[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) presented the interim report of the tariff board on the subject of wool textiles.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: May I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) if sufficient copies of the interim report of the tariff board will be published to enable each member to obtain one or two, since I understand the report is of peculiar importance to the public.	'


Mr. RHODES:: No, not unless some new practice is devised under the act. We are only called upon to table one copy for the use of the house.
Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Is J. W. Gaudette, of Quebec, in the employ of the government?
2.	If so, what position does he occupy, what salary does he receive and when was he appointed?
3.	Was he appointed by the civil service commission following an examination?
4.	If not, in what manner was he appointed and upon whose recommendation?


Mr. CAHAN:: I have not been able to ascertain whether any person by the name of J. W. Gaudette is in the employ of any department of the government of Canada.


ASSISTANT DEPUTY POSTMASTER GENERAL
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Who is the assistant deputy Postmaster General?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	What salary does he receive?
4.	When was he appointed to the civil service of Canada?
5.	Where was he born?
6.	How long had he been a resident of Canada when he was appointed to the civil service of Canada?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Coolican, Peter Thomas.
2.	April 1, 1925.
3.	$6,000, (less 10 per cent).
4.	November 27, 1907.
5.	England.
6.	No information.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COST OP TRAINS BETWEEN MATAPEDIA-CAMPBELLTON
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARCH,:
1.	What has been the cost to the Canadian National Railways, per year, of running the Gaspe trains to and from Matapedia to Campbellton since the changing of the terminus?
2.	What has been the cost to the Canadian National Railways of hauling the postal cars for the Gaspe mail service from Matapedia to Campbellton and vice versa, since the Post Office Department has been freed of any cost in this matter?
Mr. MANION:: Mr. Marcil's question was submitted to the chairman of the board of trustees, Canadian National Railways, who replies that the inquiry concerns a detail of railway operation which is not of public interest, but adds that the operation of the Gaspe trains through to

the main line terminal of Campbellton-a distance of 13 miles-and the closing of the branch line terminal at Matapedia, after taking into account all changes in arrangements incidental thereto, has resulted in a saving to the railway company.
The subject matter of the inquiry is, of course, one that might be brought up later at a meeting of the select standing committee on railways and shipping, should the honourable member so desire.
trust and loan companies


Mr. GOULET:: 1.	How many trust companies, loan companies or other companies in Canada are allowed to accept deposits?
2.	Are such companies audited by the Department of Finance?


Mr. BENNETT:: With respect to this question I intended to have indicated the other day that part of the information asked for will take some time to secure, inasmuch as it is within the sole province of the several provincial legislatures to deal with companies that have charters from such legislatures.
Question stands.
post office savings banks


Mr. GOULET:: 1.	What is the government doing to encourage the public to deposit money with the Post Office Savings Bank?
2.	Is the government advertising the Post Office Savings Bank?
3.	Is the government soliciting deposits for the Post Office Savings Bank?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Whenever demand is made for the establishment of a Post Office Savings Bank in a locality, prompt action is taken to provide this facility, if the circumstances are favourable.
2.	Advertising is carried on in connection with the Post Office Savings Bank in the form of posters and hand-bills on the premises of post offices where savings banks are located.
3.	The post office provides every facility possible for those wishing to deposit with the Post Office Savings Bank. It does not make a practice of soliciting business.


MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT OF CROWN PROPERTY
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Is the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners opposing the city of Vancouver's attempt to assess private occupants of crown properties ?
2.	What was the amount paid 'by the Alberta wheat pool for the Vancouver harbour board's elevator: (a) in 1932; (b) 1933; (c) 1934?

Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: The second part of this
question can stand as an order for return.
As to the first part, the British North America Act provides that property belonging to the crown is free from taxation. We therefore have no power to impose taxation upon it, and when the city of Vancouver sought to assess private occupants of crown property it was made known to them that if the properties were assessed as leases or leasehold interests in crown property the crown was not concerned, but when it was intimated that it was proposed to assess such leasehold property as fee simple, then the operation of the section in question of the British North America Act made it impossible to agree to any such action.


*PUBLIC WORKS-QUEBEC
Mr. BARRETTE:: 1. Has the government reconsidered requests already made during the years 1921 to 1930, with respect to the following works:

(1)	Dredging at Pentecote river (Riverin river), on the north shore of the St. Lawrence.
(2)	Improvements to the wharf on the north shore of Aux Coudres island in the county of Charlevoix.
(3)	Construction of the wharf at Mutton bay, in the county of Saguenay.
(4)	Enlargement of protective works at Moisie, in the county of Saguenay.
(5)	Construction of the wharf at Moisie, in the county of Saguenay.
(6)	Construction of the wharf at Magpie, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river.
(7)	Breakwater at Longue Pointe de Mingan, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river.
(8)	Enlargement of the wharf at Harrington harbour, in the county of Saguenay.
(9)	Wharf at Hamilton cove (Portneuf river), in the county of Saguenay.
(10)	Enlargement of the wharf at Dolbeau (Grosse Roche), in the county of Saguenay.
(11)	Enlargement of the wharf at Betsiamites (Bersimis), in the county of Saguenay.
(12)	Repairs and improvements to the wharf at Beaupre, in the county of Montmorency.
(13)	Improvements to the wharf at des Rochers bay, in the county of Charlevoix.
(14)	Dredging at Petites Bergeronnes, in the county of Saguenay.
(15)	Protective works at Pointe-au-Boisvert, in the county of Saguenay.
(16)	Construction of the wharf at Point Lebel, in the county of Saguenay.
(17)	Enlargement of the wharf at Port-au-Persil, in the county of Charlevoix.
(18)	Enlargement of the wharf at Port-au-Saumon. in the county of Charlevoix.
(19)	Wharf at Riviere-aux-Vases, in the county of Saguenay.
(20)	Protection of the shore at river Blon-delle (St. Joachim), in the county of Montmorency.
(21)	Enlargement of the wharf at St. Anne de Beaupre, in the county of Montmorency.
(22)	Work on the retaining walls of St. Jean river, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river.
(23)	Protective works at St. Margaret river, in the county of Saguenay.
(24)	Reconstruction of the wharf at St. Irenee, in the county of Charlevoix.
(25)	Construction of a public building at Pointe-au-Pic, in the county of Charlevoix, for the use of the Post Office Department.
(26)	Wharf at St. Simeon (Riviere Noire), in the county of Charlevoix.
(27)	Enlargement of wharf at St. Simeon, in the county of Charlevoix.
(28)	Enlargement of the wharf at Sept-Iles, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river.
(29)	The breakwater at Sheldrake on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river.
(30)	Enlargement of the wharf in du Gouffre river, at Baie St-Paul, in the county of Charlevoix.
(31)	Enlargement of the wharf at Petite Riviere St. Francois, in the county of Charlevoix?
2. If so, will the government comply with these requests this year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, is not this
an improper question? If you will be good enough to look at the second part:
If so will the government comply with these requests this year?
I think there is a rule that no question of that character may be asked. The inquiry refers to the years from 1921 to 1930, lists a number of works, and then asks the intention of the government with respect to them. I think that is an improper question.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question No. 9 will be
struck out.
GENERAL HORNBT's IMMIGRATION PLAN


Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Is the Canadian government assisting or has it promised to assist directly or indirectly a certain General Hornby or any other person or any organization to bring farmers from England and settle them in the county of Compton, province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what are the names, occupations and addresses of the persons or societies that may have recommended this scheme to the Canadian government?
3.	Is the government of the province of Quebec assisting or has it undertaken to assist directly or indirectly in carrying out such scheme ?
4.	Is the municipal council of the city of Sherbrooke assisting or has it undertaken to assist directly or indirectly in carrying out such scheme?
5.	Is the municipal council of the county of Compton assisting or has it undertaken to assist directly or indirectly in carrying out such scheme?
Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	No.
2.	While various inquiries have reached the Department of Immigration and Colonization, it can scarcely be said that the Hornby scheme of settlement has been recommended to the department except by General Hornby himself.
3.	4 and 5. No information.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What was the amount paid by the Alberta wheat pool for the Vancouver harbour board's elevator in: (a) 1932; (b) 1933; (e) 1934?


QUEBEC HARBOUR BOARD-AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What sum of money has been granted to M. O'Meara and the two other members of the Quebec harbour board in lieu of the automobiles at their disposal the use of which was discontinued in the month of August, 1932?
2. What sum was expended by way of repairs, painting, renewal of parts, mechanical work, tires, etc., to Commissioner LeBlond's Packard automobile, from January, 1932, to August, 1932?
3. How many gallons of gasoline and oil were used from January, 1932, to the month of August, 1932?
4.	In what manner was the used Packard automobile sold by Commissioner LeBlond. and what sum was paid by Commissioner LeBlond for this car?
5.	Whether Commissioner LeBlond refunded the amount paid as licence fee from the month of August, 1932, to the month of February, 1933?
6.	Whether Commissioner LeBlond refunded insurance to the amount of $363?
7.	What quantity of gasoline did Commissioner LeBlond receive from the harbour board since August, 1932?
8.	What sum was granted to Commissioner LeBlond in connection with a trip to Saint John, New Brunswick, on February 27 last?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of all pay lists and accounts for material in connection with work done by the Department of Public Works in the parish of Bonaventure, Bonaventure county, during the year 1933.


DISMISSAL OF HECTOR HAMEL
Mr. VENIOT (for Mr. Denis):: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, telegrams, reports, inquiries, and other documents, respecting the dismissal of Mr. Hector Hamel, acting customs appraiser at Montreal.


DEATH OF DOCTOR WILLIAM SPANKIE . TRIBUTES BY PRIME MINISTER, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION AND MR. SPEAKMAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is my sad and melancholy duty to inform the house that for the second time this session one of our members has been touched by the hand of death. Doctor William Spankie, the member for Fron-tenac-Addington, passed to his reward yesterday. He was a mueh-beloved member of this chamber. I think all who knew him held him in affectionate regard and esteem. He lived the greater part of his life in the community in which he was born, and he was family physician to practically three generations. Just what that meant people in these days have little opportunity of understanding, for the old fashioned physician, shall I say, with the changes that have led to greater complexity in our civilization has passed from the scene. That one who was a family physician for two or three generations would be greatly beloved goes without saying. His genial manner, wide knowledge of human nature, and his professional attainments, which had been recognized alike by the medical council of his province and of the dominion, made him a very popular figure in the community in which he lived. He took a deep and abiding interest in the public welfare. He was inspector of schools for many years, was greatly interested in educational matters in his province, and kept abreast of the great changes that have taken place in the medical profession, for as I say, he was plosely identified with the council of physicians and surgeons not only in Ontario but in the dominion as well.
His life was an arduous one, especially in the earlier days, when the work of his profession kept him moving from place to place on Wolfe Mand. He was accustomed to hardships and difficulties. That greatly endeared him to those whom he served. His popularity was such that when a vacancy occurred for the county in which he lived he was elected by acclamation and subsequently returned to this house.
He had attained the ripe age of seventy-four, being in his seventy-fifth year. He had given hostages to fortune, for three of his sons reside in the province in which I live, and two of them are members of the profession of Which he was an ornament. I am sure that to the survivors of his family, his Children, you, Mr. Speaker, will convey the sympathy of this house, for to the members of this chamber Doctor Spankie had endeared

Death of Doctor Spankie
himself by the kindliness of his nature and his genial personality. We shall miss him greatly. It is one more reminder to us of the uncertainty of life.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the tribute which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has just paid to ithe memory of the late member for Frontenac-Addington is not only worthy and merited but will be appreciated as well as approved by hon. members of all parties in this house. While it is true that Doctor Spankie owing to the recent date at which he was first elected and to his advanced years was a member of parliament for but a short time; while it is also true that largely because of an infirmity of hearing he participated but little in the debates of this house there could be no clearer evidence of the fineness of his personality and character than the fact that notwithstanding these handicaps he was able to impress both so greatly upon others. It should be recognized that after all, his years in parliament were but the crowning recognition of a long life of useful service to his fellowmen and to the country.
Doctor Spankie was a man who, above everything else, appeared to find his greatest joy in doing good, and in the service to others. The theatre of his public actions may have been circumscribed but there was inherent in the actions themselves the greatness which belongs to a reverence for the highest virtues. The choice of his profession indicated his sympathy with human suffering, and his desire to do what he could, in the course of his life, to aid in its alleviation. The Prime Minister has made reference to Doctor Spankie's interest in educational matters. The fact that he devoted so much time in the community in which he lived to the offices of school trustee and school inspector showed his desire to widen, by the surest method possible, the opportunities of the oncoming generation. The value which he attached to learning was also evidenced not only by his own university attainments, but by the fact that all four of his sons were given to the learned professions, two of them to the profession of medicine, and the other two to the profession of law. By his lifelong participation in municipal affairs as well as in dominion politics, he disclosed his belief in the importance of government in human affairs, and in the obligation resting upon those best qualified in their communities actively to share in public life. All were expressions of the many-sidedness of his
nature, which found itheir unity in the desire of service for others.
The Prime Minister has referred to Doctor Spankie as belonging to that class of family physician which is rapidly disappearing, and of whom too little is known even in our rural communities to-day, the general practitioner who in former years played such an important part in the life of the community in which he lived. I am sure no one familiar with modern literature could read the accounts that to-day are being given of Doctor Spankie's services to his community, his visits in mid-winter to outlying districts, driving himself his faithful horse, incurring all kinds of personal risks to serve some human need, without recalling that immortal chapter in Ian Maclaren's " Beside the Bonnie Brier Bush," entitled " The Doctor of the Old School." In a Canadian environment, not wholly dissimilar, he resembled in many particulars Doctor McLure of the Scottish glen. I thought I would find something there which would be appropriate to say in memory of him who is gone. I have a passage here which I think, perhaps is appropriate in its application to him, but is, I believe, even more appropriate to those of us who remain. It is a paragraph with which Maclaren concludes his account of the doctor's last journey:
After which the minister prayed, that we might have grace to live as this man had done from youth to age, not for himself, but for others, and that we might be followed to our grave by somewhat of "that love wherewith we mourn this day Thy servant departed."
On behalf of other members of the opposition and for myself personally I express to the Prime Minister and hon. gentlemen opposite our very sincere sympathy in the loss they have sustained, of so loyal and devoted a colleague; and I join with my right hon. friend in extending our deepest sympathies to those who by his death have been so greatly bereaved.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members in this corner of the house may I associate myself with the right lion. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in expressing our appreciation of the life and our regret at the death of our late colleague Doctor Spankie. Perhaps there is no gathering of men in which integrity of character and kindliness of disposition make themselves more effectually felt, seen and known than in this chamber. Both these qualities were possessed by Doctor Spankie. Because of that fact, and because at all times and to all
Marketing Act

men,, regardless of party, Doctor Spankie proved himself a friend, we join in regretting his passing and in expressing our condolences to those of his family who are left to mourn him.


BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the third reading of Bill No. 4, respecting the bureau for translations.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 21, consideration in committee of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade; and to make further provisions in connection therewith-Mr. Weir (Melfort)-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 12, subsection (1)-Power to restrict importation.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: During the interval since this bill was under discussion last we have drafted another clause which I think may meet some of the objections which were offered to section 12 when the bill was under discussion a few days ago. I will read the proposed new section, and submit it to hon. gentlemen for their consideration:
The governor in council may, by order or regulation, notice whereof shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette,-	_
(a)	regulate or restrict the importation into
Canada of any natural product which enters Canada in competition with a regulated product;	.
(b)	regulate or restrict the exportation from Canada of any natural product;
(c)	provide for the licensing of persons by whom any such natural product may be imported or exported;
(d)	prescribe the forms of such licences and the terms and conditions upon which the same may be issued, renewed, suspended or revoked by the governor in council.
Under this proposal it will be noted that the issuing and rescission of licenses will be placed under the jurisdiction of the governor in council and not under the minister, as was provided in the section as originally drafted. I am sending a copy to my right hon. friend. I believe the language in the amendment meets with some and perhaps all of the objections urged by him on former occasions.


William Richard Motherwell: This amendment is not included in the first batch, is it?


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is drawn only recently.


William Richard Motherwell: I think that every day in every way this bill is getting a little better, and we are encouraged not to persevere too much but, at all! events, to keep going, in order to make it even better. It is not much better, by this last amendment though, -not much, but just a little. I wonder if there could not be some explicit reservations. We know that the world is chock full of trade restrictions of all kinds, and this is one more added to a number which is already too great. This is a case of restricting trade first by prohibition, and then by restricting importation. Surely the government could at least tell us what this is for. What are they trying to do? Are they trying to blockade the trade of the country just a little more, or is some more useful purpose to be served? I can imagine a useful purpose which could be served. Low grade commodities, poor, bum live stock that we do not want in Canada could be kept out, and any provision with that in view would be a proper one. Then, there are some breeds of lard hogs which are not desirable. But to have an indefinite and indiscriminate restriction by a local board, the status of which we do not yet understand, is not surely right. We have done a great deal of gagging at some of the objectionable provisions of this bill, and I must say that this is one of the worst sections we have to yet swallow, or amend- for me, all events. Yet I can see sufficient good in it, if it is defined, to view it with some favour. But to make the provision without any reservation other than that now stated by the minister, one which makes it only infinitesimally better, does not seem to improve the major objection. I wonder if the minister could not help us out, and tell us what it is for. Personally, I believe it is to deal with some problems such as the butter question with which we were faced last year. We remember the importations of butter which were put into bond at Halifax and Vancouver, and held at those points until the market could absorb them. That would not be a bad reason for the change. But instead of leaving it as wide open as a barn door I suggest there should be some specifications which would make it at least more understandable and more commendable. Would the minister come to my relief in that regard?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: In the first place,
the power here indicated is not handled indiscriminately by the local board, but only

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
with the authority of the governor in council, and any agent appointed by them to undertake it. Within the past few years a system of quotas has grown up in different countries. Directly or indirectly, restrictions have been made, and as an example we have the restriction brought about through exchange. If, therefore under the new scheme any country with which we trade decides to limit its imports of products which we export, it will be necessary for us to have machinery to comply with such new conditions. Otherwise the tendency would be to dump the product on the market, with the disastrous effects respecting price which one might easily anticipate. Similarly it might be necessary to use the clause with reference to imports in negotiations with other countries in connection with treaties or trade agreements.


William Richard Motherwell: Then this is a sort of weapon with which to negotiate. I was wondering if it could not be worked the other way, whereby instead of having the provision against our imports we could have a quota on the other fellow's exports, just as the practice is being worked against us. Would that not be the simpler procedure, because one can defend prohibiting exports much better than you can defend prohibiting imports, although both look bad.


Robert Weir: If, as the hon.
member suggests, we were to leave the provision in the form of a quota in the event of Denmark shipping her products into this country, unless we had the machinery to control imports, such provision would be ineffective.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I read it,
apparently the amendment eliminates one objectionable clause. I should like to know if I am right in my assumption. The clause to which I am referring formerly read:
The governor in council may, by order or regulation published in the Canada Gazette,-
(c) impose penalties for breach of any such order or regulation or of any licence issued thereunder, and, generally, make such provision or authorize the doing of such acts or things as may in his discretion be deemed necessary or expedient for giving full effect to any orders, regulations or licences made or issued hereunder.
It appears to strike out the power to impose penalties, but on second thought I assume that the last clause in the amendment, to "prescribe the forms of such licences and the terms and conditions upon which the same may be issued, renewed, suspended or revoked by the governor in council" may mean
that the governor in council may still impose penalties for any breaches of the section. Is that right?


Hugh Guthrie: There is power in the measure to impose penalties for the breach of any section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The section as it now stands means that the governor in council is to have the power to restrict the importations into the country and to restrict the exportations from the country of any regulated commodity the governor in council may wish to have so restricted. I say "any commodity" because another clause gives to the governor in council power to make any commodity coming within the definition of natural product, a regulated commodity, and this clause gives to the governor in council the power to require a licence with respect to the importation of or exportation of any regulated commodity.
The first exception I wish to take to this section is that it treats both exports and imports in the same way. Hon. gentlemen opposite have given certain reasons why some commodities should not be permitted to come into the country at certain times. They have not thus far given any reasons why commodities should not be exported from Canada, other than to oblige those nations which may have prohibitory tariffs or quotas against us, and to help to meet those prohibitions. It seems to me that is a mistaken attitude to take. People who are producing commodities know better than any other people where opportunities for their sale may lie, and what prohibitions they are likely to encounter. I think they might well be left to look after themselves in that regard, and should not be shouldered with the additional liability of having the government prohibit their exports. Such liability would be in addition to the prohibitions against the admission of their exports which might be made by certain countries. In the second place, this measure does not follow the British act in its essential provisions. The British act permits certain restrictions on the importations of regulated commodities, but it has nothing whatever to say of restricting exports. So far as I have been able to read both British acts dealing with marketing it would seem that they allow the producers and shippers and others concerned with the export of commodities the freest latitude.


Hugh Guthrie: They do not export any agricultural commodities. There is no necessity for doing so.

3404	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot agree with my hon. friend when he states that they do not export agricultural products. But this measure includes not only agricultural products but the products of the forests and the lakes, rivers and seas. My hon. friend would hardly say that there are no products of the sea exported from Great Britain, although in Canada such products could be absolutely precluded from export if the governor in council wished so to direct.


Hugh Guthrie: Their act deals only with agriculture if I understand it correctly, and they have never exported agricultural products so far as I know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My statement remains true that they have not tried to regulate exports in Britain in regard to any commodity.


Hugh Guthrie: Because there is no necessity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I do not see why we in this country need to begin to restrict exports. That brings us, it seems to me, to the fundamental criticism of this measure. It aims not at regulating trade but strikes at the very heart of the primary industries of this country, namely, the production that comes from the primary and basic industries. This country is dependent on its basic industries above all else, and the greatest freedom should be allowed in the production and distribution of our natural products. But this bill goes the length of seeking to limit the production of natural products by a regulation which will be carried out through ths instrumentality of licensing. Licensing simply means that producers will have to comply with whatever the governor in council wishes to lay down as conditions upon which exportation can take place. That I think is a very serious departure in the whole business of legislation respecting the trade of this country, and should not be countenanced because it may lead anywhere.
I come back to what I said a day or two ago, that I believe this desire to limit production and trade through the instrumentality of licensing exporters and importers is part of a broader plan which aims, and in the future will be seen to aim, at the regulation of trade within channels within the British Empire at the expense of world trade. The Minister of Agriculture said that I had a vivid imagination when I made the statement that the government might wish to restrict trade in a manner which would cause it to flow in chan-

nets within the British Empire, even if such were at the expense of world trade. But I find that exactly that kind of policy is being set forth in different parts of the British Empire aS the policy which certain governments should adopt.
I have in my hand a dispatch from London dated May 17, which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of May 18 of this year, entitled, "Twofold policy now announced by Chamberlain. New world trade policy to which British government adheres outlined by Chancellor of Exchequer.1' The dispatch reads:
London, May 17.-The new world trading policy to which Premier MacDonald's government now adheres has just been officially announced by Chancellor of the Exchequer Neville Chamberlain.
A little further on:
The British cabinet has decided to develop a twofold policy in future of expanding the home market and developing inter-imperial agreements based on those of the Ottawa conference.
A little further on:
Our main preoccupation will be domestic trade expansion and extension of the Ottawa pacts to the utmost. With such an object in view the British government intends to initiate a series of consultations with overseas premiers.
A little further on:
Since the great slump began there has been a cessation of all foreign lending but lately representations have been made to the treasury to lift its ban on such loans. It is unlikely in view of the government's announced trade policy this will now be done.
Meanwhile the dominions will benefit. They will have full access to the London financial market.
In other words, there is distinctly set forth by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain an imperial trade policy and an imperial financial policy, each of which seeks to regulate both trade and finance within the British Empire I shall not be surprised if, when we come'to consider further the banking legislation in this house we will get still further evidence of the fact that it too is being fashioned by the government to accord with imperial policies of trade and finance.
In order that there may be no mistake about such a policy not being confined to Britain alone, let me make mention of a speech which hon. members no doubt either heard at the time or have since read which was recently made by the Prime Minister of Canada, in which he too dealt with the trading policy of his own administration. He defined it as a trading policy sealing empire unity. I have in my hand the account of the address

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
to which I refer, as it appears in the Ottawa Citizen of May 24. It was made by the Prime Minister on May 23 of this year when the Prime Minister was responding to the toast of Canada at the Royal Empire Society's annual banquet at Montreal on the night of the twenty-third instant. The dispatch has the following:
Speaking of the loyalty of empire peoples to the crown and the ties that bind the family of nations within the commonwealth, Mr. Bennett urged the necessity of evolving a common foreign trade policy which would seal and perpetuate the unity.
At that same gathering addresses were delivered by the trade commissioners from Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, the British West Indies and Bermuda. I have not any objection at all to the government having as its policy in matters of trade, an empire trade policy, but what I do take exception to is their lack of frankness and candour in not coming forward and saying that such is exactly what they have in mind. Instead of doing that they place on the statute books an act, under the guise of a measure to regulate marketing, which in reality so long as it contains the sections that we are discussing at the moment may be used, and I believe is intended to be used, to restrict exportation from this country of natural products where it may serve this imperial trade policy so to do, and equally to restrict imports into this country where it may serve this imperial trade policy so to do.
For my part I believe that what is best for Canada in the matter of trade is a world policy. I believe that as we build up our trade with all the nations of the world so will we build up a stronger Canada, and to that extent a stronger empire in virtue of Canada being a constituent element thereof.
There is another exception Mr. Chairman,
I wish to take to this section, and to it I wish to take very strong exception. It is that here again is a move to deprive individuals of their rights and their liberties at the instance of an arbitrary tribunal, and without permitting the redress which the courts of the land should be in a position to afford. That kind of thing has become so common in this country that it has already been commented upon by members of the judiciary, who are in an exceptional position to judge of infringements of the rights and the liberties of the individual. I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite say that if proceedings are to be begun under the provisions of the law which impose fines and penalties they will have to be taken in a court of the land where, those affected
will have all the protection which the law affords, and where they will not be deprived of their rights and liberties without due process of law. This section, however, says nothing whatever about any right of appeal to courts, only that the governor in council may determine who may import and who may export, and that he may do so by issuing licences, also that the governor in council is to determine under what conditions the licences are to be granted. I say that the moment a man is unable to secure a licence to import or a licence to export that very moment he is deprived of some of his rights and liberties, and according to this section if deprived he has no redress in the courts of the land because it is the governor in council who alone provides for the licensing and who alone determines what natural products may be imported or exported, and prescribes the forms of such licences and the terms and conditions upon which they may be given and revoked.
I referred last week to the important work by Lord Hewart the Chief Justice of Great Britain entitled The New Despotism, which takes exception ito this depriving of individuals of their rights and privileges and liberties by arbitrary action on the part of boards and councils, whether they be the governor in council or some other general or local boards, without the safeguarding of those rights and liberties by the kind of protection which the courts have been created to afford. I desire to quote now from a chief justice of our own country. I have in my hand a copy of a very notable address which was delivered by the Chief Justice of Ontario, the Right Hon. Sir William Mulock, a short time ago, at a dinner which was given in his honour by the Bar of the province of Ontario. Sir William Mulock has had exceptionally wide experience in the matter of legislation, and I do not think he can be accused of being other than a true friend of the farmers of this country. In this parliament he was always a champion of their rights. For twenty-three years the Right Honourable Sir William Mulock was a member of this House of Commons; for nine of those years he was a minister of the crown; for twenty-nine years he has been a judge of the High Court, during which time he has been Chief Justice of Ontario for eleven years. I submit that anything said by the Right Honourable Sir William Mulock with respect to legislation and its effects is deserving of very careful consideration by the Parliament of Canada. I quote from Sir William's Speech as reported in the Canadian Bar
3406	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
Review of January, 1934. At page 38, he is reported as follows:
I desire to bring to your attention a subject of the greatest importance, one which concerns the liberties, the rights, the happiness of every citizen in Canada, and the welfare of Canada itself.	.	.	- ,,I refer to the ever-increasing practice or tne parliament of Canada and of our provincial legislatures of depriving our people of the protection	of	the	law and of	the courts,	byvesting in	autocratic bodies	the power	toarbitrarily deal with matters affecting our liberties and other rights without the intervention of any court.	.I wish it clearly understood that the views to which	I	am	giving expression have	noreference to the actions of any one political party, but are intended solely as an abstract criticism of	the	practice of	legislatures	inshutting the doors of the duly constituted courts of justice against any citizen, rich or poor, high or low, whatever be his position in the community, and leaving the decision of his legal rights at the mercy of any non-judicial body, often ignorant of the law, bound by no no iaw, free to disregard the evidence and the law, and practically at its own will, to dispose finally of his rights.	. .
Most people in Canada are of opinion that everywhere throughout the land the rule of law prevails and is sovereign guardian of their rights. It is not so.
For long years legislatures have encroached upon many of the people's most sacred rights, deprived them of the protection of the courts of justice, and conferred upon commissions, public officers and other irresponsible bodies the power of arbitrarily determining the people's rights.	.	J.	.
To this situation all political parties have contributed; and the fact that the people generally have acquiesced in such legislation indicates an alarming indifference of the people themselves to the public safety.
I think I am safe in saying that there are literally many hundreds of boards and' officers in Canada to-day authorized to exercise arbitrary power in dealing with the liberty and property of our citizens, and that free from any right of our courts to review such decisions.	.
Many of these boards are' not bound by their previous decisions; are free to put their own construction on the common law and the statute law; to revive the star chamber method if conducting their proceedings behind closed doors, and to give no reasons for their _ decisions; the wronged suitor being left without redress.	_	.
This legislative invasion of the people s rights is continuing with ever-increasing momentum, and will undoubtedly continue until an aroused public opinion teaches the people's representatives that the spirit of John Hampden still lives and demands the restoration of the people's rights, and regards every representative who fails to resist arbitrary legislation as an enemy and a traitor to Canada.
That is not the comment of someone participating in a debate in a partisan way or from partisan motives, it is the deliberate and carefully expressed statement of a dis-

tinguished and revered chief justice of our country.	I submit that its admonition
applies immediately to what is being attempted in the section which we have before us at the present time. The section as originally drafted left the issuing and cancellation of licences exclusively with the board. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) evidently has recognized that that was indefensible, and has sought to bring the matter within the control of the governor in council. May I point out to him that the governor in council conducts his operations behind closed doors, that the governor in council may be just as arbitrary as any other tribunal and not infrequently is most arbitrary. When, as regards imports and exports, it is left to the governor in council to say who is to be licensed and who is not to be licensed, without this parliament having indicated in advance the limits within which the governor in council shall act in a matter of that kind, it is a very distinct invasion of the fundamental rights of the people. When that invasion affects the rights of producers and consumers it is invading pretty well the rights of all classes in the country. It is to this aspect of the section that I wish to take the strongest exception.
With respect to exceptional occurrences which may arise and to which reference was made a few days ago by the minister, I can see every reason why a statute might be so framed as to make provision that in certain exceptional circumstances and to meet certain needs, of which parliament would be informed immediately, the governor in council might have authority to take action of an exceptional nature. That is all right, but this is not for action of an exceptional nature, it is conferring a general power on the governor in council to be exercised at any and all times, and that I think is entirely wrong.
May I make mention of another circumstance which I believe to be vital. Hon. gentlemen opposite have said at different times that the British government take certain rights and have certain powers and authority given to them. They argue that we ought to follow that example and that our government should have similar rights. I would take no exception to that as respects the present bill if the measure contained, as does the British legislation, all kinds of safeguards against arbitraiy action framed in the interest of consumers as well as producers. We would then have a very different measure from that which we have here. The point, however, which I wish to bring out at the moment

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
is this: The British parliament is in session practically the year round and the statutes in Great Britain require that as soon as any action is taken under any of these measures, it is to be reported immediately to parliament, or if parliament be adjourned as soon after its reassembling as possible. All action taken by the British government and by local boards under its legislation must be reported to both houses of parliament. With what result? You have parliament practically continually exercising the fullest supervision over any orders in council which may be passed by the King in council, and over regulations by any minister of a department. Here in Canada the time during which parliament is in session is much shorter, and it is during the period when parliament is not in session that we may expect the governor in council to be passing the various orders to which strong exception is likely to be taken. For these reasons I feel that this section should not be permitted to pass. I believe, if enacted, it will work unexpected hardship in a multitude of directions. In saying that, I repeat once more that if the government need exceptional power for exceptional purposes a section could be drafted and passed by this parliament which would give to them all that is required to meet any emergent situation.


William Richard Motherwell: There does not seem to be any reply from the minister. I wish to associate myself with my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) in all that he has said. He has said much better all that I wanted to say myself. Something might be done to provide for exceptions instead of having a general rule like this. The government sometimes answer us by saying they will use good judgment, but what kind of judgment have they shown in getting this bill through? What kind of experience have they seemed to have? Every move has been a new blunder and if the bill is administered in the same way, it will not be wisdom they will be showing, it will be the blundering they have shown all along. I have no desire to get out of patience but I am pretty nearly fed up with their trying to make a good bill out of a monstrosity. I sometimes feel like telling the minister and the government to take their blooming bill, assume full responsibility for it and do with it what they lake-what Paddy did with the sixpence.
There is one suggestion I should like to make. We might finish with this bill and then leave it in committee till it is reprinted. This might be done in order that there would be no delay with the legislation now pressing on the house or in the offing. I have made
this suggestion before and I should like the minister to give us his assurance that if the bill went through now we would at least have a look at it first before leaving the committee stage. If it were reprinted before it went out of committee, I think that would be only fair. I suggest that instead of moving it out of committee, immediately we have reached the last section, the minister have it reprinted, because there must be a good many other matters to be dealt with with which so far the minister has not dealt-sections that are standing. We have had a clarification list of eighteen sections, and now we have had further clarifications of the clarifications, and I should not be surprised if we had another set of clarifications-a clarification of the clarifications of the clarifications. I think it would be a mercy to the government as well as to the rest of us if they would take a day to have it published. Let us look it over to see what it looks like, so that we may get all this patchwork together in the form of a bill. Surely that is not an unreasonable request. We do not want to go to the third reading stage without having all this patchwork put together, because that would necessitate moving that the bill be referred back to the committee, and as far as I am concerned, speaking for myself I do not want to do that. Would the minister entertain that suggestion? Let us get it through somehow and let it stand until it is printed so that we may have a look at it before it reaches the third reading stage, before it goes out of committee. The Minister of Justice knows that that is a reasonable proposal.


Robert Weir: With reference to the remarks of the leader of the opposition, I did not rise to make any reply because I could see, in what he said, nothing that had not already been replied to. His imagination, and particularly his suspicion, has lost nothing as a result of his rest over the weekend. I made it as clear as I could make anything, with my limited knowledge of English, that in the preparation of this bill there was no intention of putting it to the use which the right hon. gentleman suggested would be made of it in connection with empire trade-the use *which he said was the chief principle of the bill. To-day he repeats that he still believes it is intended to use the act based upon this bill to restrict trade with foreign countries for the purpose of increasing trade, or of directing the channels of trade, throughout the empire; and he also states that an endeavour is being made seeking to limit production.
3408	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
I cannot understand why the right hon. gentleman, from the time the bill was introduced until the present moment, has persisted in reading into it, as one of its chief principles, the limiting of production, unless the reason is that having read that principle into the bill the first time it appeared before the house he feels it incumbent upon him to substantiate that assertion, repeated at least fifteen times in his original speech, with respect to what he considers to be the purpose of this legislation.
Let me repeat briefly now whait I have stated before, and let me try to make it if anything clearer on this occasion. No government in any country would pass legislation to restrict the export of primary products or of any of its commodities to any other country of its own volition; but we must remember that other countries are imposing quotas against imports into their territory. For example, Great .Britain might at the beginning of the year limit the exports of our cattle to the United Kingdom to 20,000 head for the year, let us say for the sake of illustration. Now, we have no say in that regard. But if the British parliament did pass such legislation it would be necessary for this government to have certain powers over exports to regulate the flow of that commodity out of this country into the United Kingdom; otherwise there would be a tendency on the part of those whose business it was to export cattle or to raise cattle for export to throw as many as they could on the old country market, and to do so immediately. And the old country would accept them until the quota had been filled. Then there would be an unnecessary glut of the market in Canada. And the throwing upon the British market at one particular time, and in a short space of time, of that number of cattle which we were allowed in our quota would be disadvantageous to our producers.
We do not know in that connection what action may be taken by any country to set up quotas, because I am told there are restrictions in trade, through the instrumentality of quotas, in more than twenty different countries, practically all European. France perhaps has come out more decidedly than any other country in the use of quotas as such to control trade, using them as an instrument of negotiation with other countries.
Here I should like to remind the leader of the opposition of something which apparently he has lost sight of completely. I believe that one of the greatest obstacles in Canada to the negotiation of trade with other countries is the most favoured nation treaty

introduced and put into practice by the government which the right hon. gentleman himself led; because as soon as any country offers to negotiate, or as soon as we approach another country with offers of negotiation, we find that we are tied to so many other countries that we are obliged to make similar arrangements with them. I have therefore no hesitation in saying that one of the greatest obstacles to the widening of our trade the world over through negotiation is this very treaty for which the government led by the right hon. gentleman himself was responsible.
I see nothing to be gained by the reprinting of this bill before the third reading. We have spent enough time on it, and every member of the committee should know it almost by heart.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard
to my hon. friend's last remark, I think that if the minister will look up his own utterances, or those of some of his colleagues, he will find that an undertaking was given earlier in the discussion that the bill would be reprinted for the third reading. The minister is saying now that he will not concede that.


Robert Weir: I said it would be printed for the third reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought the minister said it would not be printed for the third reading.


Robert Weir: Before the third
reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We wished it for the third reading. The minister says that he said it would not be printed before the third reading; I do not think that was what we heard. However, there is no difference between us if we understand that the bill will be reprinted and that we shall have an opportunity of looking it over before being asked to vote on the third reading.
With respect to what the minister says as to the use to which this measure may be put, namely to meet in the way he has indicated a situation that may arise in Great Britain, I take no exception. I will admit that he may use the measure as a means of helping to meet certain situations as they may arise, and in the way he has suggested. But I would point out with deference that he himself may not always be the minister; and even if he is, he may find himself subject to cabinet policies much broader than those of his own department. Indeed, the very clause which he says will be used in one way is equally capable of being used in quite another. I shall

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
illustrate. I will take the very example suggested by the minister. The minister says, assume for example that there are certain restrictions on cattle going to the British market. These would naturally be annoying to our producers. He then said, we can prevent certain shippers shipping all kinds of cattle, we can have regard for this provision and see that only certain classes are shipped. But is it not also possible that the government, seeing what the British government has done, may begin to follow a policy quite other than that which the Prime Minister has just laid down, namely the policy of making tariffs fight for the producers; and when the British government begins to restrict importations from Canada, immediately retaliate or threaten retaliation by restricting what in the way of imports may come in from Great Britain to Canada? Under this clause, as I read it, the government have the power of beginning a species of economic warfare between different parts of the British Empire, to say nothing of between Canada and other parts of the world, a species of economic warfare which may be wholly ruinous to interimperial trade as well as to trade in general. I think that possibility is there, especially When the Prime Minister himself, has elsewhere declared that part of his policy is to make tariffs fight for us. You have there a very clear assertion that some power is needed which will enable the government here-it would not be parliament, it would be the governor in council probably when parliament is not in session at all-to stop altogether certain importations into this country. I think parliament ought not to permit the possibility of any such thing, but parliament cannot prevent that possibility unless now, while it has the opportunity, it refuses to enact a clause of this kind.
Before the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) goes out, apropos of this provision, which here Carries regulation to the extent of prohibiting imports altogether, may I ask the minister if he. will tell us what has caused him so completely to change his whole point of view with respect to the excessive paternal regulation of trade. I have in my hand a statement made by the minister himself, on June 8, 1926, over so small a question as that of grading eggs. The Minister of Justice at that time waxed very eloquent with respect to a bill brought in simply to regulate the grading of eggs. Let me read what he said:
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the whole system is wrong. Surely we can continue the open market system.
Well, this is not the open market system, this is a proposal to let the governor in council close the markets, both import and export. However, let me go on:
If you are going to grade eggs, why not grade other produce? Why not grade butter, fruit, potatoes and other vegetables, that are bought on the market? Why compel the farmers to undergo this grading system only in regard to their eggs? I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is an imposition upon the farmers of this country, and more particularly it is an imposition on the wives of the farmers. No injustice has been done in the past under the old system. Both purchaser and vendor have been satisfied with the old' open market system, where the good old doctrine of "caveat emptor" *-let the buyer beware-prevailed. Under that system the purchaser got the eggs he bargained for, and the vendor was satisfied with the manner in which his eggs were sold. But these regulations are carrying this paternal idea in government to excess.
If that was true in regard simply to the grading of eggs how can the Minister of Justice to-day justify a paternal system which may possibly preclude altogether either importation or exportation of certain commodities?


Hugh Guthrie: In those days I thought egg-grading was a great nuisance, and I think it is yet. But there was a more serious objection than that; this parliament had no right to pass such a law, and the courts set the law aside. Until the provinces took it up and passed legislation egg-grading was not enforceable.
Mr. MOTHER WE'LL: Well now, I was not intending to allude again to that cruel joke we had on the Minister of Justice, because he took it so nicely. But it did pass the courts by us getting the necessary enabling legislation in seven provinces out of nine.


Hugh Guthrie: I said so.


William Richard Motherwell: Stockyards and the grading of hogs were in the same category. But before we took that extreme measure we had to try the other way first. That was not the ground or objection my hon. friend took against egg grading.


Hugh Guthrie: I condemned it as a nuisance, and I do yet.


William Richard Motherwell: Your constituents do not think so.


Hugh Guthrie: Well I thought so, and I do yet.


William Richard Motherwell: Well it is a cruel thing on my good friend to open that up.
3410	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the paternal idea in government.


William Richard Motherwell: He was up against it so badly he has been blushing ever since about it. Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. There was some talk by the Prime Minister about being mercenary, that there was nothing mercenary in the government. Well there never was a request made by my predecessor to let a bill or a section or a vote on the estimates stand while the member was away but it was granted, but I cannot get the least thing of that nature from this minister, not as -much as you could fill a thimble with. I wonder if he can tell us this? If an order of the kind that we are discussing is passed, as a result of a scheme for the regulation of some product, say in Prince Edward Island, silver fox pelts or anything of the kind-they are not regulated in the province now, but they may be at any time-if such an order is passed and the government meets the situation by taking steps to stop the competition of a similar commodity coming into the country, potatoes or anything you can imagine, will this order, made on the petition if only of a part of Canada, extend right from Prince Edward Island to Vancouver, in jurisdiction or will it be circumscribed by the area of the regulated product?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: This is for export.


William Richard Motherwell: No, it is imports we are on now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Section 12
covers both.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I do not care which way it is, will an order that is an outcome of a marketing scheme got up by a locality or province be national in its effect, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific?


Robert Weir: As it reads it has to do with imports into Canada, and I would take it to mean that it would be a national order, covering exports and imports.


William Richard Motherwell: Then we have the spectacle of a marketing scheme for a small locality determining the export and import policy of all Canada. Did you ever hear of the like? I think we should let this thing go, if we desire to hurt the bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One moment. There is one other objection to this clause I desire to raise, and then if the committee

wish to pass it, well and good. It is that this provision is but a part of the government's policy of scarcity, of promoting scarcity instead of plenty; a policy that has been strongly denounced in different parts of our own country, and where it has been attempted in other countries as well.


Robert Weir: So that we may have the benefit of the right hon. gentleman's opinion, would he explain how anything in this section or in this bill has for its purpose a policy of creating scarcity? As I have stated, this has to do solely with orders of governments outside of this country, over which we have no control.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well the whole bill is one relating to curtailment through licensing.


Robert Weir: Not of production.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does not mention the word production. Here again I wish to take exception to the government's method of proceeding. They have referred over and over again to the British marketing legislation and said, we are proceeding along lines similar to the British marketing legislation. But if one looks at the British legislation one finds that it refers from beginning to end to production. In Britain they face the question squarely and say, production may be limited. But this government has not the courage to say it is restriction of production, they say they are simply restricting importation and exportation and trade. I ask again if it is not a fact that you cannot restrict the sale of particular commodities, either the importation or exportation, without that inevitably acting upon and restricting production? That is the whole purpose, that is the whole purpose of licensing.


Robert Weir: Is not the right hon. gentleman in what he has already said ad^ vocating that we do adopt a policy of restricted production? Because he quotes the British act as providing for a restriction of production.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The British act speaks about production. If my hon. friend will safeguard this legislation with the safeguards the British have thrown around their legislation, then I would be prepared to give him my support. The British act, first of all, takes care to see that different departments of the government are involved in any restrictions that may be imposed. In the second place, as I have already pointed out, the British act deals solely with imports and not

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
with exports of any kind. In the third place the British act provides that all legislation under that measure, before it can be of any force or effect at all, must receive the approval of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. This act does not require anything of the kind; as has been said over and over again, its whole purpose is to get away from the House of Commons and the Senate and to allow the governor in council to do as he pleases with respect to the power given him under this legislation.
Take a specific example; assume that for some reason the government thought there were too many potatoes being grown in Canada. All the government would have to do would be to pass an order in council setting forth that in their opinion the total quantity of potatoes should be so much, and that in order to produce potatoes licences would thereafter have to be obtained by all potato growers which licences would set forth how much by way of the production of potatoes they would thereafter be permitted. The minister cannot say that that power is not in this bill. He may say he does not intend to use it in that way, but so long as it is there it can be so used. What is true of potatoes is true of every other natural product, whether it be a product of agriculture, of the fisheries or of the forests. The minister states that this act is going to be used as a means of combating embargoes and prohibitions in other countries, I can see that it will not be very long before under the guise of regulating trade, it will be used as a first class instrument of economic warfare through the imposition of prohibitions, quotas and other restrictions against countries that may adopt a similar attitude towards Canada.
Before we go in for a policy of that kind, it should be clearly sanctioned by this parliament, that we should not at this time put the House of Commons in a position where it can be said later on that the house consented to the governor in council having a power of the kind. The policy of scarcity is the base offspring of those base policies of economic nationalism and economic imperialism which are rampant in different parts of the world, and which are now being adopted in our own country; policies which everyone denounces when he speaks of what is at the bottom of the world's ills to-day, but which, apparently, no parliament is seeking to throw off, or at all events combat in the open way in *which they should be combatted. We find one country destroying its coffee, another destroying some
of its live stock, a third destroying something else; we even find our own government entering into agreements-without the consent, the knowledge or the authority of this parliament -limiting the total amount of wheat that can be produced in the country or sold abroad.
That is the kind of thing I meajn when I speak of a policy of scarcity. It is not only individuals in this parliament who feel aroused and riled about it; those in other walks of life who are most concerned with the well being of our citizens are beginning to protest openly against this vicious policy which aims at scarcity of production rather than at plenty. When I spoke on the address I was taken to task by the Prime Minister because I made a reference to the prayer book of the Anglican church. What do we find the Very Rev. Dean Riley saying, in the cathedral in Hamilton, as to the policy of scarcity? Let me quote a dispatch I hold in my hand:
"It's a damned blasphemy and I use these words advisedly," stated Very Rev. C. E. Riley, B.A., D.D.. Dean of Niagara, in a trenchant attack on the present system of distribution before a large congregation at the 92nd annual service of St. George's society of Hamilton, at Christ's Church cathedral last night.
That appears in the account of the Hamilton Spectator of April 23, and the report goes on to quote the dean's very strong denunciation of what he refers to as this business of legislators trying to limit production when they ought to devote their efforts to seeing that production is more plentiful and that there is a better and wider distribution. Let me quote the following comment upon the dean's utterances which appeared in another Hamilton paper the Hamilton Herald of April 26. It is as follows:
The outburst of the Very Rev. Dean Riley on Sunday evening may have shocked his audience, but the shock was nothing to what the people of the dominion have felt who are directly concerned with the results of the policy he denounced.
That is not an opinion quoted in England; that is the opinion of the dean of a cathedral in Hamilton, speaking of policies as he sees them in Canada at the present time.
His position was a reasonable and logical one.' The Anglican church in its comprehensive litany and collects lea\res little in human affairs out of consideration.
The prayers for harvest bounty and for happy seedtime are thoughtful and natural expressions. We pray to God "that it may please Thee to give and preserve to our use the kindly fruits of the earth so that in due time we may enjoy them"; and again-"Increase the fruits of the earth by Thy heavenly benedictions; and grant that we, receiving Thy bountiful liberality, may use the same to Thy glory"; and again-"We give Thee humble
3412	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
thanks for this Thy special bounty, beseeching Thee to continue Thy loving kindness unto us; that our land may yield us her fruits of increase, to Thy glory and our comfort."
Surely the dean was justified in using the strongest language about those who profess to honour God and then deliberately take away from His children the opportunity of enjoying the kindly fruits they have prayed for; and all merely because they are not wise enough to plan for plenty, and too ignorant of the methods of commerce to do anything but blockade the traffic of the world.
That is what hon. gentlemen opposite are doing by this legislation, blockading the traffic of the world. This bill seeks to give power to the governor in council to control imports and exports as he pleases. In this very city, within the last week, while this House of Commons was debating this very question, another prominent divine gave utterance to words very similar. He happened to belong to a different denomination; I refer to Reverend Robert D. Whyte, former minister of Knox church in this city. I have in my hand the report of an address which the Reverend Mr. Whyte gave on May 22. In it I find the following:
"It is utterly fallacious and the wildest kind of insanity for Brazilians to burn their coffee, for New Zealanders to drive their sheep into the sea and for governments to drive farmers to keep acres out of production.
You could not get a more pointed statement in opposition to legislation such as that before us at the moment.


Mr. COTNAM:: Is he an authority?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I fear he is a much better authority than my hon. friend; he speaks in a very disinterested way for the general public. He is not supporting a government as a party man, in connection with a party measure.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: For whom are you speaking. Are you not supporting a party?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Here is what the Reverend Mr. Whyte further says:
"Our statesmen must be in a fog and incapable of finding their way out," he continued. "I don't know how such men go to church at Thanksgiving to thank God for the earth bringing forth its increase." . . . "People are asked to go to the polls to vote to keep things out and statesmen meet to limit production. There ought to be an answer to such an incongruous absurdity, yet last year a plague of grasshoppers instead of being a catastrophe was hailed as a blessing."
It is to that sort of thing that the people all over the country are taking exception. I venture to say that until this year, we in this parliament never heard a minister of the

crown advocate a policy of limiting production. It has been slipped in and along, one stage at a time, and now we have reached the point where the government demand the right to do as they please with regard to the restriction of imports and exports. I say that power never should be given to any body other than parliament itself. I believe, moreover, it is a power to which the governor in council has no right. The constitution of the country gives this parliament the sole control of trade and commerce. It does not provide that a body subordinate to this parliament shall be placed in a position superior to it. The trouble with the whole of this legislation is that it takes a number of subordinate bodies, tiny little local boards to begin with, then provincial boards and the board to be created by the governor in council, and finally the governor in council himself, and confers on all these subordinate bodies powers of legislation which are superior to those retained by parliament for itself. That is all wrong. That is contrary altogether to the sovereignty of parliament and the rule of law, and should not be countenanced for one moment.


Mr. TURNBULL:: One thing certain, whatever the reverend gentleman from Hamilton said or did, he did not parody the Prayer Book. The actio# of the right hon. leader of the opposition, in quoting the dean in support of his own actions is going pretty far. With regard to the reverend gentleman from Ottawa. I have no doubt that he was misled by one of my right hon. friend's speeches. Having taken the whole of his evening reading the speech, he had not time to read the other side of the story; consequently he got into trouble.
The right hon. gentleman says we are following a policy which will promote scarcity. He has said no Liberal minister of the crown ever advocated in parliament the principle of restricting or of lessening production. I wonder if the Hon. Charles A. Dunning was speaking for the government when he said what I shall quote. The statement to which I shall refer is reported in the Regina Leader of June 13, 1930, and appears on the first page of the second section of the paper. Mr. Dunning was at that time addressing a meeting of the Regina Women's Club, held at the home of one of the citizens of the city of Regina and, speaking of conditions at that time he said this:
At present there is more than is needed in the world of the principal basic commodities. There is too much wheat, coffee, steel. There is a greater capacity for production of the needs of humanity than people can buy and

Marketing Act-Mr. Turnbull
pay for. Nowhere is this more true than in the United States. Production must lessen until consumption catches up with it. That period will be a difficult and hard time.
I ask my right hon. friend this question: Was the Minister of Finance in his government speaking for the government when he made that statement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Most certainly ' not. And if he were speaking for the government he was simply making a general statement about world conditions, and was not setting forth any policy on behalf of the government.


Franklin White Turnbull: It is a new theory in
government when we find that the Minister of Finance does not speak for the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
about the Minister of Railways in the South Oxford by-election?


Robert James Manion: What did I say?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With
regard to lowering interest rates.


An hon. MEMBER:: Keep quiet.


Robert James Manion: I stand by those remarks.


Franklin White Turnbull: Especially when he is
doing it in the middle of an election campaign, and is proposing to put forward the policy of the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So was
the Minister of Railways.


Franklin White Turnbull: And, in connection with the suggestion that he was talking about general world conditions, may I say that one of the particular commodities he mentioned was that of wheat. If my right hon. friend will pursue the speeches of the Hon. Mr. Dunning made about that time he will find that his minister discussed wheat, specifically, as being one of the difficulties. In fact, in his budget speech of May 1, 1930, he made the statement that our exports to Great Britain had decreased in the past fiscal year by
8148,000,000, most of which was attributable to grains, that our exports to the continent had decreased by $80,000,000, and that exports of grain to the continent had decreased by $81,000,000. He seemed to be very much worried about the world situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend in order to make my position clear? I take no exception whatever to the government giving all that it possibly can by way of information to the public, and acquainting the public as fully as possible with all the facts it should have. That is
an entirely different thing, however, from the government assuming the paternal attitude here intended and determining for the people what they are to do once they get the information.


Franklin White Turnbull: I do not know what the Minister of Finance of that day meant when he told the people that production must lessen until consumption catches up.


Mr. BROWN:: Did he propose legislative action?


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: He meant what he said.


Franklin White Turnbull: He did not get a chance to put legislation into effect, and if he had come into office in 1930 and introduced the legislation the hon. member for Lisgar would have been the first man to get up in his seat and vote for it. We heard something also with regard to making agreements restricting sales of wheat. Although this matter has not much to do with the clause under discussion, may I say that the agreement provided for a Canadian quota of 200,000,000 bushels. If the right hon. gentleman would look up the record of our export to the world in the crop year of 1929-30, which closed on July 31, 1930, along with the term of office of the right hon. gentleman, he would see that the last crop year synchronized with the last year of office of the right hon. gentleman, and would find that the export of wheat for the year amounted not to 200,000,000 bushels, but to
155,000,000 odd.


Mr. YOUNG:: What were the figures for the year before?


Franklin White Turnbull: Do not worry about the year before.


Edward James Young: They were the biggest we ever had-370,000,000 bushels.


Franklin White Turnbull: Why did you lose it? If Canada had a market for 370,000,000 bushels in 1929, why did she not have a market for 370,000,000 in 1930?


Albert Joseph Brown: You tell us why.


Franklin White Turnbull: Because hon. members
opposite were in power.


Edward James Young: Did conditions improve
when the new government came in?


Franklin White Turnbull: Certainly they did. During the term of office of the late government every European country increased its tariffs on wheat going into those countries to the point where they became prohibitive, and not

Marketing Act-Mr. Turnbull
only that but during their term of office these European countries put quotas against our wheat, along with the wheat of other exporting countries, until we could not sell in those countries.
Speaking at a nomination meeting on June 17, 1930, and speaking shortly after that at Melfort, the then Minister of Finance defending his budget said that we had lost the markets in Europe, and that the only market we had left was in Great Britain. He said if we could not sell our wheat to Great Britain we could not sell it anywhere. That was the position hon. members opposite were in with respect to wheat. But there has not been one year since this government took office that Canada has not sold more than
155,000,000 bushels of wheat.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: You gave it away; you did not sell it.


Franklin White Turnbull: Why do hon. members
opposite take the position they are taking in connection with this bill?


Walter Davy Cowan: They do not
know, themselves.


Franklin White Turnbull: There used to be a
time when they had some sympathy with the desire of the farmers to market their produce in an orderly manner. They took that position at one time. To-day however we have the opposition of the Liberal party. True, we had the vote of the ex-Minister of Agriculture, but while he voted for the bill he 'has damned it in all his discussions. He talks on one side and votes on another.


William Richard Motherwell: I am exercising my reservations, that is all-and I made a good many of them.


Franklin White Turnbull: You reserved most of
the bill, I think. The hon. gentleman can go back to his constituency in Melville, and when he meets one person in favour of the bill he may say, " I voted for it." But when he meets another person who is opposed to the bill he may say, "I talked against it "- and in that way he may ride on both sides of the fence. He is the old-type politician who has not forgotten the old way.


William Richard Motherwell: I have done exactly as I said I would do.


Franklin White Turnbull: There was a time in
the history of the Liberal party when they were working for the farmers in the country.


Edward James Young: And we are still.


Franklin White Turnbull: Let us take the situation to-day:	The right hon. leader of the
opposition has said he does not like the idea of tariffs fighting for the producers. He has said he never imposed a protective tariff to protect any industry; in his case it was always tariff for revenue. That tariff for revenue protected the goods of the manufacturer but did not protect the goods of the producer.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
about Dominion Textiles?


Franklin White Turnbull: What about Dominion Textiles? Was it not the government of the right hon. leader of the opposition which fixed the empire content of textiles at fifty per cent so that British textiles could not enter this country under the British preferential tariff? Why do they talk about textiles?


Edward James Young: Tell us about the September budget.


Franklin White Turnbull: In 1930 the attitude of
the Liberal party towards the farmer was quite different. I have before me some remarks which were made by the then Minister of Finance, and which are reported at page 1614 of Hansard of that year. These were the remarks of the minister in his speech introducing the budget for which hon. gentlemen opposite voted. Mr. Dunning said:
Western farmers are also advancing along cooperative lines designed to promote orderly marketing of crops. Too much importance cannot be attached to these efforts. Canada's grain producing power is tremendous. In marketing she must compete with the world. Cooperative effort in the direction of the most economical marketing methods should command the sympathetic support of all Canadians.
Here we have a bill to improve the methods and practices involved in the marketing of natural products and in the export trade, making provisions in connection therewith and containing clauses to prevent too great a spread between producer and consumer, and then instead of this bill receiving the sympathetic support of all Canadians it has the wholehearted opposition of every member or the official opposition in this house. Why the change since 1930? Why is it that they are sliding back to the Magna Charta when in the old days they were in favour of the "sympathetic support of all Canadians for more economic marketing methods."


Albert Joseph Brown: We still are.


Edward James Young: This is not an economic marketing method.

Marketing Act-Mr. Turnbull


Franklin White Turnbull: My hon. friend from Lis-gar says, "We still are." He never was in favour of anything which the Liberal party did not back up, not even when he was a Progressive. He was selected a Progressive-Liberal, and he sits here a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal ever since he was elected, and he has never cast a vote or said a word against his Liberal leader. He will be sympathetic with a marketing bill if his Liberal leader introduces it. If anybody else introduces it he will be dead against it. That is the whole story from the other side of the house.
As I said the other day, why do we not get through this bill and give the farmer in this country a break? Why not give our primary producers a chance to get orderly marketing of their products? Why must we contend day after day to gel a little something for the farmers out of the opposition? Every bill that comes into this house to give the farmer a chance is met wth the argument-the rights of parliament and the liberties of the individual. To-day again we heard the argument against licensing, that a man must have a licence to market his crop, and the very minute he cannot get a licence the leader of the opposition says that the man is prevented from carrying on his trade.


Peter John Veniot: Why not?


Franklin White Turnbull: And my hon. friend from Gloucester says, "Why not?" Does not he along with other hon. members realize that there is hardly a business in this country that is not licensed? Does he not realize that every town, every city, every village in this country almost without exception imposes licences for this business, that business and the other business? My hon. friend from Weyburn could not run a pool room in his own town without a licence.


Peter John Veniot: You can run a manufacturing business.


Franklin White Turnbull: You could not own a dog in Ottawa unless you got a dog licence for it, and the minute you cannot get a dog licence you must get rid of your dog.


Peter John Veniot: Why do you want to put the farmer in the same category as the dog, and force him to have a licence?


Franklin White Turnbull: I do not. I put the farmer in the same category as the hon. member for Gloucester, and perhaps there is cause for complaint in that. Ever since this Canada of ours was a civilized country there have been licensing laws and other laws that
have subordinated the position of the individual to the good of the community, and to the extent that they kept a man from doing what he liked they might have restricted his individual liberty, but the liberty of the individual, as the leader of the opposition has said, must at times be subordinated to the general welfare of the community.
All we are asking in this bill is that regulation be applied in the marketing of products for the general welfare of those who have the products to market, that where we are moving our products into limited markets there be some regulation of the quality and quantity of goods that goes into the limited market. And now we are confronted with opposition from the other side of the house to the very thing which the Minister of Finance adhered to in 1930, the very things on which he asked the voters to support him. Then he was a member of the government of the leader of the opposition, and now hon. gentlemen opposite are opposed to the very things which they supported in 1930 because they are sitting on the other side of the house and we are sitting on this side. It is the old political game.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: You will not be there
long.
Mr.	TURNBULL:	If the	hon.	member
for Provencher thinks he is going to get anything out of his opposition to this bill he is mistaken.
Mr.	BEAUBIEN:	You do	not	need to
worry about me.


Franklin White Turnbull: I am not. Neither is
anybody else.
Mr.	BEAUBIEN:	In the	first	place I
say that this is not a marketing bill at all. It is a bill of restrictions and nothing else, and my hon. friend knows it.


Franklin White Turnbull: There is only one
more point to which I wish to refer, and that is the citation made by the leader of the opposition from an article by the Chief Justice of Ontario in the Bar Review. The sentiments there expressed are admirable, and I think most people approve of them, but .they have absolutely no bearing on what is in issue here to-day. What the Chief Justice of Ontario was condemning was the setting up of legislative courts that adjudicated on the rights of the people in place of the ordinary courts-workmen's compensation boards, for instance, which is one of the courts set up by legislative authority in the province to take from the ordinary courts the powers that they had theretofore exercised.
Marketing Act-Mr. Turnbull


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was much
wider than that, if my hon. friend has read the article.


Franklin White Turnbull: He may have covered
more points than that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It covered arbitrary authority wherever exercised, whether by a court or a board.


Franklin White Turnbull: Certainly, but not
arbitrary authority by parliament or arbitrary authority by order in council, if you want to call it that. It covers adjudication between individuals by these new courts, but has no reference to legislation. The chief justice would be the last man to criticize legislation or the methods of parliament. He is criticizing particularly the administration of civil justice by the granting of powers of adjudication to boards and taking those powers away from the civil courts, and the workmen's compensation board is the most pointed illustration of it.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Before this section is disposed of I would like to submit that the criticism raised by the leader of the opposition has no particular reference to the bill itself but is a valid criticism of our general ignoring of the necessity of a new policy with respect to monetary matters. The criticism of artificial scarcity that the leader of the opposition raises is sound, and every act of this government and of his own government in the past was calculated rather to assist in the creating of scarcity, so that commercial and other eniteiprises might be able to profit by the higher prices that would ensue therefrom.
So far as this bill is concerned, my conception of it-I may be incorrect but I hope I am not-is that it purports to improve the marketing processes of the primary producer so that he will be able to secure a larger share of the consumer's dollar expended for the goods so marketed. If the bill has any other purpose I do not believe I would have supported it. As the leader of the opposition has said, under our present system and with your present type of ministers here and in other countries you cannot expect the introduction of a policy calculated to do what he implied ou^ht to be done, namely, to increase the purchasing power of the masses of the people. As long as you have your sound money system and your gold standard restrictions, as long as you have the present wholly unjust disparity in national income, just so long are you in the position of being compelled artificially to provide for scarcity, and the govern-
ment of the leader of -the opposition got no further away from that than the present government is getting away from it. We accept this bill only as a means of modifying slightly some of the inherent evils in a wrong monetary system. That is all. France presented the conference with a draft treaty for the definite limitation of production of a large number of basic commodities. The reference to Brazil has become almost classic in connection with monetary reforms. Six million bags of coffee destroyed last year and almost a million the year before. There was-a limitation of cotton in Egypt in 1926 and again in the state of Texas. We have this artificial restriction of production offered as a cure under the system under which we are now living. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) has just suggested to me that the leader of the opposition has not yet proposed a scheme by which there would be any increase of the volume of purchasing power on the part of the masses of the people in order to enable the consumption of the plenty which we are now undoubtedly capable of producing. In my opinion, that is the nub of the whole business. If hon. members will take the well placed words of the leader of the opposition and analyze them with respect to the general economic conditions and, general social system and work out a plan by which we shall endeavour definitely to consume production instead of trying to regulate, we would be on the fair road to happier days for all of us. I agree with the leader of .the opposition when he says that there is no effective overproduction or surplus in the world. There is no surplus of wheat, there is no surplus of steel goods, there is no surplus of anything and there can be no surplus until, as was said by a mind equally astute to that of the leader of the opposition, Sir Basil Blackett, a director of the Bank of England, until the last Hottentot is living like a millionaire. The trouble with both Sir Basil Blackett and the leader of the opposition is that they have not related their broad conception of the trouble to the legislation necessary for monetary reform. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the masses of the people in this country 'have never yet received sufficient income to pay income tax. More than ninety seven and a half per cent of the Canadian people are below the income tax level of the dominion government. All the income tax that has ever been paid has been paid by two -and a half per .cent of the people. In the face of a scarcity of purchasing power of that kind, on the one hand, and a vast dominating wealth on the other, how is it possible to con-

Marketing Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
tinue? The trouble with the present system is that there has never been a sufficient volume of purchasing power circulated by the present financial system. Never at any time. There are some free traders and mid-Victorian economists who protest that the mere act of production creates the necessary purchasing power, but that is not accepted to-day. Every modern economist states that there never has been and is not to-day a sufficient volume of purchasing power to take up consumption. Any student of modern finance knows that until we relate this problem to the point of view of consumption, even to more than consumption, it cannot be solved. I submit to the leader of the opposition that while his general criticism is sound, this bill itself will neither increase purchasing power as a whole nor decrease it as a whole. After the bill is passed the situation will be just about the same except that there will be a little more regulation in marketing.


Mr. NEILL:: If this section stood by itself I would not be opposed to it because I realize that the government must have some means of dealing with quotas which may be proposed by foreign nations. But it does not stand by itself, it is associated with the preceding sections which gives it far greater powers for good or evil. If the minister had accepted the amendment which I proposed last week by which a scheme could not be Initiated and controlled by the markefing end, that is, the wholesalers, the commission brokers and middlemen of that character; if he had accepted the other amendment which I suggested which made it compulsory to have a poll of the producers in an industry, then I would have had no objection to this section. But he did not allow these amendments to pass and this section now puts a fearful power into the hands of the men appointed in the manner I indicated earlier and by means of which they may obtain such drastic control that the producers might be in a far worse position than they were before. I should like to put something on record which I think will be worthwhile for the information, perhaps not of the minister, but of the producers throughout the country. It is what took place in Great Britain quite recently in connection with one of these schemes. I do this in order that the producers may have some idea of the situation they are liable to be up against. My information is not biased by any political or party considerations, as I take it from the pages of the Commercial Intelligence Journal of May 26. This deals with
the hop situation in England. The hop production of England is small as the total acreage is between 16,000 and 17,000 acres. I ask my hon. friends from the prairies to compare an acreage of 16,000 or 17,000 acres with the almost unbounded wheat acreage of the prairies and realize what their situation may be when the situation I am about to outline occurred in connection with such a small area. The consumers of hops in Great Britain are a small associated body of brewers, readily if not easily negotiated with. This article is by Mr. G. S. Cole, Canadian trade commissioner, a man of high repute and I quote from page 865 as follows:
The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931 included a scheme for regulating the market of English hops. This was implemented through the formation of the English hops marketing board, 1932.
That is less than two years ago.
The situation this year is complicated. Briefly, a bill is before parliament to enable the hops marketing board to impose quotas (1) on English production to prevent market flooding; (2) on imported supplies. The hops marketing board was successful in having the bill presented in the latter part of 1933,-
Apparently they had had some opposition but they succeeded in getting a bill before parliament. They had to have a bill.
*-but a committee of investigation was appointed in November, 1933, by the Minister of Agriculture under the agricultural marketing acts, 1931 and 1933, to consider the objections of the brewers' society to the scale of values placed by the hops marketing board in October, 1933, on the crop of that year. Early in February, 1934, the committee reported to the minister that the evidence and arguments placed before it disclosed no justification for the complaint of the brewers' society.
I wonder what happened in the meantime to prices and what happened to those who had to put their hops on the market forthwith. The article continues:
In April, 1934-
That is nearly six months after the trouble and the market must have been deadlocked during that period.
-in consequence of an arrangement come to by the hops marketing board and the brewers' society for the discussion of certain matters supplementary to the amendments to the hops marketing scheme, 1932, which are now before parliament, the Minister of Agriculture appointed a provisional committee consisting of four representatives each of the hops marketing board and the bre'wers' society, and three independent members. The purpose of the provisional committee is to consider, in principle, the following matters:


Mr. MULLINS:: When this bill first came before the house I did not like it; I was very much afraid of it. But after listening to the various arguments put forward, and when I think of the conditions that actually exist in Canada, I am absolutely in favour of it. I wonder if the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) realizes what rubbish is going forward to the British market? I may say for his information that there left Montreal a short time ago for that market a shipment of cattle that positively should not have left this country. I am sorry to be obliged to charge the hon. gentleman with responsibility for such a situation, but the fact is that he abolished the policy of sending out pure bred sires throughout Canada. He knows he is responsible for the abrogation of that policy.


William Richard Motherwell: You	are talking
rubbish.


Henry Alfred Mullins: And he has left nothing but a lot of rubbish amongst the farmers. You could not go from here to the mountains and buy a trainload of cattle suitable for the British market. Surely then this bill must be of some use if it will restrict the exportation of that rubbish which is unsuitable.
The right hon. leader of the opposition spoke about people dumping coffee, and running sheep, into the ocean. Well, if they would drive into the ocean most of the poor cattle that are going to England I think they would be doing Canada a kindness.
I cannot understand what purpose is to be served by opposing this bill. What is the idea? If the bill is in the interests of the farmer, if it will prove beneficial to agriculture by stopping the export of inferior commodities of all kinds other than live stock, 74726-216
then why not support it? I speak of live stock particularly because that is the line along which my life's work has been directed, and it is one of the leading products of the country. No man engaged in agriculture on the other side of the house will deny that the farmers cannot be successful without live stock, and I have preached this incessantly in this house.
I had not intended discussing this matter again but I could not help bringing it up after seeing this recent shipment from Montreal, intended for the British market-a cargo absolutely unsuitable for the British market. The leader of the opposition has referred to certain preachers. They are all right in their place, but I suggest that they read that chapter wherein Jacob is spoken of as making a deal with Laban to care for his herd; and in that regard I can only deplore the fact that the ex-Minister of Agriculture did away with the policy in regard to pure bred sires.
I see my hon. friend from Lisgar, who I know has occupied the pulpit in western Canada. He knows something about this subject; he knows what poor quality there is on the farms in the west. And he knows moreover that this is the outcome of action taken by the ex-Minister of Agriculture, and I cannot understand why he has taken such exception to this bill. I was just as bitter against the bill when it was first introduced as any man here, but the more I look into it the better I think it is for the farmer that he should have that commodity restricted. I say it is unfair to keep this house in session at the high cost involved in opposing a bill like this. Let the bill go through and let it help the farmers and stop the poor quality that is going to the British market.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The hon. member for
Regina (Mr. Turnbull) is always very fond of trying to impress the country with what the Conservative party and the present government have done for the farmers since 1930 and the harm the Liberal party did previous to 1930. May I tell my hon. friend that unless the policies practised by this government are changed very soon the farmers will not need any marketing bill because they will be broke and will not be farming.


Walter Davy Cowan: That is your
idea.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: No one knows it better
than the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan). All he has to do is to go back to his own riding-

Marketing Act


Walter Davy Cowan: I am ready
to go any old time.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: -and see the position
they are in. The hon. member for Regina has been trying to impress upon the house that this is a marketing bill. But it is not a marketing bill, and this clause 12 and the amendment are just the opposite of a marketing bill. Under the previous clauses of this bill it is provided that schemes may be brought about. Under this clause and the amendment what is done?
The governor in council may, by order or regulation, notice whereof shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette,-
(a)	regulate or restrict the importation into Canada of any natural product which enters Canada in competition with a regulated product;
(b)	regulate or restrict the exportation from Canada of any natural product;
(c)	provide for the licensing of persons by whom any such natural product may be imported or exported;
Under previous clauses, power is given to the governor in council to approve schemes, while by this .clause 12 and the amendment you give the governor in council power to restrict imports of any natural products into Canada or exports from Canada. You simply knock on the head by this clause everything provided for in clause 3. Does my hon. friend from Regina, or does the Minister of Agriculture think that when the farmers become acquainted with this amendment by which the governor in council can restrict the export of any of their commodities by licensing-for if a man has no licence he will not be able to export, and the minister knows that-


Henry Alfred Mullins: He will not restrict quality, and there will be no licence necessary-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How do you know?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Under this clause we are discussing now the minister can do anything he likes, and neither my hon. friend from Marquette nor anyone on this side of the house will know what is done until an order in council is passed. If that is what my hon. friend from Regina calls a marketing bill, I call it just the opposite. I represent a riding in which the people are all farmers, and I have yet to receive one request to support this bill. My hon. friend from Marquette, who is now so strongly in favour of this bill, took a long time to be converted; I think his conversion is on account of an election coming pretty soon-


Mr. LOUCKS:: It would be a good job if you were converted.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I say to my hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) that I have yet to receive any request from my riding to support this bill, and the farmers in my riding are just as intelligent as those in his.


William John Loucks: I do not think so.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: They have sent me here for the last twelve years, so they must be fairly intelligent, and I thank them for it. The farmers of Rosetown have probably sent my hon. friend here for the last time.


Walter Davy Cowan: Why do you not stay in Manitoba where you belong?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Stop cackling! Now, Mr. Chairman, the governor in council under this clause is given too great power. The bill gives too great power to these boards. I do not think the minister has received any unanimous demand for legislation of this kind. I think that the producers of natural products especially of farm products, once they find these restrictions and regulations can be imposed on them by the governor in council or by these boards, will rise up against this bill, because it is not going to help them in any shape or form.


Robert Weir: I appreciate what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has put on record, because various hon. members have quoted the British Marketing Act, first on one side and then on the other, though in that respect I am not referring to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. But the right hon. leader of the opposition quoted the British act with respect to the power given, to consumers' committees and so on, and as a model or principle to be followed; yet in the same breath he objected to the restriction of production. Here I wish to make one short statement, even at the cost of repeating it so often; that is that the leader of the opposition does not yet grasp the meaning of this bill. The principle of this bill is the regulation of marketing; in no sense is it restriction of production. The right hon. gentleman has said on different occasions that he believes in a system of orderly marketing. I would ask him if he can have orderly marketing, which means a regulated or controlled market, without control. That is the fundamental point on which he bases his whole argument, and this false premise has led him to drag in sermons from Hamilton and elsewhere, and press quotations that he is furnished with

Marketing Act
galore at all times, ending up with this reverend gentleman speaking in Ottawa and referring to people hailing the grasshopper plague in Saskatchewan and the west as a blessing. I wonder who ever hailed the grasshopper plague in western Canada as a blessing. I am afraid that if the right hon. gentleman tried to sustain his physical body on such empty imaginings he would not long continue to grace this chamber, much to our regret. The false impression that many of these reverend gentlemen and others seem to have formed is I feel sure due more than anything else to the fact that this bill has been so misinterpreted in respect to production by the right hon. gentleman himself.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Beaubien) made the statement that these powers which we are taking in section 12 are too great to give to local boards. But this power is not for local boards.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I did not say that.


Robert Weir: That is my mistake then.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I said you give certain powers to the boards under the previous section.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: The longer this debate proceeds the more idiosyncrasies and anomalies proceed therefrom.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are the biggest of them all.


Mr. LUCHKO  VICH@: 
Mr. REID:: I should like to ask the minister one question. Under section 4 the board has power to grant compensation-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury):: We are on section 12.


Thomas Reid: I must base my question on
section 4. Under that section it is provided that compensation may be paid by the board if an order of that board prohibits a certain person or group of persons from marketing a certain product. Will the same provision apply in regard to orders of the governor in council? Suppose an order is issued restricting a certain person from exporting or importing a certain product. Would that person be allowed compensation by the governor in council, as section 4 provides in connection with the board? My opinion is that if the board can grant compensation arising out of an order of the board the governor in council should have the same right.


Robert Weir: I am not sure
whether or not I understand the question of the hon. member. Under the amendment it is not proposed to give the board power to grant compensation for anything withheld from the market due to the action of any government other than this government; that is, in connection with a quota. I do not know whether that answers my hon. friend's question.


Thomas Reid: No, it does not. I do not know whether I made myself clear. Supposing an order is issued by the governor in council prohibiting the export or import of a certain product. Would the individual concerned have the right to appeal to the governor in
Marketing Act

[DOT]council for compensation, as he has the right to appeal to a board? Under section 4 an individual has the right to appeal for compensation if he is prohibited by the board from exporting or importing a certain article. Does that right extend to orders issued by the governor in council? 'If it does not I think it should.


Robert Weir: I am afraid I do not understand the question yet. Section 4 does not provide for compensation if exportations or importations are curtailed by a quota placed by a country other than Canada.


Thomas Reid: But it does provide for compensation in relation to products going to countries with depreciated currency and it provides for compensation to any person for loss sustained through storing or withholding any product on the order of the board. I presume the governor in council could issue similar orders, which might prohibit the import or export of certain articles. If that is so I believe the right of the individual to compensation should be the same even if the governor in council issues the order.


Robert Weir: I have no further answer.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely the Ininister has an answer; that is a very proper question. Undoubtedly section 4 provides for compensation in various cases; the individual, whether he comes in voluntarily or is forced in, may receive compensation. If you are going to refuse an individual who is an exporter the right to ship goods-


Robert Weir: Quota or otherwise?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. Surely to goodness it follows that you must compensate him. He is refused the right to dispose of his product, and while there are many inomalies in the bill surely the right to com-[DOT] pensation must follow as a matter of course.


Robert Weir: I think the answer to the question that is evidently bothering the hon. member for West Edmonton is that under section 4, as amended, it is specifically provided that in the case of a quota forced on our producers by an outside government, no compensation will be paid.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Then I should like to ask this question: Under section 4 has a board greater powers than the governor in council has under section 12?


Robert Weir: It has different
powers.
(Mr. Reid.]


John Vallance: Then can the board compensate under section 4 and the governor in council not compensate under section 12?


Robert Weir: Any compensation that might be made by the governor in council would be under section 9, under which a board would be set up to deal with any emergency matters.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Shall the amendment carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Put it to a
vote.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: All those in favour of the amendment will kindly rise during the taking of the vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. Hon. gentlemen opposite may not come in.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Order. I understand that members may come in while a vote is being taken in committee.
Amendment agreed to: yeas, 39; nays, 1.


Mr. RYERSON:: Mr. Chairman, I am
paired.


Charles A. Stewart: Pairs count.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I have called for those who were in favour of and those opposed to the amendment to stand.


William Richard Motherwell: I want a chance to vote against section 12.


Hugh Guthrie: Stand up like a man.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Only one member stood.


Hugh Guthrie: Is it forty to one?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Thirty-nine to one.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I think my pair was counted, but I am not sure. He was standing outside the curtain, but if his vote was taken I desire to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: That makes two, then. They are all for it.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Thirty-nine to two, then.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Are we all "regulated"?


John Vallance: This is what you call an honest opposition.


Charles A. Stewart: If the minister suggests we are all voting for it, I want it distinctly understood that I wish to poll my vote against it.

Marketing Act


Hugh Guthrie: But you did not do it.


Charles A. Stewart: You may count me in.


Peter John Veniot: I did not vote because my pair was absent, but had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am in exactly the same position.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: For fear I may be suspected of having friendship for the amendment I wish to say that if my pair had been here I would have voted against it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am paired with the Prime Minister. He not being in his seat, I did not vote; otherwise I would have voted against the amendment.


John Vallance: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson); had he been in his seat I would have voted against it.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I must remind hon. members that this is quite irregular. We do not take any notice of pairs.


Peter John Veniot: But you cannot prevent us from stating our position.


Mr.   Brny@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: And it is not recorded.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hansard is reporting it.


Hugh Guthrie: Go on with the next section.


Peter John Veniot: What is there to prevent us from stating our position, even if it were not recorded?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Because you are out of order.


Peter John Veniot: Are we out of order? You cannot ^how us a rale which states we are out of order.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I am rising to a point of order, and I shall say what I have to say.


An hon. MEMBER:: Smile, then.


Frederick George Sanderson: On the point of order, I was paired with the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Senn). That is the reason I did not vote. May I say further on the point of order that I have never seen a more irregular vote taken in this House of Commons. The chairman permitted members to come into the
chamber While the vote was being taken, and not only that but he ruled that they had the right to vote.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon.
member is not speaking to a point of order at all.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, I am.


Walter Davy Cowan: Hon. members on this side voted regularly.


Frederick George Sanderson: And further than that, I am sorry to say that many hon. members opposite were paired and voted.


Walter Davy Cowan: We did not vote.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It is
carried, without any reference to the number.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The charge made by the hon. member is a serious one. I believe he should substantiate his statement to the effect that hon. members on this side who were paired have voted. I am one hon. member who did not vote because I was paired.


Hugh Guthrie: Go on with the next clause.
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 14-Offences; failure to comply with orders or regulations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask the significance of the word "determination" in this section. It reads:
Every person who fails to comply with any order or determination of the board or of a local board or any regulation of the governor in council shall be guilty of- an offence and punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not less than twenty-five' dollars and not more than five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months or to both fine and imprisonment.
The clause as it stands imposes the penalty of fine and imprisonment on anyone failing to comply with the determination of the board. I suggest that the words "or determination" should be struck out; they have been struck out in other parts of the measure.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see any object in keeping the words "or determination" in the section. I do not know why they were put in.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe I can explain it. Part II of the bill gave committees power to determine certain matters. The government have changed that so that
Marketing Act

committees will have power to report on certain matters, and they have done away with "determination." The word "determination" evidently slipped in when the bill was originally drafted, and should not be there now.


Hugh Guthrie: There could be no objection to the words being left out. I quite agree that the words " or determination " should come out, and I therefore move:
That the words "or determination" appearing in the first and second lines of section 14 be stricken out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Shall the clause as amended carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the clause carries I should like to draw the attention of the committee to what we are asked to do. We are being asked to fix penalties without knowing what the offences may be to which these penalties are to be attached. That is an entirely wrong position in which to place the House of Commons. Let me illustrate: Any local board, the existence of which is not yet known, the regulations of which will not be known until after it is formed, and the orders of which will not be known until after regulations are made, may give an order of a particular nature, and anyone who violates that order becomes liable to the fine and imprisonment for which we are now making provision. We are fixing the penalty to which some person or persons are to be subjected, although we have no idea what the offence itself is to be to which these penalties are to apply. That is wrong in principle. As I said a moment ago it is substituting local boards for parliament, and elevating these subordinate bodies into bodies having a power higher than that which parliament itself is prepared to exercise in the matter of the creation of offences. I do not believe that is a proper procedure or proper in any respect.


Hugh Guthrie: Of course this is the same argument, in principle, which the right hon. gentleman has mflde so many times in connection with this bill. Under many acts of parliament we give power to pass regulations about which we know nothing at the time the bill is passed, and we provide penalties for breaches of regulations. In this instance it is an order of a board; it is not a regulation, but the same principle is involved. We have done it; it is an established custom of parliament; no harm has resulted; no harm will result, and I cannot see any objection to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest that what parliament has done, at the very most, has been to set out a class of offences and attached to those offences certain penalties. It has permitted the governor in council to make certain regulations under some general clause which applies from one end of the country to the other. But here we are permitting a condition whereby an act may be made an offence in one locality which may not be an offence in another. Under such a condition we make a person liable to fine and imprisonment in one part of Canada, while in another part of Canada at the same time there is no similar law, although parliament has fixed the penalty. I have quoted from the report of the Royal Commission on Ministers' Powers. There is one other passage I should like to quote in this connection. It is from page 72:
The best exposition of the modern doctrine-[DOT]
That is to say, of what the rule of law now means:
The best exposition of the modern doctrine and of its corollaries is that contained in Dicey's Law of the Constitution. He says: That "rule of law" which forms a fundamental principle of the constitution, has three meanings, or may be regarded from three different points of view. It means, in the first place, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, or prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government.
I submit that under that exposition what is here proposed is a highly improper method of proceeding, namely, to allow the governor in council arbitrary power to fix certain offences and to ask this parliament in advance of those offences being named or known, to fix the penalty that is to be made applicable when the governor in council has acted. The report goes on, still quoting from Dicey:
It means, again, equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts.
There again I submit that we are violating what is fundamental because under this legislation there will not be equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land. These penalties that we are now asked to enact will apply only here and there as different local bodies, the central board, or as the governor in council may wish to have them apply. The penalties are to be made applicable to offences that are created by these local boards. I believe it will be found such a procedure is wholly unconstitutional and I

Marketing Act
submit we ought not to be asked to enact legislation of the kind. Quoting again from the report, Dicey says finally:
The "rule law," lastly, may be used as a formula for expressing the fact that with us the law of the constitution, the rules which in foreign countries naturally form part of a constitutional code, are not the source but the consequence of the rights of individuals as defined and enforced' by the courts.
In other words, individuals have certain inalienable rights, one of which is not to have their property or person put in jeopardy for any offence that is not known, and which is not a part of the law of the land. But in this bill you are making a man liable to both fine and imprisonment, the extent of which is set forth in the enactment of this parliament for acts that to-day are wholly innocent and which will not become offences generally, and of which even the nature is not known at this very time the penalties which are to apply to them are being set forth.


Hugh Guthrie: The powers of the board in respect of which it may make orders are all fully set out in section 4, and it can make orders only in respect of the matters set out in section 4. There is the very same provision in the grain act. By section 15 it is provided that the board may make regulations in respect of its powers which are set out in paragraphs (a) to (t) inclusive.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are the
penalties specified in the grain act?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know. I am
talking about the power to make orders. There are penalty clauses specifying the amount and the limits of the amount. The whole jurisdiction of the board to make orders is set out in this act, and if people break the orders they may be penalized.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume that
any orders the dominion board would make would be applicable from one coast to the other, but this section goes further. It does not apply simply to orders by the board but to any order issued by a local board, and a local board may be nothing but a small group of interested producers in one community.


Hugh Guthrie: The local boards are a
different thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. This section applies-


Hugh Guthrie: Read it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Section 14
reads:
Every person who fails to comply with any order or determination of the board or of a local board

That is what I take exception to; it may be the order of a local board:
-or any regulation of the governor in council shall be guilty of an offence.
These local boards are boards of selfinterested occupational groups, and they instead of this parliament are to be allowed to make a part of the criminal law. In other words, under this legislation these interested groups are to be permitted to make laws which will subject others, some of their own class possibly, and some not of their own class, it may be-certainly it is not a board representative of all classes-to a penalty of fine and imprisonment if they do not comply with the orders they may make.


Hugh Guthrie: These regulations or
orders are all approved by the governor in council before they have the force of law.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite
appreciate that it is useless for us to raise objections because the government is going to puit this bill through, and so far as I am concerned I hope they do put it into effect. But may I point out to the minister that there may be a local board set up within certain geographical limits, and all the producers within those limits whether they consent or sign or not are to be subject to the orders of the board. The minister informed us some days ago that that was the effect Here you are fixing a penalty of $500 or imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both fine and imprisonment, if some order of that local board is not complied with. If I am wrong in my interpretation of these provisions I should like to be put right. Now where twenty-five per cent of the producers in a given territory are forced in against their will, without even having a poll, and then the board is given power to subject some producer who refuses to come in to a penalty of $500 or imprisonment or 'both, well, you will have a nice state of affairs in that community.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would point out further that the whole purpose of parliament is to see, when legislation is being enacted the effect of which is to deprive the individual of his personal liberty or his property, that at least it shall be enaated by those who have been elected to parliament under methods which are intended to ensure the representation of all classes. But this is the making of law not by representatives of
Marketing Act

the people as a whole but by the representatives of occupational groups, and it may be a very limited group in a particular occupation, and is always a self-interested group. There are none of the safeguards here which the Dominion Elections Act affords to all classes whose rights and liberties are likely to be affected by legislation. [DOT] There is no secret ballot, no qualification of candidates, no qualification of voters-no parliamentary practice or procedure-none of the qualifications or obligation's required of those who are the recognized law makers. All these are thrown to one side, and hereafter any interested group for its own purposes, if it can get away with it, can make an offence to which the penalties now being framed by this House of Commons shall apply. Parliament itself under the constitution has exclusive powers in that regard. So far as giving the governor in council power to create the offences to which these penalties shall apply I submit that parliament is thereby simply handing over to the governor in council a function and a power which the constitution has reserved to parliament alone, and which parliament cannot properly divest itself of and give in its entirety even to the governor in council. What we are being asked to do here, in the words of Lord Hewart, Chief Justice of Great Britain, is " to subordinate parliament, to evade the courts and to render the will or the caprice of the executive unfettered and supreme." The gravest feature of all is that while to a certain extent parliament might be prepared to countenance the making of regulations by subordinate bodies, it should be asked to permit such bodies instead of parliament itself to create criminal offences. That is going beyond any rights, it seems to me, which this house has.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, on division.
Alan Webster Neill: Before proceeding to part II, Mr. Chairman, would it not be better to finish part I? Subsection 7 of section 4 stood.


William Richard Motherwell: Part II deals with investigations.


Alan Webster Neill: A subsection was allowed to
stand for redrafting.


William Richard Motherwell: Subsections 7 and 8 of section 4.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) asked that subsection 9 of section 3 be allowed to stand.


Alan Webster Neill: I am referring to subsections
7 and 8 of section 4. Subsection 7 reads:
The board may utilize the fund created by the charges or tolls in connection with the exercise by it or by a local board of any of its powers or for the pooling of returns.
And so on. That stood for redrafting.


Mr. DUPRE:: Subsection 9 of section 3
was allowed to stand, and we will deal with that first.	-
On section 3, subsection 9-Payments authorized.


Maurice Dupré: I move that subsection 9 of section 3 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
The governor in council may from time to time authorize payment to the board, out of moneys to be appropriated by parliament, of such sums of money as may be required to assist in the organization of local boards, to defray the operating expenses of the board incurred by it directly, and any expenditure incurred or authorized by the board under the authority of section 9 hereof.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The first part
of this subsection in connection with the appropriation of money by parliament was agreed to, but the section was then held over in order to add that part referring to the assistance to be given for the organization of local boards. I am not taking exception to this amendment but I would direct the attention of the committee to the fact that under the British act the local boards organize themselves and then subsequently come to the central body which thereafter may assist them financially, or in ways that may be necessary. What is here proposed, like most everything else in this act, is the other way around, it enables the governor in council out of the public treasury to assist in the formation of boards which may have to do with the limiting of production and the restriction of trade. As long as that is what the minister intends to do, all right, but we shotdd know how far we are going.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: I move that the following
be added to section 4 as subsection 7:
A fund created by charges or tolls imposed in connection with the scheme of regulation may be utilized by the board or by the local board, if so. authorized by the board, for the purposes of such scheme, including the creating of reserves and in the case of charges or tolls imposed in respect of the marketing of any product under the direction of any board or agency established under the law of any province to regulate the marketing of any natural product, the board may direct that the charges or tolls be utilized by and for the purposes of such board or agency.

Marketing Act


John Campbell Elliott: What is intended by this
change?


Robert Weir: When subsection 7
was under discussion a point was raised by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) in connection with the pooling of returns. After consideration it was felt that matters would be clarified by giving the board power for pooling and by substituting this amendment for subsection 7.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has not mentioned pooling at all.


Robert Weir: It was felt it would clear up matters to have that in an additional subsection. In order to bring the whole thing in conformity, it will be necessary to change number 6.


Alan Webster Neill: Will an amendment be introduced later on dealing with pooling?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
local board have power to disburse funds?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Full power?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: It deals only with incidental
charges?


Edward Joseph Garland: Am I
correct or is the hon. member for Comox-Alberni?


Robert Weir: The disbursements
are covered in amendments 5 and 6.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do they
cover disbursements by the local board for whatever purpose the local board may consider necessary in the development of pooling, let us say?


Robert Weir: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: I move to add the following
as subsection 8 of section 4:
Any charge or toll imposed by the board pursuant to this section shall be a debt due to the board recoverable by legal action and a certificate under the hand of a chief executive officer of the board or of the local board, or board or agency established under the law of any province to regulate the marketing of any natural product as the case may be, acting as agent of the board as herein provided shall be prima facie evidence that the amount stated therein is due.


Robert Weir: There is no
material change in this; it is only to read in conformity with 7.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: Before we go any further
I move to delete present subsection 6 of section 4 and to substitute therefor the following:
Whenever the board or a local board cooperates or acts conjointly with any board or agency established under the law of any province to regulate the marketing of any natural product the board may similarly impose charges or tolls in respect of the marketing of the whole or any part of the product marketed under the direction of such board or agency and may authorize such board or agency to act as the agent of the board in collecting and disbursing such charges or tolls.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has not kept
faith. If that is all the amendment, we have not got down to pooling yet.


Hugh Guthrie: That is coming.


Alan Webster Neill: Is this where pooling is to
be found?


Robert Weir: That will be found under subsection 1, clause (c).


Alan Webster Neill: Would it not be better to
take the subsections in their order instead of going backward?


Maurice Dupré: These are all tied together.


Edward Joseph Garland: The
amendment as I heard it read referred to any natural product. Does that mean any natural product within the meaning of the act?


Robert Weir: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: I move to delete clause (c) in subsection 1 of section 4 as carried and to substitute the following therefor:
to conduct a pool for the equalization of the returns received from the sale of the regulated product; to compensate any person for loss sustained by withholding from the market or forwarding to a specified market any regulated product pursuant to an order of the board; provided that no compensation shall be paid in respect of a regulated product that may be withheld from a particular market because the grade of such product is deemed by the board to be unsuitable for such market, or because of restrictions imposed by the government or other competent authority of any other country upon the importation of any regulated product into that country.


Robert Weir: The only change
is the addition of these words:
to conduct a pool for the equalization of the returns received from the sale of the regulated product.


Alan Webster Neill: Perhaps the minister would
allow the committee to rise now so that we may study this during recess.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
Marketing Act

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The amendment, I believe, was to subclause 1 of clause 4, dealing with pooling. Has the amendment been read?


Robert Weir: It has been read.


Alan Webster Neill: Perhaps the minister would give us some idea how he proposes to arrange for the carrying out of this pool. I spoke about it the other day, and I do not propose to repeat my remarks. The minister said at that time that he was going to have the item redrafted. I pointed out-page 3225 of Hansard -that in the New Zealand act of 1923 they provide for pooling. But they go further. Pooling is a very general term; we do not understand anything very particular concerning it except the general idea that the receipts shall be pooled and divided, presumably equitably. But there is no provision for that in this bill. In the New Zealand act they prescribe what shall be done, and I think it would be desirable to follow that procedure here to some extent. They provide that the receipts from the produce shall be paid by the board into a separate account in a bank. I think that is highly desirable so that it will be earmarked. Then it says it shall be applied by the board in certain ways. The minister may say that he is going to arrange for all this by regulation, but in New Zealand they thought it worth putting in the act. They provided for six different things; for payment of expenses and commissions and other charges; salaries and wages; travelling expenses, and repayment of advances made by the board to owners. Then provision is made for creation of a reserve fund-that is a very important thing; and finally the balance is to go to the owners of the products. The minister may say: Well, the local scheme will provide for all these things. But the local schemers are more intent on their local problems; they see it only in the light of their local conditions, and I suspect they are not going to provide for all these features. I am not going to press the matter to an amendment; if the minister will not listen, the responsibility is his. But would it not be a good thing to provide now that the receipts shall be pooled, and to set up some safeguards for the benefit of the producers and also of the board as to the handling of the funds, what expenses are to come out, and the final balance to be paid to the producers?


Robert Weir: We have traversed this ground in our preparation of the bill, and we feel that these features can best be handled with it in its present form. Different schemes of pooling may be submitted, but as the direction will be under the dominion board we feel that through it uniformity will be attained as far as is desirable, at the same time leaving enough latitude to meet the different plans of pooling that may be brought forward. Regulations required to give effect to the particular manner of pooling suggested by local boards will be submitted to the governor in council on the recommendation of the board. The board itself will be the instrument to give uniformity.


Alan Webster Neill: The dominion board?


Robert Weir: ' Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I hardly gathered that from
some previous remarks. I understood that the minister was going to allow a great deal of latitude to the local boards. Now I gather that he is going to keep the control in the hands of the dominion board, to which I take no exception; I think it is a good thing, but it makes it all the more reasonable that the powers should be defined. I thought he said he was going to leave it to the local boards, which require perhaps some vagueness in definition, but if it is to be done by the dominion board, and he is going to get a certain basis of policy that will extend to all these groups, what objection can there be to putting some of the conditions in the bill? I feel he is going to make a good deal of trouble for himself. For instance, the idea that the money should be earmarked; is there any reason why the money should not be put in a separate fund instead of some common fund?


Robert Weir: The hon. member
misunderstood me if he got the impression that we were not allowing as much latitude to local boards as I have at previous times stated. Because of the flexible nature of the bill, ample freedom will be allowed for different suggestions or policies to be set forward. The principle will be under the control of the dominion board, but it will be capable of variation. For example, in Ontario they might wish to form a board to deal with one kind >of fruit, setting aside funds to equalize the proceeds from that particular kind of fruit. They might also wish to set up a fund to equalize payments over different kinds of fruit. I can assure the hon. member that he is just covering the same difficulties that

Marketing Act
we considered in the preparation of this bill, and after tihe fullest consideration we felt it better to allow the freedom for which we have provided; yet the approval of a scheme by the dominion board will in itself provide for uniformity.


Alan Webster Neill: Just one more question. The
minister says he is going to leave the greatest latitude to the local boards. That is desirable, perhaps, but there are certain standard things, not questions of right and wrong but of good business principles, that cannot be gainsaid and must be accepted, and that we could accept right now. For instance, suppose a little local board, interested only in its own affairs, 'arranged that an advance payment which turned out to be excessive should be made to the fruit growers; they pay perhaps what they think is ninety per cent of the value and it turns out to be one hundred and twenty per cent. There is trouble right there which could be obviated if we or the board set certain standards suggested by common ordinary business sense. Some people would think it a fine thing to get all they could out of the fruit in the first place, but later they would be confronted with the situation that it sold for less than they expected, and who is going to pay the expenses? All kinds of things like that might happen from lack of business experience. Why not set certain standard gauges within which the local board would have to operate? The minister says he is going to see that they are in agreement with general business principles. Why not put that in the act so that they may start off in that way, instead of starting off wrongly and getting into trouble for having done so?


Robert Weir: I feel that too many conditions must be taken into consideration to place any narrow limit in this regard. I fully appreciate the difficulty of the hon. member, but so many conditions may arise that we feel it much better to retain this provision.


William Richard Motherwell: Before we pass on to part II of the act, which is the investigational rather than the marketing part of the bill, might I ask the minister if he intends to have any proviso inserted with regard to the status1 of the local boards? I was unavoidably absent one evening when this bill was under discussion, and it may be that this was dealt with at that time. I remember bringing up the matter, not by way of amendment but merely as a suggestion a day or two previously. Will the government or the central board have a representative on the
local board, providing the very necessary contact between the central board and the local board and in some measure at least representing the consumer? Will the provincial government of the province in which the petition originated have a representative on the local board? Will the producers themselves have two or more representatives on the board and will the unorganized producers, the coerced minority if you like, or any organized body other than the one presenting the petition, have representation? That would give a total of five members of the board. It seems to me, with the tremendous powers to be exercised by the local board, that it would give some assurance to the public if the central board had some representation on the local board, which has to do with administration salesmanship. It would give some little feeling of security to know that the consumers would be kept in mind, at all events, by the board administering the marketing scheme of which it had charge. I do not think anything has been done in that regard and it is in the interest of even the producer himself that it be provided for. I have asked a number of members, and they were not aware that any change of that kind had been made, so the minister will forgive me if I have dealt with something already covered.


Robert Weir: In the absence of the hon. member the other evening no constitution of the board as such was set out; it still remains open, so far as the selection goes; no change has been made. I see a great deal of merit in my hon. friend's recommendation. If the majority of the board were producers, in many cases it would be advantageous for them to have the trade represented, and also to have a representative of the provincial or federal department. But in the province of Ontario, for example, a scheme might be submitted and the province might desire very strongly to have a representative on the board, while in some other province that would not be thought the best course of procedure. So I feel, as I have stated, that the board in its supervisory capacity in connection with all schemes will be in a better position to work out the constitution of a local board than would be the case if we set it out in the bill.


William Richard Motherwell: I had in mind the strong argument-not my argument, I may say-used so frequently against this bill; I refer to its compulsory nature. Under present conditions that does not worry me very much, but I should like to have that difficulty minimized as much as possible. By
Marketing Act

having a representative of the minority or of other bodies not already represented on the board I believe that argument would be done away with to a large extent. In some cases the minority may number a third of the total producers, or even more. If my hon. friend took the notion a petition would not be needed; he has authority to act without a petition. On the other hand he might require one hundred per cent of the producers to be in favour of the scheme. I hardly suppose either of these extreme cases will come about, nevertheless the provision is there. I think it would reduce the opposition to a minimum if a flexible favourable vote were inserted, say from sixty-six and two-thirds per cent to eighty-five per cent, as I previously suggested. Then the minister would have discretion to choose between those limits, and he could also have a representative of the .minority on the local board, which after all is the important salesmanship body.
If that were done it seems to me these complaints about coercion and compulsion would be very greatly reduced. There is bound to be an element of compulsion in any scheme of this kind; if no compulsion at all were exercised one man out of a hundred could hold up the entire scheme, which would be absurd. But if the favourable vote could be set at between sixty-six and two-thirds per cent and eighty-five or even ninety per cent, just to give the minister a range within which to choose, depending on the commodity in question and other circumstances, I should think an immense responsibility would be removed from his shoulders. I should think he would jump at the chance, because under the present bill he will find that he must assume a tremendous responsibility. I do not think it is well, either for the sake of the bill or for the sake of the minister, that he should carry such a responsibility when it can be so easily removed in the manner I have suggested. I am not going to press the matter; I simply felt that I would like to draw it to his attention.


Robert Weir: I appreciate the
suggestions of the hon. gentleman. The bill is based on the assumption that the producers are themselves most concerned with the success of their scheme. Knowing the difficulty of forcing a group into the scheme, perhaps to a great extent against their will, I feel that the producers would be the first to realize the importance of securing their cooperation by having the minority name one member of the board. Perhaps in most cases these minorities will be organized in their opposition, and in that case it would

be a simple matter for them to select a representative on the board. But difficulties may arise; there may be two or three groups opposing the scheme, or the opposition might not be organized at all. I had quite a definite constitution set out in the first draft of the bill, but because of some of the difficulties I have suggested I felt that it would be better to leave the question open in that regard.
Then with reference to the other suggestion of the hon. member that a range should be stated, between sixty-six and two-thirds per cent and eighty-five per cent; the difficulty I see would be this, that the eighty-five per cent would in each case, be held out and insisted upon by the minority, simply because it had been mentioned, and the sixty-six and two-thirds per cent might be held out by the majority because it, also, was mentioned. As I have stated previously I do not think many schemes could hope to succeed with less than seventy-five per cent, but after it gets into operation I believe the board will be in the best position to influence the formation of local boards under schemes, and to create as great a degree of uniformity as we could expect to have under the varying conditions. I appreciate the suggestion made by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), but for these reasons I believe it better to leave the matter open.


Alan Webster Neill: If the minister thinks that
the first action of the majority of anybody would be to hasten to give representation to the minority, he has more confidence in human nature than I have. I have no doubt that the minister, in common with most hon. members, has advisory committees in his district to give him advice. Has he any recollection of such committees taking immediate or any steps to give the minority in his district representation on the committees? I do not think so. I think I am the only man in the house who tried to do that, and my efforts were not a startling success.
While I am on my feet I should like to make one last appeal in connection with a matter I have brought before the committee on two former occasions. I do not expect that the minister will yield now, but he might give at least some assurance. If he will not put my suggestion in the bill he might assure the committee as to his intentions. I would have confidence in the minister, although I know from experience that officials are not always bound even by assertions made by the minister in the house. I refer particularly to contracts. Some of the schemes may be put into effect immediately while others may not be effected for months or probably years.

Marketing Act
Meantime business will try to go on, and we know that business is to a great extent formulated upon the basis of contracts ahead. We do not grow a crop overnight; we have to make contracts stretching out perhaps eighteen months ahead. The minister thought that my objection in that regard could be met by saying that no doubt any local board would be keen to recognize contracts. That is not necessarily so. They may take a very narrow view and say, "We are running this thing, and we will do what we think best." I heard only the other day about a man who said that if the bill passed with no contract provision he was going to cancel certain contracts he was then making because he would have no assurance that the producer would be able to fulfil them. He did not make the statement in any political or nasty sense. If the minister is not prepared to incorporate my suggestion in the bill would he at least give the committee some assurance that when any board is constituted any bona fide contract entered into in pursuance of the ordinary course of business, whether it be for a short or a long period, according to the custom of the trade, will be recognized for the period of its existence by the local board?


Robert Weir: While in certain
instances I agree with what the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) has said, I know he would not expect me to make a statement now which would in any way or to too great an extent embarrass a local board. I can say this, however, that what he has said will be borne in mind in connection with the formation of boards.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Shall the clause carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I make one suggestion to the minister? It arises out of the second part of the bill but bears upon the part we have been discussing. My suggestion is occasioned by a change which the minister is proposing to make in the second part of the bill. When the legislation was drafted in part II it left to local investigating committees the power to determine what were offences. According to the amendlment of which the minister has given notice the ministry intends to do away with the right of the local committees to determine offences, and instead places on those local committees the duty of making reports to the government.
. What constitutes the offence is set forth in a clause by itself, and undoubtedly the report to the government will help to draw attention to what may be an infringement of that
provision. If there were a similar alteration made in the first part of the bill with respect to these ipowers to create offences being given by local boards, such alteration would go a long way towards meeting the objections I have been raising to the powers the minister is giving. If instead of giving to the local boards, which are as yet unknown and unconstituted, the power to determine what are to be offences-this parliament having only the duty of naming the penalty which is to attach to the offence-the minister would have the local boards report to him or to the governor in council and let the governor in council, which is responsible to parliament, create the offence, thereby having the law made applicable and uniform from one end of the country to the other, we would be proceeding infinitely more in accord with parliamentary procedure, and would be adopting a course which would prove to be a real protection to the producers themselves. I am afraid that, left as it is, the measure will help to penalize the very persons in whose interests it is being passed. For example, if a group of producers determine that a certain kind of action is to be an offence in the particular locale in which they are operating, and such offence is not one applicable generally to the whole of the producers in Canada carrying on similar business, those who are affected will certainly be handicapped. There is another danger which I see, namely that a group of inefficient producers might wish to rid themselves, if I may use that expression, of some efficient producer who is not carrying on his business as the majority of the producers may wish it to be carried on. As I read the bill, an offence might be created by interested competitors which would serve to put such an individual completely out of business, I do not think that is a power which should be given to any group, in any community, at any time. No group of individuals should have the power, through power given them by this parliament, to subject those who are in competition with themselves to the possibility of both fine and imprisonment. I believe the main purpose the minister has in mind could be served if, as I say, instead of allowing the local boards to create the offences they permitted the ministry itself to determine the offences. Though parliament to my mind is the only proper authority. I believe it would be even better if all the schemes presented were dealt with in a similar manner. That is the manner in which the British legislation proceeds. In Britain it is not so much the locality as the ministry which determines the
Marketing Act

scheme which shall be made applicable. But localities may make whatever representations or reports they like to the minister, as a guide to what they think will best serve their interests.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: Before we proceed I should like to move to amend paragraph (a) of section 4, which has already been adopted by this committee. The amendment is not very important; we simply add the words "to designate" in the second line and the words "or class" at the end of the paragraph. I therefore move:
To delete paragraph (a) of section 4 as adopted, and to substitute therefor the following:
(a) To regulate the time and place at which and to designate the agency through which the regulated product shall be marketed, to determine the manner of distribution and the quantity and quality, grade or class of the regulated product that shall be marketed by any person at any time, and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade, quality or class.


William Richard Motherwell: I am in favour of that amendment. It means everything.


John Campbell Elliott: Could we learn what the effect of the amendment may be?


Robert Weir: The clause as it was passed provides for regulating the time and place at which, and the agency through which, the regulated product shall be marketed, and the amendment is to make it read "designate" instead of "regulate" the agency. It was felt that as it stood it might be subject to misinterpretation. In the explanation I gave the other day the effect of it was as if the word "designate" had been used. Then the words "or class" have been added at the end to conform with the use of those words in an earlier part of the section.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is not the real fact of the case that the section of the act which gives the governor in council power to set up a board ought to give the power to set up a board which shall act as a selling agency, while the other clauses do not provide that the local board shall of themselves be the selling agency? Is not the purpose of this clause then to enable a local board to be designated as a selling agency?


Robert Weir: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then I have misunderstood the purpose of the amendment. How can a local board become a selling agency?
fMr. Mackenzie King.]


Robert Weir: The local board
cannot become a selling agency but it can direct the channel through which the product, shall be marketed. Personally I thought that the words "regulate the agency" would cover that, but after the explanation I gave the other day it was pointed out that it might be subject to misinterpretation, and that is why we have used the word "designate." Just as an individual would wish to bargain or negotiate with the different channels of trade as to how his product should be marketed, the same power is given here, only there is the added volume that would be brought to market under this scheme. But the selling board itself is not a marketing agency.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are we to take it then that there is no provision in this bill for a local board that will also be a selling agency? If so, this is going to be a disappointment to the producers. I do not understand this part of it at all. I would like the minister to let the committee know just how a local board controlling or regulating a product may undertake the selling of that product itself-let us say a local dairy board.


Robert Weir: The local board
itself does not buy or sell but it does regulate the channel through which the product shall pass, and in that way it has control over the marketing agency. If they do not receive the same service through each channel of trade they can make different arrangements. It is just to deal with that point that this has been added.


Edward Joseph Garland: In that case, if the growers themselves set up a body or institution for the selling of the product the local board can then designate that body as its agency?


Robert Weir: If it was felt to be to their advantage.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is a
roundabout way, a very subtle and ingenious way of getting there, but I suppose it might be arranged.


Robert Weir: I must object to that, because I do not think there will be many cases where there will be a desire to set up a marketing agency of their own, rather than use the existing channels of trade which are engaged in the buying and selling.


Edward Joseph Garland: For instance, the grain exchange?


Robert Weir: That might possibly be.

Marketing Act


William Richard Motherwell: My bon, friend is due for a lot of disillusionment.


Edward James Young: If I understand this aright it does not apply to the local board at all but to the dominion board.


Robert Weir: The powers of the dominion board are set out, and the dominion board is given authority to delegate these powers to the local board. It may not be necessary to delegate them at all. It depends on the scheme.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to..
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7-board to continue to have authority.
Maurice Dupré: I move, Mr. Chairman, to delete subsection 1 of section 7, and to substitute therefor the following:
(1)	Every scheme established hereunder shall continue in force until terminated by the governor in council.
That is to take the place of the present subsection 1 which reads:
Every local board established hereunder shall continue to have authority to exercise its powers until such time as the governor in council may authorize.


William Richard Motherwell: There is not much change.


Robert Weir: No, except that the word "scheme" is used instead of local board, that being necessitated by another change.


Edward Joseph Garland: In the event of the growers themselves originating a plan which is accepted by the governor in council after having been submitted to a vote of the growers, I disagree that the governor in council should have the right to disband that body without any vote of the growers.


Robert Weir: The bill states that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: I move to add as a new clause 15 at the end of part I, in order to meet some of the suggestions that have already been made, the following:
15. (1) Within three months after the end of each fiscal year the board shall transmit to the minister a statement, signed by the chairman, of its affairs for the fiscal year in the form prescribed by the governor in council.
(2)	A copy of such statement if parliament be then sitting shall within fifteen days after receipt thereof by the minister be laid before parliament, or if parliament be not sitting it
shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.


Robert Weir: I may say in explanation that that is to meet the request which the leader of the opposition made the other night that a report be submitted to parliament. We are moving a similar clause at the end of part II.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to express my thanks as well as appreciation to the minister for including this amendment. There is just one point I would mention, and that is that the amendment suggest that a report shall be submitted to the minister within three months after the end of the fiscal year. The fiscal year ends with the month of March, so that would make it the end of June before the. minister would get the report, and it would be some time after that before it would be laid on the table of parliament. Most of our reports are made to the ministers at the end of the fiscal year and are laid on the table immediately. Could not this report be submitted similarly to other government reports in that respect? This could be effected in the amendment simply by saying that "at the end" of the fiscal year a report shall be made to the minister, instead of "within three months after the end"? Seeking to meet what the minister has in mind, I think this would allow parliament to get a report in time for its consideration. I am suggesting that the words "within three months after," be struck out and the words "at the end of each fiscal year," substituted therefor.


Robert Weir: I see no objection to that.


Maurice Dupré: It will then read, "at the end of each fiscal year the board shall transmit," and so forth.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 15-Definitions.
Mr. POULIOT:: Has the minister the figures for which I have asked several times in connection with the consumption of farm products?


Robert Weir: I regret that this report is not yet completed.


Jean-François Pouliot: The spread which exists between the 1934 and 1930 prices of farm products is considerable and should be looked into. This means a great loss to the farmers and I am sorry it is impossible to get that information.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Marketing Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 16-Power to authorirze investigations.
Maurice Dupré: I beg to move an amendment the purport of which is to strike out the last three words in subsection 1, "any natural product," and substitute therefor the words "any regulated product."


Jean-François Pouliot: Did the minister say he was moving that?


Maurice Dupré: All we are doing is to strike out the words "any natural product" at the end of the subsection and substitute therefor the words "any regulated product."


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister says that he moves that?


Maurice Dupré: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: If he moves then he is better than the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who does not move at all.


Mr. HEAPS:: Would the minister explain what will be the effect of this change?


Robert Weir: "Regulated product" is the phrase used in every other place in the bill.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the effect of this change ?


Robert Weir: It is really to correct a clerical error.


Alan Webster Neill: We have been told both in the house and in the press that the government are taking powers under this bill to go farther than the control of marketing; they are to have power to investigate spreads. It was suggested that these powers were not altogether disconnected with the revelations of the price spread committee. There is no reason why these powers should be restricted to regulated products. To all intents and purposes this part of the bill is a separate bill. We have been dealing with the marketing of natural products and we are now going into a totally different thing. The government has recognized this fact by making a different part to the bill. We are now going to deal with spreads, somewhat along the lines of the combines act, and there is no reason in the world why it should be confined to regulated products. Why not leave it as it is and have it cover any natural product? I think it would be a very retrograde step to confine it only to those articles or products which are the subject of regulation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) suggested the other day that it should cover

any product. I would not like to increase the scope of the bill to that extent but if we are to have investigations of spreads I think they should cover all natural products.


Edward Joseph Garland: From my present understanding of the section I am strongly inclined to agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). A case occurs to me where there might be an efficiently functioning milk board. It might be found that in the case of an unregulated product, such as forage crops, alfalfa or some-think like that, the conditions were so chaotic as to lead to a possible disruption of the milk industry. The milk board might want to ask the minister to make an investigation of the price spreads in the forage industry and I see no reason why that should not be done. I do not think the minister would lose anything by leaving this section in its original form.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it the intention of the government to introduce further legislation?-because I think the effect of this amendment is to destroy the generality of this portion of the bill. In the interpretation section there are three exceptions to the definition of regulated product, and the amendment proposed to this section would destroy its effect.


Robert Weir: In subsection (b), spread is defined with reference to any regulated product, and this amendment is to bring this section in conformity with section 15.
' Mr. HEAPS: If this amendment is passed, would not it have the effect of restricting the operations of the bill?


Robert Weir: Yes, somewhat.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is very hard at the present moment to see to what extent this amendment is going to restrict the operation of the bill. From what the minister has said, it would appear that this is to apply to those products which are regulated and this bill will have nothing to say with regard to products which have not been approved by the minister or which are under schemes. It may be that there will be only one or two schemes approved and in that case all other products would be barred from any benefits, assuming that any benefits are going to accrue from this bill. If there is going to be any restriction, we might as well understand what it means. If it is not the intention of the government to restrict the operations of this measure, I think parliament and the country in general ought to know.

Marketing Act


Franklin White Turnbull: An examination of all the sections of part II will indicate that the original intention of the bill was to have this part apply only to regulated products. Every section except the one in question refers to regulated products. In this one, by a slip, the word "natural" is used instead of the word "regulated." If we are going to change the policy of investigating only regulated products, which was the original intention of the bill, as one can judge from the other sections, to a policy of investigating every natural product under the act, then we shall have to amend every other section, changing "regulated" to "natural" products, because the term "spread" is defined to be a charge made by a person for selling a regulated product. Suppose you leave section 16 the way it is-that the minister may appoint a committee to investigate any spread in natural products: when you come to section 17 the result will be an investigation that provides for action only in connection with regulated products, and if you follow the other sections out later on you will find that the whole purpose of the part was to deal with regulated products and not with natural products that are not regulated. So that it becomes a question whether you will change the word "natural" to "regulated" in section 16, restricting the investigation to what was apparently the original intention of the bill, or whether you will widen your policy to provide for investigation into every natural product.
I fancy there is provision in other acts for an investigation under certain circumstances, in connection with combines and trusts, and if it is desired to have investigations into matters not covered by this bill in the way it is drawn, other bills might be passed for the purpose. But for the moment the investigation in part II is plainly intended to apply only to regulated products, and the use of the words "natural product" in section 16 is a typographical error, which can be left as it is only if you are going to widen the whole process of the bill to apply to all natural products.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It seems to me that an error of this kind is too important to have crept in accidentally. The typographical error may have been in those sections where "regulated" is used instead of "natural." Miany of us have been and are at this moment under the impression that the bill was much wider in its scope-


Franklin White Turnbull: The number of instances in which "regulated" is used in -the bill would indicate that the mistake was in the use of the word "natural."
7472ft-217


Abraham Albert Heaps: It seems to me that there must have been the intention somewhere to use the word "natural" instead of the word "regulated," because there is such a vast difference in meaning between the two terms. I can see that under the present provisions of the bill, if the word "regulated" appears all the way through, as suggested, the application of the act may be of such minor importance as to be of extremely little value to the farming community of Canada. Before a natural product can be regulated there must be a scheme upon which the majority in the district must vote, and it must be approved by different bodies and then by the minister in charge; and when you have, two or three schemes in operation there may be certain forms of dairy products coming under the regulations, and these would be the only commodities in regard to which there could be any investigation 60 far as parliament is concerned. If this is to be the situation, then it seems to me that the boon which this measure promises to the farming community will be insignificant. In other words, the mountain will have laboured only to bring forth a mouse.
I have been extremely anxious to support a worth while measure which would provide for a real regulation of basic products, but it is hardly worth while spending two or three weeks of the time of parliament in the discussion of this bill if the result is to be that only one or two things produced on the farm will come under its provisions. It is difficult to get the farmers to organize in so far as certain lines of their products are affected; and when the bill is restricted, as is now suggested, using the term "regulated" instead of the term "natural," I submit that the benefit is out of all proportion to the time and labour spent on this measure.


Hugh Guthrie: We are apt to get into great difficulty if we attempt at this point to enlarge the scope of the measure. It was not intended as a measure which would afford a general inquiry into spreads and the like in regard to all natural products. It is in its inception a scheme to produce in Canada something in the way of order in relation to our products, and it prescribes that certain products shall be regulated in the manner set out in the bill.
As regards part II, there is no doubt, when one reads the bill, that the intention of applying it only to regulated products was carried out by the draftsman; but unfortunately in one instance, in section 16, he used the word "natural" instead of "regulated," because in nine other places in part II-and there are only three or four sections-you will find the words

343G
Marketing Act

"regulated product." And all the provisions apply to regulated products.
We all realize that this bill is an experimental proposal. It has not yet been tried out in Canada, and you can spoil a measure by extending it too far. Let us try it out in the first instance in connection with those regulated articles which were in contemplation when the bill was drawn; then, if it does not serve its purpose, there is ample time hereafter to extend it or to limit it, and if anyone wants an inquiry into spread, or greater legislation than we now have in regard to these matters, there are other acts that can be amended. But so far we have proceeded on the single principle of dealing with regulated products, and it would be unwise now, without a great deal of consideration, to widen the scope of the measure at the present time.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It would seem to me that some such investigation as this might very well be a preliminary step in the setting up of various schemes. Natural product is already defined in the second section, and it is defined to include:
Animals, meats, eggs, wool, dairy products, grains, seeds, fruit and fruit products, vegetables and vegetable products, maple products, honey, tobacco, lumber, and such other natural products of the forest, sea, lake or river, and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product that may be designated by the governor in council, in accordance with the provisions of this act.
This provision is wide enough to cover a great many of the 'products in which to-day, we believe, there are very unnecessary spreads and in the handling of which there is a great deal of waste, in addition to many of the evils that have been revealed in connection with the present investigation. It seems to me that a great many farmers and other producers might hesitate before entering upon any scheme until they were convinced that it was in their interests to do so, until it had been very clearly shown to them just where the evil lies in the present way of handling things. Under these circumstances an investigation would be highly desirable. Further than that, supposing a board handles one particular kind of product.. There are other products that may occasionally be substituted for one that is regulated. It would not be possible to carry out adequately the regulation of one product unless possible substitutes for it were also regulated. As a step towards that regulation an investigation such as is made possible under the bill as it now stands seems to me highly desirable. Instead of ex-[Mr, Guthrie.)
tending the scope of the bill the minister is now asking us to restrict it. I hope he will see his way to hold it as it was originally drafted.


Albert Joseph Brown: It will be a matter of keen disappointment to many that the government has put this limitation upon the scope of this bill. For myself I was prepared to accept this part II as in some measure a redeeming feature of the bill, although I think that this matter should be dealt with in a separate measure. I thought this bill was perhaps in some degree a response to the demands made more than once by way of resolution in this house, both last session and this, for investigation into price spreads not only in natural products but in all products. With the arguments advanced by the two hon. members from Winnipeg I am sure that those who represent farming communities are in hearty accord. The limitation of the scope of this bill in my judgment makes it likely to he of very little value. What we want is investigation not only in the spreads in prices of farm products, processed products, but also into the spreads in prices of all products. It seems to me more reasonable to put these matters all under one bill than to make a special bill for investigation into the spreads of these regulated products.


Franklin White Turnbull: Did not my hon. friend vote against having any investigation into anything?


Albert Joseph Brown: I did not.


Franklin White Turnbull: On the second reading?


Albert Joseph Brown: Hon. members on the other side are very anxious to twist things so as to seem to put us in the wrong.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Albert Joseph Brown: Personally I object to a bill that is full of poison even if there happens to be a little good meat in it. While I objected very strongly to the first part of this bill, it does not necessarily follow that I am opposed to investigation into spreads. I think any one who is gifted with an ordinary sense of logic would recognize that. But we constantly get arguments from the other side which, as I had occasion to say a few days ago, are scarcely worthy of a debate in a country schoolhouse.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A reference to some remarks made in an earlier part of the debate will throw light on the reasons for the proposed change. On May 14, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MAY 28, 1934
Marketing Act
Stevens) was in the house, I asked the minister the following question as reported on page 3904:
May I ask the minister whether part II of the marketing bill, which deals with investigations, is intended to relate to the work of this committee, to serve the purpose of carrying on the kind of investigations the committee may wish to have made, or whether that part of the marketing bill is wholly apart from the work of the price spreads committee?
At the time we were discussing interim supply in connection with the work of the different committees of the house.
Mr. Stevens: The provisions of any legislation now before the house did not emanate from any committee; that is clear. It is quite obvious, however, to any student of the situation that there is much in the marketing act, for example, that with intelligent anticipation might be declared to be useful in dealing with problems which may be dealt with by the committee. To what extent, of course, I cannot hazard any expression of opinion at this time.
Mr. Mackenzie King: It seemed to me on reading the bill that part II was the kind of measure which possibly the minister would have brought in after the report of the committee had been made, in other words, that he was anticipating the report to-day and giving us legislation in advance.
Mr. Stevens: The right hon. gentleman will note that the marketing bill deals largely with agricultural and natural products.
Mr. Mackenzie King: Yes, natural products as defined and investigation into a wide field of operations.
Mr. Stevens: The price spreads and mass buying committee deals with that, of course, but deals with mercantile business generally, which is much wider in its scope.
I submit the ministry ought to tell us quite frankly whether this change is being suggested at rhe moment in order to confine this measure solely to natural products as set forth in the definition, with the intention of later this session bringing in legislation which will provide for investigation into such matters as those for example that the price spreads committee is inquiring into. If it is the intention of the government to bring in further legislation we should be advised of that now, because it would undoubtedly affect our attitude with regard to the provisions of part II of this measure as it stands. If the government does not intend to bring in further legislation to provide for investigation under proper conditions into all these matters into which the price spreads committee is inquiring at the present time, I think this part II ought to remain as it is without change in the nature of any restriction of its scope. If there is any change to be made it should not be made in the section now being discussed, changing "natural product" to "regulated product," but whereever the words "regulated product" are used in the other sections there should be substituted the words "natural product" or "any product."
When the bill was originally introduced I took strong exception to part I. I have further made known my reasons for that exception quite openly and frankly in the discussion. But I said at the beginning that I strongly favoured the provision for investigation in part II of the measure because I believed there were many evils which publicity would cure much more effectively than penalty. And while there were in part II certain sections that I thought ought to be altered, I still favoured anything that with proper safeguards to innocent parties would at least provide facilities for investigation of unfair or unethical practices or industrial abuses of any kind. I want to take that position very strongly at the present time. I want to make the part of this bill relating to investigations just as wide as it can possibly be made, to enable the ministry-with proper safeguards to innocent parties of course, to prevent political pressure dictating the investigations to be made-to make it just as wide as it can be made to permit of thoroughgoing investigations into practices that are unfair or unethical in business or other matters; and in that connection to begin with primary products and have the measure extended so as to include any class of commercial or business transaction as well as production and trade.


Hugh Guthrie: I am sorry that I cannot
give my right hon. friend any assurance that legislation will be introduced this session to carry out any suggestions or reports which may be made by the Stevens committee, which has been sitting for a long time and which has not yet concluded its sittings. I have no doubt that the committee will make a report, and it will depend upon what that report is as to what legislation if any will be introduced. On that point I can give no assurance at the present time.
But there is this to be said in favour of this bill as it stands. It includes a very general and generous line of natural products. Under the new definition it includes:
.Animals, meats, eggs, wool, dairy products, grains, seeds, fruit and fruit products, vegetables and vegetable products, maple products, honey, tobacco, lumber, and such other natural products of the forest, sea, lake or river, and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product that may be designated by the governor in council, . . .

Marketing Act
That is a very full and complete list. If any scheme is proposed and adopted in regard to any one of these enumerated articles, it becomes a regulated product, and the fullest investigation can take place in regard to it. So I think that for our present purposes we are on pretty safe ground if we leave the bill as it is with the amendment now proposed, and if after the Stevens committee has reported, legislation is necessary in regard to that matter, I have no doubt that suitable legislation will be introduced. I agree with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) when he says that in his opinion any act to authorize an inquiry in regard to price spreads in general should be a separate act and not involved or connected with what is a marketing bill pure and simple. I think we would be on safer ground to treat this as a marketing bill in regard to regulated products, in accordance with all the clauses which heretofore have been passed, and await the report of the committee now sitting in regard to price spreads. If legislation then becomes necessary, by all means let us have it.


Mr. COOTE:: Might I direct the attention of the minister to section 9, under which the minister, if he is satisfied that trade and commerce in a natural product is injuriously affected by the lack of a local board, may at any time propose a scheme for the marketing of that product. Surely the minister should have the power conferred under section 16 to authorize an investigation into the costs of production, price spreads, trade practices and all these other matters, to enable him to determine whether he should set up a board for this very purpose. How else is the minister to determine whether that local board should be set up for that particular product? If there has been no application made to him which would bring the product under the terms of this section, surely the minister needs this power so that he may know whether that board is necessary.
Then may I say that in my opinion if any worth while use is to be made of this marketing act the minister must set up machinery for the express purpose of investigating this question of spreads and other matters in regard to natural products. Surely that machinery, once it is set up, should be used for all this investigational work, whether or not it is in regard to a regulated product. At the start we have no regulated products; the amount of investigational work done by the minister or by somebody else is going to determine how many boards will be asked for, or rather the number of products for which regulation will be asked, and certainly I think
 [j: ill
the minister would be well advised to take advantage of this machinery. I do not see how it can weaken the act in any way; it tvill make it far more worth while, and I think it will secure for the act a larger measure of support from some who are perhaps very lukewarm with regard to the first part of it. Personally I think section 16 should be left as it is at present. It may be that it should be amended to read "any natural or regulated product" which would bring it a little more in line with the other sections of the act, but if any other sections require to be changed because the words "natural product" are left in this section, it would not be a very difficult job to amend the other sections so that section 16 would not come in conflict with them. Personally I hope the minister can see his way clear to leaving the words "natural product" in section 16.


Robert Weir: I see no reason why the word "regulated" should not be changed to "natural," or why it should not read, "natural or regulated product."
Mr. MoKENZIE (Assiniboia): I am afraid part II of this bill is designed to anticipate the report of the committee set up a couple of months ago to investigate price spreads, and if this is all we are going to get from the work of that committee by way of legislation then I say it is by no means sufficient. As a matter of fact I have had the matter of price spreads before this chamber on more than one occasion. On February 19, when the present committee was appointed, I made the statement that in my opinion this method was too roundabout to deal with the matter. This committee has been sitting for a matter of two months, and I think the government are beginning to realize that this question is too big to be handled in this way. We are told that the government are paying between $200 and $300 a day for solicitors for that committee, and that already the committee has cost in the neighbourhood of $75,000. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the sooner we dispense with the solicitors the better it will be. I have sat in the committee on many occasions; I have listened to the work of the solicitors, and in my opinion the committee would get some place if it had no solicitors. As it is, the solicitor is more or less a buffer for the government.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon.
member is hardly in order.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Then if I
am not in order this section is not in order.

Marketing Act


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am only suggesting that the hon. member is not in order in discussing the work of the committee.


Robert McKenzie: Then part
II of the bill is not in order. I think the proper thing to do is to drop part II and bring in something that will more adequately deal with the question of price spreads.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
should like to see one word added. The section now reads:
The minister may, at the request of the board or upon his own initiative authorize an investigation into the cost of production, prices, spread, trade practices, methods of financing, management, policies, grading, transportation and other matters in relation to the production and marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion of any natural product.
I should like to see the word "wages" inserted after the word "prices". Many instances have been revealed in the Stevens committee in which, in the processing, very low wages have been paid. It seems to me that we ought to make it clear that this investigation should be able to include the question of wages. It is quite possible that the words "trade practices" might be stretched to cover the question of wages, but since we are now mentioning cost of production, prices, trade practices, methods of financing and so on, it would be well to specify that consideration should be given to wages as well. There is no class in the community that is more helpless to-day than those people engaged in certain of our packing plants. For the sake of both the producers and the consumers we ought not to allow evil practices of this kind to continue. I think this is a very reasonable request, and I hope the minister may see his way clear to meet us in the matter.


Hugh Guthrie: I think wages would be
included in the term "cost of production" but I see no objection to specifying "wages" as my hon. friend suggests. Now, in order to get the matter straight, it might be well to move an omnibus motion, to make all the corrections, of which some nine will have to be made. On page 8, at lines 7, 11, 13, 18, 25 and 38, and on page 9, at lines 4, 10, 18, 22 and 30 where the words "regulated product" appear I move that the words "natural or regulated product" be inserted, and that in line 21 on page 8 after the word "prices" the word "wages" be inserted. If that is understood I need not write the motion.


John Campbell Elliott: Before the motion is put may I call the attention of the Minister of Justice to this set of circumstances: Where 74726-218
you use the term "natural or regulated product" in regard to a product which is not regulated but is a natural product, do those sections apply?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, part H will apply.


John Campbell Elliott: Then it applies to every natural product?


Hugh Guthrie: Part II would.


John Campbell Elliott: Part II applies to every natural product?


Hugh Guthrie: No, "natural product" is defined in the bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: "Natural product" always includes "regulated product."


John Campbell Elliott: No, there are separate
definitions for "natural product" and "regulated product."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But one includes the other.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alan Webster Neill: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he does not think we should insert the corresponding words in subsection 2 of section 17. It states:
(2) A committee shall be composed of such number of representatives of producers and persons engaged in marketing, . . .
And so on-f'oi a natural or regulated product." Otherwise the subsection is left loose, and may include any producers or any marketers. The wording does not follow the rest of the part. It should read that these people should be producers, consumers, and so on, of a natural or regulated product. I refer to the second to last line at the foot of the page. The idea is that the people forming the committee should be associated with the product, and it is so carried out in the rest of the sections. In this particular section however the wording has been omitted. The committee might be composed of producers in some other lines.


George Gibson Coote: Would it not be better to leave the discussion of section 17 until we have concluded the discussion on section 16? The representations made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) would be in order on that section.

Marketing Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment to section 16 is carried, but not the section as amended. One point I should like to draw to the attention of the minister is this: At the moment everything in connection with investigation rests on the initiative of the minister. The terms of the section are now quite wide, and under it the minister can investigate anything. I do not take exception to that, because I believe that if he wished it, the minister would have that power anyway. I do think, however, that there is a real possibility of the section as it stands being used to work a certain amount of injury on individuals, as a result of political pressure if it is to be used at all by the ministry. I do not make this statement in an offensive manner, and I make it as being applicable to any ministry at any time. My statement is that if by statute you leave in the hands of a ministry the making of investigations into anything, and you do not surround that 'authority by any kind of precaution as to the basis upon which the investigation is to be made, or anything of that kind, there will be perpetual pressure brought to bear upon the ministry to investigate anything and everything anywhere and everywhere and a ministry might conceivably see to it that where its friends were concerned there would be no investigation, but where opponents were concerned there would be speedy and possibly vexatious investigation. That is the danger in all such legislation, and I suggest there ought to be some kind of safeguard thrown around the matter of inquiry which would at least stipulate that investigations should be made as the result of representations by some parties who will state that they have some kind of reason for believing that matters ought to be investigated. If it is to be left entirely to the initiative of the ministry, it is almost a foregone conclusion that such initiative will be exercised at the instance of political friends against political opponents. If a minister wished to be partisan, that would be the inevitable result. In order to overcome such a difficulty, there should be at least a clause which would state that the investigation was to be on the representation of some group properly representative, and as a result of their having shown cause why investigation should be made by the ministry. But certainly if it is left in the way it now stands, whereby the initiative either to give or to withhold an investigation lies wholly with the minister, and there is no opportunity for other parties to secure investigation except at the will of the ministry, I am afraid the provision

will become a huge political weapon. I am afraid, as a consequence, the provision will have very little effect, except to achieve the ends I have described.


Robert Weir: If the right hon.
gentleman's contention is correct, that the provision could be used as a political weapon, in the event of a minister desiring so to use it, I feel the right hon. gentleman would agree that there would be no great difficulty in getting five or six people belonging .to any party to make such recommendation. I realize that there is a good deal of truth in what the right hon. gentleman has said, but I do not see how the section could be qualified.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Shall .the section as amended carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-Committee to deal with spread.
Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni has suggested that we insert after the word "consumers " in the forty-second line the words " of a natural or regulated product." I think it would be better to amend it in another way. The first subsection of section 17 gives the minister power to appoint a committee. He may, at the request of the board, or on his own initiative, apopint a committee to inquire into itihe spread in connection with the marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion of a regulated product. That would mean a natural or Tegulated product. Then, subsection 2 should begin with the words " such committee," and thereby we would avoid any further amendment. Subsection 2 would then read:
(2) Such committee shall be composed of such number of representatives of producers and persons engaged in marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion, and consumers.
And so on. The committee is limited to inquire into some natural or regulated product.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, .the committee would
be limited in the scope of their inquiry, but their selection would not be limited to people connected with the trade. There might be an investigation in connection with sugar beet production, and it might be possible to appoint coal miners to do the investigating. I agree with the introduction of the word " such," but I think it should also contain my suggestion as well. The section does not state that the committee shall be composed

Marketing Act
of people associated with a particular product, unless the words I have suggested are inserted.


Robert Weir: I think the hon.
member will agree that any committee could not be confined to producers alone.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not asking that.


Hugh Guthrie: "'Persons engaged in
marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion, and consumers," and then the words suggested by my hon. friend, "of such natural or regulated products;" what do you say to that?


Robert Weir: No, for this reason. There would have to be experts outside of the members on the committee to do the actual work of the investigation, and to be certain that it would have on it representatives of the producers and so on. It would not be possible to select from a committee of producers of the regulated or natural product, as set out here, those of the proper qualifications to carry on such an investigation.


Hugh Guthrie: I think if we were to change the first word in the subsection, "a," to "such," it would serve all purposes. I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, to strike out the first word, "a," in subsection 2 and substitute therefor the word "such."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17 as amended agreed to.
On section 18-^powers of committee.
Maurice Dupré: It is desired to strike out the word "and" where it occurs in line 6, also to strike out lines 7 to 10 inclusive. I move, Mr. Chairman, that subsection 1 of section 18 be deleted, and the following substituted therefor:
18.	(1) A committee shall have power to investigate all operations occurring in connection with or in the course of marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion of the natural or regulated product for the purpose of ascertaining the spread received by any person in the course of such marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion.


Robert Weir: I might point out that the deleted part of subsection 1 is included under another clause.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18 as amended agreed to.
On section 19-determination by committee.
Maurice Dupré: I move that section 19 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
19.	A committee may after investigation as hereinbefore provided report to the minister, in connection with any operation occurring in the course of marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion of the natural or regulated product, whether in its opinion the spread received is detrimental to or against the interest of the public in that it is excessive or results in undue enhancement of prices or otherwise restrains or injures trade or commerce in the natural or regulated product.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a little different from the amendment of which notice was given.


Robert Weir: Yes, but the change is very slight.


Alan Webster Neill: Is there to be no provision for publishing this report?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to say to the minister that I think it is an important change which has been made. The section as originally drafted gave this committee power to determine what was excessive and to fix the offence. By the amendment the committee is given power to report to the minister what in its opinion is excessive. Naturally the report will be used as a means of bringing the whole matter to the attention of the proper authorities and lead possibly to prosecutions, but it does not leave it in the hands of an interested group itself to determine the offence, what is in the nature of an offence is set out in clause 21 of the bill. That is exactly what I was hoping the minister might be persuaded to do with regard to part 1, that he would amend its provisions in a corresponding way. However, having made the amendment he has in this part of the bill, I wish to thank him for it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 20-publication of findings.
Maurice Dupré: I move to strike out this section and to substitute for it the following:
A committee shall in the manner prescribed by regulations publish every report made by it hereunder.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It simply
changes the word "determination" to "report."


Alan Webster Neill: I object, Mr. Chairman, to the suggestion that the report is to be published under regulations made hereunder. It says, "a committee shall in the manner prescribed by regulations." Is there nothing we can do in this house? Have we to leave everything to regulations? We have been
3442
Marketing Act

told time and again that the exigencies of the situation require that the act must be, to use the minister's own words, flexible or, to use my description, vague, because of conflicting jurisdictions, because we do not know what the local board or some other board might think.
But here is a common everyday clause that we find in every act we pass, a provision for publishing something, and we cannot even determine our line of conduct there. We must leave the publication to be determined according to regulations. Cannot we assert ourselves this once and say how this report is to be published, whether in the Gazette or not? There is only one standard way of publishing these things, and that is in the Gazette. Then why not say it shall be published in the Gazette? This matter of leaving everything to regulations is getting cumulative; it is getting on our nerves. Nothing is to be done except by regulations. We began with regulations and we are ending up with regulations. Cannot we assert ourselves in one magnificent gesture and decide that the report is to be published in the Canada Gazette?


Maurice Dupré: With the permission of the committee I would like to withdraw the amendment I have suggested.
Amendment withdrawn.


Maurice Dupré: I now move, Mr. Chairman, to strike out clause 20 and to substitute therefor the following:
20.	(1) Any report of a committee shall within thirty days after its receipt by the minister be made public, unless the committee is of the opinion that the public interest would be better served by withholding publication and so states in the report itself, in which case the minister may exercise his discretion as to the publicity to be given to the report in whole or in part.
20. (2) The minister may publish and supply copies of any report in such manner and upon such terms as to him seems most desirable.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: I beg to move that the following be added as a new section 21:
(1)	Whenever in the opinion of the committee an offence has been committed against this part, the minister shall remit to the attorney general of any province within which such alleged offence shall have been committed, for such action as such attorney general may be pleased to institute, the evidence taken on any investigation by a committee and the report of the committee.
(2)	If within three months after remission aforesaid, or within such shorter period as the governor in council shall decide, no such action shall have been taken by or at the instance of

the attorney general of the province as to the governor in council the case seems in the public interest to require, the attorney general of Canada may permit an information to be laid against such person or persons as in the opinion of the attorney general shall have been guilty of an offence against this part.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
would not be any reference in any of the provincial acts to the present section 21 because as I understand that section it deals entirely with questions of trade and commerce, which are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal authorities. I do not see how the provincial governments could prescribe penalties for offences described in the present section 21.


Hugh Guthrie: They would provide
penalties only for offences committed under their own acts. I do not know whether the penalties are similar.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It would not refer to this section.


Hugh Guthrie: The last clauses read were taken from the combines act.


Alan Webster Neill: Are we not going to end up with a sort of imitation of the combines act and are we not infringing on the jurisdiction of that act?


Hugh Guthrie: It is not an easy thing to state that every clause of this bill is within the jurisdiction of this parliament. Some very nice questions may arise but we have used all the ingenuity and knowledge of the law officers of the department to produce a measure which we believe is within the jurisdiction of this parliament. The clauses just read are taken from the combines act. Under these clauses it will be the duty of the minister to transfer the report to the attorney general of the province concerned. The administration of law, both civil and criminal, is under the jurisdiction of the provinces and not of the federal government. If the attorney general of a particular province takes no action for a period of three months, power is given to the attorney general of Canada to lay an information on the order of the governor in council.


Alan Webster Neill: Are we not just duplicating these other acts?


Hugh Guthrie: There is a duplication to some extent but these clauses have stood the test and they were thought to be valuable in connection with this bill.

Marketing Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to make sure that there is no intention on the part of the government to repeal the Combines Investigation Act.


Hugh Guthrie: Not that I know of.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As long as
that is understood, it is all to the good to incorporate in this bill some of the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. I should regret for any reason to see the Combines Investigation Act repealed.


Hugh Guthrie: I have not heard of a suggestion of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 21-Penalty for infraction of provisions respecting spreads.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Have the words "natural or" been added in line 30 of this section?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are not the
provisions of the criminal code with respect to excessive prices, restraint of trade and the like to all intents and purposes the same as the provisions of this section?


Hugh Guthrie: The effect will be the
same although I am not sure as to the exact language.


John Campbell Elliott: Has a similar section been enacted by the various provincial legislatures?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not sure whether the penalty clauses are the same.


John Campbell Elliott: My recollection is that
in the Board of Commerce case it was held that regulations such as these and the penalties imposed for infractions thereof were not within the powers of the federal parliament. I have no doubt the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is quite familiar with that case. Certain clothing men in Ottawa were charged with having charged excessive spreads with regard to clothing. Penalties were imposed but it was held that they were not within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. I assume that the Minister of Justice has considered whether or not this section would be ultra vires because in another section of the bill it is provided that any part found to be ultra vires shall be excluded but that the rest shall be effective. Under the decision of the commerce case it would seem that no conviction would stand unless there was a similar provision in the various provincial acts.


Hugh Guthrie: Following the commerce
case, there is no doubt that any matter falling within the classification of property and civil rights would be held to be under provincial jurisdiction. But there are many things which will arise under this act in the way of trade and the regulation of trade which would not fall within provincial jurisdiction. In regard to such matters this penalty clause would have application, but in regard to provincial matters the same decision would be reached as was reached in the Board of Commerce case. In such cases, proceedings could be taken under the provincial acts.


John Campbell Elliott: Does not the minister
think that they should be as nearly uniform as possible?


Hugh Guthrie: That is my opinion but
the provincial legislatures have passed their judgment with regard to matters of that kind.
I think it would be a very good thing if they were uniform.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this the section with regard to penalties?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So that the matter may be on record, will you be good enough, Mr. Chairman, to read the section?
I think it is practically the same as the provision in the criminal code.


The CHAIRMAN:: The section reads:
Every person who, to the detriment or against the interest of the public, charges, receives or attempts to receive any spread which is excessive or results in undue enhancement of prices or otherwise restrains or injures trade or commerce in the natural or regulated product, shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars or to two years' imprisonment or, if a corporation, to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The penalty as set forth here, as well as the nature of the offence, is very similar to what is contained in the criminal code, section 498:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars and not less than two hundred dollars, or to two years' imprisonment, or, if a corporation, is liable to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and not less than one thousand dollars, who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with any other person, or with any railway, steamship, steamboat or transportation company,-[DOT]
(a)	to unduly limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce; or
Marketing Act

(b)	to restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or commodity; or
(c)	to unduly prevent, limit, or lessen the manufacture or production of any such article or commodity, or to unreasonably enhance the price thereof; or
(d)	to unduly prevent or lessen competition in the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation or supply of any such article or commodity, or in the price of insurance upon person or property.
As I read these provisions, they are very similar to this section 21, with the exception that the section before us goes rather further in that it adds the words "or attempts to receive." Every person who, to the detriment or against the interest of the public, charges, receives "or attempts to receive" any spread, and so on. Nothing quite so drastic as "attempts to receive" appears at present in the criminal code. There may be ample reason for it, but it is going pretty far to make a criminal offence of an attempt to receive.
Mr. GUTHRIE; Even unsuccessful attempts to commit crime are punishable under the code; in fact, there is a clause which provides expressly for such attempts. The mere fact that a man has not succeeded may mitigate the sentence to some extent, but the criminal intent was there when he made the attempt.
There is just one matter that has been brought to my attention in regard to the question raised by my hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). In the Board of Commerce case, the board itself was authorized to fix prices, and that was perhaps the most prominent reason for the holding that the act was ultra vires. There is no attempt here to fix prices; we have avoided that.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister refers to
the Board of Commerce case and the power there given to the board, and that perhaps applies more to this section with which we are now dealing than to any other part of the bill. There was a finding by the judicial Committee of the Privy Council that the board by the act were empowered to inquire searchingly into these spreads and to attach what might be criminal consequences to any breach of the regulations. An addition of a consequential character such as this made to the criminal law of Canada, it was held, was something that could not be done. Such an addition to the criminal law could not be made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
IMr. Mackenzie King.]
On section 23.
Maurice Dupré: I move to add the following
as section 23:
When an indictment is found against any person for any offence against this part the accused shall have the option to be tried before the judge presiding at the court at which the indictment is found, or the judge presiding at any subsequent sitting of such court, or at any court where the indictment comes on for trial, without the intervention of a jury; and in the event of such option being exercised the proceedings subsequent thereto shall be regulated in so far as may be applicable by part XVIII of the criminal code respecting speedy trials of indictable offences.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The proposed section refers
to persons. Will the Solicitor General define what is meant by "person" under that section?


Hugh Guthrie: Person means person,
and includes any corporation or any woman.


Abraham Albert Heaps: So long as it is all inclusive.


Hugh Guthrie: This gives the accused
the right to elect for trial without a jury, and also provides for speedy trials under part 18 of the code.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would it not be just as well to insert the words "or corporations"?


Hugh Guthrie: No; "person" is defined
in the criminal code.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 24.
Maurice Dupré: I move the following as section 24:
The minister shall annually prepare a report of the proceedings taken under this part and shall lay the same before parliament forthwith, or if parliament be not then sitting within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the minister has said, this is experimental legislation and we are following to a certain extent what has been done in other acts. I would ask him whether he sees any objection to including in this section just the words "including the moneys expended, guarantees given and obligations contracted under this act." These are works taken from the Relief Act; the report to parliament to contain "a full and correct statement of the moneys expended, guarantees given and obligations contracted under this act." I think it would be advisable for parliament to have that information, because this bill gives to the board -and the governor in council a pretty free hand in the expenditure of money; it also gives to the board

Marketing Act
power to make guarantees and to enter into money obligations. Parliament should be advised of all these things in detail.


Robert Weir: Would not that be included in this as it reads-"all proceedings ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think so, because if that were intended it would probably not have appeared in the Relief
Act if so understood, I am satisfied. The Relief Act reads as follows:
A report shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after the expiration of this act or if parliament is not then in session, shall be published and made available for distribution by the Department of Labour, containing a full and correct statement of the moneys expended, guarantees given and obligations contracted under this act.


Robert Weir: With all due deference, that would not come under part II, because part II has nothing to do with schemes, contracts or anything of that nature, but simply with investigations. It is the report of the investigation committee that would be submitted.
Mr, MACKENZIE KING:	I think the
minister is right in that, but I would ask him to allow us, if this passes, to revert to part I, and include those words in the corresponding section there. I believe it would be in the public interest to do so.


Robert Weir: It does not relate to this part.


Alan Webster Neill: I notice the word "annually" is used. Would it not be better to use the words "fiscal year" or "calendar year"? "Annually" is vague; he might elect to do it on his birthday. Why not the fiscal year as in the case of other returns?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it matters much, but I am willing to agree to any arrangement. It is very difficult in a committee of this size to draw clauses to meet the views of everyone. There are a great many clauses in our statutes to-day that are not very good as they stand because they are the result of attempts to meet views here, there and everywhere. "Annually" I think would serve the purpose, but if it makes it clearer to say "the end of the fiscal year , put it that way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The appropriations are for the fiscal year, and we are making them in this act, so "fiscal year" would seem to be the correct thing.


Alan Webster Neill: I shall move to insert the words "fiscal year," or perhaps the minister will do so.


Maurice Dupré: Yes; it would then read:
The minister shall at the end of the fiscal year prepare a report of the proceedings ...


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, each fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: I move to add the following
as section 25:
If it be found that parliament has exceeded its powers in the enactment of one or more of the provisions of this act. none of the other or remaining provisions of the act shall therefore be held to be inoperative or ultra vires, but the latter provisions shall stand as if they had been originally enacted as separate and independent enactments and as the only provisions of the act; the intention of parliament being to give independent effect to the extent of its powers to every enactment and provision in this act contained.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one point that I wished to ask the Prime Minister about if he had been in the house. Perhaps I may address my remarks to the Minister of Justice. This clause deals with the question of jurisdiction, and the Prime Minister, as the Minister of Justice will recall, dealt with the matter very fully and yet concisely when he spoke on May 18, and again the other day. But I notice this remark of the Prime Minister at page 3197:
But I do say that the dominion parliament in the exercise of its jurisdiction with respect to trade and commerce can confer upon any instrument that it selects the necessary power to act as its agent in the carrying out of its legislative power under trade and commerce.
I do not believe the Prime Minister meant "in carrying out of its legislative power," because what he said elsewhere would indicate that he was of the opinion that as far as the legislative power was concerned that could not be parted with by the federal parliament. What I think the Prime Minister meant to say was, in the carrying out of any provision enacted under its legislative power.


Hugh Guthrie: No doubt that was his meaning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just wanted to make that point clear.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Robert Weir: I move that the bill be reprinted with the amendments.


William Richard Motherwell: May I suggest to the minister that after the bill is reprinted the house be given a reasonable time, say a day, to examine the changes before third reading is called for?
Marketing Act


Mr. CHEVRIER:: You did not allow that with the translation bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alfred Speakman: Might I suggest to the minister that as the bill is to be reprinted, and as the changes are very numerous, many of them having been made verbally in committee, it might be weil if the bill were to remain in committee until the reprinted bill is before us, not for the purpose of any great extended discussion, because I doubt whether it would involve much discussion, but in the event of some clauses not being as dear as they might to some hon. members, and in order to afford opportunity for the asking of questions and having such matters clarified.


Hugh Guthrie: If we find any mistakes I think we could refer it back for the purpose of correcting them, or when it gets to the other chamber I fancy we could correct them there without much trouble.
Bill reported.


Hugh Guthrie: We propose now to go into supply for the purpose of opening up the Post Office Department on one item; then we will proceed with the Dominion Companies Act on clauses that are not contentious.
I move that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries, including amounts required to pay allowances to office appliance operators, grade 2, operating mechanical audit card punching machines in accordance with the terms of order in council P.C. 280/383, dated February 17, 1930; and to pay allowances to typists, grade 1, employed cutting stencils in accordance with regulations approved by order in council; and to provide for continuance in office of G. C. Anderson, as superintendent of mail contracts from April 1,	1934, to March 31,	1935,
$1,145,124; continguencies, $174,840.
Peter John Veniot: I understand this is merely to enter the department in the regular way, with no discussion on the item.
Progress reported.



DOMINION COMPANIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. 64, respecting dominion companies-Mr. Cahan- Mr. Gagnon in the chair.

On section 3-Definitions.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For the information of hon. gentlemen I may say that I have received from several hon. members and others suggestions as to amendments in addition to those printed recently in the votes and proceedings. After consideration I am quite willing to accept some of those suggestions, but I am republishing the entire list of proposed amendments in the votes and proceedings for to-morrow in order that hon. gentlemen may have them, as they appear in succession, for more ready reference in the later discussion of this measure.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The hon. gentleman is not blaming this on the translators, is he?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask if any one of the provinces has specifically endorsed this legislation?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The bill was prepared at the request of a previous interprovincial conference for submission to the last interprovincial conference. It was so submitted, and a committee of the last interprovinc-ial conference, composed of attorneys general and deputy attorneys general, considered the bill. Their expressions of opinion were very favourable indeed, but they asked for a delay until March 1, within which time they might make any suggestions as to any amendments they might like to have embodied in the bill. It was agreed that if such suggestions were received the Secretary of State would call n further meeting, either of attorneys general or of deputy attorneys general, for the consideration of those amendments.
To this date no suggested amendment has been received from any provincial government. It has been stated quite clearly, however, that upon consideration the government of Nova Scotia has decided to retain its own form of companies act, which follows the English act, under which incorporation is commenced by filing a memorandum of association. The government of British Columbia, I understand, have intimated also that they prefer to follow the English act and commence by filing a memorandum of association. On the other hand the government of the province of Quebec has suggested no amendment, but it has suggested in respect of its own act that, although there may be revision in the future, that province will not follow the 'Canadian practice of granting letters patent, but will follow its own practice of incorporating companies by direct grant from the crown, which they assume to be the form of grant more convenient for their purposes and more satisfactory to their adminis-

Dominion Companies Act
tration. Up to the present time no suggested amendment has been received from the department of the attorney general of any province of Canada, but this bill has -been widely distributed and I have received from hon. gentlemen opposite and from leading lawyers all over the country various suggestions which we have considered very carefully. To the full extent that we are at present prepared to accept them a complete list will be printed in the votes and proceedings to-morrow.


Mr. BUTCHER:: The other day the Secretary of State advised us that when we got into committee on this bill hon. members would be permitted to speak on the principle of the bill. Several hon. gentlemen who desire to speak on the principle are not here tonight. Would the Secretary of State grant us that same privilege at the next sitting of the committee?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Section 1 was reserved for the purpose of the discussion to which my hon. friend has referred. Now, having reserved that section, we can proceed until we encounter a section to which hon. gentlemen object or which they wish to have stand for further study.


Maurice Dupré: There is one paragraph we intend to amend. I moved that section 3 be amended by striking out paragraph (n) and substituting therefor the following:
(n) Shareholder means every subscriber for or holder of a share in the capital stock of the company, and includes -the personal representatives of a deceased shareholder, a subscriber to the memorandum of agreement and every other person who agrees with the company to become a shareholder.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I notice that in the
votes and proceedings there are three pages of proposed amendments to this bill. Will the Secretary of State kindly say whether, when these amendments are translated, the cost of that translation will be added to the cost of the French version, and we will be told that the French version cost so much more than the English version, through the translation of these amendments.


Maurice Dupré: This is out of order.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: We are in committee; I have asked a question and I should like an answer.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In order to be as courteous as possible to the hon. gentleman I will simply say that the translation of this bill will follow the ordinary course.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The minister will not say that the French version cost more than the English version because of the extra cost of translating these amendments?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon):: I rule that these remarks are out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that the amendment just moved by the Solicitor General is only a matter of redrafting?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When it was drafted formerly some words were inserted twice, and this is simply to make a clearer definition.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
Section 7 stands.
On section 8-Conditions precedent to issuing of letters patent to be established.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: In connection with subsection 4, I suggest some provision ought to be inserted in the act whereby before the Secretary of State may on his own initiative change the name of the company, some notice should be given to the applicants, and that a name other than that applied for should not be changed without such notice being given.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That matte-r is already
governed by office regulations. After an application has been received for letters patent in which a proposed name is designated the Secretary of State, if there are objections, never proceeds to change a name without notice to the applicants and obtaining the consent of the applicants to the new name. As a matter of fact, we are under an international agreement to which all the leading nations are parties, and provision is made in the Unfair Competition Act that a name shall not be granted in Canada which might be confused with the name of any other company, foreign or domestic, which is doing business in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
no doubt that the Secretary of State is quite right in that what he states is the practice. I am thinking more particularly of the practice in other jurisdictions. It always struck me that there should be some provision in the statute which would compel the department *of the Secretary of State to give notice to the applicants, and I can see no harm in inserting such provision.
Dominion Companies Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If you insist I shall let the section stand. All I can say is that I am in the hands of the committee. In four years there has been no case in which such a difficulty could arise, because the applicants are notified, and I suppose there is an average of at least four or five times a month where parties object that certain names should be granted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I say the name should not be changed without notice; that is the point I make.


John Campbell Elliott: There would be no objection to the section standing. I know that in a number of cases in which I have been interested no change has been made without its being communicated to the applicant.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think such change was ever made without notice.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think a charter
would be granted until the applicant has assented to the change.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree
that should be so. I have in mind a case in another jurisdiction where I applied for a charter, and the officials of the department proceeded to give another name. It was only after strenuous argument that I succeeded in getting the name I wanted. However, I am not pressing the point.


Onésime Gagnon: Shall
section 8 stand?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like -the minister to give it consideration.


John Campbell Elliott: Do I understand the minister to say there is now a regulation in the department?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes. If -the official in
charge of the branch were to follow the course the hon. member has just suggested he knows he would likely lose his office.


Onésime Gagnon: Section 8 stands.
Sections 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Different classes of shares.


Maurice Dupré: I move to strike out subsection 7 of this section and substitute the following therefor:
(7) In the absence of other provisions in that behalf in the letters patent, supplementary letters patent or by-laws of the company, the issue and allotment of shares without nominal or par value may be made from time to time for such consideration as may be fixed' by the board of directors of the company; and in fixing the amount of such consideration, the
[Mr. R. R HansonJ
board, subject to the provisions of this part, may provide that a part, not exceeding twenty-five per centum thereof, may be set aside as a distributable surplus; provided that in addition, where the company acquires a going concern, which has a surplus over and above all liabilities, and any shares without nominal or par value in the company are issued and allotted as fully paid in payment or part payment for such going concern, the directors may by resolution set aside such further part of the consideration for the issue and allotment of such shares without nominal or par value as a distributable surplus as does not exceed the unappropriated balance of realized net profits of -the going concern immediately before such acquisition.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A number of suggestions
Lave been coming to the department from lawyers and) others, and the opinions stated were that subsection 7 as drafted was not perfectly clear. We have -had opinions from some of the most eminent lawyers in the country, and finally an- agreement was reached. I think the section is now quite all right.


Harry Butcher: Will the minister allow
this section t-o stand?


Onésime Gagnon: Section 12 stands.
Section 13 agreed to.
Sections 14, 15 and 16 stand.
Section 17 agreed to.
On section 18-contracts of agent binding on company.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have an amendment to
suggest to this section. Hon. gentlemen will remember that in 1932 a decision was given by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of the Bank of the United States vs. Ross with regard to the old section which is repeated in section 18 as it now stands. In view of that decision, after very lengthy consultation with eminent counsel, it has been suggested that the clause should be amended by striking out the words in the forty-fifth and forty-sixth lines, "as such under the bylaws of the company" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "either as expressed or implied." The reason for this suggested amendment is that the by-laws of the company are not known to the public and under the recent decision in the Bank of the United States vs. Ross there is the suggestion that in every case in dealing with the company an outside party must insist upon the production of the by-laws in order that he may make himself acquainted with all the powers vested by the by-laws in an officer of the company. If the amendment is accepted it will then

Dominion Companies Act
read: "in general accordance with his powers either as expressed or implied." I think I had better allow the section to stand so that hon. gentlemen can see the effect of the amendment in the votes and proceedings to-morrow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is
a very important section, and under the theory of internal management a very difficult question arises whether there is power to make a binding contract or not. I am very glad to say that I called the minister's attention to the case of the Bank of the United States vs. Ross and the implications contained in that decision. I think it is worthy of very serious consideration. I should like to see the whole clause redrafted.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We will allow it to stand.
Section stands.
Sections 19 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
On section 29-when company may surrender charter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have a suggestion to make. It is one of the suggestions printed in the votes and proceedings. Eminent lawyers have called my attention to the word "therein" in line 29. It is not sufficiently clear, they think, and so I have suggested that instead of the word "therein" we use the words "in such debts, liabilities or other obligations" to make it clear what "therein" specifically refers to.


Maurice Dupré: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 30 and 31 agreed to.
On section 32-Allotment of shares.
Maurice Dupré: I move to insert after the
word "persons" in line 18 the words "or class of persons."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This clause makes it clear that the allotment may be made at such times and in such manner and to such persons as the directors may from time to time determine. In drafting the clause I thought that the words "in such manner and to such persons" would be sufficient, but it has been suggested by counsel that it should read "to such persons or class of persons" because there may come a time perhaps when the allotment would be made to all the present shareholders of the company or it might be made to all the preferred shareholders of the company as such,
and, in order to obviate the enumeration by name of one or two hundred or more persons, it is proposed to insert the words "or class of persons" after the word "person."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 33 to 35 inclusive agreed to.
On section 36-Invalid without entry.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It has been suggested that
after the word "transfers" in line 9 there should be inserted the words "or in a branch register of transfers." The fact is that many companies have a general register and also branch registers, and, in view of the decision in the Royal Bank vs. Smith case respecting provincial branch registers, it was really an oversight that these words were not inserted in the drafting.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has consideration been given to the question of the registration of shares to make it obligatory on companies to open registers in the various provinces? I have in mind the question of succession duties and the payment of double fees. Nearly all the big corporations have their head offices in Montreal, Toronto or some other large city, while the shareholders are scattered throughout every province. There is no reciprocity between the provinces in the matter of succession duties, and very often the estates of deceased shareholders are mulcted for double duty. In the province of Quebec an incorporated company may claim a different province as its domicile, while the shareholder claims another province. This leads to a great deal of litigation and double expense. The banks have worked out a scheme for the relief of the estates of deceased shareholders. They provide a register in every province and it seems to me that this is the proper time and place to make it obligatory upon public companies to open share registers in every province. I have had a great deal of experience in connection with these matters and I know it works very great hardship, not on the companies but on the estates of deceased shareholders. I offer the suggestion that this clause be drafted in such a way as to provide that where there is any considerable number of shareholders in any one province, a company shall open a branch registry office in such province.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As a matter of fact, it is not obligatory upon the banks to open branch or provincial registers, but in provinces where there is a considerable number of shareholders
Dominion Companies Act

they do so for the personal convenience of their shareholders. Full provision is made in this bill for branch registers, but we have left it optional with the company as to the adoption of a branch registry system. This bill applies to every company incorporated, whether it be a small company with a thousand dollars capital or a large company with many millions of dollars of capital. After full consideration we thought that the time had not come to make the establishing of branch registers obligatory. In the case of the smaller companies it would be an obligation and burden which would be intolerable. I trust the hon. gentleman will allow this section to pass in its present form. I am ready to accept the opinion of the committee, but my own opinion is very dedidedly against making branch registers obligatory in a general statute which applies to all companies, whatever their capital may be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I appreciate that in the case of the small joint stock companies it might be a burden, but I do suggest that in the case of companies whose shares are listed on the stock exchanges it should be made obligatory. I am quite satisfied the section could be drafted in such a way as to cover the cases I have in mind, that is, companies whose shares are listed on the stock exchanges. It should not be any great burden if this were done, and it would provide protection to the estates of deceased shareholders. This should be done for the very pertinent reasons which I have urged. Any hon. gentleman practising in the smaller provinces knows that in the case of a large estate with diversified investments and securities a great number of shares will be held in companies listed on the Montreal or Toronto stock exchanges. In the case of decedents residing in the smaller provinces there is a double taxation because the shares are registered in the province in which the head office is located. I understand there is a recent decision in Quebec which is under appeal and which would afford protection, but I think this is the time and place to give consideration to the circumstances which I have indicated, I am afraid very inadequately. If we do not do it now we will not get it done for many years to come. This bill is to be a model and I appeal to the minister to give some consideration to these suggestions.


Mr. RALSTON:: I suggest that my hon. friend who has just spoken is approaching the matter from the wrong end. I submit that we are legislating for companies and not in connection with succession duties. I think there is a lot of room for improvement in the

succession duties acts and in the way they are administered, although I do not cast any reflection upon anyone. The double duty is caused not by the Dominion Companies Act but by the rulings which have been given by the various attorneys general and the various succession duties departments of the provinces. While I sympathize with my hon. friend, I submit he is approaching the question from the wrong angle. I have a case in mind of a small estate which is being virtually held up because of claims from two different succession duties jurisdictions. I suggest that it would be a serious thing for companies, even those listed on the stock exchanges, to be required to have registers in every province regardless of the fact that their shareholders may be residing in only two or three provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree that we are legislating on behalf of all companies, but I suggest, with all deference, that we are also legislating on behalf of the shareholders of companies. I think that is a complete answer to the statement of my hon. friend.


James Layton Ralston: They do not have to become shareholders.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In so far as their rights are affected by this bill, we are legislating just as much in the interests of shareholders as we are in the interests of the company. It would not be such a difficult thing to establish branch registers. The trust companies operate in every province, and all that would be required would be the appointment of a registrar in a particular province by resolution of the directors. It would necessitate the payment of a very small fee to affect the transfers I have in mind. I see no difficulty about it; in fact I am quite satisfied it could be worked out very easily and very economically. It would be of great benefit, not to the companies but to the shareholders, to whom they owe a duty in this respect.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Hon. gentlemen will remember that in 1932 I introduced a bill which created a new part to the Dominion Companies Act, a part which appears as part YI of this act, to be found at page 96. This part provides that all Canadian companies incorporated under any aot of the parliament of Canada or of the legislature of the late province of Canada may have branch registration offices. When introducing that legislation in 1932 we gave most careful consideration to the question raised by the hon. gentleman

Dominion Companies Act
with regard to branch registers. We provided by the terms of that enactment every facility for the opening of branch registers, with the result that many of the large companies have opened branch registers of their own volition in more than one province, but confining such branch registers to those provinces in which numbers of their shareholders were resident or domiciled. Shareholders have the option of not retaining shares in a company which fails to give them the protection which they think they ought to have in respect of the succession duties taxes. We have given the companies this option and have left it to the shareholders to bring pressure upon the company with respect to the establishing of branch registers. We think we have gone just about as far as we ought to go at the present time. This matter has been developed by a succession of decisions of the highest courts of the land, and I do not think we are yet in position to amend the Dominion Companies Act to provide for successful evasions of the decisions of provincial courts wth respect to the succession duties tax. I prefer to leave it as it is at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I must
take exception to the last statement of the minister. There is no attempt to evade the payment of any succession duties tax. I do suggest that we ought not to pass legislation which will help two different provinces to obtain succession duties on the same securities. That is what has happened in the past and it is what I have had in mind as an evil that ought to be cured if possible. I have heard no good answer yet as to why it should not be made obligatory. I have in mind the case of registered bonds of the Canadian National Railways. For years I had put up a battle with the treasury department of the Canadian National Railways to have their bonds registered, not in Montreal but in the place where the bondholder resides. I had a long correspondence with the late Mr. Ruel. I could not get him to move for a long time, but finally I did, so that the Canadian National Railway bonds might be registered in New Brunswick through a trust company, as they had previously been registered in Quebec. Take the expensive litigation in connection with the Sifton estate. If the Sifton bonds had not been registered in Montreal, where the head office of the Canadian National Railways was, the province of Quebec would have had no earthly excuse for trying to collect from the executors a huge sum of money in succession duties. We are perpetuating what is really a scandal in this country, namely, the collection of double duties on the same set of securities.


James Layton Ralston: Are they collecting to-day two income taxes on the salaries of ministers who live in Ottawa? It is done every day, but does anyone suggest that that is a scandal?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
know whether my hon. friend is defending the principle of double taxation in succession duties.


James Layton Ralston: The idea of double taxation is not necessarily a scandal, which is the term my hon. friend uses. Anyone who has lived in Ottawa knows that the same income is taxed twice in the city of Ottawa-by the city and again by the income tax department. But no one uses strong language, calling it a scandal. The food we eat is taxed a good many times and no one talks about it as a scandal. I do not understand my hon. friend's argument. I appreciate the fact that there are hardships, but my point is that he is proposing to legislate in the wrong place. In the first place this is a companies act and we are not concerned with the question as to who shall or shall not purchase shares of a company, because after all that is a voluntary matter; and secondly, as the minister says, we are pretty nearly legislating to assist in an evasion of provincial law. How should we like it if the provinces started to legislate in the same way to assist in the evasion of a dominion law? We have to be careful about a matter of this kind, which is not as clear as my hon. friend suggests. Further, it is questionable whether we shall get clear of double taxation simply by making it obligatory upon companies to register in the different provinces. It is possible that there may still be double taxation, and my hon. friend may be enhancing the possibility not only of double but of treble taxation if that is done. As the Secretary of State has said, we are not yet at the stage, so far as judicial decisions are concerned, where we know precisely where we are in relation to the possibilities of succession duties in Canada and how far domicile enters into it. We do not know how far the question as to where you can effectively transfer property, which is the test in some instances, determines the liability for succession duty purposes. I know that my hon. friend has had far more experience than I in connection with succession duties, but I submit that we ought as far as
Dominion Companies Act

possible 4o legislate for companies rather than attempt to follow the incidence of the legislation into the account books and finally into the estates of various people who may or may not become shareholders as they think proper.


Maurice Dupré: I move that after the word " transfers " in the fourth line there be inserted the words " or in a branch register of transfers.".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. GEARY:: Has the attention of the
minister been drawn to line 21 on page 21, in subsection 2? Is it proposed to have the same amendment here? Does the same alternative apply after the word "transfers"?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


Maurice Dupré: I move that subsection 2
be amended similarly in line 21.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
Harry Butcher: Will the minister allow
sections 38 and 39 to stand.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.
Sections 38 and 39 stand.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As this is a convenient
place and it is a few minutes to eleven o'clock I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


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