reducing thousands of people to misery this last winter. And all that was done in the name of religion! But of course, when a large concern in the eastern part of the province wanted to import Russian oil, they were given a free hand. Religion was endangered by Russian coal coming to Montreal, but religion was in no danger from the importation of Russian oil to enable one of these mergers, so strongly and so properly denounced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to make a little more money at the expense of the good people of the province of Quebec. It may look a little out of place, but in face of the kind of propaganda which has been carried on in Quebec for some weeks past, I have thought it my duty to protest and to show-I will not say the hypocrisy; no, I do not like such words- but to show the levity of mind of some people and the danger of fixed ideas. Some people have an obsession concerning Jews and bolshevists; everything good that happens has been in spite of the Jews and the bolshevists, and everything bad is their fault. I have no admiration for the bolshevists; I love the good Jews, such as my hon. friend here. I do not like the bad Jews any more than I do the bad Christians; but I do say that if we educate the good people of Quebec in such disregard of facts, facts economic, facts political and facts social, they will before long cease to be the vanguard of social order to whom the Prime Minister

Marketing Act-Mr. MacMillan (Saskatoon)
rendered such well deserved testimony in an interview he gave a few days ago. Once more I say:	Do not exploit religion and
prejudice when you are dealing with economic questions. Treat them on their merits, and pass the kind of legislation you should pass, without beclouding the issue.


Mr. F. R. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: First, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the government and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) on the introduction of this bill. Having been interested practically all my life in the distribution of merchandise of all kinds, including the products of the farm, I sometimes wonder that the primary producer has got along as well as he has up to this time. If we look about us and then cast our minds back a few short years and see what has happened to the distributing system of this country I am sure we can come to no other conclusion than that the old distributing system has fallen down. The remarks I intend to make I think can be applied to the manner in which the primary producer has suffered in this country during the past number of years.
Let us consider for example what has happened to the wholesale drygoods trade, once a very great business. In Toronto when I was a young man, W. R. Brock & Company was a very big concern, and there were several others, John Macdonald & Company; Caldecott, Burton & Spence, Nisbett and Auld; Robert Darling; Greenshields of Montreal; Gault Brothers of Winnipeg and Montreal ; Robinson Little & Company of London and Winnipeg; Stobart of Winnipeg, and R. J. Whitla & Company of Winnipeg. What has happened to all these firms? Every one of them was doing a distributing business of not 'less than a million dollars a year. But what has happened? They have all gone out of business. The same thing applies to the boot and shoe business and, to some extent, to the grocery business, and, Mr. Speaker, the same thing applies to the primary producer at this time. If the system under which he has been operating for many years past is permitted to continue, the primary producer will go out of business also. It is a marvellous thing, when we think of it, having regard to the distributing system that has been in operation in this country, that we have done as well as we have. The records of Bradstreet and Dun are strewn with the wrecks of these institutions throughout the country, involving hundred of millions of dollars, yet this system has been permitted to continue. I must say
that it is my firm conviction, as one who has been in the retail business in a moderately large way for a number of years, as an independent in western Canada, that to some extent the manufacturers have been the architects of their own misfortune. They built up great institutions in this country and gave them secret rebates and concessions that an independent man could not get. The result has been that they have practically no independent men left; that is what it has come to to-day with the advent of the chain stores and branch department stores. That situation has been brought about to some extent by the system which has been employed by the manufacturers of this country, and more particularly by the manufacturers of eastern Canada.
The same thing applies to the manner in which the primary producer has been forced to market his products, and I say it is a good thing that to-day we have a bill going through this house that will give the primary producer some control over the way in which his products will be marketed to the ultimate consumer. I was amazed to hear the remarks of the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) the other day. The hon. gentleman said he was a retailer, yet he was concerned about what was going to happen to the ultimate consumer and as to what price the consumer would pay for the products he purchased if this bill came into effect. So far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the consumer in this country has always paid the price, but the primary producer has never received it. There are so many middle men who come in after the product leaves the farm and before it reaches the retail merchant and finally the ultimate consumer; there are so many profits all down the line that the consumer always pays the price.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, in the last few years and particularly up to 1930, we had mergers, amalgamations, maladministration of finances, financial racketeers and bucket shop gentlemen going through the country organizing this and that and merging this and that. To-day in the country there are scarcely any independent business men left, and as a result the primary producer finds himself forced to market a large percentage of his goods through these large institutions. So I think it is about time some sort of machinery should be set up by which the primary producer may have some control over the manner in which his goods are marketed, and I congratulate the minister upon having introduced this measure at this time.
2730	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. MacMillan (Saskatoon)
I was also amazed the other day to listen to the hon. member for South Rattleford (Mr. Vallance), who spoke for some forty minutes. During his whole speech he did not devote a word to anything other than wheat. I am afraid some of our rural members have a wheat complex.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. I must ask hon.
members to keep better order, since those in the other parts of the house cannot hear what is being said.


Frank Roland MacMillan: Mr. Speaker, practically ninety-five per cent of our farm products are consumed within the oonfmes of our own country. I contend, and I think my statement can be substantiated, that our own home market is the best market we have. For that reason I say we should protect that market and do everything we can to help the farmers get every cent possible out of the amount paid by the ultimate consumer. Let us consider for a moment the man who grows potatoes, we will say, in eastern Canada. Let me say that I have sold potatoes brought from New Brunswick to Saskatchewan for $3 a bushel, but the farmer in New Brunswick did not get a very large share of the $3 that was paid in the province of Saskatchewan; in fact he did not get what he should have received when there is a short crop of potatoes in this part of the country. On the other hand when there is a short crop in eastern Canada and we have potatoes in western Canada they are shipped by brokers, jobbers and others and the fruit and vegetable dealers and hucksters get the profit instead of the farmers. As I see it the creation of this board is an attempt to direct that traffic and that business where it will bring the greatest return to the grower, and that is all we can reasonably expect. I do not say the bill is perfect; there is no doubt that it will be changed as time goes on, but at least it is an attempt to do something and I think a very great step in the interests of the primary producer.
For many years I have been amazed at the fruit growing industry of western Canada. Men have come to me in past years at their wits' end because of the condition of that industry; many of these men retired from the prairie provinces and went to live in British Columbia because of the climate. They were under the thumb of one of the greatest combines in this country, the Nash Fruit Company, which was fined some $200,000 in 1926 for some of the things it did, but which is still going strong, though now it is merged with a concern known as Western Grocers.

Some years ago a gentleman by the name of Mr. W. P. Riley, then of Port Arthur but later of Winnipeg, bought out the old A. McDonald Company of Winnipeg. He floated a great issue of shares on the market, which were purchased by the public; then the shares dropped to the point where they could not be sold at all. The chain store then came into the picture, and this gentleman established a chain known as the Red and White stores. Now he has these grocery stores all through the country. I do not know what sort of deal he made with them, but it would be interesting to find out.
At any rate this gentleman merged the Western Grocers with this Nash-Symington fruit combine, and to-day they control thirty-five distributing houses in western Canada. I am told that the ordinary brokerage fee on a car of fruit is about $10. I am informed on very good authority-I should say rather competent authority-that this concern collects as much as $40 and $50 per car. They go further; they collect secret rebates from the manufacturers of eastern Canada, and I understand that last year they placed in a special reserve account an amount in the neighbourhood of $100,000. What chance has the primary producer or the fruit grower in the province of British Columbia when he is up against a combination of that kind? So again I say I congratulate the minister on bringing in this measure which will give the primary producers throughout the length and breadth of this country at least a chance to better marketing conditions in connection with the products they grow.
I have been interested in the committee on price spreads and mass buying which from time to time has been holding meetings. In the city of Saskatoon I happen to be a shareholder in a stockyard company. If there Is one thing Mr. Speaker, more than another which affects the distribution of products of the primary producer it is in many instances the set up of distributing organizations. The committee would be well advised to go thoroughly into that branch of their investigations.
For a moment I should like to speak about the stockyard in my own city. May I say that I was somewhat instrumental in organizing or having organized the stockyard I have mentioned. Mr. H. P. Kennedy of Toronto, who is now president of the Union Stockyards of Saskatoon and president of the Edmonton Stockyards of Edmonton, and his manager, came to our city, and I hold in my hand an extract from a proposal which they laid before a number of business men of my city when

Marketing Act-Mr. MacMillan (Saskatoon)
in 1926 or 1927 they suggested to us, and we to them, that a stockyard should be organized in the city of Saskatoon. The extract is as follows:
It may be desirable however to have a few prominent men in the neighbourhood of the city of Saskatoon interested and a limited amount of stock will be available for them on the same basis as the other subscribers.
Then, I have before me the prospectus of the Union Stockyards of Saskatoon, Limited, in which I find the names of the following directors: H. P. Kennedy, live stock dealer, Toronto, president; Charles Bauckham, trust company manager, Toronto, vice-president; John L. Juhlin, stock yards manager, Edmonton; W. H. Adamson, insurance adjuster, Toronto, and J. H. S. Kerr, manager, Toronto. Norman Sommerville and Company of 67 Yonge Street, Toronto, are given as the solicitors, and the Dominion bank as the bankers. The point I am getting at is this, that the concern I have mentioned was organized and has done very excellent business from its inception. To-day it is beginning to pay and to pay handsomely. I am not so deeply interested in that particular feature, because those of us who put our money into the deal did not do so having in view any great dividends we might derive from it or any handsome returns which might come to us. We were more concerned with establishing a live stock industry in and about the city in which I live, and setting up facilities which would make possible the marketing of live stock on a little more profitable basis than in the past.
Then, as time goes on and the stockyard company begins to make money, what do we find? We must remember that this was one of those Simon pure companies, like many joint stock companies emanating from eastern Canada. Of course we were all to get a fair and even break-and in that statement I include the primary producer. But what do we find? Well, the president of the stockyard, the gentleman whose name I have given, drew a salary of $1,200-of course that is not a large salary; it does not amount to very much. The capital invested was about $58,-
000.	But last year, unknown to the shareholders at Saskatoon, he increased his salary by $2,500, bringing his total salary up to $3,700 -and that gentleman does nothing. He lives in the city of Toronto. The work is all done in Saskatoon because the yard is there, the cattle are there and the records are* kept there. This man does nothing, or practically nothing, and receives $3,700 for his services. The shareholders receive little or nothing. The directors, Toronto men, I presume obtain a commensurate amount for their services.
We decided we would like to have some information about this company, but we could not get it from the sources from which one would expect to obtain it, namely from the president or secretary of the company. Meeting with this difficulty we deputized a lawyer in Toronto to go out to Mr. Kennedy's office, which, by the way, was at that time at the union stockyards in Toronto, I suppose the Saskatoon company is being charged. rent, stenographic services and other charges made in connection with the Toronto office. What I am getting at is this, that in the final analysis all these charges are checked up against institutions in an endeavour to prove that certain businesses are not profitable, and that therefore the farmer should pay the rates that he does pay.
Not being able to obtain directly from the gentleman in question the information we sought, we asked the lawyer friend to interview Mr. Kennedy for the purpose of asking him certain questions. This is the lawyer's reply:
For about ten days before I left, I was in constant communication with Mr. Kennedy's office but could never get in touch with the man himself. Finally I made an appointment with him a few days ago. I attended at his office at the appointed time but he came outside of the office and said he was too busy to see me. I quickly asked him a few questions, and the storm started.
He was most unreasonable in his attitude, and shouted at the pitch of his voice. He told me he had consulted Mr. Norman Sommerville, K.C. as soon as he received a letter from you, as to the exact legal position. He had an interview with Mr. Sommerville, I believe, as he apparently knew who I was and seemed to resent my request to see the books. He said he was willing to allow me, as a representative of a shareholder, to inspect any books or documents of the company where there was any legal right to make such inspection. I told him that I was particularly anxious to find out from the books of the company the amounts which the directors had voted to themselves, and that I also wished to ascertain if the shareholders had ratified any such payments. He became livid when I made this request, and' said that he would tell the shareholders from a public platform in Saskatoon about October of this year anything they were entitled to ask. He also stated that if he saw you personally in Saskatoon, he might be willing to give you more information personally than he was inclined to give me as your representative.
He remarked you had not attended the shareholders' meeting where you could have obtained all the information which you desired.
I told him you could not attend a meeting in Toronto on account of the distance, and that he ought to give you all reasonable informaton by letter which you could' have obtained if you had been able to attend. He entirely disagreed

2732	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. MacMillan (Saskatoon)
with this view, having in mind, no doubt, the Biblical quotation which you gave him in one of your letters. I asked him if he refused to give the information in regard to the directors' salaries, but he would not answer the question, stating that whatever my legal rights were, I would certainly receive my legal rights but nothing further. I could see no use in speaking to this man, so I left the office.
This letter is signed by Mr. Cowan.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Is this the Norman
Sommerville, K.C., who is now anting as solicitor on the price spreads committee?


Frank Roland MacMillan: The hon.
member will have to make inquiries as to who that man is.


John Vallance: We just wished to have the connection.


Frank Roland MacMillan: This letter is signed by Mr. James Cowan of Toronto, a lawyer in that city.
In the statement of the company for the year ended December 31, 1932, an item of $6,186.18 appears. True, this is not a large item, but we have been anxious to ascertain just what it covered and of what it is made up. The fact is that we could never get that information. Several letters were written in regard to the matter. However, having written only a few days ago I received a reply from Mr. Kennedy. The strange point is that the reply should have come just at this time when the price spreads committee is investigating all these matters. I was interested in a remark made by that gentleman the other day in the committee. He was asked this question and made this answer:
Q. You made a suggestion?
A. Under present conditions. This is the time when something wants to be done for the farmers of Canada. This is the time, gentlemen, to make men in Canada, not make fortunes.
That is his statement. According to his own letter, the item of $6,000 odd in this statement is made up of the shares purchased in the Edmonton Stockyards, Limited. He said:
With reference to the investment of $6,186.18 which appears in the statement of 1932. this represents the exact cost to the Union Stockyards of Saskatoon, Limited', for certain shares purchased in the Edmonton Stockyards, Limited.
I understand that for some time the Edmonton Stockyards Limited have not been doing very well and yet this company has been loaded up with shares which are not at all profitable. That is the way they hide some of the profits of this institution. I have before me the auditor's statement for the year ended December 31, 1932, signed by the presi-
(Mr. MacMillan.]
dent Mr. H. P. Kennedy and one of the directors, Mr. J. H. C. Kerr. The profit and loss account shows an income of $49,375.75 and expenses of operation, management and depreciation, $30,156.09. In my judgment that last item should be looked into and broken up, because I do not know how they could spend $30,156.09 on that business. That leaves a net operating profit of $19,219.68 and after deducting miscellaneous charges of $1,700 it leaves a net income of $17,457. The provision for dominion and provincial taxes is $2,679.56, which leaves a net income of $14,777.52. The president does nothing, but for argument's sake we will add his salary of $3,700. Without breaking up this item of expenses of operation, management and depreciation, $30,156.09, there is left a total profit of $18,477.22 on a capitalization or money paid in of $58,225. Ths is about thirty three and a third per cent profit on a stockyard business. If that other item is broken up I have no doubt it will be found that the profits of this stockyard are indeed very handsome. All this has a great bearing upon the price the primary producer receives for live stock passing through the stockyards. This gentleman is very much concerned and he wants legislation enacted to pass all live stock through the stockyards. He claims that prices are depressed if live stock goes direct to the packer. He may be quite right in that; I am not competent to judge, but I do know that if all live stock goes through the stockyards that gentleman will certainly get what is coming to him. In my judgment, that is all he is concerned about.
When we are considering the evidence given by these men engaged in different distributing businesses, we should endeavour to find out just what amount of money they are making out of the business in which they are concerned. I congratulate the minister on bringing forward this measure. It will give somebody the authority to investigate matters of this kind. It is not going to be left to the tender mercies of the farmer alone, as it is pretty difficult for him to do that sort of business by himself.
I have endeavoured to give the house an illustration of some of the things which go on in connection with the marketing of farm products under the present system. I hold in my hand a list of prices obtained for meats in tny own city. We have a relief store in that city and while I am not saying that that store is in the best interests of those on relief, the fact is that it is there.

Marketing Act-Miss Macphail
According to this return, in March, 1934, the relief store sold sirloin beef for ten cents per pound while the departmental stores charged twenty cents; for T-bone steaks the relief store charged ten cents per pound while the departmental stores charged twenty-one cents; for prime ribs the relief store charged ten cents while the departmental stores charged sixteen cents and the prices for shoulders were nine and twelve cents respectively. Such a spread is too great and it shows that the primary producer is not getting all of that to which he is entitled.
Without discussing the bill in detail, which will be done in committee, as I see it this bill is a move in the right direction. I think every hon. member should lend it his support in an endeavour to see that the primary producer gets more than what he has received in the past.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to
say anything on this bill, as I expected we would vote to-night; but as it looks as though we shall not, I want to take just a moment or two to say that I intend to vote for the second reading of the bill.
There are several reasons why I intend to vote for the second reading. I do not think that the bill is a cure-all, but I do think it is the first step toward national planning. National planning is coming, although just how it will come may not be known to anyone. There must be some regulation in a world in which nation trades with nation rather than the individuals within a nation trading with each other. There must be some regulation in a world in which quotas exist. How can quotas be maintained unless there is some degree of control?
I have not been unduly disturbed by the black picture painted by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in regard to the loss of personal and constitutional liberty. Economic liberty is more important, and unless we have it, all other liberties fall into insignificance. I have been surprised at the attitude taken by the official opposition, as I feel it is a mistaken attitude. I think the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) has expressed the attitude which should be adopted by all who represent agricultural constituencies. We should be willing to vote for the second reading of the bill, in the hope that those things which we do not like will be ironed out in committee of the whole.
I want to recommend to the official opposition an article by Sir Arthur Salter in the Atlantic Monthly of January of this year.
I believe he is a Liberal. In the summary of this article Sir Arthur says:
It is certain that, out of the stresses and strains of the present period, a system will ultimately emerge which will be substantially different from that to which we have been accustomed in the past. Economic activity will be planned and regulated, perhaps internationally, certainly nationally. The role of the state will be increasingly greater. It will have to transform its methods and equip itself for its new task. Its policy must be planned and not improvised.
That, in a couple of sentences, is how I feel about it. I think that economic activity will have to be planned and regulated, and this bill is an attempt to plan the marketing of natural products. It can be said, and I think fairly, that this bill may be used as an oppressive measure. That is true; it may be. We are taking a chance on the 'bill, because we cannot help doing so; but it is also true that the bill may provide the framework within which voluntary organizations may regulate the marketing of their own products. Whether some mistakes are made in the meantime or not remains to be seen, but I think that that will finally be done.
There are two other reasons why I shall support the second reading of the bill. In going over it I gather that the government is sympathetic to the cooperative enterprises of producers. I have been for a long time very much interested in cooperative enterprises as conducted by primary producers, and I think too that it may be, by following out the provisions of the bill, that the cooperative processing of natural products will be carried out with some government leadership and assistance. I have come to the conclusion, from having had something to do with cooperative processing, that until leadership is given by government, until there is real encouragement and assistance of one sort or another, it is impossible to carry on successfully cooperative processing establishments.
For all these reasons I am glad to support the second reading of the bill. It is not very often that I have the opportunity of supporting a measure brought down by the government, and therefore when the opportunity offers I seize it gladly. I have received, as I am sure all members have, a resolution from the Ontario Swine Breeders' Association asking for support to the bill. It is signed by people from six different counties in Ontario. And the Canadian Cooperative Live Stock Association have been for many months asking for a bill, if not like this one, at least something like it. I am of

Marketing Act-Speaker's Ruling
the opinion therefore that it is a more sensible attitude to vote the bill into committee and then seek to make changes, and if they are not made, vote against it on the third reading, than to oppose the bill on the second reading.
Mr. WEIR (Melfort) moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Before the house adjourns there is a matter which I feel it my duty to call to its attention. In my unavoidable absence from the house for a short time this afternoon, the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), in addressing the house on the second reading of Bill 51, made certain statements which I find unparliamentary. In that connection I would quote from May on Parliamentary Practice, 13th edition, page 316:
For preserving decency and order in debate, various rules have been laid down, which, in the Lords, are enforced by the house itself, and in the Commons by the Speaker in the first instance, and, if necessary, by the house. Any member may notice the violation of these rules, either by a cry of "order," or by rising in his place, and, in the Lords, addressing the house, and, in the Commons, the Speaker. When a member speaks to order, he must simply direct attention to the point complained of and submit it to the decision of the Speaker (see p. 338).
The rules for the conduct of debate divide themselves into two parts, viz.: such as are to be observed by members addressing the house; and those which have regard to the behaviour of members listening to the debate.
I would respectfully direct to the attention of hon. members these latter words of this authority on parliamentary (procedure:
-and those which have regard to the behaviour of members listening to the debate.
I have examined the official report of the debates and I find that the hon. member for Temiscouata, referring to the hon. member for Compton's support of the said bill, used these words: "To enable his brother to sell more jam he is ready to swallow any bill presented by this government," referring to the fact that the hon. member's brother sells jam to the Canadian National Railways, thus imputing motives different from those acknowledged. This is a reflection on the independence of a member of parliament. In this regard I would cite the same parliamentary authority, May, at page 325:
The use of temperate and decorous language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate. The imputation of bad

motives, or motives different from those acknowledged; misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation; charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind';-all these are unparliamentary, and call for prompt interference.
Speaking of the High Commissioner for Canada in England, the member for Temiscouata says: "Mr. Ferguson is acting in bad faith with the English people." As to that, I would quote from Bourinot, page 358:
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attacks and censure have always been considered unparliamentary and the speakers of the British and Canadian houses have always treated them as breaches of order. They have always insisted that, "Such expressions should be withdrawn."
The High Commissioner for Canada is in a high official position. He is appointed by authority of a special act of parliament, chapter 92, revised statutes of Canada. There are many precedents of such statements being held to be unparliamentary.
The hon. member for Temiscouata, applied to a member of the house, a word which is certainly not parliamentary. The dictionary gives the meaning of the word to be "a low term of abuse" and worse. The definition of this expression is so disgusting that I will not repeat it.
With the approval of the house I will instruct the editor of debates not to include the unparliamentary expressions used in the official report of to-day's debates.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 19.55 p.m.
Wednesday, May 2, 1934