OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons JBebates
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 17, 1934

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo) moved the first reading of Bill No. 56 (from the Senate) with respect to hospital sweepstakes.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. FRASER:: In view of the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister I hardly think it is necessary to explain the bill. This is practically the same bill that was introduced in the house last session, and in view of the fact that we will have an opportunity for an extended discussion I do not think any further explanation is necessary at this time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FRASER RIVER BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the difficulty that is being experienced in crossing the Fraser river from New Westminster on down, and in view of the many reports that have been appearing in the press I should like to ask if the government are considering the advisability of constructing a bridge across the Fraser river under the public works program.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: My recollection is that the matter has not been dealt with. Representations have been made to the government with respect to charters held by individuals for bridges across the Fraser river, and since the advent into power of the new administration in British Columbia I believe certain legislation has been enacted dealing with the matter. Nothing has been received by the government of which I can think at the moment, however, other than the correspondence to which I have referred. I will look it up, and if there is anything I will let the hon. gentleman know.



PRIVILEGE-MR. GUTHRIE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Referring to Hansard for yesterday I find that when the vote on the amendment to the relief bill was taken my name is recorded as amongst those who voted against the amendment. A few minutes later, when the motion for the third reading of the bill was put, I certainly rose in my place and voted; my name was called by the assistant clerk, but my name is not recorded in the division list or in the list of pairs. I wish to have that error corrected, Mr. Speaker, since I certainly voted for the third reading of the bill.
May I say that I attach no blame at all to either the assistant clerk or the clerk in regard to this omission. When the vote was taken there was so much conversation, and perhaps disorder, in the chamber that though my name was called by the assistant clerk it might well be that the clerk did not hear it. I think my old friend from Bona venture (Mr. Marcil) will bear me out when I say that in our early experience in this house the taking of a division was rather a dignified and indeed one might say a solemn occasion. When the whips returned the doors were closed; no one was permitted to enter or leave the chamber, and on pain of a very severe rebuke no one was permitted to move about the house at all from one seat to another. Apart from the traditional applause that always greeted the votes of the leaders the proverbial silence was always maintained, so that you could hear a pin drop. I wish members of the house would assist in restoring that ancient dignity, so that at least we may have a properly recorded division in this house.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I am very glad to have the opportunity of endorsing every word that has been uttered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), and I hope that in future the old traditions of parliament will be observed.

Privilege-Mr. Bennett



SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: May I ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if he is now in a position to make any announcement in regard to the intentions of the government as to implementing any or all of the provisions of the Gibb report at this session.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: Mr. Speaker, the information I can give my hon. friend is that I do not think we intend to implement that report this session.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BENNETT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to a question of privilege affecting this house. On Thursday, April 12, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) referred to an article appearing in a newspaper, headed:
Arthur Cutten facing charge of conspiracy alleged by United States Secretary of Agriculture to have made false reports to manipulate grain prices.
After asking the first question the hon. member said:
My second question is, did the said Cutten do anything in Canada of the kind complained of by the American government according to the dispatch I have just quoted?
This question of the hon. member is to be found at page 2067 of Hansard. A point of order was taken and considerable discussion took place, whereupon the hon. member for Temiscouata sipoke as follows, as reported in the next column of the said page:
There is an obvious connection between the manipulation of grain by Cutten in Chicago and what might have been done here. We do not know what has been done here. I do not know, no one knows-


The Chairman:: Order. Does the hon. gentleman speak of his personal knowledge or of what he has read?
To this inquiry the hon. member replied:
Well, most of our knowledge comes from the press, because the government does not say much.
Then there was a further statement made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough. At page 2071 the chairman said:
I understood the hon. member was going to speak on the point of order.
Then the hon. member for Alntigonish-Guysborough said:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me go a step further. As far as the Cutten matter is
[Mr. Marcil.l
concerned, in which you intervened, Mr. Chairman, in a very courteous manner, I understand that this wheat which Cutten was selling in Chicago was sold to Mr. McFarland, and that the government was guaranteeing the money which was paying for that wheat.
Then, at page 2072:
As I said a moment ago, my only interest so far as the Cutten matter is concerned is this, that owing to the guarantee given Mr. McFarland by the government. Mr. Cutten in Chicago sold wheat to Mr. McFarland, and he had to use money for the guarantee which the dominion gave to him. In making that statement I think I have said sufficient for my purpose.
That was a direct and positive statement. Then, later at page 2074, the following statement was made by myself:
There is just one observation which the hon. member made which I submit to the committee is a very serious one. He has alleged that in consequence of something that appears in the newspapers there was collusion-that is what it amounts to-between the cooperative wheat sellers' organization and Mr. Cutten at Chicago and that money was used by Canadians for the purpose of buying Mr. Cutten's wheat.
Mr. Duff: If the Prime Minister will allow me, I said that there was a report.
Mr. Bennett: Any man who in parliament makes a statement of that kind must accept the responsibility for making it.
That is the direct statement, which will be recalled. Then the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough said, "I am willing to accept it."
I cabled Mr. McFarland the sense of the statement thus made and I have just received an answer, as follows:
Replying your telegram, never directly or indirectly, either for myself or for any person, corporation or government, have I had any business transactions in wheat or other commodities with Arthur Cutten either in Chicago, Winnipeg or elsewhere.
McFarland.
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, because the statement, in the first instance, was a very direct one, and later it was said to have been only a report. I do think that the privileges of this house have been violated by a statement of that positive character being made with respect to one who was discharging the duties that he was, and whose contradiction is unequivocal and' certain.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I believe it is against
the rules of the house to quote statements from outsiders in reply to statements made by hon. members of this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true, Mr. Speaker, but when it involves a question of a witness who was brought by a committee of this house 'before it, and a statement of that kind

Business of the House
is made, the government as such, not a member but the government, may make a denial on the strength of the information received from the individual whose name is given, in order that there may be no question about it.


Ernest Lapointe: Let any hon. member
try to do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I beg the hon. member's pardon.


Ernest Lapointe: Let any hon. member
try to do what the Prime Minister has done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was frequently done
by hon. members opposite.
The following legislation will be submitted to the house before-


Mr. DUFF:: Before the Prime Minister
gives the leader of the opposition the information asked may I make a statement?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The Prime Minister has
the floor.


William Duff: But it is a question of privilege.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right.


William Duff: The other day when I brought up the matter about something which occurred in a committee of the house the Prime Minister was the first to rise in his seat and state I had no right to do so. To-day however the Prime Minister does deliberately what I tried to do .the other day. So far as I am concerned, and so far as Mr. McFarland is concerned, it is quite possible that Mr. McFarland might not have known whose wheat he was buying in Chicago. He does not say so in that telegram. Let me say to the Prime Minister that there is no question about it, and I think I know what I am talking about when I say that the wheat Mr. McFarland bought, and the money guaranteed by this government, was wheat which Mr. Cutten sold to Mr. McFarland on the Winnipeg grain exchange.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement which is made by the hon. member does not add anything to what has already been said by him.


William Duff: Or yourself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it will be recalled
that it was stated by Mr. McFarland, and it is a matter of evidence, that he had bought not a single grain of wheat in Chicago.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He did
not say Chicago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, he said Chicago.
74726-141J



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: The business which will be submitted to the house comprises amendments to the Food and Drugs Act; The Proprietary Medicines Act; The Criminal Code; The Soldier Settlement Act; The Customs Act; The Elections Act; The Farm Loan Act and The Bankruptcy Act. Compromises or arrangements with creditors it is hoped will be in the form of one bill. Possibly there will be one other administrative change in addition to the legislation now pending before the house and the senate, and the changes which will arise from the deliberations of the existing committees on the Bank Act and the Bank of Canada Act, if they emerge successfully from the committee to which they have been sent. There will be changes of course in the Currency Act, some changes in the Finance Act and some changes in the Notes Act. There will be submitted also a consolidated Excise Act which cannot be submitted until after the budget has been delivered. There will be a new Companies Act and a Franchise Act arising out of the Elections Act. I think I may say to the right hon. gentleman that the main features of the Elections Act will remain as they are, but an effort will be made to enact a statute along the lines of the recommendations of the first chief electoral officer, that is the establishment of a basic list which will not depart from the principles of the present Elections Act. There will also be an Emergency Public Works Act, to which reference has already been made. There is in addition another bill in process of preparation which to-day I cannot speak about-with certainty, but about which I may be able to speak with certainty by the end of the week. There will also be amendments to the Judges Act.


Mr. POULIOT:: In the meantime prosperity will be around the corner.



DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 38, to amend the Dairy Industry Act.-Mr. Weir (Melfort)-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The Prime Minister mentioned yesterday that to-day we would go on with the marketing bill. Is there any reason why that should not be proceeded with?
Dairy Industry Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: I indicated last evening that we were proceeding with the marketing bill, and with certain bills on the order paper of which I gave the numbers. We are proceeding with this first; that is all.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-definitions.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: Would the minister explain the purpose in the change in this part of the act, with particular reference to the definition of "fat" which is now to include fats of mineral origin. An explanation of the whole clause I think would be in order.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: The definitions are being extended so as to be more in line with the requirements of modern practice. The definition of "fat" is amended to include mineral fats as well as animal and vegetable fats because there has been an effort to use mineral fat in producing an article that is being used as a substitute for butter.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: What is the article?


Robert Weir: I have not the name with me but as certain attempts have been made in that direction it was thought advisable to amend this definition as a protection to the consuming public, so that they would get what they thought they were getting when making a purchase.


Mr. NEILL:: Does not the act dealing
with oleomargarine already prohibit such a thing?


Robert Weir: No, margarine is
not a mineral fat.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: Would not the Pure Food and Drugs Act take care of such a product? The minister's explanation of the matter is not at all clear.


Robert Weir: It is not covered
by the Pure Food and Drugs Act because mineral oil is used for medicinal purposes and there is nothing injurious in its use for that purpose. The object of amending this definition is simply to prevent the substitution of mineral oil in products that would come into competition with butter.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Do I understand from
the minister's remarks that the department knows of cases where mineral oil has been Used as a substitute in the making of butter?


Robert Weir: Yes, that is correct


Mr. DUPUIS:: Is that allowed?
IMr. Mackenzie King.]


Robert Weir: This is to prevent
it.


Humphrey Mitchell: If mineral oil has been
used as a substitute in the making of butter, what action has been taken by the department in such cases?


Robert Weir: It was not used in the making of butter but in substitutes for butter or in products that resembled butter and were intended to be used in place of it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I remember the fight
over oleomargarine some years ago, and I am curious to know what these products are.


Robert Weir: My information is
that such a product is being manufactured in the United States, and they desire to bring it into this country. We do not think it should be brought in, and if we decide that it shall not be brought in and sold as butter, this section will enable us to prevent that being done.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would like to know
what the product is called. I have very strong opinions about this thing.


Robert Weir: We have not got
the name of the product, but one of the advantages claimed and advertised for it is that it makes what is eaten more palatable and will prevent the consumers from becoming what they would consider too stout.


Humphrey Mitchell: What I want to get
clear in my mind is this:	If this article is
imported into this country and sold as butter, will prosecutions take place under this section?


Robert Weir: It would be possible under this bill to make prosecutions if thought desirable.


Humphrey Mitchell: Then it is the intention of the government to prevent the sale of this substitute for butter?


Robert Weir: Its sale as butter,
yes.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: It may be sold if it is not offered as butter, is that it?


Robert Weir: Yes, that is my understanding. The definition as it stands at present requires that there must be a specified amount of fat in a product sold as butter. Under the present aot, the definition of "fat" would not exclude mineral oil. I>t is for this reason that the change is made.

Dairy Industry Act


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: Do I understand that what is being sold in the United States as a butter substitute could not be sold in Canada as such but could be sold as a different product in spite of the oleomargarine law?


Robert Weir: It cannot be sold as butter but it could be sold for medicinal purposes. The definition which we have now does not specify this particular kind of fat. I regret I have not the particulars before me but I shall be glad to get them for the hon. member.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: Has the minister satisfied himself that this amendment will be fair to the butter producer and not interfere in any way with his market through permitting the introduction of a substitute whioh can be sold as a medicinal article?


Robert Weir: The purpose of the bill is to protect especially the butter producer and the consumer. This bill has been before the agriculture committee when a full discussion took place. The bill met with^ the approval of the members of that committee but I must admit that since that time the details have not been as fresh in my mind as they might be.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Has there been any request for this proposed legislation and, if so, from whom was it received?


Robert Weir: The industry submitted samples to us which upon analysis were found not to contain either milk or vegetable fat. The change has been made as a protection to the producer and to the consumer.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Will this legislation
permit the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine or similar products? I can remember distinctly my maiden speech many years ago when I spoke against oleomargarine. The majority of the house pronounced themselves to be against this product even when sold under its proper name. There has always been a danger of confusion among the consumers. If this measure is to open the door to substitutes for butter I think our farmers in general will protest very strongly.


Robert Weir: The purpose of
widening the definition is to afford the protection the hon. member suggests.


Frederick George Sanderson: There was so much
noise in the chamber that I could not catch the answer to my question. I believe the minister said that requests had come from the industry. Am I right?


Robert Weir: That is my understanding.


Frederick George Sanderson: What does the minister-mean by the industry?


Robert Weir: The producers of
butter, the creameries.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: You mean the dairy
industry?


Robert Weir: The dairy industry.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: The minister will pardon me for not being present when the bill was introduced and I should like to know his reasons for bringing in this legislation. I should like to know who asked for these amendments and from what part of the country requests were received. For instance, has the minister received representations from Quebec?	*


Robert Weir: Requests have been coming in from time to time from the dairy industry as a whole and from the industry in different provinces. As I said before, the purpose of this amendment is to widen the definitions to bring them more in line with modern practices and to assure the consuming public that they are getting what they want to purchase. It is intended also to prevent the manufacture of or the entry into this country of products which will be in competition with those of our dairy producers.


Mr. LUCAS:: Has any of this product beei sold in Canada up to the present time?


Robert Weir: Not of which we have any record, but we understand that it was contemplated that sales would be made.


William Thomas Lucas: This amendment would not keep it out other than by providing that it be sold on its own merits.


Robert Weir: There is a clause in the act which has not been amended. Section 5 reads:
No person shall manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale, any oleomargarine, margarine, butterine, or other substitute for butter, manufactured wholly or in part from any fat other than that of milk or cream.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Is that a clause in the new bill?


Robert Weir: No, that has not been changed.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I would suggest that this section be allowed to stand until we have studied the other sections. We could then come back to it if the committee is willing.
Dairy Industry Act


Frederick George Sanderson: Has the minister received any request for this legislation from the National Dairy Council?


Robert Weir: I have not before me the names of those who made requests that there should be changes but from time to time requests have been made that the definitions should be changed to be brought in line with modern practices. One of the problems to be dealt with is the tendency to produce an article containing no animal or milk fat. It was to widen these definitions that this change has been made.


Frederick George Sanderson: There is so much confusion in the chamber that it is very difficult to hear and I am not just clear as to what the minister answered. I asked him if any request for this proposed legislation had been received from the National Dairy Council.


Robert Weir: I could not say but I would say that requests have been received from branches of the dairy industry. As the National Dairy Council is supposed to be representative of the whole industry, I think it is immaterial whether or not we have received a request from that organization.


Frederick George Sanderson: Just what does the minister mean? Does his answer take in any particular province or all provinces? For instance what requests did he receive from Ontario?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And Quebec?


Robert Weir: As I have stated
a number of times, I have not before me a specific list of the different bodies that made requests for this change. The changes proposed here have all been made after consultation with the producers' organizations, with the National Dairy Council, with the cooperative creameries and with others engaged in the dairy industry.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the minister bring before the committee all the requests that have been received either by himself or by his department?


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to
supply the hon. member with the information, but it will be impossible to get it this afternoon.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am aware of that.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is very kind of the
minister to say that he will bring down these requests, because I was going to ask for them myself. In our province there is an organization known as La Soeiete de l'lndustrie Lai-tiere, which a few years ago held a large

convention in my county, and these people are very much interested in any bill of such wide scope as the one before us now. The minister told us that this bill was being introduced in order to meet the requests of the dairy industry, and he has intimated that certain statements have been received from those persons at the end of the industry. I should like to have these reports, because this is the committee of the whole house; it is not the committe on agriculture, before whom specialists in the dairy industry and in matters of that sort affecting the dairy council have the right to be heard, and where members may comment on statements made by people who are better versed in the industry. It would be very interesting, I am sure, to all the members of this committee, and certainly to myself to have these comments made so that we might find out whether the provisions contemplated in the bill are really of such a nature as to assist the dairy industry and, I would add, the consumer. Will the minister tell us what will be the effect of all these amendments that are now proposed. It is very important to know whether they are in the interests of the dairy industry and whether at the same time the consumer will benefit.


Robert Weir: I have no hesitation in saying that it will be of benefit to the dairy industry, the dairy producers particularly, and also to the consumer, because it will enable the consumer to know that he is getting what he believes he is buying when he purchases a product.


Vincent Dupuis: When the minister uses the term dairy industry, does it include such concerns as Borden's milk, and distributors in the large centres? Are they among those who have asked for the amendments?


Robert Weir: Everybody did not ask for it; the request came chiefly from representatives of producers.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, but could the minister tell me whether Borden's milk was among those making the request?


Robert Weir: I cannot tell the hon. gentleman.


Vincent Dupuis: Can the minister tell me after looking into the question?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Will the minister agree to my suggestion and allow this clause to stand until we have studied the bill further? We could revert to it later on.


Robert Weir: Yes.


Mr. STEVENS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.

Dairy Industry Act


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I understand that we are to get some information from the minister. I would ask therefore that the clause be allowed to stand.
Section stands.
On section 3-Regulations.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In the explanatory notes it is stated:
This is necessary in order to permit fixing of a legal standard for any dairy product by the governor in council.
I am wondering whether there will be any conflict between the provisions of the bill we are now considering and the other bill, the marketing bill, which will be taken up shortly. In this bill are we given to understand that the governor in council will fix the standard of butter which is to be put on the market? That is what the explanatory note says. Is the governor in council going to fix the various standards of butter in the country?


Robert Weir: This also is an extension to include dairy products that are not now included, products of a type different from those dealt with when the act was last revised-for example, processed cheese. It does not change in any way the principle of the act as it now stands.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: How were these standards arrived at before the amendments were proposed?


Robert Weir: This does not mean a new set of standards; it is merely an extension so that standards may be set up for products not now named, products that have come into being since this act was last amended. There is no change in principle.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Is it the object of this bill to fix a standard for cream? As we all know, cream is a noble word which has very often been prostituted to represent a low grade commodity very little different from milk. For instance, when you ask for a certain grade of cream, cereal cream or any other, the percentage of fat if I remember rightly is about 10 per cent, perhaps lower in some cases. Milk left in its natural state will give up its cream and I believe the right percentage of fat in the natural state is something around 18 per cent. Are we going to allow this noble word "cream," which is so appealing, to be degraded, representing a product with 10 per cent of fat? I wish the minister would be good enough to consider this question carefully and give the committee an assurance that in the near future he will fix some standard which will not be confusing to either producer or consumer.


Robert Weir: The amendments proposed by this bill deal only with manufactured products and that would not include cream.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If we are a little concerned about this matter it is because it is important. The explanatory note in connection with paragraph (h) of clause 2 just passed, reads:
This paragraph is amended to include mineral oil in a definition of fat. This is necessary as such an oil might be used in the manufacture of a substitute for butter.
I am afraid, if we pass this bill and give this power to the governor in council to brand, mark and classify certain standards ol butter and cheese in accordance with the bill, we might before long have substitutes that might be passed through, adopted, classified and passed as correct and that would be in competition with the dairy products of our farmers in the various provinces. I think this bill is drafted more in order to benefit the jobbers and others who trade in that line of business, who buy and resell the product, than to protect the man of the soil.


Robert Weir: The purpose of these amendments is to do exactly what the hon. member seems to fear is not being done. No new powers are given and the purpose is now as it has been in the past, to bring the people to whom he refers under control, so that the consumer may know what he is purchasing. The effort is being made to protect the farmer's product against substitutes that we do not consider so beneficial. The purpose of these amendments is, so far as I can understand the hon. member's observations, to do exactly what he wishes done and it gives no additional powers to the government; it is a widening of the definition.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am glad to hear that.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Do I understand the minister to say that the farmer who produces butter and goes around selling it is not affected by this bill?


Robert Weir: He is not.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is the explanation we require. Will the minister answer the question of the hon. member for Provencher?


Robert Weir: He has answered
it.


Vincent Dupuis: In answer to the hon. member for Kamouraska the minister said that this clause will not affect cream. What does paragraph (f) of clause 2 mean? It reads:
"Dairy product" "dairy products" or "dairy produce " means any milk, cream, condensed milk, evaporated milk-

Dairy Industry Act
And so forth. I would like to have from the minister an explanation of his answer that cream would not be included, because I heard my learned friend from Kamouraska mentioning the noble name of cream, and I thought he was recalling a poetic idyll of the mythological past. I would like to know if cream is included or not.


Robert Weir: Cream is included
in dairy products, but it is not included in products for which we set the standards. At the present time the standards for cream are set by municipalities and provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Standards of dairy products.
Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: The section in the original act, subsection 3 of section 6 deals with the abolition of power to sell or have in possession for sale a butter not in keeping with the weight of the package that is supposed correctly to represent the weight. Paragraph (a) reads:
No person shall sell, offer or have in his possession for sale,
(a)	any butter moulded or cut into prints, blocks, squares or pats, unless such prints, blocks, squares or pats are of the full net weight of one-quarter pound, one-half pound, one pound or two pounds, but nothing in this paragraph shall be held to apply to butter in rolls or lumps, of indiscriminate weight, as sold by farmers.
Paragraph (b) reads:
No person shall sell, offer or have in his possession for sale,
(b)	any butter packed in tins or other packages alleged to contain any definite weight of butter unless such package contains the full net weight of butter. . . .
One can see that the original section dealt solely with the selling or offering for sale of packages on a weight basis or standard. There is now proposed to be added to that an entirely new principle, something altogether apart from the question of weight. The proposed amendment reads:
No person shall manufacture, import into Canada, ot offer, sell or have in his possession for sale any dairy product which does not conform to the standards and requirements of or is contained in a package contravening the provisions of this part and regulations made hereunder.
First, I would like the minister to explain the necessity and the reasons for this clause. In his explanation I hope he will be able to remove from my mind the opinion that the clause as now drafted imposes a serious hardship and handicap on the farmer who himself is selling butter, for notice what may happen. If my wife is making butter on the 
farm, we bring it into town and we turn it over the counter to a retail store keeper who exchanges groceries for it. That store keeper has no knowledge whatever as to whether the butter is up to the standard and grade required under the bill, that is the new standards and grades to be provided. He has no way of knowing that until that butter has passed through a grader's 'hands, yet under this clause he may be prosecuted for having in his possession for sale butter which he has taken from a farmer in exchange for goods.


Alan Webster Neill: And so may the hon. member.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: Yes, so may I. I suggest that a little further thought be given to this clause. In my opinion it deliberately strikes a blow at the small farmer who is selling his own butter and at the storekeeper who is taking it over the counter and offering it for sale. It is a clause which undoubtedly will advance the interests of the milk distributors' combine in Canada. That is the feeling I have in reading the clause and I hope the minister can explain it more satisfactorily.


Robert Weir: The butter to which the hon. member is referring is usually called dairy butter as distinguished from creamery butter and there is no grading of dairy butter or butter that is manufactured by the farmer.


Alan Webster Neill: But this says "dairy product."


Robert Weir: Yes, "dairy product" as defined in the definition, but there is no grading of butter as manufactured by farmers as the hon. member understands that term.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: That is what I am afraid of under the powers we are giving the minister or the governor in council under this act. Will it not be possible, under this act, for the governor in council to pass such regulations as may affect the dairy farmer?


Robert Weir: There is no change in the power that is granted under this section.


Alan Webster Neill: But the interpretation clause states:
" dairy product," "dairy products " or " dairy produce " means any milk, cream, condensed milk, evaporated milk, milk powder, butter

Just the word "butter"; it does not say "creamery butter." That is any kind of butter, and I certainly believe section 4 will cover dairy butter. I would suggest that the trouble might be overcome if the minister would allow the insertion of the words "more

Dairy Industry Act
than ten pounds of" in line 4 so that it would read, "No person shall manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale more than ten pounds of any dairy product" and so on.


Robert Weir: It is less inconvenient to the farmer at the present time. There is no interference with the manufacture and sale of butter by farmers at the present time, nor is it contemplated to take any additional power under this act.


Vincent Dupuis: Is there any distinction made in the original act between creamery and dairy butter? Under subsection (f) of section 2 all butter is included. It does not make any distinction between dairy and creamery butter.


Robert Weir: Under part I of the act creamery butter means butter which is manufactured in a creamery and dairy butter means butter manufactured in a dairy. A dairy is a place where the milk and cream of less than fifty cows is manufactured into butter.


Vincent Dupuis: Is there any other section in the act which gives privileges to one and not to the other? As the hon. member for Bow River has asked, will a farmer be able to sell his butter to the local merchant or to anyone else?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Vincent Dupuis: Where is that stated in the act? In the amendment we have only the word "butter."


Robert Weir: The regulations do not include farmers' butter as described in the first part of the act. The farmers' butter has not been graded in the past, and it is not intended to grade it in the future. Under these changes there will be no more interference than there has been in the past with regard to the farmer manufacturing and disposing of his own butter.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Do I understand that this bill will not affect the farmers' business at all? Do I understand that they will have the right to manufacture and market their butter as they wish without being bound by any of these amendments?


Robert Weir: That is correct.


Alan Webster Neill: But unfortunately the statements of the minister are not incorporated in the act. The minister has said that this bill does not apply to the butter produced by
farmers, but in two, three or five years from now the act as it reads will apply, and the act states:
No person shall manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale any dairy productand so on. Then I turn to section 2 for the definition of dairy product, and I find that it includes the single word "butter." The one generic term includes all separate definitions. "Butter" includes dairy and creamery butter, and the definition of dairy products must be taken as it appears under section 2, which includes the single word "butter." I would take the minister's word as long as he is minister, but this act will be interpreted as it is written.


Robert Weir: The regulations do
not include farmers' butter.
hli. GARLAND (Bow River): The statement of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is_ strengthened by the statement of the minister as to the bill itself. He points out that the act defines creamery butter as butter manufactured in a creamery and dairy butter as butter manufactured in a dairy. Having made that clear in the interpretation section of the bill surely it is absolutely necessary to carry the proper terminology through the bill in order to describe the exact type of butter to be dealt with. Therefore I would submit that subsection (f) of section 2 should be amended by inserting the word "creamery" before the word "butter." It is only one word; it will not interfere with the minister's intentions but it will definitely place the farmers outside the danger of future adverse action, which may still be in keeping with the legislation.


Robert Weir: There is nothing in these amendments that makes any change from what has been the practice since this act was first introduced; the regulations do not cover farmers' butter. The regulations are based on the definitions in the beginning of the act, and there never has been any regulation applying to butter produced by farmers in their dairies.


Vincent Dupuis: Is that onljr a matter of custom or is it in the legislation? I do not see anything to that effect in the bill, so apparently we have to rely on the good will of the chief executive.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister says there has been no change.


Robert Weir: Not in that respect.
Dairy Industry Act


Alan Webster Neill: There has been a change by-inserting a new section, which states that no one shall have in his possession any dairy product except under certain conditions. That is where the trouble comes in.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The minister says there has been no interference in the past, that the farmers have not been brought under this act.
I think in the city of Montreal farmers coming to the markets have had some difficulty with the officials of the Department of Agriculture. I remember some cases coming before the magistrates' courts in regard to men who were offering butter for sale.


Robert Weir: The farmer whom we consider the dairy farmer never has been interfered with at all as far as federal officials are concerned. There never has been a prosecution against a farmer, according to my information, unless he became a dealer in other butter.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He would not be responsible if he did not sell the finished product.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: If the minister will look at the original interpretation section he will find that the term "dairy product" is interpreted to mean any milk, cream, condensed milk, milk powder, butter or cheese, or any other article manufactured from milk, and all imitations thereof. Now we come down to subsection 4 of section 4, which simply refers to dairy products, which include anything made from milk, cream, condensed milk and so on. Surely the farmers' butter is made from cream.


Robert Weir: No person disputes that.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: And the
mere fact that the minister says that so far the regulations have avoided the law rather than lived up to it does not justify the position he is taking.


Robert Weir: Not at all.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: I am not finished. A moment ago the minister suggested that the regulations made clear that the individual farmer with less than fifty cows was not to be affected by this legislation and so far had not been affected by any regulations, but as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni pointed out the fact is that he can be affected under the law. The regulations can be changed by order in council.


Robert Weir: It has always been that way.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: It does not matter whether or not it has always been that way. There are new principles introduced in this new legislation which are of an extremely drastic character. If the minister would turn to clause 22 he will find the following :
The governor in council may make regulations not inconsistent with this act as to,
(a)	the grading of dairy produce;
(b)	the establishment or designation of grading stores.
And so on. I am in disagreement with any legislation which will give the power to this or to any future minister to affect the individual farmer in his transactions with retail stores, or in the sale of butter to his neighbours. It should not come within the ambit of this type of legislation. I strongly recommend that the word "creamery" should be inserted before the word "butter". If the minister would simply add the word ''creamery" in the interpretation clause, then all the subsequent clauses would refer to creamery butter. That is what the minister states he wants to refer to, and nothing else. He does not want the legislation to affect any other kind of butter, and in particular farmers' butter.


Robert Weir: I believe that the
spirit of the act will be better taken care of in this way,, in view of the action which has been taken in the past and in view of declared intentions because the administration of any act, no matter how it may be worded, depends to a greater extent on the spirit in which the administration is carried out than on any other factor. Let us suppose that we followed the hon. member's suggestion and inserted the word "creamery", would that not be a challenge to some persons to evade the regulations? As it is there is power to deal with such person.


Vincent Dupuis: You mean the farmers?


Robert Weir: Yes, with the
farmers. But that power has never been exercised, and there is no invitation to any person, under the cloak of a farmer, to avoid the regulations. I do not think any better assurance of the farmers' protection and the present intentions of those officials could be given than the action which in the past those officials have taken. I feel that in order to provide a protection against the temptation or invitation I have mentioned it would do well to leave the section as it is. In this way dairy butter in the hands of farmers may be treated as I have stated, but against people who would make a practice of purchasing

Dairy Industry Act
such dairy butter to any great extent, reworking it and so on, we would be able to invoke the regulations. The chief protection here afforded is the understanding that there is no intention of inconveniencing the small farmer in either the production or sale of his product.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: From the explanation
given by the minister, and his explanation about section 3 of the bill it appears to me as though the government has the right, by order in council, to fix a new legal standard of the product. What is the reason for this authority? At the present time is there not a legal standard fixed and in force?


Robert Weir: Is the hon. member referring back to section 3, which has passed?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, because we see in
section 4 of the bill a reference to the same point. In section 3 I find the expression "and other dairy products or constituents thereof" Paragraph (a) of section 3 is as follows:
(a) the prescribing of standards and for the definition, classification, marking and branding of butter and cheese and other dairy products or constituents thereof.
Then, section 4 of the bill:
Section 6 of the said act is amended by adding thereto as subsection 4 thereof the following:
[DOT] * (4) .No (person shall manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale any dairy product which does not conform to the standards and requirements of or is contained in a package con-travelling the provisions of this part and regulations made hereunder." (New.)
I refer to the expression "to the standards and requirements of"-that existed before. Was there any legal standard? What is the meaning of the expression "legal standard"? Was there not a legal standard before these amendments were contemplated?


Robert Weir: Yes. And there is no change contemplated in those standards. The widening of the definition is to enable standards to be set up in connection with dairy products covering products which were not produced at the time the act was passed.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Does the minister refer to new dairy products which will be put on the market. I should like the minister to give some explanation as to what he has in view, and what he believes will be those new dairy products. In order to make this amendment necessary there must be new dairy products; otherwise the amendment would not be necessary.


An hon. MEMBER:: That would compete with butter.


Robert Weir: One example, that of processed cheese, is set before us.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the processed cheese?


Mr. GOBEIL:: Reworked cheese.


Robert Weir: The blending of cheese.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: With what?


Robert Weir: With different
cheeses.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The blending of different cheeses together?


Robert Weir: And milk, and so on.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In what proportions?


Robert Weir: It depends on what sort of processed cheese they are making.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is that the only product which this amendment contemplates in connection with which standards will be required?


Robert Weir: It refers to any new products which might be manufactured; I have mentioned only one of them. Others may now be in process of manufacture.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Does it refer to butter?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What will the mixture
be for butter?


Robert Weir: Eighty per cent
fat and sixteen per cent moisture.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What kind of butter
would it produce then? Would it be as good as other butter?


Robert Weir: There is no change in the butter standards, none whatever.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is the same?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why is it necessary to
place section 4 in the bill if no change is contemplated? I have read section 6 of the act, which section 4 of the bill amends, and I do not think that this amendment, which is marked " new " in the bill is necessary.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the section carry?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Wait a minute.
Dairy Industry Act


Robert Weir: It is to cover all
individual products which would be standardized which are not now defined in the act, or could not be defined until such products came into being. In this particular connection there is no change whatever in the principle of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Adulteration of dairy product.
Joseph Georges Bouchard: Has this section any
reference to salt?


Robert Weir: No.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We find the expression
"any foreign substance," and in French the expression "quelque substance etrangere." What is "any foreign substance"?


Robert Weir: Any substance other than those that enter into the manufacture of butter as defined.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is butter as defined? What is the prescription for it?


Robert Weir: It is defined as follows:
"Butter" means the food product commonly known as butter, which is manufactured exclusively from milk or cream or both, with or without the addition of colouring matter, common salt, or other harmless preservatives.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is a foreign substance?


Robert Weir: Anything other than that.


Vincent Dupuis: 'Phis amendment is to prevent anything being done to injure the good product?


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: I have no objection whatever to this amendment if we have a proper definition, but as it now stands, as the hon. member for Kamouraska suggested a moment ago, it might include salt, sugar, colouring matter, the vanilla in ice cream or the strawberry flavouring or the colouring in ice cream. I find in the interpretation clause of the Dairy Act itself a definition of a foreign substance so far as cheese is concerned, but not so far as butter is concerned. I may have overlooked it. Foreign substance is defined in the Dairy Industry Act, section 2 (i) as follows:
"foreign substance" means any substance not necessary to the manufacture of the cheese into which it is introduced.
If the minister would include after the word "cheese" in that definition the words "or other dairy products" it would be satisfactory.


Robert Weir: This new section is introduced just to cover that point.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the minister in mind any new process or new butter product in which some foreign substance is contained at the present time?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6.
Thomas Reid: I notice that section 6 provides in 21 (a):
"Dairy produce" means butter, cheese and other food products manufactured from milk.
But in section 2 of part one of this bill I find this definition.
"dairy product," "dairy products" or "dairy-produce" means any milk, cream, condensed milk, evaporated milk, milk powder, butter, cheese, ice cream or any other article manufactured from milk and all imitations thereof;
It will be noticed that "dairy product" covers a number of things but "dairy produce" means only butter and cheese and other food products manufactured from milk. Why not the same definition in this part of the act as in the first part?


Robert Weir: This change in the act is to meet the very insistent demand of practically all provinces in the dominion for power to grade butter and cheese for domestic consumption. The request has come from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and practically every other province. I do not think there has been a request so far from Manitoba. What the provinces are asking is power so that by passing enabling legislation they will be able to grade butter and cheese for domestic consumption chiefly. This is the action they have requested.


Vincent Dupuis: It will regulate the sale of farmers' butter as mentioned by my hon. friend from Bow River?


Robert Weir: No.


Vincent Dupuis: Dairy produce includes produce manufactured by a farmer, does it not?


Robert Weir: Yes. This is to make it possible to meet the demands of the provinces in this connection. So far as the wording goes, it is similar to the clause in force previously. Farmers' butter will not come under the regulations. In that respect it will be similar to clause 4.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: Was the new section 21 (e) also requested by the provinces?

Dairy Industry Act


Robert Weir: It is necessary for the purpose of grading for domestic purposes that these definitions should be inserted.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: Is the department going to undertake to design the package or container?


Robert Weir: No.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: What is the purpose of this paragraph about the package or container?


Robert Weir: We simply approve of the package.


Mr. VENIOT:: May I ask the minister why there is a difference between the definition of "package" in this section and the definition in section 2 of the bill? In section 2 (o) "package" means any box, tub, crock, tin, crate, paper wrapper, carton or any other receptacle or covering used for the packing of any dairy product; but in part 2 of the bill, section 21 (e) "package" means any box, paper wrapper, carton or any other receptacle or covering used for the packing of dairy produce.


Robert Weir: This applies to cheese and butter only.


Peter John Veniot: But the definition of "dairy product" in section 2 (f) applies to any dairy product and the definition of "package" in 2 (o) includes the words "tub" and "crock". But the words "tub" and "crock" are left out of 21 (e) in part 2. There is a difference in the interpretation there. Which will butter come under? The reason I ask is that butter is often bought in tubs and crocks. I buy my butter from the farmers in crocks or tubs. But under part 2 of this bill I could not do it.


Robert Weir: It is not the intention to apply this to farmers-


Peter John Veniot: But under part 2 if I purchased butter in crocks or tubs the farmer would be liable to prosecution because he would be violating that part of the act. Why not insert the words "tubs or crocks"?


Robert Weir: The request is for
the grading of butter and cheese for domestic consumption.


Peter John Veniot: Under part 2?


Robert Weir: Under part 2.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, but you are not allowed to pack in a tub or crock as you are under part 1. Which are we going to adopt?


Robert Weir: That is covered by the words "or any other receptacle".


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I cannot find any reference made to part 1; there is no heading to show the difference between parts 1 and 2.


Peter John Veniot: The words "or other receptacle" appear in part 1; the subsection reads:
"package" means any box, tub, crock, tin, crate, paper wrapper, carton or any other receptacle or covering used for the packing of any dairy product.
In part 2 the definition is:
"package" means any box, paper wrapper, carton or any other receptacle or covering used for the packing of dairy produce.
Why leave out the tub and crock? It would only take a small amendment to have those words included.


Robert Weir: There is no conflict.


Peter John Veniot: That is the minister's interpretation but it is not mine; I claim there is a very serious conflict. The minister states that there is no conflict between the two, but I fail to see that that is so. There should be no difficulty in adding the words I have mentioned to part 2. There would then be no possibility of the difference of opinion which could now arise.


Robert Weir: The words "any
other receptacle " would cover that.


Peter John Veniot: You have those words in
the other.


Robert Weir: Would not the
words " any other receptacle " in part 2 include crocks?


Peter John Veniot: Then why specify the
receptacles in part 1; why not just say "any other receptacle"? I claim that having specified them in that part the inspectors could adhere to that specification and a vendor might find himself in trouble under part 2.


Robert Weir: If the hon. member agrees that everything in part 1 is included in part 2-


Peter John Veniot: No, I do not.


Robert Weir: What is there in
part 1 that is not included in part 2?


Peter John Veniot: The words "tub and
crock."


Robert Weir: We are not talking of words, we are talking of receptacles.


Peter John Veniot: Tubs and crocks are receptacles and they are not included in part 2.


Robert Weir: In part 2 there are the words "any other receptacle."
Dairy Industry Act


Peter John Veniot: In part 1, after specifying
the receptacles you mention also " any other receptacle." Why specify crocks and tubs and then leave them out of part 2?


Robert Weir: In part 1 we have
the definition of package as meaning any box, tub, crock, tin, crate, paper wrapper, carton or any other receptacle; in part 2 a number of receptacles are mentioned followed by the general statement which covers any other receptacle.
Mr. VEN'IOT: Why were tubs, crocks and tins left out?


Robert Weir: There was no
reason for leaving them out but I see no reason for putting them in; it was just a matter of description.


Peter John Veniot: Why were they included
in part 1?


Robert Weir: A number of things were described and then in order to cover the whole field we have the words " any other receptacle."


Peter John Veniot: Why not make it just
" any receptacle "?


Robert Weir: I see no objection
to that but I also do not see any gain in making that amendment.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I notice the explanatory note reads:
It is proposed to use inspectors appointed under the provisions of part 1 of the act to assist in enforcing the provisions of this part and the regulations made hereunder.
The minister stated a few moments ago that the small farmer would not be disturbed by the government inspectors or surveyors. I recall a case in my county about two years ago where a number of farmers got together in order to produce butter. They were not producing on a large scale such as a cooperative society would; they were producing only in a small way, but they got into trouble. I went to the department and saw the officials and as this was their first offence, they were very lenient. I think this bill would cover the farmer who was manufacturing butter in a small way on his farm, possibly with the assistance of his sons or his family. In the case to which I referred the complaint was made in Quebec city and I had to get it settled. I think we should have something more than the assurance of the minister that the farmer producing butter in a small way will not be subject to the provisions of this bill..


Robert Weir: It would be impossible to define any limit. In the case referred to by the hon. member, a number of farmers got together to produce and sell their butter. What distinction would there be between that and a creamery? I claim that the purposes of the act can be best served by leaving it just as it is now. It is intended to prevent any violations which may occur. The understanding always has been that a bona fide farmer manufacturing butter on his own farm would not come under the purview of these regulations.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I should like to make a suggestion in connection with the question raised by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot): Would there be any objection to saying that a package means any box, paper wrapper, carton or any other receptacle and then add "without restricting the generality of the foregoing" or words to that effect?


Robert Weir: I see no objection, but I see no gain.


John Campbell Elliott: May I point out what the gain would be. If it is left as it is, " Any box, paper wrapper, carton or any other receptacle or covering," unless the words I have su^ested are put in, " any other receptacle or covering " could refer only to any receptacle or covering of the same type as those previously mentioned. That is the difference.


Robert Weir: I regret that I must disagree with the hon. member. As " package" is defined in either case it is broad enough to cover all conditions. Perhaps 1 am in order in suggesting, in the kindliest possible spirit, because this is a matter for free discussion, that there should be a revision of the composition of the agriculture committee; otherwise it is pretty much a loss of time to take these matters up before that committee.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Does that mean that this will be referred to that committee?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been there.


Robert Weir: It has been gone
into fully by them and returned to this house without amendment.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: But as I said a little
while ago, we did not have an opportunity to hear all the explanations given in that committee. We cannot be everywhere; we haven't the gift of ubiquity.

Dairy Industry Act


Peter John Veniot: So far as changing the
composition of the agriculture committee is concerned, though I am not a member of that committee I am a consumer of butter, and I have as much right as members representing the agricultural interests to have my say before this committee as a consumer.


Robert Weir: No one has disputed that.


Peter John Veniot: And as a consumer I am not protected under that clause; that is what I claim.


Robert Weir: In what way?


Peter John Veniot: I have already explained it, and the minister cannot teilll me why tubs and crocks have been left out of the definition.


Robert Weir: Are they receptacles? If they are, they are covered.


Peter John Veniot: Yes; but why put them in in the first part of the bill and not in the second? There must be an object. I do not want to be suspicious or to attribute motives at all.


Robert Weir: Each part of the bill was prepared at a different time. I see no gain in changing the wording either in part I or in part II, because in part II the definition of package includes everything in part I. The wording was prepared at different times. The receptacles indicated in part II will include everything in part I. No additional purpose would be served by making the change, and I feed we are wasting the time of the committee in further discussion.


John Campbell Elliott: Does the minister intend by "any other receptable or covering" to include receptacles of a kind or type different from any box, paper wrapper or carton?


Robert Weir: No, that is not intended-any other receptacle.


John Campbell Elliott: Any other receptacle, even if different from boxes? Then I want to submit, and I know that the Prime Minister will agree with me, that this does not express the idea.


Robert Weir: Will the hon. member repeat the question?


John Campbell Elliott: "Any box, paper wrapper, carton or any other receptacle or covering used for the packing of dairy produce" means only any other receptacle or covering of the type already mentioned, namely, boxes, paper wrappers or cartons. If the minister intends
it to include coverings other than boxes, paper wrappers or cartons, he must put in the words I have suggested in order to convey that meaning.


Robert Weir: It is intended to cover all types of receptacle which it might be considered satisfactory to use.


John Campbell Elliott: If that is the intention, may I point out with great respect to the minister that that intention is not conveyed now, because as it is worded now it covers only boxes, paper wrappers, cartons or other receptacles or coverings of that nature.


Robert Weir: It does not say "of that nature" here.


John Campbell Elliott: I know, but it does not need to, and the Prime Minister will say so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He will say that this matter has been considered by the agriculture committee, and considered very carefully too, and reported back without amendments.


John Campbell Elliott: Who will say that-the Prime Minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, he is saying it now.


John Campbell Elliott: The committee on agriculture no doubt knows a lot more about agriculture, but they do not know more about the drafting of a statute than lawyers do, and I do not think that the Prime Minister would suggest that the agriculture committee knows more about drafting a statute than he does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I once heard of a distinguished lawyer whose friends said he was easily the best farmer in the district while a farmer friend said he was easily the best lawyer in the district. That has no personal application, although the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay expects me to say it refers to him.


Peter John Veniot: "Any other receptacle or
covering" would allow a farmer who perhaps might not be always disposed to strict cleanliness to bring in butter and sell it from door to door wrapped up in cloth, as I have seen some do. Now that is a covering; it may not be a receptacle but it is a covering, and that is why, to protect the consumer against that sort of thing, I want these definitions specified.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
may still get his butter in cloth if he wishes
it.
Dairy Industry Act


Peter John Veniot: But I do not want it; I
want to prevent that, because it is not sanitary, and I submit that the consumer is not being protected from that standpoint.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the section carry?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No; we are waiting for
the light.


John Campbell Elliott: What is the objection to
having the clause cover what is intended?


Robert Weir: The chief reason
is that it would be impossible to enumerate everything that might be used as a package.


John Campbell Elliott: That is just the object
that would be effected by the amendment I suggest. If you amended it so as to read: "Package means any box, paper wrapper, carton, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any other covering or receptacle used for the packing of dairy produce," you would have the effect which the minister says he is aiming at. As it stands, either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice will say that that idea is not conveyed.


Robert Weir: As the hon. member knows, this bill has been submitted to the Department of Justice. The subject matter of the bill comes under the Department of Agriculture: the drafting of it rests with the Department of Justice.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They can make mistakes too.


Peter John Veniot: You cannot have regulations when you define by statute.


Robert Weir: We might define
the material but not the character of the package.


Peter John Veniot: Seeing that there is quite a difference of opinion on this matter and that another clause of the bill stands, I suggest that this be allowed to stand also so that the minister might go into it and consider it seriously. I am in earnest about this matter. As a consumer I feel that I am not sufficiently protected by the bill. I do not want to obstruct it; I do not wish to take any conveniences away from the farmer or the dairyman, but as a consumer I claim that I have a perfect right to be protected and if I think I am not, I have a right to express my opinion. I would ask the minister to allow this clause to stand and to give it further consideration. He says that the bill has been drafted at different periods and perhaps the second part was drafted by a different individual from the one who drew up the first part. The individual who prepared the second

part may have overlooked the definition of "package" in the first part and if the clause is reconsidered and revised, the minister can then come back to the committee and give us his studied opinion.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Of course the agriculture committee is not infallible but while this description of "package" is marked "new," so far as I recollect the description is the same as it has always been for any of these commodities. Mention is made of a number of things and then the words "or any other," are added, because there is always some other. The technical, legal term as stated by the hon. member for West Middlesex is quite right, but this is the ordinary phraseology. The language of the section is for two classes: the language is primarily for the farmer and then when some difficulty occurs where the services of lawyers are required, maybe we should have another description.


Peter John Veniot: What about the consumer?


William Richard Motherwell: The consumer will have a lawyer to represent him.


Peter John Veniot: Not at all.


William Richard Motherwell: I have no objection to a second technical legal phraseology as suggested by the hon. member for West Middlesex. I have seen that kind of phraseology and have often wondered what it meant. We would always have to have a lawyer around to explain the meaning. But anyone would know what the definition in the bill means. Instead of reciting a hundred different kinds of packages, it recites a given number and then adds the words "or any other." That description of course may be wrong from the strictly legal standpoint, but it is intended for common, everyday people. We do not want to have to be running to lawyers all the time for interpretations of enactments; that is a luxury we cannot afford these days.


John Campbell Elliott: There is no doubt that
if the bill is left as it is it does not convey what the minister intends it should-


Robert Weir: It does.


John Campbell Elliott: -or what the ex-minister thinks it conveys. It will certainly have an interpretation from a lawyer before very long because it does not convey what it is intended it should. Following up what my hon. friend has said, I may say that the ex-Minister of Agriculture is quite wrong when he speaks of a description and a legal description. There is just the one legal description and that is not the one we do have here. I would say to him that the clause is improper as it is worded

Dairy Industry Act
and while it is all very well to say that people do not want to run to lawyers, my hon. friend would be one of the first to be running to a lawyer if he were to get into any difficulty. That is an old story. The man who decries the lawyer the most loudly is always the earliest at his office when he is in trouble. I see no reason why the suggestion made by the hon. member for Gloucester should not be followed, that is that the clause be further considered. The minister should consider the matter and have the clauses made comparatively uniform and drafted so as to mean what is intended.


Robert Weir: I see no ground for allowing the clause to stand. I do not understand the hon. member's statement that it does not include what it is intended to include. As far as I understand it does.


John Campbell Elliott: I contend that it does not.


Robert Weir: As there is no ground for letting the clause stand, I do not think it would be advisable to waste any more time by a further discussion on it or allowing it to stand for further consideration. It has been given very full study and covers the intent and purpose of the legislation.


John Campbell Elliott: I just want to object to the expression used by the minister with regard to wasting any more time. We are not wasting time; we are endeavouring to save time, and the minister will find that he will save time by not taking quite as arbitrary an attitude as he has done with regard to this clause. Let me tell him what I am willing to do. If the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister, who are present and each of whom is a fairly good lawyer, will say that the clause means what the minister says he intended it to mean, then I shall not move the amendment which I had thought of moving.


William Richard Motherwell: All these bills go through the Justice department.


John Campbell Elliott: Will the hon. member wait a moment until we hear from the Minister of Justice?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the way to do it.


Hugh Guthrie: AVill the hon. member for West Middlesex tell me what his point is?


John Campbell Elliott: Clause 21, paragraph (e) reads:
"Package" means any box, paper wrapper, carton or any other receptacle or covering used for the packing of dairy produce.
As it stands, if there is nothing more, it means any other receptacle or covering of the kind before mentioned. That is the legal interpretation. What I say should be stated if it is intended to cover a receptacle or covering of a kind not before mentioned is:
different from a box, paper wrapper or carton and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any receptacle or covering.


Hugh Guthrie: The language as I read it:
"Package" means any box-
That does not imply paper at all.
-paper wrapper, carton or any other receptacle or covering used for the packing of dairy produce.
I think that is broad and general enough to include almost any material one could put in. Under the rule of sui generis, to which my hon. friend refers, "goods of the same general description or genus or class" is the term used in all judgments on the subject. There is the word "box" which I judge might be made of any material; then we find "paper wrapper or carton" which may be made of metal, paper or any other substance. Then follow the words:
Or any other receptacle or covering used for the packing of dairy produce.


Peter John Veniot: Will the minister look at part I, at the definition of "package" in paragraph (o). Why leave out the words "tub, crock, tin, crate"? That is my objection to the bill.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a definition, and the word "package" does include:
Box, tub, crock, tin, crate, paper wrapper, carton or any other receptacle or covering used for the packing of any dairy product.
I do not think that interferes in any way with clause 21 that I have just been reading.


Peter John Veniot: I want to know why those words are omitted from part II. Why not specify them in part II just as in part I?


Robert Weir: That matter was explained some time ago.


Peter John Veniot: Not to my satisfaction.


Robert Weir: The description enumerates certain kinds of packages, and because all could not be foreseen the general statement "or any other receptacle" follows. There would be no difficulty if we added three, four or half a dozen specific containers or receptacles, but it is felt that the words "or any other receptacle" give a wider meaning.

Dairy Industry Act


John Campbell Elliott: Unless the minister agrees with my suggestion I am not going to say any more; I will simply move the amendment that I think will give the section the meaning the minister says it intends to have. The Minister of Justice has quite properly stated the rule and by his statement has made it quite clear, I submit, that this does not include any other receptacle or covering of a kind or sort different from those previously mentioned. I take it that I am correctly interpreting his views.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I think so.


John Campbell Elliott: Now the Minister of Agriculture says he does not intend to include any receptacle of a kind or sort different from what is already mentioned, that is, box, paper wrapper or carton.


Hugh Guthrie: But the word "box" would include any kind of box. It does not have to be of wood or paper.


John Campbell Elliott: Quite so, and "carton" would mean any kind of carton, while "paper wrapping" might mean any kind of paper wrapping. Then there are other things that might be included, and they are intended to be covered by the latter clause, but that cannot cover them unless the words I suggest are inserted.


Hugh Guthrie: We may be at cross purposes, but I must say that I think the language of the bill as it appears now is ample for all purposes, and I do not see any advantage in adding to it.


John Campbell Elliott: Might I just ask the Minister of Justice whether, in his opinion, this clause is broad enough to include any covering that is neither a box, a paper wrapper or a carton.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the reason for the difference in the two descriptions of a package? Why leave out some things in this description of a package which are included in the other description?


Hugh Guthrie: One description is in part 1 of the bill and the other is in part 2; that is all I can say.


Robert Weir: The reason has been given a number of times this afternoon, not only by myself but also by the hon. member for Melville. It is a matter of practice, in describing packages, to enumerate some, and because all cannot be foreseen the phrase "or any other receptacle" is added to cover those not specified. Nothing could be clearer than that.


Peter John Veniot: If I understood the Minister of Justice correctly he said, in answer to my question as to why the words tub, crock and tin were left out of part 2, that I was presupposing a reason. I have been presupposing a reason right along. There must be some reason for having left out those words in part 2.


Robert Weir: No reason whatever.


Peter John Veniot: Then why not insert them and end all this discussion?


Robert Weir: There would be no gain in inserting them.


Peter John Veniot: I do not want to use this term offensively, but if the minister is so stubborn that he will not listen to the opinions of others who feel that they are aggrieved under this section I do not see any use at all in bringing a bill of this kind before the committee.


Robert Weir: I think it will be agreed by hon. members of the committee that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat is perhaps in the best position of any member of the house to understand the meaning of the word stubborn. I take no offence, therefore, from the remarks he has made. All I say is that in my estimation this includes as much as is included in the definition in part 1.


Mr VENIOT:: It does not.


Robert Weir: Would the hon.
gentleman indicate what is not included in part 2 that is included in part 1? "Any other receptacle " would include tubs, crocks and the other articles not named in part 2 but named in part 1.


Peter John Veniot: Then why leave them out?


Robert Weir: As I have stated
a number of times, it is a matter of custom in defining anything of this kind to specify some and include the general statement afterwards.


Peter John Veniot: Not when the definition
appears twice in the same act.


John Campbell Elliott: I move that the subsection be amended 'by adding after the word " carton " the words " and without restricting the generality of the foregoing."


William Richard Motherwell: Just before that
amendment is put I should like to say a word. I have no doubt that this amendment is correctly drawn up from a legal point of view, but I have always taken the view that we should use as few legal terms and classical

Dairy Industry Act
expressions as possible. We often say "modus operandi"; can we not say, just as easily,
" mode of operation "? There are many other expressions used in our legislation that we could easily dispense with in favour of the plain language, especially in legislation dealing with agricultural matters. That may be just an opinion of mine, but it is an opinion
1	have held and have tried to carry out all my life. With all due respect to the technically correct draftsmanship of my legal friend, I like the present form better. I admit that I am old fashioned, but in some things I hope to remain old fashioned, and this is one of them.


Mr ELLIOTT:: If my hon. friend prefers an illegal clause to a legal clause, as I understand he does, he will have to oppose the amendment.


Peter John Veniot: In order to make the situation plain to the ex-Minister of Agriculture may I say that my objection was taken because part 1 included the words tub, crock and tin, under the definition of a package, but in part
2	those words are left out.


William Richard Motherwell: It would not make a bit of difference if they were all left out but one.


Peter John Veniot: Let us take the word
" wrapping." That is not defined in any part of the act. Butter can appear for sale on the market wrapped in old newspapers. What is to prevent that? I am taking an extreme case, but that is the only way we can get, to the bottom of this matter. What is to prevent a farmer coming to market with his butter wrapped up in old newspapers, with no other wrapping at all?


Mr. SHAVER:: The board of health.


Peter John Veniot: You do not always have a board of health.


Robert Weir: "Paper wrapper"
appears in both parts.


Mr VENIOT:: Quite so, but under this
clause what is to prevent a farmer from coming to market with his butter wrapped up in old newspapers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He could not sell it; that is all.
Amendment (Mr. Elliott) lost on division.
Subsection 21 agreed to.
74726-142J
On subsection 22-Regulations.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: May I ask the minister if there is an advisory committee representative of the interests of the producers and manufacturers to work out with the minister and his officials the regulations to be approved by the governor in council, as was done in connection with the Grain Act and some other legislation?


Robert Weir: They have been
submitted to the representatives of the provinces, and approved by them.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: And in the future that
will be done?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the minister any
idea as to what fees will be charged to the farmers? From the French bill I read:
(f) L'imposition de droits pour le classement des produits laitiers.
What fees will be charged?


Robert Weir: No fees applying
to farmers.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What are the fees to
the dairy industry?


Robert Weir: Only when there
is regrading to be done.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Is there any provision
for the grading of homemade butter? Of course as the minister is aware there is no such provision. Perhaps I may be considered old fashioned, but I am still of the opinion that despite the progress of the dairy industry there is no modern process which can replace the good flavour of homemade butter. Of course such butter has acquired a bad reputation because in olden days there were no refrigerators, and the butter was placed on the market all at once in the months of November and December. I know that to this day on the Paris market in France the butter which draws the highest price is the homemade butter manufactured in Issigny. That butter is made according to the old fashioned methods. I have tested most of the different kinds of creamery butter made in Canada, and I must say we have no butter which can compete with the French butter I have just mentioned. Would the minister consider that the encouragement of the manufacture of homemade butter would be worth while, so that people who have maintained a taste for this butter may be able to secure it? Perhaps those people are not very numerous.
2238	COMMONS
Destructive Insect and Pest Act


Robert Weir: I agree entirely
with what the hon. member has said. A good deal of consideration has been given to the possibility of grading what might be called domestic butter. Reports up to the present indicate that the quantities affected are not sufficiently large, and that the whole problem is too involved. That is one of the questions which has always received careful consideration, because I agree with the hon. member that we would have achieved a great gain if we could encourage the production of that class of butter.
Subsection 22 agreed to.
Subsections 23, 24 and 25 agreed to. Section 2 agreed to.
On the preamble.


Mr. BROWN:: Although the section has been passed I should like to refer to part 2, the new section 22. As the explanatory note says:
This subsection previously read "the grading of dairy produce intended for export." The words "intended for export" are omitted in order to provide by regulation for the grading of dairy produce for domestic consumption.
Of course we do not know what the regulations may be, but I should like to ask the minister to what extent it is intended to interfere with the selling of homemade butter by the farmer himself to the consumer. That is very common. Most of the butter handled by the local merchants is undoubtedly creamery butter, and as such is subject to grading, but very frequently the merchants will take in a small lot of dairy butter. That butter does not go on to the market; that is, it is not shipped out of that community but is ijassed on to local consumers. Will that butter be subjected to grading?


Robert Weir: No.


John Livingstone Brown: I am glad to hear that. It s only a small proportion of the total trade, and while I am heartily in favour of the principle of grading I think that small trading of that class should not be interfered with.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 39, to amend the Destructive Insect and Pest Act- Mr. Weir (Melfort)-Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.

On section 1-rights of provinces or of governor in council not affected.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This is a very lengthy section with several lines underlined. In the bill that has just passed the house we asked for a clause similar to what is contained here, "notwithstanding the generality of the terms of this act," but that was not allowed to be inserted. Very extensive powers are being given under this section. For instance, the power of the governor in council is to extend to any matter within the scope of this act, "notwithstanding the existence of any provincial law relating thereto." As I was not in the agriculture committee I would ask the minister to give us an explanation of this important section.


Robert Weir: We shall look forward to having the hon. member in the agriculture committee after the interest he has shown this afternoon.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I shall be very glad to assist you.


Robert Weir: The purpose of this section is to make clear certain questions that have arisen since the passing of the act last session. That is the sole purpose. It was thought that with the passing of the act last session, if the federal government undertook any control or passed any legislation with reference to anything coming within the purview of the act, the province could not deal with that particular problem in relation to their own particular difficulties, but that if the federal government had not passed the legislation the provinces would have been free to do so. There are certain cases where that did not work satisfactorily. In connection with the corn borer, for instance, the dominion government passed certain regulations with reference to the importation of corn from certain states in the United States, and under an interpretation of the act as it stood, it was thought that such action might prevent the province of Ontario from passing any legislation looking to the control of the corn borer or with reference to cultural methods or anything of that kind. Similarly with the grasshopper pest in the western provinces. It clears the bill of what might be considered a misunderstanding and makes it perfectly clear that a province is free to introduce any legislation it wishes so long as such legislation is not repugnant to the federal legislation.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The section states:
-but the power of the governor in council shall nevertheless be construed as ample to

Live Stock and Products Act
extend from time to time the application of this act and the regulations made thereunder, to any matter and to every aspect of any matter within the scope of this act, notwithstanding the existence of any provincial law relating thereto.
I understand that this parliament has the right to appeal the laws passed by other legislatures but I think in the matter of agriculture all the provinces are cooperating together and I should like to know if the minister has in view certain provincial legislation which it might be considered should be overridden in order to make the application of this act more complete.


Hugh Guthrie: The provinces asked for legislation.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Did the provinces ask for that?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They seem to give up certain power which they have.


Robert Weir: The act of last year stated that if the federal government did not pass legislation with reference to any of these matters, the province might do so. It may be that a province might pass legislation to deal with some of these insects, but the federal government would not be prevented from passing similar legislation to cover the whole dominion. This amendment is made in order to prevent the overriding referred to by the hon. member and to make cooperation possible.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Have any representations been made by the Department of Agriculture of Quebec?


Robert Weir: There is a case
in Quebec which this will cover.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They are agreeable to it?


Robert Weir: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 40, to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act,
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not know whether I am in order but this would seem to be a good opportunity to obtain some information with regard to certain export trade which was carried on in Montreal. I was told some time ago by people connected with the live stock industry that the government had paid a bonus or provided certain credits to a firm in Montreal which was exporting cattle to England. I do not know whether this was done under the provisions of the relief act. There was a gentleman, I think named Richardson, who was connected with a firm known as the Richelieu Company. This company purchased a large quantity of live stock in Ontario for which some farmers were paid while some were not. Apparently the government gave some money to this company to help it refit boats and make them suitable for cattle shipping. I have no accusations to make in this regard but as we are talking about the exporting of live stock, perhaps the minister could give us some information in connection with this venture.


Robert Weir: The act as it stood before this bill was introduced gave the power to fix the charges of live stock commission men and also the charges for the handling of stock or yardage at the stockyards. There was also the provision for a bond to protect the producer or whoever might be selling stock to these people. The act did not include an exporter or an exporter's agent as it is only recently that there has been any export trade of this kind. This amendment is to make possible the fixing of charges by and the bonding of an exporter or an exporter's agent in order to protect the people whose stock may be handled. In the case of the corporation to which the hon. member refers, it would have been passible to have the people bonded. I do not know the details of the matter, but the farmers who I understand have had a loss are following it up and are being given every assistance. It has been the policy of the government during the past three or four years to make certain that there would be space available for cattle intended for export, and to prevent any increase in the freight charges, in certain instances boats have been fitted up for the carrying of the cattle. My understanding however is that no subsidy was given to individuals outside of the steamship companies that fitted up the boats.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the name of the steamship company that fitted up the boats?

Live Stock and Products Act


Robert Weir: The Manchester
lines and Anchor-Donaldson.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the minister the
figures paid in each instance, and1 the number of head of cattle exported under the new policy adopted 'last year?


Robert Weir: We have not the figures for cattle exported, nor have I the figures as to the money paid, because this work has not been handled under the Department of Agriculture.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Under what department?


Robert Weir: The Department of Trade and Commerce.
Mr. 'CASGRAIN: When either the Department of Trade and Commerce or any other department made these arrangements with shipping companies for fitting up boats, as indicated by the minister, and when apparently some encouragement was held out to induce people to ship cattle to the old country, were these things done under any authority? Under what authority was the transaction carried out?


Robert Weir: Is the hon. member asking under what authority the boats were fitted up?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


Robert Weir: Under the authority of the Farm Relief Act, I believe, to give assistance to the marketing of agricultural products, in this instance, cattle.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not know the minister personally very well, but from the point of view of cattle and agricultural matters generally I know that he is a highly qualified member of the government. I do not understand how this matter stands. If the export of cattle had to be encouraged and extended, surely it should have been done under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture rather than under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Trade and Commerce sees to the opening up of new avenues of commerce here and there, having Canadian representatives in various dominions and countries promoting the sale of the different forms of produce which we have to export. I submit, however, with all due deference to the persons who carried out this transaction, that it is a reflection on the Minister of Agriculture to have removed from his purview this very important part of the work of improving conditions in agriculture, in connection with the cattle export in this case, and putting the matter in the hands of the Department of Trade and Commerce, with-

out any control on the part of the Minister of Agriculture, who I submit is the member of the government best qualified to direct such operations, and to indicate to individuals who wanted to go into the cattle export business exactly how they Should set about it.
I have not all the details of the transaction, but I am told that it is not too rosy, and that some people have suffered losses in consequence. I know that the minister, being himself a farmer, should have been the one directing these operations. I do not think it is fair to divide between two departments the administration of a branch of agricultural activities. The Department of Agriculture should be charged with the responsibility of developing the cattle export trade, but here we find the Minister of Trade and Commerce stepping in. I do not know what was done, but as the result of inducement, or friendship, or the belief that it would make a good story, certain privileges or bounties were given, or certain prices were paid to allow individuals to go on with that trade, developing it, with the result that to-day the Minister of Agriculture does not seem to know anything about it, although he is the man most competent to inform the country regarding the matter. He can only say, " I do not know anything about it, because it was not done under my department but under the Department of Trade and Commerce." It seems that the Department of Agriculture has been deprived of an important function in this regard.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend is mistaken in that. This is in the nature of a steamship subsidy to fit up ships for cattle. My hon. friend has been long enough in the house to know that all steamship subsidies and subventions are under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and have been for the last thirty years.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We had not known that it was done that way.


Hugh Guthrie: The subsidies granted for the carrying of mail from the post office are also all granted by the Department of Trade and Commerce. Consequently, when money was to be advanced for the fitting up of steamships for carrying cattle, the proper department to do it was the Department of Trade and Commerce, which I understand carried it out. And, if my memory serves me, it was under the provisions of the farm relief legislation. I am not familiar personally with the particular transaction to which my hon. friend has referred, but I know

Live Stock and Products Act
that my hon. friend from West Middlesex is familiar with all the details. The matter is under consideration. We are all very anxious to find a settlement for those men who I am afraid have been swindled out of their cattle, though through no action of the Department of Agriculture nor of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but through the operations of a company, which operations may be considered very questionable.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not want to blame anyone or make trouble or accuse people of wrongdoing if no wrong has been done, and I am glad that the Minister of Justice has given this explanation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is here and I have no doubt the committee would be glad to hear what he has to say, because we were told that some encouragement had been given and I understand now that it was by way of subsidies to steamship companies to promote the export of cattle. I understand also-a man named Richardson, I was informed, had something to do with it-that a small company solicited farmers to export cattle through them, pointing out that the ships were ready, but the result was a loss to members of the farming community. The whole thing has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. As I say, I do not want to blame anyone before I have heard exactly what the situation is, and I should be glad to hear from the minister who had charge of the transaction an explanation as to any guarantees that were given, whether the companies were subsidized and to what extent, who initiated the project and when it was started.


John Campbell Elliott: Unfortunately I do
know	a good deal about the transaction to which my hon. friend and the Minister of Justice have referred. I am not sure that at present it is possible for anyone to say exactly how the situation stands. It is quite correct, so far as I have been able to ascertain, that what assistance has been given by a department of the government has been given by the Department of Trade and Commerce. At the present time assistance is also being given by one of the other departments whose assistance is, I think, valuable and the matter is under consideration. I assume that an opportunity may be given-I do not know whether this would meet the view of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay-to discuss the matter later when we know something more definite, as I think we may within the next few days, as to the real situation. I knew the situation was bad last week, but it is much more regrettable than anyone imagined at that time and I think it is one which should receive the most careful and sympathetic consideration of all the various departments interested and of the different members of the house. I did not know that the matter was going to be introduced on this bill because I was aware that it did not come under the Department of Agriculture, but I would make the suggestion, if it meets the views of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay and the chairman, that the matter might be discussed to 'better advantage after the facts are known.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I fully appreciate the observations of the hon. member for West Middlesex whose attitude throughout in the matter, so far as I am concerned, has been very reasonable. His suggestion, I think, is quite sound; it would perhaps be better if the matter were discussed when such steps as are now being taken have progressed a little further.
In answer to my hon. friend's question of a moment ago I can state in two or three sentences the essential features of the matter. During the past two years, in order to assist in the movement of cattle to the British market, we have assisted a number of steamship companies to fit out ships for the carrying of cattle, that is, to construct in the ships stalls in accordance with the regulations of the British board of trade. 1 think, generally speaking, we have paid an average of about $10 to $14 a stall, the amount varying in some cases. The reason we had to step in was that so irregular had been the movement of cattle from Canada to Great Britain that steamship companies refused to put in the stalls, because to construct them say for one trip, woud result in a loss. When we undertook this, the cattle rate was $20 a head, but by our putting in the stalls, the steamship companies cut the rate down in most cases to $12 a head and in some cases to $15 a head. Therefore a very substantial saving was achieved. I think between sixteen and twenty vessels were fitted out, but I have not before me the exact number. On several occasions I brought the vote before parliament and in one instance the money was paid out of the relief appropriation.
As regards the particular case to which reference has been made, two ships were fitted out for the steamship companies, which ships were chartered by the Richelieu Company of Montreal. The iniquitous part of the matter is that the Richelieu corporation purchasing cattle from the farmers undertook the shipment of the cattle to the old country, col-

Live Stock and Products Act
leeted payment and did not pay the farmers That is roughly the story, and without any question there was not only a very serious injustice but in my estimation a crime perpetrated against the farmers. The government, as pointed out by the Minister of Justice, will cooperate in every possible way in, shall I say, the securing of a remedy or justice to the farmers, and the matter is in progress at the presefit time by some action jointly taken by a group representing the farmers, every cooperation being given to that effort. But as the hon. member for West Middlesex said a moment ago, it might be better if the whole question were left for discussion at some time when it was understood the matter would be discussed after further information had been received in regard to the situation.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps the suggestion is
the best one at the present time, and I take it that later there will be an opportunity for debate if it is considered desirable to discuss the matter?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: Under some heading I am satisfied the minister could provide such an opportunity.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There will be no difficulty about providing an opportunity.


John Campbell Elliott: I am hoping that something more satisfactory than appears at the present time will result.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: As regards the company to which the minister has made reference, and respecting which he mentioned that money had been paid under a certain act to fit out two boats, was it a company that had been in business and in that trade for a long time? Was it a responsible company when it applied to the government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I am wrong hon. members may correct me, but I understand the company owned the old Bickerdike pier. The lairage is there-cattle pens and shipping facilities. So far as I know they had been operating for a number of years.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Does the minister know who is at the head of the company? Was it a company incorporated by letters patent or merely an ordinary firm doing business?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand it is an in-corpofated company known as the Richelieu Company. I am speaking without the record. The president is Mr. Richardson with whom there was another gentleman by the name of Morgan.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: E. A. D. Morgan.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I could not say as to the initials. There was also a Mr. MacDonald who acted in the establishment of contacts in the old country. They made contacts with the London port authorities which in a measure contributed to the establishment of the lairage in London.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How much was paid to the Richelieu company?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The amounts paid were paid for the installation of stalls on the ships, and no amount was paid to the Richelieu corporation other than what was paid on those stalls.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, to amend the Railway Act (rates on grain).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, the bill to which I am asking the house to give second reading is practically the same bill that was introduced last session. Briefly it asks parliament to give the people of British Columbia what was given to the people of the eastern provinces in 1897 and reaffirmed, with certain changes and amendments, in 1925. I introduced the bill in 1932, and at that time objection was taken that the wording was not exactly clear. Objection was taken because the bill contained these words:
provided that notwithstanding anything in this subsection contained the rates on grain and flour shall on and after the 27th day of June, 1925, be governed by the provisions of the agreement made pursuant to chapter 5 of the statutes of Canada, 1897.
As I say objection was taken at that time; it was said that if the bill passed in that form it would be retroactive to 1925. So in 1933 I deleted that clause and brought in the bill in much the same form as it now appears. I might become discouraged after bringing forward this bill year after year without success were it not for the fact that I consider that a great injustice has been done the province of British Columbia in that it has been long denied what the other provinces have enjoyed in regard to freight rates. So my hope

Railway Act-Mr. Reid
has been renewed, and as far as I am concerned I have made up my mind that so long as I am a member of parliament I will continue to introduce this bill or until we obtain that for which we have long sought.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to cover all the ground that has been covered during previous presentations of the bill,'but there are some salient points with which I should like to deal in an endeavour to clear away many of the misconceptions and erroneous beliefs prevailing among some hon. members at least, because after listening to the arguments of some hon. gentlemen I am of the opinion that they are not exactly clear as to the position of British Columbia and as to what that province requests. Let me say right here that we are not asking for any special privilege, nor am I asking that this parliament become a rate fixing body. I am asking for equality, and surely no hon. member would deny the same treatment to the people of the province of British Columbia that has been given the people of the other provinces.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with some of the erroneous ideas held by various hon. members in an endeavour to overcome their misunderstanding with regard to our appeal. I should like to speak for a moment as to the costs of construction, because in the past these appeals have been met with the argument that this differential exists because of the mountain differential, and perhaps many hon. members think of traffic to British Columbia as climbing up the mountains from this side and going down the mountains on the other side. So they believe its costs more to construct a railway to British Columbia and that the cost of maintenance is higher. I should Like to quote from the judgment delivered by the board of railway commissioners in September, 1927, in the general freight rates investigation; in the sworn evidence given during that investigation by those who were in a position to know the cost of constructing the railway to British Columbia and the maintenance costs I find some very interesting facts. I am going to take up the time of the house to quote one or two striking examples. The cost of construction from Kamloops to Hope, a distance of 168 miles, was $133,563 per mile; the cost of constructing the line from Montreal to Ottawa, a distance of 111 miles, was $178,614 per mile. The cost of construction from Hope to Fraser River Junction, another portion of the railway in the province of British Columbia, covering a distance of 77 miles, was $51,544 per mile, while the cost of construction from Joliette to Garneau Junction,
a distance of 61-49 miles, was $62,394 per mile. I could give other illustrations; these are not just picked out as special cases. In the evidence presented at that time many points throughout Canada were referred to, and I could give two or three times this number of examples.
Then with reference to the cost of operation -because I am met also with the argument that it costs more to operate the railways to British Columbia from the prairie provinces than it does in the east-let me read from the testimony at page 142. This evidence was given by experts of the Canadian Pacific. In British Columbia the operating cost in 1925 was $3,536 per mile, while on the prairie divisions, which many members think are as level as a billiard table, the cost was $4,702 per mile. So we find the per mile operating costs higher on the prairies than in British Columbia, and if I had time I could name points in the east and throughout the province of Quebec where the operating cost was much greater than the cost in British Columbia.
Then let us consider what they call helper or pusher mileage. In the prairie provinces and throughout eastern Canada there are portions of the railway where two or three engines are required on each train. On the Canadian National line, at least, one engine brings a full train of either freight or passenger cars from Vancouver through the mountains over one of the lowest grades in the dominion. I want to repeat that; this is one of the lowest grades in Canada. It amounts to only one half of one per cent, if my figures are correct, whereas in some parts of the prairies the grade is as high as one and a half or two per cent. That cannot be repeated too often. Not only were the construction costs less and the operating costs lower; the pusher car mileage is less than on the prairies and the grade, especially on the Canadian National, is one of the lowest on any railway in Canada.
Now for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, I should like to examine some of the freight charges throughout Canada in order to see what the province of British Columbia is up against. I do not want to take up too much time but I feel that this information should be placed before parliament in order to present a clear picture to the members of this house, so that they may see for themselves that we have been unjustly dealt" with. The distance from Calgary to Fort William is 1,242 miles and the rate is 26 cents per hundred pounds of grain. That rate is for both export and domestic grain. The distance from

Railway Act-Mr. Reid

Edmonton is a little less than 1,242 miles. The distance from Edmonton to Fort William being 1,213 miles at the same cost, namely, 26 cents. The distance from Fort William to Montreal is 997 miles, and the rate is 11 cents for export over the Canadian National, and 30 cents over the Canadian Pacific. As to why there should be the difference between 11 cents and 30 cents in the rates on the two railways I have never been able to find out. From Fort William to Quebec, a distance of 1,142 miles, grain and grain products are being carried for 18-34 cents per one hundred pounds.
I should like to give a complete picture of the whole of Canada in connection with this transportation system. From Fort William to Saint John, a distance of 1,555 miles, the export rate is 30 cents and the domestic rate 52J cents on grain and grain products. From Fort William to Halifax, a distance of 1,723 miles, the rate is 30 cents for export and 54i cents for domestic, per hundred pounds.
How do we in British Columbia fare? From Edmonton to Vancouver, a distance of 776 miles, the rate is 20 cents for export. Although the act at present says it is 41J cents for domestic purposes, I realize that last year we were given a reduction about which I shall speak a little later on. The house should accept the rate of 41J cents as the correct rate because the present agreement which is now in effect on grain only is extended for one more year.


Mr. MANION:: That is for domestic purposes?


Thomas Reid: Yes. From Calgary to Vancouver, a distance of 642 miles, the rate is 20 cents for export and 41^ cents for domestic, per one hundred pounds. I should like hon. members to note that the mileage has been reckoned on -the Canadian National mileage, although the distance over the Canadian Pacific is 134 miles less. The argument was urged before the railway commission that that fact should not be taken into consideration, and that the rate should be granted on the Canadian National mileage of 776 miles. In that connection I mention that the Canadian Pacific have been picking up considerable extra money, because I understand that one hundred miles represents a day's operation by a train crew, and therefore this railway company saves at least one train crew on this haul as against the number of crews used by the Canadian National Railway.
When the minister or any other hon. member replies I should like him to tell us why

it is that when grain leaves Calgary or Edmonton to go east it is just grain, but when it comes west we are told, "Oh yes, that grain for export is at a certain rate, and the other or inferior grain is for domestic purposes, and for it the province of British Columbia will have to pay twice." That, Mr. Speaker, is against all railway practice, because, as must be evident to every hon. member, the lower priced article is generally, if not always, carried at a much lower rate. One could mention coal, for instance, and compare the rate on that commodity with that charged for carrying silk. Coal is carried at a much cheaper rate than silk. But when we come to grain, and especially to that portion of it going to British Columbia from the prairie provinces, we find that the railway companies operate on an entirely different basis because on the lower priced article they charge twice as much as on the higher priced article.


Robert James Manion: May I interrupt the hon. member? If he has the rates before him-and I believe he has-would he give the export rates from Edmonton or Calgary to Montreal, and the corresponding rates to the Pacific coast?


Thomas Reid: From Edmonton to Montreal?


Robert James Manion: Yes, if the hon. member has them.


Thomas Reid: I believe I have that figure before me. The total distance from Calgary to Halifax is shown to be 3,000 miles, and the rate is 41i cents.


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Thomas Reid: I can give the rate from Fort William to Montreal.


Robert James Manion: I should like to have the rate from Calgary to Montreal or Halifax, and from Calgary to Vancouver.


Thomas Reid: I can give the minister the rate from Calgary to Montreal.


Robert James Manion: All right.


Thomas Reid: From Calgary to Montreal, a distance of 2,239 miles, the grain is carried for 53J cents. That is the latest figure I have.


Robert James Manion: And from Calgary to Vancouver it is 20 cents?


Thomas Reid: Yes; that is the export rate, of course.


Robert James Manion: I understand that.


Thomas Reid: Those are the figures the minister wanted?


Robert James Manion: Yes, thank you.

Railway Act-Mr. Reid


Thomas Reid: Very well. In brief, over a distance of 1,242 miles, from Calgary or Edmonton going east, grain is carried at the rate of 43 cents per ton per one hundred miles, while the cost to Vancouver for export is 60 cents per ton per one hundred miles, and domestic use 90 cents per ton per one hundred miles.
I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate what I have said, because I believe I have placed enough figures on the record to show the gross discrimination that exists against the people of British Columbia who wish to obtain their feed requirements from the prairie provinces.
As I have said, I am not pleading that parliament should fix railway rates. I have been met with the argument time and again that parliament is not a rate fixing body. Further, I am not going into the whole question of rate structure. If I took the time to do that, and placed on record figures showing express rates and other railway rates imposed against the people of British Columbia as compared with the rates imposed against the eastern provinces, I would show a most unfair condition indeed. At this time I am asking for equality of rates on grain and grain products; I am not asking parliament to fix rates. For the benefit of some hon. members may I say that the rights of none of the provinces will be jeopardized. This is not a question that interferes with maritime rights, the rights of the eastern provinces or any other rights. The plea I am now making is simply that parliament extend to British Columbia rights equal to those enjoyed by the eastern and prairie provinces.
Having by this time, I hope, placed the case for British Columbia in as clear a light as possible; having pointed out that mile for mile construction costs were lower, in British Columbia, that maintenance costs were lower, and that we have the lowest railway grade in the whole of Canada, I ask the minister or any other hon. member after I have concluded to refute any statements which up to the present time I have made. I suggest to the minister that in these days of compulsory cooperation it might be well to look into the fact that the Canadian National railway have the lowest grade. If there is any change made the Canadian Pacific should be compelled to take all their grain over the Canadian National line into Vancouver. Instead of, as has been suggested, dropping off a portion of the Canadian National line, if there is to be cooperation I suggest that the Canadian Pacific be compelled to use that low grade route. If this were done we might have a chance to obtain justice.
I now come to an important point in my remarks. Someone may say that it does not pay the railway companies to haul this class of goods. Let me say that I have it upon the authority of a Canadian Pacific railway expert that there is not one man in the employ of either the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National who is capable of telling what it costs either railway to haul any given commodity. When giving evidence this particular person was asked if he could give that information, and he said he was unable to do so. In order to remove any doubts there may be in this connection I shall read the evidence. Mr. Flintoft is examining Mr. Lloyd of the Canadian Pacific Railway:
Mr. Flintoft: What would you say as to the possibility of getting the cost of any particular commodity ?
A. Well, wre do not know; there has never been any system devised yet by which you can get the cost of carrying any one commodity.
Q. Mr. Lloyd, I want to know' whether it is in your opinion possible to work out the cost of carrying any particular commodity?
A. It certainly is not possible to arrive at the cost of transporting any individual commodity.
This statement is reiterated, because I find the following:
Q. Would you say that that "average cost per gross ton mile" would be a fair figure to apply to the cost of moving grain in train load lots?
A. I do not know' w'hat the cost of handling grain is.
Q. Is there any information in your statistical department that will give you that?
A. We have nothing to tell us the cost of handling any commodity.
I am quoting, Mr. Speaker, from the general freight rates judgment delivered in 1925. So it will be seen that we have the railway-experts admitting that no one can tell what the costs are. How, then, have the rates been arrived at? The answer is simply that a rate has been fixed, and having been fixed the railways take the attitude: We are going to hold to it. That is what'it amounts to, Mr. Speaker.
I want to refer to one or two arguments that have been made in previous years. The Minister of Railways has used the argument that this House of Commons is no place to fix freight rates, and that it is up to the board of railway commissioners to determine what the rates shall be. But I could quote many authorities in proof of the statement I now make that it is useless for the people of British Columbia now to go before the board of railway commissioners and plead for a reduction of freight rates. I have here the evidence of Mr. McKeown, chairman of the board of railway commissioners, to that effect.
Railway Act-Mr. Reid


Robert James Manion: He is not chairman of the board now.


Thomas Reid: No, I was speaking of 1925,
but I can get evidence from a little nearer home. When the amendment to the Railway Act was introduced in 1925 what did we find? We found hon. members now on the government side of the house but then in opposition saying one after another-I could quote Senator McRae, General Clark, and others-that it would be useless for the people of British Columbia to go again before the board of railway commissioners to plead their case. I have in particular the evidence of one who, it may be claimed, is an authority, and that is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He stated when the bill of 1925 was passing through the house that the hands of British Columbia would be forever tied and that it would be useless for the people of that province to appeal to the board of railway commissioners in the hope of getting any reduction in freight rates. Speaking in this house on June 16, 1925, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce said at page 4320 of Hansard, when the amendment to the Railway Act regarding the Crowsnest pass agreement rates was then before parliament:
Now the minister says to us that he purposes by this legislation to give the Board of Railway Commissioners-I quote his own words-an absolutely free hand. He does nothing of the kind. Not only does he not give the Board of Railway Commissioners a free hand, but he deliberately ties their hands in so far as the fixation of rates is concerned on wheat and flour, which after all, is a tremendously important part of the freight carried in this country, particularly in western Canada.
A little further on in the same speech he said:
I do not ask special privileges, but I do ask for the province of British Columbia the opportunity to plead its cause on a firm and even basis. I ask for the opportunity for my province to come before the board and say: Here are the economic conditions; here are the reasons why we ask you for a freight rate structure of a given standard. But instead of that, the government is saying to the province of British Columbia: If you go before the Board of Railway Commissioners you go there with one hand tied behind your back. There is no escape from that.
I do not need to quote any other authorities to prove the contention which I have made ever since I first introduced the bill, that is is utterly impossible for us ever to get an equitable reduction of freight rates by appealing to the board of railway commissioners. They themselves have so stated, and I want to repeat that the members now on the government side of the house, when 
they were sitting in opposition in 1925, when the amendment to the Railway Act was going through, spoke to the same effect. It has also been my own belief that it is useless to go before the board of railway commissioners with any hope of getting redress.
Now what is our position in the province of British Columbia? A bill is introduced here asking for a reduction-or rather an equality-of rates, and we are told that the board of railway commissioners, and not parliament, is the properly constituted body to deal with that matter, yet we have it stated on the very best authority, as I have pointed out, that it is useless for us to go before that board. And so, Mr. Speaker, I am pleading at the foot of the throne on behalf of the people of my province that once and for all this differential be removed which has created a terrible handicap and has long been a great injustice to the people of British Columbia.
Probably the Minister of Railways will tell us that this is not the proper time to take such action, that the traffic of the railways has gone down, but I would point out that an argument of some sort can always be made. It was made in the prosperous days. We were told then that it was not the proper time to give us what we are now asking. I wish to point out, however, to the Minister of Railways, who perhaps knows it better than I do, that sixty-eight per cent of the traffic of the railroads in this country is wheat. At present we are looking for markets for our wheat, and where can our prairie farmers find a better market than in British Columbia? If we could get that grain at the same rate as those in other countries do, there is no doubt that a greater market would be found in British Columbia for immense quantities of the wheat and grain products of the prairie farmers.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that we were given just a sop last year when the railway companies for some reason or other reduced the rate on domestic grain by some eleven cents. When the railways did make that slight reduction and continued it for this year they omitted fifty per cent of the feed requirements of the poultry raisers which is mill feed. That omission takes a lot of answering. Our fight has been for grain and grain products, but the little sop that was handed to us by the railway companies last year, and which has been continued for another year, denied us a reduction in the rate on mill feed, which constitutes fifty per cent of the feed requirements of our poultry farmers. The result is that the people of Ontario and other eastern provinces-and I am not com-

Railway Act-Mr. Munn
plaining of this at all-are able to obtain their mill feed requirements at a much cheaper rate and consequently a lesser price than the people of British Columbia, although they are much further removed from the wheatfields than we are in British Columbia.
I believe that the time has come, Mr. Speaker, when the whole freight rates structure of this country should 'be overhauled. The rates were set many years ago when conditions were entirely different from what they are to-day.
I would also point out this in connection with our plea. It seems all right for hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on canals in eastern provinces for the benefit, it may be, of the wheat farmers, but when we in British Columbia ask for something the reply is: This is not the time to do it. This may not be the proper time to say it, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to say that if ever the St. Lawrence waterway scheme comes into effect I hope something will be done about the tolls on the Panama canal, for our ships leaving Vancouver and New Westminster are now charged approximately $9,000 a trip to pass through that canal. I hope if the time ever comes when we shall deal with the St. Lawrence waterway that we on the Pacific coast will be remembered and that a quid pro quo will be exacted for the charges that are levied by the United States on our ships passing through the Panama canal, which, as all hon. gentlemen know, is owned by the United States.
This appeal is not a question affecting the maritime provinces or any other group of provinces. It is a question only of equality of rates, a question of justice. I know that some have said that it is just the same old story I am telling, but I think we all remember that in that fine old hymn it is said that the story should be repeated over and over until it is taken in. That is what I am doing, repeating the story until the government do take it in.
This is not a political question and I have endeavoured to keep clear of recriminations or accusations. I have endeavoured to make my plea in as fair a manner as possible. I have not accused any hon. member of doing this, that or the next thing. This is too serious a matter to go into personalities. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has stated that an equal opportunity will be given to all Canadians. I say to him that as far as we in British Columbia are concerned, we have not had that equal opportunity. Our foreign competitors are able to purchase our grain at a cheaper rate than what we have to pay. In
1930 we had 5,000,000 head of poultry in the province but at the present time we have only some 1,250.000 head. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) knows that this is correct. There are many chicken plants in which thousands of dollars have been invested now lying idle and it is time something was done. I make a most earnest plea to this government to adopt this bill.


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the bill introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). The hon. member has been consistently advocating a reduction in the domestic rate to the Pacific coast. As he says, he is not playing politics. I am making a plea to-night on behalf of the people of British Columbia and T am making this plea entirely outside of politics. I ask the Conservative members from British Columbia to get in with us on this fight. They know that the people in the constituencies of Cariboo, Victoria, Nanaimo and the Fraser valley all want this reduction. Our climatic conditions are very favourable to poultry farming. There are many poultry farmers in my riding and if they were able to obtain low grade grain at reasonable rates they would be benefited as would the farmers on the prairies. I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) to this fact: A carload of grain or chicken feed can be delivered in China or Japan at a lesser rate than to any part of British Columbia.


Robert James Manion: That is not true; at the present time we have a special rate for that.


Albert Edward Munn: There is an export rate on No. 1 wheat.


Robert James Manion: That is a different thing; my hon. friend said chicken feed.


Albert Edward Munn: With the export rate you can ship No. 1 wheat to China and Japan and they will have a cheaper chicken feed than we would have with a lower grade of wheat shipped at the domestic rate.


Robert James Manion: They would not use it as chicken feed.


Albert Edward Munn: I was just pointing out what could be done. As I said before, this is not a political question. It is something to which we are entitled and for which we have been fighting for years, this reduction in the domestic rate to the Pacific coast on grain
Railway Act-Mr. Barber

and mill feed. Again I ask the Conservative members from British Columbia to get in with us. If we keep pulling together surely we will get results some time.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker (Mr. Munn) has intimated that we should get behind hon. gentlemen opposite in order to obtain a reduction on the rate to British Columbia on feed grain. I might say to the hon. gentleman that long before he entered this house we were fighting for a lower rate on feed grain. We took it up in 1925, in 1926 and again in 1927. At that time the provincial authorities saw fit to step in and take the case to the railway commission, which I think was the proper tribunal. They spent some $130,000 in employing legal men to fight this case, but the result was that we did not get a reduction. I want to make it clear to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and the hon. member for North Vancouver that we agree with what they have said with regard to the situation in British Columbia. We realize the unfortunate position in which the poultrymen and dairy farmers find themselves and the disadvantage they are under as compared with other districts in Canada. We have been ready and we are ready to-day to do everything possible to have these rates lowered so that the poultrymen, the dairymen and the stock raisers in our province may be in a more favourable position to compete with the neighbouring provinces.
I agree with the hon. member when he says that these rates are unfair but I do not think he is adopting the proper method of remedying the condition. As he said, he introduced a bill similar to this one in 1931; he introduced another bill in 1932; he has introduced this bill and he says he is going to continue to introduce bills. I am afraid the farmers of the province will be out of business long before this type of legislation becomes law. In 1903. Sir Wilfrid Laurier realized that the question of freight rates was too complicated a matter to be considered in parliament and he appointed the board of railway commissioners which was designed to function as a court of record in the same way as the supreme and exchequer courts. It was to have complete control and authority over all questions pertaining to the operation of our railways including the charges to be made for hauling traffic. It was to function as a judicial body and was to hear all interested parties. Its decisions were to depend, first, on the evidence submitted and, second, on the proper appreciation of the evidence in

relation to the relief sought. Provision was made for appeals from the decisions of this board to the privy council and I think it will be admitted that on the whole it has proved to be satisfactory. At times there have been criticisms of this board, but every section of Canada has been accorded an opportunity to appear before it. The present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) as well as the former Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) have expressed opinions on this matter. I have referred to this before but I think it is worth while repeating. The hon. member for New Westminster has referred to a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and I shall deal with this a little later. If hon. members will turn to page 4439 of Hansard of 1925 they will find that the then Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition, said:
I have been looking over some of the speeches which I made in western Canada last fall, and which were quoted, in part I think, by the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) in his remarks the other evening. I notice in speaking on the iprairies I intimated very clearly that my view was that the railway commission was the right body to fix rates and should be given a free hand in the matter but that I felt it should expect to receive directions from the government on matters of national policy. When speaking in Vancouver and Victoria I made similar statements. . . .
That was the view of the present leader of the opposition. Let us see what was said by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). At page 4420 of Hansard of the same year the hon. gentleman made the following statement:
The railway board is charged with the duty of making rates fair and equitable to all. We have set up the board to do that work. Why then not let the board perform that duty? They are infinitely better qualified to make these rates than are members of parliament. If parliament has no confidence in the railway board-and that sentiment has been expressed by some hon. members-then the remedy is not to throw the business of rate-making into this house; the remedy is so to constitute your board that you will have confidence in it.
Those are the statements, respectively, of the present leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Waterloo.
The hon. member for New Westminster referred to a statement made by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am very sorry he did not quote from the speech made a little earlier in that debate. I would refer the house to Hansard, two or three pages earlier in that debate of June 16, 1925, at page 4319, and I would ask my hon. friend to

Railway Act-Mr. Barber
see what the present Minister of Trade and Commerce said on that occasion. This was the statement he made:
I have argued in this house and before my own constituents and the people of my province for certain principles which I think should underlie and govern the making of a freight rate structure. I have argued that the fixation of rates is such a complicated problem that it should not be pitchforked into parliament, but rather that it should be dealt with by a competent board, that board in my estimation being the Board of Railway Commissioners.
A year ago I appeared before the board and in discussing the matter, particularly with the chairman, I found that British Columbia has never entered any [DOT]appeal against freight rates on feed grain going into that province. I was told that there was no reason in the world why such an application should not be presented and should not receive favourable consideration. At the time I was there the appeal to the privy council was pending and nothing could be done, but now the appeal has been dismissed the case is wide open. I suggest to my hon. friend therefore that if he wants to get action he cannot obtain it in the way he is going at it, because parliament will not go back on what it did in 1903 and undertake to fix rates in this house. So that I appeal to my hon. friend to join the rest of us and appear before the board to present the case for the farmers. I suggest also, what I think is right, that it is not necessary to employ expensive counsel, as the province of British Columbia did in 1925; for any farmers' organization, any individual farmer, can be heard before the board. And I am sure that a member of parliament would also be heard. I suggest to my hon. friends opposite therefore that they join with us and that we go and present the case on behalf of the farmers with a view to getting some immediate action.
The hon. gentleman says that this bill has been on the order paper for three months. Well, the house has been in session since January 25 and this is April 17, so that he does not seem to have been very anxious to press the matter. If hon. gentlemen opposite are eager to get something for the farmers of our province, what they are trying for, namely, a lower rate on feed grain, they ought to join with us in presenting the case to the board. I am going to move an amendment which I hope will receive the support of this house:
That this bill be not read the second time but that, in the opinion of the house, the subject matter thereof should be referred at the earliest date to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. Is the proposed amendment in order? The provision which the hon. gentleman has in mind is the moving of an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the bill by the enunciation of a general principle which is in opposition to the general principle of the bill. I respectfully suggest that the principle embodied in the amendment is not in opposition to the general principle of the bill as introduced by my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: I do not agree with my
hon. friend. The principle of the bill is the question of freight rates, and the amendment is a suggestion that the question be referred to the board of railway commissioners. It is a different matter. I submit that it is in order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With
respect to the point raised by my hon. friend-


Robert James Manion: Are we allowed to speak
two or three times to the point of order?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understood the hon.
member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) to have spoken to the point of order.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: May I submit, with all due respect to the opinion of the Minister of Railways, that this does appear to be a peculiar transaction. Here we have an amendment the effect of which would be to refer from the House of Commons to the board of railway commissioners a request in connection with freight rates. I do not think I have ever known that to be done, although of course there is no reason why that should prevent its being done. I do not think however that the amendment is in order.


Harry James Barber: The resolution does not
propose that the House of Commons should refer this bill to the board of railway commissioners. It states that in the opinion of this house the subject matter of the resolution, which is the question of freight rates, should be referred at the earliest possible date to the board of railway commissioners.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think the Minister of Railways is serious in his contention, when he says that the principle of the bill is the question of railway rates and that the amendment is that the question of railway rates should be referred to the railway commission.
Railway Act-Speaker's Ruling


Robert James Manion: Where it has always gone.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a question of procedure, not of principle. An amendment to the second reading should be something which is in opposition to the principle of the bill.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: May I ask
a question of the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)? If the contention of the hon. member who moved the amendment is correct, and it is not a motion from this house referring the bill under discussion to the railway commission, then it is a negative of the bill and therefore is out of order.


Mr. GRAY:: The rule is quite clear. Rule 755 reads:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, . . .


Robert James Manion: This is adverse to it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Surely that is not the case
here. I submit, according to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, paragraph 755, the position is as pointed out by the exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). It is a question of procedure, not one of principle, that is being discussed.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am of opinion that the amendment is quite in order according to the paragraph just quoted by the hon. member, as it is a repetition of May at page 357 and Bourinot at page 509. The amendment seems to come quite within the provisions there quoted and in my opinion it is in order.


Mr REID:: I must appeal against your
ruling. Knowing what is back of this, I must appeal.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The Speaker having decided that the amendment moved by Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Plunkett, is in order, Mr. Reid appeals from that decision. Is it the pleasure of the house that the Speaker's ruling be sustained?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard).	
Had I voted I would	have voted to sustain
the Speaker's ruling. 74726-143


Mr. PORTEOUS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. YALLANCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. SPENCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. MULLINS:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was paired with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BLAIR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. ROBERGE (Trans.):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. THAUYETTE (Trans.):: I was .paired with the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Larue). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. SEGUIN (Trans.):: I was paired with the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.

Marketing Act-Mr. Stirling


Mr. DUMAINE (Trans.):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. LACROIX (Trans.):: I was paired with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. HURTUBISE (Trans.):: I was paired with the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Cotnam). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. RHEAUME (Trans.):: I was ipaired
with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinon-ge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. YERVILLE (Trans.):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmo-reney (Mr. Dorion). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. PERRAS (Trans.):: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hac-kett). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Vincent Dupuis: I was paired with the horn, member for Northumberland (N.B.) (Mr. McDade). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hour for private and public bills having expired the house will revert to consideration in committee of Bill No. 40, to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.


Mr. GORDON:: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the house to revert to motions.
And leave having been granted: UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I desire to lay upon the table of the house the report of the dominion commissioner of unemployment relief for the year ending March 31, 1934.
I also beg leave to move that three hundred copies in the French language of the report of the commissioner of unemployment relief, 1934, be printed, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Do I understand that
copies are to be printed in French and in English?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 40, to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act-Mr. Weir (Melfort)-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 16, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Weir for the second reading of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Before we proceed with the discussion of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order to raise. My attention has been drawn to a copy in French of this bill, which apparently has been reprinted. I have one copy of Bill No. 51 in French which appears to be all right, but another copy of the bill is marked " reimpression I should like to know by what order of the house the bill has been reprinted in the French language.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: What is the point of order?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not think it is in order to reprint, the bill except by an order of the house. On the French copy of Bill No. 51 I have before me I find the word " reimpression ". Surely a bill is only reprinted when changes or amendments have been made.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The official bill before the house has not been reprinted. The hon. member may have a copy that has been reprinted, but it will not be official.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: With two official
languages in the House of Commons any hon. member may discuss Bill No. 51 in French.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In any event, an order of the house is not required to reprint the bill. That can be done by the committee or by the proper official of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is their job; what do we know about it?


Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the government is to be congratulated upon having introduced this measure, which is an attempt to improve the methods and practices of marketing of our

Marketing Act-Mr. Stirling
natural products. The production of our natural products is in Canada one of the most important pieces of work to which Canadians can adapt themselves. It is probable that no more important piece of legislation has been debated in the Canadian parliament for many a long year than the measure now before us. I think it is most remarkable that within twenty-four hours of the first reading of this bill telephonic and telegraphic communications reached the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) from six of the provinces advising him that it was their intention to pass concurrent legislation. Judging by the messages I have received from British Columbia and from other parts of Canada, it would appear to me that there is a very considerable volume of favourable farmer opinion on this measure. I have been waiting, therefore, with great interest to hear the opposition which would be raised to it.
The first effort in opposition which came to the attention of the Canadian people was that carried out by the Canadian chamber of commerce. The present president of that chamber is a sincere and honourable man but one who has spent his lifetime in opposition to cooperation. The chamber of commerce, through its affiliated and associated boards of trade throughout Canada, circularized those boards and sent them a statement of the arguments which might be used in favour of the bill together with the arguments which might be advanced against it. Upon reading the sheet one came to the conclusion that the author of it had taken a great deal more pleasure in writing the second portion of it than he did in writing the first. This communication was accompanied by a questionnaire, at the top of which was printed the instruction that it should be answered yes or no, thereby bringing it into the category of that famous question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" That questionnaire was worded in such a way as to make it a piece of special pleading against the bill; and it is not surprising, therefore, to read that certain of the replies which have already reached the chamber point out the unfairness of it. I think it is becoming apparent that the usefulness of the chamber of commerce in Canada has been somewhat impaired by its unfair treatment of this measure.
Last night we listened to the first three speeches in opposition to the measure. The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) proclaims himself a strong upholder of cooperation, but from his remarks we find that he is opposed to the regimentation of men. He would have been content had the 74726-1435
measure contained certain safeguards included in the British marketing legislation, although he seems to be of the opinion that it will not be very long before that legislation is repealed.
The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) is of course a critic by nature, and he is at his happiest in his criticisms of a government measure while he sits in opposition. The picture he painted of what he saw in the bill put me in mind of those waking dreams suffered by a man who is passing through the feverish stage of a liver chill. He saw boards, and boards and more boards. He saw dominion boards, commodity boards, provincial boards and local boards, treading on each other's toes and being set up at great expense to Canada. I noticed that his criticism was enthusiastically received by his Liberal colleagues. I could not help wondering, however, whether it would be as pleasantly received by the people of Nova Scotia whose business it is to produce and to market fruit. I noticed that on the fourth of April the hon. member for Hants-Kings met the Nova Scotia fruit shippers and explained to them his interpretation of thig measure. I presume that what he told them was similar to what he told hon. members in this house last night. But six days after that meeting with the fruit shippers the Nova Scotia fruit growers and shippers heid a joint meeting at which they passed a certain resolution. I read from one of the Halifax papers as follows:
Kentville, April 10, 1934.
Unanimous approval of the principles of the marketing act now before the federal parliament was given at a joint meeting of the executives of the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association and the Nova Scotia Shippers' Association that was held here this afternoon. There was a large attendance of delegates who came from all parts of the fruit belt, the provincial Department of Agriculture being represented by F. W. Walsh, chief of the marketing division. Arthur Kelsall, President of the ^Nova Scotia Fruit Growers* Association presided.
It seems evident, therefore, that those who are actually employed in the production and marketing of apples in Nova Scotia will scarcely be likely to aigree with the criticism advanced by the hon. member for Hants-Kings.
Then the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) gave his view in opposition. First he gave us a piece of that famous speech of his on the tariff. He followed that by stating his opposition to majority rule, and his disgust in connection with something which would further restrain the liberty of the subject. With regard to majorities ruling min-

Marketing Act-Mr. Stirling
orities may I say I regret that Hon. Donald Sutherland is not the member for South "Oxford, but yesterday he was in the minority.
I have a good deal of respect for the views advanced by the hon. member for West Edmonton with regard to the liberty of the -subject, because until a very short number of lyears ago I was very much inclined to those "views myself. But, Mr. Speaker, what rights *1 as an individual to-day, under organized modern society as we know it? The hon. member may not drive his car down Sparks street in any way and at any speed he desires. Why may he not do so? Because there are others, his neighbours, who desire also to drive their cars down Sparks street. The hon. member for West Edmonton may not take his clothes off in the rotunda of the Chateau Laurier. Why may he not do so? He may not because there are others, his neighbours, who desire to use the rotunda of the Chateau Laurier in the way that rotunda is meant to be used. In this instance there are farmers in Canada who have been deterred from marketing their produce in the way they desire to market it because of the actions of certain other farmers their neighbours. I very much question whether the liberty of the subject can be advanced as an argument against this bill. The hon. member to whom I refer, from his cradlehood to that day, far distant I hope, when he will be laid in his grave, will have had his liberty curtailed, and he will find that he has had to observe the many and varied restrictions imposed on him by modern society.
I also shall endeavour to paint a picture of what I see in this bill for the fruit growers and other farmers I represent; for in the Okanagan valley and the southern valleys of British Columbia there are farmers who are engaged in wool growing, in poultry raising, in live stock, in dairy products, in vegetables and in fruit. But before I paint that picture I want to describe the frame, the setting of it.
For the twenty-two years in which I have worked in the Okanagan valley there has been a cooperative effort. The volume of its support has ebbed and flowed. After a time of desperately low prices the cooperative has prospered. There was a time when it reached a volume of eighty-five per cent of the total crop, and the fifteen per cent outside the cooperative movement was its destruction. When the cooperative movement had charge of eighty-five per cent of the crop they were able to approach a good deal nearer to orderly marketing than had ever been attained before; that is to say, in rolling the crop to market they were able to feed each
TMr. Stirling.]
distributing centre throughout Canada with that quantity which apparently that centre would be able to handle without glut and without scarcity. But the fifteen per cent was in the hands of small independent shippers, and they were able, marketing but one car or two, to jump into a market which had been stabilized and jump out again so quickly, possibly by shaving the price or by consigning their car, that they did not suffer. But they left behind them a demoralized market. Hon. members should remember that I am referring to the marketing of a highly perishable product, the evidence of whose quality changes almost overnight, a product that must be marketed when it is ready in quantities sufficient to dispose of the whole or incur the costs of storage. There again the cooperative was under a disadvantage, because the independents, handling the very small quantities which they did, did not. have to store. The cooperative therefore it was that had to incur the costs of storage, and in the export market as well the independent bore no share of the loss.
At the time of which I speak in all probability thirty per cent of the Okanagan crop of boxed apples was exported. It was exported to relieve the Canadian market. The principal part of it went to the markets of Great Britain, and there it came into competition with fruit of just as high a quality produced in the Pacific states. The Americans for many years have looked upon the British market as a very desirable dumping ground, in consequence of which the price always ruled low. I say that thirty per cent at that time was marketed abroad. The smaller independent did not export, and in consequence the cooperative movement had to take charge of thirty per cent of the whole crop instead of the thirty per cent of the crop which it handled itself. In those three ways the very small quantity marketed by an individual independent shipper was marketed to the advantage of the growers that supplied them and to the detriment of the growers that supplied the cooperative movement because of the stabilizing umbrella that the cooperative movement held over the market.
The fifteen per cent was in the hands of certain independent shippers. Some of them I would describe as responsible firms. It quickly became evident to them that they must do something if possible to bring about an orderly condition of the marketing of the whole crop or their business would go to the wall. As a consequence of that, sufficient support was obtained for a petition to the provincial government and the Produce Mar-

Marketing Act-Mr. Stirling
keting Act was passed under which a committee of direction was set up Which should direct the sale of the crop-not, as has so often ignorantly and unkindly been said of that committee of direction, that it was a government committee which sold the crop. It was nothing of the sort. One of its members was appointed by the growers as their representative. One of its members was appointed by the shippers as their representative, and in order to find a neutral arbitrator as chairman, the lieutenant governor in council appointed the chairman. For the three years in which the committee of direction operated we had a nearer approach to orderly marketing in southern British Columbia than we have seen before or since. But suit was entered against that committee of direction and that suit was successful. The judgment of the supreme court put that committee of direction out of existence on the ground that a provincial statute could not enable a committee set up under it to regulate the sales of produce outside the province of production. After the committee of direction was dead it was noteworthy that the volume of support for the committee had increased overnight. Following the death of the committee of direction (he division of the crop in all probability was sixty per cent cooperative and forty per cent in the hands of independent shippers and a few grower-shippers, growers who marketed their own crop and perhaps the crop of a neighbour or two. Amongst that forty per cent there was a considerable number of what I would call responsible business firms. Then the forty per cent dwindled away to very small and irresponsible shippers who were not prepared to cooperate with anyone.
A new measure of cooperation entered upon the scene. The responsible independent shippers drew together in one group and with the cooperation of the cooperative probably ninety per cent of the total crop was marketed in an orderly fashion. That merely drove home to the responsible shippers, as to the cooperative that the ten per cent outside was sufficient to upset it. We very nearly approached another year of dog eat dog, of cut-throat prices and ruin for everybody.
The last attempt at orderly marketing was the stabilization board. The stabilization board functioned for one year, and a few weeks ago it also went, out of existence on account of a curious judgment. The various firms of shippers that went in under the stabilization board had to contribute in the form of a levy to the funds of the board which it used in its operation. One of these fruit firms decided that it would not pay
the levy. The stabilization board sued that firm and lost the case. Mr. Justice Murphy in an eighty-five page judgment decided that the stabilization board was opposed to the Combines Act.
As evidence of the type of person the fruit grower has to work with, I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the stabilization board came into existence with the support of most of the fruit shipping firms. The firm against which the board started this suit was one of those and the manager of that company was a member of the committee that brought the board into existence. He was the man who proposed the resolution to make the levy part of the plan. Presumably he later changed his mind and refused to pay the levy and a suit was started and lost by the board. When that judgment was handed down it was not unnatural that gloom should pervade the Okanagan valley. I am using no exaggerated terms when I say that that industry is looking ruin in the face.
On March 26 this bill received first reading and the news of that fact was received in southern British Columbia with great delight. The growers considered that they had been doing all that lay in them to proceed along the road toward orderly marketing but each time they had made a step in advance, something happened to upset them. After the provincial legislation had been thrown out of existence they felt that the only ultimate thing to be done would be to have dominion legislation passed which, in cooperation with provincial legislation, would give them the orderly marketing which they sought. They believe that this Bill No. 51 gives them what they seek. This is a picture of what I consider this bill will do for these growers.
Under section 5 of the bill the producers may join together in the preparation of a scheme to be submitted to the minister for his approval. The minister must satisfy himself that there is a sufficient volume of support behind the scheme. How is he to do that? In my opinion the only way he can do it is to have the figures of a poll laid before him. It is most desirable that the scheme should make provision for registration and polling. When the minister is satisfied that there is a sufficient volume of support behind the scheme, he turns it over to the dominion marketing board to be set up under section 3 and that board examines the scheme in all its detail. In my opinion there are three courses open to the board; it can accept the scheme, it can reject the scheme, or it can suggest amendments to the scheme. If and when a scheme has been accepted, it is re-

Marketing Act-Mr. Stirling
ferred to the governor in council and it may be set up by order in council. It then begins to operate as a scheme chosen by the farmer and put into operation by him. It is almost certain that any scheme will contain the idea of a board selected by the producers to be in charge of the fruit or whatever commodity it may be which they have to handle. The principle behind it all-it is the principle with which we are chiefly concerned at this stage of the proceedings-is that the producer should have in his own hand the power of conducting the marketing of his produce in an orderly fashion and this cannot be done until there is a majority rule of the minority. Suppose the producers in any given area are quarrelsome or unwise enough not to compromise their difficulties and differences of view; suppose they proceed in support of two schemes, neither of which have sufficient backing to warrant the minister in accepting them. Under section 9 the minister could then propose a scheme for that particular district if it appears in the wisdom of the governor in council that orderly marketing can be obtained by these means. The minister may propose a scheme which will be adopted and put into operation by order in council.
Some of those who are opposed to this bill see in that an imposed board, a board resident in Ottawa which will sell the crop of a farming area perhaps thousands of miles away. To me that would appear to be contrary to common sense. The scheme which would be proposed by the minister and accepted by governor in council would, in my opinion, be such as I have described already, a board composed of the producers themselves, selected and elected by the producers, which would have the power under this act to conduct the orderly marketing of that particular product.
Another principle involved in this bill is the question whether it is desirable that the government or the authority set up under the government should have the power of regulation over exports. Without going into great detail as to what happened last August and September in the British market, I would remind hon. members that a condition approaching chaos prevailed. When the dominions met together at the time of the Ottawa conference they entered into treaties with each other but the treaties they made were primarily for the benefit of the producers in their own countries. The treaties in connection with apples which Great Britain made with Australia, New Zealand and Canada were primarily for the protection of her own orchards. When the English apple crop began

to pass on to the markets of Great Britain in August it was found that those markets were not yet free of stored apples from Australia. Under the plan which had been so carefully considered at the Ottawa conference it was anticipated that Australia would be off the British market by August, before the early English apples began to reach the market. But in the first year of operation it did not so work out and the consequence was that low prices prevailed not only for that month but for the fall months as well. When the Canadian apples began to reach the British market in September, October and November it was found that extremely low prices were still prevailing.
In the working out of the Ottawa agreements, Great Britain again and again has shown her good faith by refusing to adopt harsh tactics, by refusing to go to the limits to which she might go under the provisions of these treaties. She has intimated quite plainly that if Canada will take to herself the power to regulate her exports, she may refrain from imposing quotas. Suppose Great Britain had not taken that action last August; suppose she had done what we will assume she had the right to do and imposed a quota overnight; there was no legislation in this country which would enable the government or any other authority to use any regulatory power over Canadian export apples. It would have been a clear case of dog eat dog and the cramming of ships as hard as they could be crammed and sent to the market, with the result that no one would have got anything. The government decided to take advantage of this opportunity to insert regulatory powers in the statutes of Canada. Under the powers laid down here the government may exert such regulatory authority with regard to the distribution of Nova Scotia, Ontario and British Columbia apples for export as would be considered nothing else than businesslike.
A further principle involved in this bill is that contained in part II. In part II the government takes power to investigate marketing conditions of any natural product; it can examine into every phase of what takes place in connection with produce passing from producer to consumer. Surely that is a desirable principle. It will particularly have its attention drawn to those cases where the producer receives a mere pittance and the consumer pays a lot. We hear so much in these days of spread. Here is a case where under a statute, as the bill will become, the government takes power to conduct investigations to look into the matter of spread, and presumably to let in the light of day and to take a certain course of action if wrongdoing is discovered.

Marketing Act-Mr. Neill
So far I think I have dealt entirely with the principles behind this bill, but there are two remarks I desire to make at this stage. They have to do with principle, though not exactly what you might call the principle of the bill, but rather the principles behind two details of the bill.
Under the stabilization board last operating in British Columbia, one quite essential feature was the pooling of a certain variety of fruit. The markets of Canada differ rather curiously in price level, and it is not feasible when you are dealing with the crop handled by a different set of independent shippers and a cooperative to so perfectly proportion that crop that each of these units shall market so much in the low price market and so much in the high price market. Therefore the practical method of doing it is for them to market where directed by the regulatory body, and for the receipts of that variety and that grade to be pooled. There is no doubt, I maintain, that under subsection (a) of section 4 that power is covered by the bill, but it appears to me it would be a desirable thing for a definite statement to be made by the government as to whether I am correct in reading that into the bill, because it will have a very considerable effect on the volume of support which this measure will receive in certain farming communities.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Is it the hon. member's understanding that the pooling for each variety is to be for the whole of Canada?


Grote Stirling: The hon. member, if I understand him aright, asks me whether I think the pooling for each variety would apply to all Canada. Certainly not. The pooling which I am describing is the operation of the local (board, and the local board operating in southern British Columbia will have nothing to do with the apples of Kentville.
The other point of principle connected with detail to which I wish to refer is one in connection with another type of marketing altogether, not the type of marketing to which we fruit growers of British Columbia are accustomed. I am imagining the case where a local board is set up to handle the products of a certain farming community whose habits have 'been such that in their attempted regulatory methods of marketing in previous days the board itself has done the marketing. It would be very desirable if a pronouncement were also made with regard to that. My opinion is clear, that subsection (a) of section 4 also gives power for that to be done.
I agree that these are matters which will be treated in detail as the clauses come up in the committee stage, but I think it is desirable to mention them at this stage of the proceedings, because there is an earnest desire amongst farmers all over Canada to understand as soon as possible exactly what the provisions of the bill mean. I have endeavoured to give my views; I have endeavoured to show what in my opinion this bill can do towards orderly marketing in the part of Canada from which I come. In my opinion the government has taken a courageous step in bringing forward this measure, because it is so obvious that we live in a stage of society which cannot stand still. We cannot be satisfied with those marketing conditions with which our fathers were satisfied. There are difficulties being imposed upon us from without as well as from within, and this is an attempt, a courageous attempt I maintain, to deal with the difficulty, which this bill, if it works out as I think it will, will tend to solve.
The Minister of Agriculture was not the only one in this house who deeply appreciated the tribute that the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Yallance) paid him the other day. There are very many in Canada who agree with the hon. member for South Battle-ford. Canada is to be congratulated on having as Minister of Agriculture one who looks at things as a farmer first and who is recognized as a successful farmer; and it is well known and recognized by all the farmers of Canada that he approaches each problem from the farmer's point of view and with the farmer's knowledge.


Alan Webster Neill: With the picture which my hon. friend from Yale (Mr. Stirling) has drawn of conditions in his district, I quite sympathize. I have some knowledge, not perhaps of that particular district but of conditions at home; I have had personal experience of conditions that arise when ten per cent undertake to defeat the cooperation of ninety per cent. But I am rather afraid that in his endorsation of this bill the hon. gentleman has been animated rather by a desperate desire to get something than by a close examination of the bill itself. I am afraid that the golden apple of this bill will prove to be Dead Sea fruit and turn to ashes in his mouth.
I do not think the hon. member was quite fair to my hon. friend from Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) or to the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) in suggesting that they argued the matter from the political standpoint. I thought their remarks were singularly dear and that they presented a very graphic picture, and to some extent a
Marketing Act-Mr. Neill

superior picture to that given us by the hon. member for Yale, inasmuch as they confined themselves entirely to the effect of the bill, whereas the hon. member for Yale wandered further afield and spoke in general terms. There are at any rate two items with which I shall deal when I come to them and regarding which may I say with all respect and politeness to him that he read into the measure something that I submit is not there.
Much has been said about the principle of this bill, I suppose there is a principle in it, but it is so obscured and surrounded by unnecessary and, in some cases, almost vicious details, that it is somewhat difficult to find it. To that principle I am in a sense committed, not from any instructions or requests I have received from home,, for I have received none in connection with this bill, but rather that I have on the platform and privately at home endorsed the general idea, talking about the marketing act as it was introduced in Great Britain and saying that possibly the measure which we would adopt in time to come would be along those lines. To that extent I should be very glad to support the principle of this bill if one could disinter the principle from the mass of confusion and details which surround it. But in that case I would have to keep for myself a very large reservation of liberty to vote and work for a very thorough amendment of the bill in committee, and, :f it were not so amended, to vote against it on the third reading more particularly as regards clause 9, which I consider the most vicious one in the whole bill. As, however, the government has a large majority, my vote one way or the other matters not to it; the question is only one between my constituents and myself.
I agree, in fact I more than agree with, I heartily endorse everything said by the hon. member for Last Mountain in his very well thought out presentation of the subject, especially when he stated that if the bill had followed the lines of the British act he would have been prepared to support it. I also agree with the hon. member for Hants-Kings in much of his criticism,, but I differ from him in regard to the principle. I admit the truth of the point he made regarding the experiments tried in various parts of the world in curtailing production by withholding goods from the market in connection with rubber, coffee and so forth, and how they have failed. I suppose we were all brought up to believe the law of supply and demand was one that could never be defeated by any machinery of legislation. But times change and we must move with them, even possibly against a law

that we thought was impregnable. But the conditions on which this bill is based are not exactly similar to those mentioned by the hon. member for Hants-Kings, and even if they were, I say that times change; there is in London a committee sitting, trying to set the price of wheat for the whole world. Does that not give a marked indication of the progress we have made along those lines?
Another argument in favour of the principle of the bill is that if we do not check or regulate our exportation, Great Britain will do it for us and will do it in a way that we do not like. Britain has already intimated to New Zealand that, despite treaties, she must cut down her butter imports. She has advised us politely and by way of negotiations, conversations, rather than by the mailed fist, that we shall have to go slowly on our exportations of cattle and I think we shall very soon find that the same thing will apply as regards our exports of butter to the mother country. The Hon. Mr. Elliot, Minister of Agriculture there, is determined, so far as he can, to make Great Britain self-sufficient from a food standpoint. One cannot blame him, but we shall have to pay some of the price.
Then again, to combat the argument of the hon. member for Hants-Kings, we have some precedents, not only in the British act but also in the New Zealand act, and I am always ready to follow the lead of those two great countries at opposite ends of the world, Britain with her sober, staid, conservative method of making progress slowly, a step at a time, but never going back and always making a success of what she undertakes, and at the other end New Zealand with the finest population on earth, full of optimism, of forward-looking movement, ready to embark on what I might call the very best form of socialistic ideas, and making a success of them. So I say, when I find those two countries uniting on a measure and giving me a precedent, I am willing to follow them a long way. In New Zealand, as far back as 1921 they passed the Meat Export Control Act which gave them absolute control, if necessary, of the whole of the meat. Of course this was only as regards export; it did not deal with domestic consumption except inasmuch as it related to export, but it provided for pooling and a levy on the whole of the produce exported. In 1923 they passed a similar act dealing with dairy produce when again they took power to make a levy on everything exported in order to finance the scheme and they also took power to pool. The scheme must have worked pretty well because that is

Marketing Act-Mr. Neill
ten or twelve years ago and they have not had occasion to change their aot since then. As a matter of fact their act to control meat exports is working very well.
Great Britain put her marketing act into force in 1931 and before much practical organization was done, she passed another one in 1933, which was largely an amplification, an extension and, to some extent, an amendment of the first one. Now pooling was unfortunately omitted from our legislation. The hon. member for Yale read into one of the sections something which he hoped rather than thought would cover that, but I have under my hand the latest advices from British Columbia where the legal authorities say that our measure does not cover pooling and that the local act cannot under our legislation institute pooling either. But pooling is in the British act and also in the New Zealand one.
I think the hon. member for Yale quoted clause 4 as follows:
The board shall, subject to the provisions of this act. have power,
(a) to regulate the time and place of marketing the regulated product.
I have not found any lawyer who is willing to read into that power to pool the marketing of products.
I said that Britain had a marketing act and we might well follow it, but we must remember that Britain differs from us in three very fundamental and important aspects. I want to impress that upon the house. First, Britain is a small, compact country, homogeneous to a large extent in its population, and where every point can be reached easily by wire in a few minutes or by transport in a few hours. That is very important as compared with the great distances in this country. The second is that Britain has one jurisdiction and that is a most important and almost vital matter as compared with our conditions. There is only one body to give orders, to report to and so forth. We have nine and we have also the boards below that. Just imagine the vast possibilities for misunderstandings and disputes that will arise between bodies three or four thousand miles apart in carrying on negotiations and arrangements that in Britain would be dealt with in a matter of minutes.
Another equally important matter is that Britain is an importing country and in that is her safeguard, her bank, her reservoir, her safety valve for any trouble that may happen. She has only to take in the slack and say with a wave of her hand to outside nations: A little less butter or ham or bacon as the case may be. In that way her troubles are solved because she is an importing country. Her policy is destined to stimulate production
and as that production grows, what will she do? She will stop the imports to a proportionate extent; she can do this, so to speak, by a wave of her hand, saying: A little less on the quota, and the whole business goes on smoothly and profitably. What have we? We have power to stop imports, but that would not do us much good. We have power to stop exports, but what good would that do us? I think it always has been found that when you get a government scheme, even if the price is low, it has a security, a certainty and a finality about it so that people will increase their production. The government of Brazil took over their coffee at a very low price and thought there would be no increase in production, but people got in new machinery and increased their production three or four times over because their money was sure. There is no doubt that this scheme will stimulate production, as is the intention in Great Britain and no doubt will be the result here, and what are we to do? We cannot raise our hands and stop importations to meet the case; we have to dispose of that slack in some way that will be very difficult to arrange.
Now I should like to deal with the bill itself for a few moments, not in regard to the details appropriate for discussion in committee but rather in its general aspects. These things, put together, form the reason why one should or should not support the bill itself. This is the most appallingly autocratic bill I ever had in my hand. Outside of Stalin I do not believe any of the dictators in Europe who at least pretend to practise constitutional government would bring forward a measure of this kind. I notice that the definition of natural products includes food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product. I suppose that would include liquor, which is made from grain; I want to use that illustration later on. We turn over the page and come to the dominion marketing board. Under section 3 the governor in council may establish a board to be known as the dominion marketing board, and subsection 2 states:
The board shall consist of such number of persons as the governor in council may from time to time determine-
I wonder if what someone said the other night was true, that this act is only introduced as a gesture and is not meant to be used. I hope that is not so; I do not believe it, but certainly the utter lack of definiteness about many of these matters would lead to that supposition. This board may consist of three or of fifteen people. Is there any civil
Marketing Act-Mr. Neill

service appointment about it; is there any returned soldiers' preference? No; it will be almost as good as the Senate; it will be a home for burned out politicians, and if fifteen is not enough members the government can esaily make it twenty. In connection with our railway board, our tariff board and our pensions board the number of members is mentioned and the salaries are named as well. Here it states that they shall receive such remuneration as the governor in council shall determine. What is the reason for that? In these other important acts which have been passed by this house the salaries of the chairman and of the other members are specified. Here it is provided, apparently, that they shall get such remuneration as they ask. In another subsection it states that the governor in council may authorize certain members of the board to exercise the functions of the board in respect of any product or class of products. I suppose that might mean one member; we might have one man in Canada placed in supreme control of the lumber business, the fish business, the butter business or the liquor business. What possibilities that opens up for campaign funds, does it not? That it is, however; one man may have that power.
There is another point here; I am not a lawyer, and perhaps this may sound ridiculous from a legal standpoint, but I mention it for the consideration of lawyers. The whole of this bill to this point is entirely superfluous; that is, this board is only a buffer, a convenient but expensive buffer between the minister and the real boards called local boards, to which reference is made later on. They are really in the same position as the British boards. There is nothing similar to this dominion board in Great Britain; they have what is here called local boards and the minister deals with those boards. Those boards are the same, as to their origin at least, as the boards that will be created under section 5 of this bill. I maintain that this dominion marketing board is a superfluity.
On the next page I see it is provided that they may regulate the time and place of marketing the regulated product. What product? A board must deal with one or more named products, but this board is not going to do any work of that kind; it is going to be a sort of senate, looking down on the real boards that are doing the work, and we are going to pay for three, five, ten or fifteen men at any price they like to name, while the local boards will do the work. That is not the way it is done in Great Britain.

Then here is the most vicious thing in the act, next to section 9. Under subsection (b) of section 4 the board have the following power:
to exempt from any determination or order any person or class of persons engaged in the production or marketing-
Mark that.
-of the regulated product or any class, variety or grade of such product.
What is the practice under the British system? It is very different. The British system exempts certain people from the scheme, and that is a very different thing. I need not take time to go into the details, but they exempt certain small people from the working of the entire scheme. I find on looking up the act that in the case of dairy produce those having less than four cows are exempt, and that a man selling less than twenty-five eggs at one time is exempt as well. These people are saved all the bother; they do not have to register or go through any of the formalities; the government do not have to clutter up their records with them, and it is so much fairer to everyone. But what is to be the system here? This board is to be given power to exempt from any determination or order an individual or individuals engaged in producing or marketing. It might be that only one man will be exempt; the board might say, "We are going to prohibit the exportation of butter for two or three weeks" but by accident Tom Jones may be exempt from that determination. What would that be worth to him? It might be worth a small fortune. Under the British system that could not happen. In order to keep them satisfied with their lot the section hands on the railways throughout the country are encouraged to keep a cow, a pig, a few chickens and so on. They will have to sit up nights in order to make these returns; they will have to be registered and so on, with all the trouble involved. The greatest danger, of course, is that somebody with a pull may just happen to be exempt from the marketing order that may be made, and if he is an exporter himself he will make a very good thing out of it.
Further on in the act there is provision for lending money for the construction or operation of facilities for preserving, storing or conditioning the product. Every man who has a root house for potatoes or anything else will want the government to pay for it; every man who has not a roothouse will want the government to build one. All the creameries will want some help from the government. There is also provision for research

Marketing Act-Mr. Neill
work. That may be all right in Great Britain, but it has nothing to do with this bill. We deal with research work in another way in this country.	_
Then we come to subsection (f), which states:
to require any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses^ and occupations with the board, or to obtain a licence from the board-
All these men with one cow and a pig have to get licences from the board, and those licences are subject to cancellation on the say so of the board for the violation of any provision. Is that the system in Great Britain? It is not. There they outline the penalties in their scheme; violations are punished by fines, and they do not go so far as cancelling the licence of the individual. And as the hon. member for Last Mountain pointed out last night, they make provision for looking after the consumer. There is a consumers' committee, who see that the scheme does not injure the consumer. Above that there is another committee which has power to take action and change the scheme if it finds any abuse or injury being committed. Is there anything of that kind in our act? If there is I have not found it. Again it is provided that people must send in all these returns. Fancy the poor section hand sitting up at night asking his wife how much she churned in March and how much in April, because if he does not know that the whole return is upset.
Then subsection 2 reads:
The board may collect charges for services rendered,
(a)	in respect of all or any portion of the
regulated product marketed under its direction, and	. .
(b)	if it cooperates or acts conjointly with any marketing board or agency established under the law of any province, in respect of all or any portion of the product subject to regulation by such provincial board or agency.
I do not find much fault with that except that it leads to confusion and a great deal of bookkeeping. Then, right near the end of section 4, half way through the whole bill, we come to the first mention of the real scheme. The word "scheme" is noticed for the first time in the reference to the board. At section 5 I find the following:
A representative number of persons engaged in the production and marketing or the production or marketing of a natural product may petition the governor in council to approve a scheme for the regulation of the marketing of such natural product by a local board under the supervision of the board.
This is the real thing; this is the real act. This is the thing which corresponds to the British board, namely that which we call the local board. The procedure is to petition, and one minister, remember, considers whether that petition is good, or whether those men are representative. My friend and I may call ourselves representative, and yet we may not be. The British system requires that they shall be substantially representative. The minister makes the decision, just one man,- just the minister. If he is satisfied and considers the petition satisfactory he does not have to give any explanation. When the minister goes to the House of Commons in Great Britain he has to give reasons why he thinks his decision is all right, and he has to put his views in writing. But in this country, according to this bill, he does not need to do anything at all, except-consider. If he considers the thing is O.K. and the persons engaged are sufficiently representative the scheme shall be referred to the board. In that connection I shall but refer to the foreword to the British act. This is what it says:
Every scheme shall be administered by a board elected by the producers.
Are our schemes going to be administered by boards elected by the producers? Not at all. We can elect a lot of Chinese laundry-men, if we wish, and it would be quite all right.
Then I shall turn to some of the provisions pointed out last night by the hon. member for Last Mountain. I shall touch upon them only briefly. This is what -the British minister has to do: He has to get the petition, and then he has to publish it for a period of six weeks. Then he holds a public meeting to see if anybody wishes to kick about it. Then he lays it before each house of parliament, and along with it must be a copy of the evidence which convinced him that the scheme was suitable. His action must be the same both before the House of Commons and before the House of Lords. Then they have to provide for a board to administer the scheme. The men- who run it have to be elected in such manner as -may be provided by the scheme, and they must be registered producers. After all that is done, namely after the House of Commons and the House of Lords have O.K.'d the procedure, the minister approves the scheme, but he suspends it for about two months, within which time he takes a plebiscite or a poll of all the registered producers. If sixty-six per cent do not vote for it the whole thing is off, and if less than fifty per cent vote it is closed off automatic-
Marketing Act-Mr. Neill

ally. These are some of the safeguards imposed by the British government, but which are wholly lacking in the measure before this House of Commons. Under this measure the scheme needs only the O.K. of the minister who thinks that Tom Jones and his friends are decent fellows-and he lets it go at that.
In order to give a further illustration I should like to make a quotation. Apparently in the British parliament they have introductions to their bills, and in this instance I quote from introductory remarks:
The procedure regulating initiation and control of schemes is democratic in character.
Can we say that about our measure? It continues:
By whomsoever they may be prepared, schemes may be submitted only by producers of the product concerned; moreover, there must be a poll, on which all affected producers can vote, before any scheme comes into full operation. Similarly, democratic control in the administration of every scheme is assured by the fact that the board, i.e., the administrative body entrusted with the administration of the scheme, is composed of the elected representatives of registered producers.
How very far distant is that from anything to be found in the measure before us. Democracy?-democracy appears to have been forgotten when this bill was drafted.
Then we come to some of the provisions to be found in the measure. I find that every scheme shall state "the number of persons who shall comprise the local board and the basis of their selection." It may be the president of the Liberal or the Conservative association, so far as this regulation is concerned. They do not need to be representatives of producers. The stipulation is merely as to the "basis of their selection." Selection?-they may agree upon an appointment by the minister. It does not say "election" but "basis of their selection." That is where the hon. member for Yale went wrong. He stated that they would be elected by the producers. Probably the hon. member hopes so, but certainly there is no guarantee of it in the measure.
Then section 6 indicates that the framers of the bill have awakened at last, and have thought of giving some publicity to the thing. In that connection section 6 states:
When a scheme has been approved by the governor in council, the minister shall give public notice thereof in the Canada Gazette.
That is, when the scheme has gone through the successive stages of the minister, the board and the council, this action will be taken Why not do it before the scheme is
[Mr. Neill.)
approved? Would that not be a good idea, when they are going to publish it afterwards in the Gazette? So much for Canadian democracy.
Then in section 8 we find a provision which at the present time I shall not go into. It is a provision for extending the power of any local board, but there is no check on them, and no suggestion of how it is to be done. It is just simply on the say so of the minister, or if the governor in council is satisfied with the recommendation of the minister. That is all that is required. I may remind the house that in Great Britain one has to go through pages of forms, if a scheme is to be substituted, amended or extended. The same performance has to be followed which is followed in an original case. One has to go through the House of Lords, through the House of Commons and so on. Here the extension may be made, heaven knows to what extent, simply if the minister himself is satisfied.
Now we come to section 9-and that is the section which I consider the most vicious in its import. I cannot see how the minister, a man whom I respect, with whom I have no trouble at all and with whom I never had a harsh word, could sanction this section. Much as I respect him I cannot understand why he has allowed section 9 to creep into the bill. I do suggest that the progress of the measure would be greatly helped if section 9 were eliminated. It is as follows:
Notwithstanding that no petition in relation to any natural product has been filed, the minister may if he-
-think it is necessary, put in a scheme of his own. If he thinks it is necessary he can draw7 it up himself. Because he believes some trade to be injuriously affected he may propose a scheme for the marketing of the products of that trade. He does not need even to take it before the board. He takes it to the governor in council, who, in turn, approves of the scheme and authorizes the board to administer such scheme directly or through any agency which it may establish. It is not limited even to the formalities of the rest of the bill, but is given entirely to any agency which may be established.
Let me suggest this: Everything is going along smoothly and quietly in a certain industry, but all of a sudden out of a blue sky the minister takes the notion-or some minister; I shall not refer to any particular minister, because he is not named-some person makes a suggestion to the minister who says, suddenly, " We will have a scheme about

Marketing Act-Mr. Neill
that; I shall draw it up and I shall have the government approve of it"-which, of course, is a mere formality-"and then I will appoint a board, and the board will appoint Tom Jones to run it." The whole of that industry may be run by that man, without warning or notice, except that publication will be made in the Gazette after everything is all cut and dried. The expression in the bill is: "through any agency which it may establish."
Then, section 12, subsection 2, is as follows:
The governor in council may, by order or regulation published in the Canada Gazette,
(a) provide that any natural product shall not be expoi-ted from Canada without a licence.
That, of course, is a necessary provision, and I agree with it. But I notice that the British act of 1933, which I have before me, gives the same provision, namely, that the government may prohibit the importation of any particular article. In the British act, however, there are four pages of safeguards. If any hon. member questions my statement may I say that I have the measure before me, and he may see for himself that there are four pages, as I have indicated. But here it is simply done by the governor in council.
I visualize the situation like this: The governor in council may provide that a certain natural product shall not be exported from Canada. In the constituency which I represent there are many trollers, that is, fishermen who troll for salmon. At this time of the year their market is entirely in the United States, in Seattle. I need not go into why that is so, but I simply state that that is the case. They could get a market in the canneries, but it would be an inferior market. The canneries do not particularly need it because it is not good for canning, but they could handle it as fresh fish. Suppose a couple of canners got together and, after using influence, got the board to decide that none of that fish was to be exported. What would be the situation of those trollers? What remedy would they have? Under the British act when a man is aggrieved by its operation he can go before two arbitrators appointed under the act. You will find all that in the 1931 act, I think it is. He can go before two arbitrators and get a ready form of arbitration. There is nothing of that kind here. No; he simply has to take his medicine.
The minister said that he thought there were three requisites for this act, and that was that it should be sound, simple and practical. What a travesty on the English language if you call this bill sound, simple and practical! It is a travesty on truth and justice and common sense to call this bill sound, simple
'and practical. If I had two bitter enemies I would not wish them a worse fate than to put one to run this act and the other to try to make a living under it. It would be a case indeed of "Judah is avenged of her children."
My time is nearly up, but I would like to say a word on part II. That is the less important part of the bill. It is the part that deals with investigations into spreads. The first part deals with people charging a commission; the second is concerned with the people handling; and the third provides that the minister may at the request of the board or on his own initiative institute an investigation of the spread on any natural product. Why natural products? Why not any product at all? A lot of evidence has been given before the price spreads committee dealing with the horrible spread and the slum conditions and sweated wages of workers on manufactured articles. As this bill is dealing with spreads, why not deal with spreads in manufactured articles also? I suggest that if it is going to inquire into the spread on natural products, the bill might as well also be applied to the spreads in manufactured articles so as to give the consumer a little look in.
Section 18 of the bill says, a regulated product. Surely it should be natural product, any natural product, in fact, any product at all. Then section 21 provides that every person who receives a spread that is excessive shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $5,000 or two years imprisonment in the case of an individual, and to a penalty of not exceeding $10,000 in the case of a corporation. That is put in just as window dressing. They might as well have said ten million dollars. Is there any chance of any company paying a fine of $10,000 for an offence under this act? Would it be fair that any individual should have to pay a fine of $5,000 for some very petty offence against this act?
Another thing. A spread is a rather difficult thing to determine. What is a fair spread to me might be a much more expensive spread to my neighbour. By improved methods, greater energy and good management one man may be able to handle an article at a lower cost. If his case is selected as the criterion the other man is going to pay a fine of $5,000 simply because he uses obsolete machinery or does not have the same energy or good management as the other fellow. I do not say that the man with the antiquated methods should be taken as the standard, but I do say that he should not be fined $5,000 judged by the standard of the man with more modern methods and better management.
Marketing Act-Mr. Brown

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that some will say that I have been simply tearing this thing to pieces and trying to attack it in a political way. I have nothing to gain in a political way by attacking this bill. It is not an issue in my district, and I can take as impersonal and unprejudiced a view of it as I ever did of anything. But as I see it, this bill needs not an architect but a wrecker. Let us tear it down and build it up again. All praise and credit to the minister for the conception behind the act, but let us have an act that really regulates and that will be effective in the interests of the men described by my hon. friend from Yale and my hon. friend from Hants-Kings. Then no one will be more willing to support it and promote its passage through the house than myself.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Speaker, I think there will be general agreement with the statement of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) that this is one of the most important bills that has been introduced into the house in many years. It is generally recognized now that agriculture is the industry upon which the prosperity of Canada must be based, and the marketing of agricultural products is a matter that has given great concern to the farmers during very many years.
In the early days of our fanner organizations in the west, when we undertook to concern ourselves with the marketing of our produce we were practically told by those interested in the trade that the marketing was none of our business, that our business was to produce, and they would take care of the marketing. Well, we did not see it that way. We thought it was a matter of very great concern to us not only to make two blades of grass grow where one grew before but to see that what we produced was put on the market at the highest profit to ourselves. So we proceeded to consider ways and means of marketing, and we did establish cooperative institutions that have functioned with greater or less success, some of them with a great deal of success, and some of them unfortunately proving apparently a failure.
I wish at the outset to pay a tribute to the two hon. members who started the discussion of this bill, the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) and the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). With their keen legal minds they have analyzed the provisions of this bill and thoroughly exposed its weaknesses, so that it is only necessary for those of us who follow to deal with some of the details and point out some of the situations that are likely to arise and that undoubtedly will arise if the provisions of this bill are put into effect.

I wish I could pay a similar tribute to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). So far as explaining the principle of the bill is concerned his speech was very disappointing. Not only did he not deal with the details of the bill, but he did not even remotely touch upon its principles. I can come to only one conclusion, though it may be a wrong one, and that is that this bill was something that was handed to him and that he was told to put it across. But in some respects the minister's speech was an excellent one, and under certain circumstances I could have listened to it with a great deal of interest. The minister showed a very clear understanding of the difficulties that have confronted the farmers in handling their produce profitably. Being a farmer he clearly recognizes the handicaps that have been imposed upon us, but in my judgment he completely failed to set forth even in a general way the principles which he proposes to apply through this bill to remedy the present difficulties.
The minister told us that he had received many communications from all over Canada endorsing this bill. I am not at all surprised at that. The attitude of the farmers, unfortunately, and the same may be said of other sections of the population as well, has been such that during the hard times through which we are passing they are ready to accept almost anything that holds out the slightest hope of better conditions. They are ready to try almost anything, and so I am not at all surprised that a general expression of approval of this bill should have come from many sources. But it must be remembered that these expressions of approval have been founded on a very insufficient knowledge of the bill, and I think we may fairly ask what, after all, are men's opinions worth who only know that it was the intention of the government to bring in a bill to facilitate the marketing of farm produce and who know actually nothing about the details of the measure proposed. It may be that there are institutions here and there which have received copies of the bill and, therefore, are in position to express a measure of intelligent opinion upon it, but I am quite satisfied that many of these expressions of approval have come from men who are not sufficiently informed of the contents of the bill and of how far-reaching it is in some respects. Undoubtedly the avowed purpose of the bill is one of which we must approve; according to the title it is an act to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to

Marketing Act-Mr. Brown
make further provisions in connection therewith.
I have not the slightest doubt-I am speaking now of men in the prairie provinces where our wheat is grown

that many men are of the opinion that this bill is to provide something like the old wheat board which was established to handle the crop of 1919. I think we can pay a tribute to that board and say that it was a magnificent success under the guidance of Mr. James Stewart. I believe that gentleman served on the board without recompense, and he was supported by men who were well acquainted with the grain trade. Undoubtedly that board handled that crop to the satisfaction of the farmers. If I remember rightly, we received an initial payment of $222$ or $2.25 and a final payment of 48 cents per bushel. We were quite satisfied. There was a demand that that board be continued. There was a mistaken feeling that such a board could continue to do for us what Mr. James Stewart had done with the crop of 1919. I have no doubt that remembering the satisfactory manner in which that board functioned, many are looking forward to the establishing of a board which will bring about the conditions which prevailed at that time. However, I think we can put out of our minds the thought that any wheat board could do for us to-day what that wheat board did under the circumstances which prevailed at that time. It is not at all surprising that expressions of approval should come from many different sources.
The minister referred to some of our cooperative efforts and he gave some of the reasons why he thought some of those experiments had failed. I agree with most of the reasons he gave, and I certainly agree with him when he says that one of the main causes of failure was the putting into positions of business management those who had made a success as propagandists. I do not intend to mention specific cases but we have good reason to know that some of the mistakes made in a business way were made by men who had no business capacity but who were capable propagandists. It is a good thing to have propagandists for a cause but the fact that a man is able to get up on a platform and expatiate upon the benefits of a particular line of conduct does not mean that he is capable of handling such a business as the selling of wheat. I have had men tell me that they did not consider there was anything to the selling of wheat and that in their opinion such an operation did not require a clever man. There are those who use the statement of the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) to the effect that wheat sold itself. At
the time that the former Minister of Trade and Commerce said that, that statement was largely true. It did not require any great activity on the part of the government to sell wheat, but things have changed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend permit me to interrupt? His last statement which has gone on Hansard is to the effect that I said that.


John Livingstone Brown: I said the former Minister of Trade and Commerce.


John Vallance: It is just as true as
if you had said it.


John Livingstone Brown: I think the minister would have said the same thing at that time.
There was another reason given by the minister for the failure of the cooperatives and it is one to which too much weight must not be attached. He said that many of these cooperatives failed because they did not have one hundred per cent control. The hon. member for Yale has stated the case of the fruit growers very clearly and in most moderate language. We always listen to what he says with a great deal of interest, and I have no doubt that what he said with regard to the difficulties which confronted those growers in the marketing of their fruit is absolutely true. I have no doubt that the situation which prevailed in Vancouver with regard to milk is as has been described, but we must not carry such arguments too far. There are those who say that the failure of the wheat pool was attributable to the fact that they did not have one hundred per cent control. I do not intend to go into the causes at any great length, but I state most emphatically that whatever they were, they were not attributable in any sense to the fact that they did not have one hundred per cent control. At the time that the pool was on the verge of bankruptcy, if not already bankrupt, it was a strange attitude for the executives to take when they said that if they had only had one hundred per cent control they could have handled the thing much better. I do not want to be unjust in my criticism of the pool but in my judgment there is no doubt that had the fluctuations in the grain trade been normal the pool would have continued to function with satisfaction. But it could not stand up against the tremendous drop which occurred in the price of wheat, especially when the initial payment had been more than that ultimately received for the wheat. All I ask of any body of officials is that they be honest and face the facts and not make undue claims for powers which it would have been impossible for them to exercise under any condition.

Marketing Act-Mr. Brown
There is another cause for the failure of our cooperatives, and it is one of the weaknesses of democracy. One of the weaknesses of our cooperative institutions is the unwillingness to pay for good service. I think I have heard the former Minister of Agriculture complain that he lost some of his best officials because he was not allowed to pay a remuneration high enough to retain them, and unfortunately it is still true of our cooperative institutions that there is an unwillingness to pay for the service of good men. I remember very well that when we organized the first large grain handling company in the west, the Grain Growers Grain company, one man said that he would manage it for a thousand dollars a year. It might have been managed for one year and there would never have been a second. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the failure of our cooperative companies.
There is another reason which is perhaps pertinent to this discussion-the disposition to want to pull down existing institutions and to establish something new. We have that disposition manifest not only in our farmers' cooperatives but in governmental institutions.


An hon. MEMBER:: We want to change the government.


John Livingstone Brown: That is always in order, I suppose. But we have suggestions to-day that instead of working with the economic system we have, for example, we must entirely dispense with it, overthrow it and establish an entirely new system. And so we had this in our marketing institutions; the old system must go; it could not possibly exist side by side with the new, and anyone who suggested that we must go slow and experiment with the new before completely discarding the old was sneered at and scoffed at as a man opposed to all the farmers' interests. And that practically constitutes one of the reasons why our cooperative institutions have not had the measure of success that we should like.
If it is agreeable, Mr. Speaker, I would move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Wednesday, April 18, 1934