TRADE WITH JAPAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are proceeded with I desire to make a short statement arising out of a question asked yesterday by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). At that time he directed attention to certain statements appearing in the press that had been attributed to British public men, and I was then able to assure him that there was no foundation for those statements, so far as the government of Canada was concerned. Yesterday the Right Hon. Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, made a statement in the British House of Commons, and in view of the importance of the matter and the desirability of there being no misunderstanding in such a matter I think it desirable at this time to read to the house his statement. Mr. Runciman said:
The house will remember when I last made a statement on this subject on 15th March, I informed them, on the failure of representatives of the textile industries of Japan and of this country to come to an agreement, the whole position was under review between the two governments.
When I saw the Japanese ambassador on the 16 th March. I handed him a memorandum inquiring whether, in the circumstances, the Japanese government bad any proposals to put forward for dealing with the problem. On the 31st March, I received a reply in which the Japanese government expressed their willingness to consider any further proposals which His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom might ^ make, but made no proposals of their own. The government have considered the whole problem again, very carefully in the light of this reply. It is already a year since His Majesty's government drew the attention of the Japanese government to the serious position arising from Japanese competition. It is

Trade with Japan
of course, of the utmost importance that every effort should be made to deal with a problem of this magnitude in the most appropriate way. Unfortunately there appeared to be nothing in the Japanese government's note of 31st March, to suggest that an early agreement on this subject was to be expected and, therefore, the government still holds the view that the problem which faces us is one which can only be settled satisfactorily by cooperation in some form between Japan and ourselves. His Majesty's government cannot allow a situation to develop in which negotiations are protracted indefinitely without any immediate prospect of success and during this time the Japanese- quite naturally from their point of view-are continuously expanding their exports in our markets to the detriment of Lancashire while our hands are tied'. Accordingly His Majesty's government have come to the conclusion that they would not be justified any longer in postponing, in the hope of an agreement, such action as is open to them with a view to safeguarding the trade of this country.
I therefore informed the Japanese ambassador on Thursday last that in the circumstances His Majesty's government were obliged to resume their liberty to take such action as they deemed necessary to safeguard our commercial interests. I assured him-and I am confident that the house will join me in this-that such steps as it was proposed to take would be taken in no unfriendly spirit.
As regards the Anglo-Japanese treaty, I am satisfied that His Majesty's government can, without denouncing it, take proper and sufficient measures to protect commercial interests of this country, and in these circumstances I see no reason to terminate a treaty which has regulated the commercial relations between the two countries for over twenty years.
As far as the United Kingdom market is concerned the government do not feel they can any longer suspend the review of silk duties by the import duties advisory committee, and my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the committee to complete its report on these duties as quickly as possible.
In the case of the colonial markets my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been in consultation with the colonial governors. The governments of the colonies and the protectorates for which such action would be appropriate will be asked to introduce import quotas which, except in the case of West Africa, would apply to all foreign imports of cotton and rayon goods. With a view to reinstating this country in the position in those markets which she held before the present abnormal period, it is intended that the basis for apportioning these quotas as between foreign countries shall be as far as possible the average of their imports in the years 1927-1931. It is further proposed that necessary legislation in colonial territories should be enacted with the least possible delay, and it should be so framed that the actual quota regulations will be reckoned as commencing retrospectively from to-day, 7th May, so that no attempt at forestalling will be allowed to frustrate the policies and intentions of measures under contemplation.
In the most important of West African colonies, as the house is aware, there are treaty obligations which preclude differentiation in favour of our own goods. It was for this
reason that on the 16th May of last year notice was given to release West African colonies from their obligations under the Anglo-Japanese treaty, and action there will be limited to Japanese goods.
I have not attempted to deal in this statement with the position of any goods except cotton and rayon textiles. The government are aware that Japanese competition is not limited to these goods, and are considering in the case of each of the other industries involved w'hat tariff action in the colonial market is called for. As regards the home market I have no reason to suppose that the matter cannot be dealt with by means of ordinary procedure of Import Duties Act.
While His Majesty's government cannot any longer refrain from taking steps to safeguard our trade interests, we shall, of course, be ready at any time to give most careful consideration to any proposal which the Japanese government may desire to put forward towards a solution by mutual agreement of this difficult problem. A solution of this kind ought to be possible where governments of the two countries are anxious to agree.
That is the conclusion of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, and I avail myself of this opportunity to thank the right hon. leader of the opposition for bringing the matter to the attention of the chamber.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think the Prime Minister has acted very wisely in giving to the house the statement that he has in order that this matter may be put in its true position. I say that for the further reason that this morning's paper contains other dispatches that are misleading. I have before me, the Ottawa Citizen of this morning, May 8, and I will quote from an article headed "Likely to urge dominions take similar action:"
(Canadian and Associated Press Cables)
London, May 7.-The British government moved to-day to restrict Japanese trade in those parts of the empire over which it has direct control and to promote "intensification" of commerce within the British commonwealth.
There is nothing in the statement made in the British house, I must say, to justify this particular dispatch, and I think it is only creating embarrassment for governments of different parts of the empire that misleading dispatches of this kind should be sent abroad.



RADIO COMMISSION EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask the Prime Minister just how the house may get information with respect to the expenses of the radio broadcasting commission. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) asked a question about the expenses of the

Radio Commission Expenses
commission on Monday, April 9, and the Prime Minister replied that as the radio committee was sitting, it afforded every possible opportunity to secure the information. I am advised that the member has tried through the agency of the committee to get the information, and has been told that he can not obtain it from that source. Surely the house is entitled to some statement of the expenses of the commission under main headings. I do not mean anything in the nature of an inquisition, as the Prime Minister suggested might be possible, but rather a statement of expenses under general headings. I think we ought to be able to obtain that in short order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the radio commission occupies a somewhat analogous position to that of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. Parliament makes a grant to the railway commission, and also makes a grant to the radio commission, but in the case of the latter it is, of course, money which has been collected for the purposes for which the commission was to use it. I certainly believed that it was not desirable in this house to discuss at length the question as to whether or not ten dollars had been properly used here, or whether the same ten dollars could not have been better used somewhere else. I think that would not be fair to the commission. But I quite agree with what the right hon. gentleman has said that parliament has a right to know of these expenses, and when I answered the hon. member for Skeena as I did the other day I believed that he would be able to secure that information without question from the commission. I shall make it my business to speak to the chairman to-day, and if the hon. member for Skeena will suggest to one of the members of his own party the desirability of asking his question when the committee next meets or if he give notice in advance, I shall certainly use such machinery as I can make available, with my limited powers over the commission, for the purpose of securing the information which the hon. gentleman seeks, namely, the expenses grouped under main headings, such as the right hon. gentleman has mentioned. If, of course, that method fails, I shall have recourse to peace, order and good government.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 4, consideration in committee of Bill No. 51,

to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith-Mr. Weir (Mel-fort)-Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. POULIOT:: If one looks at the figures which were put on Hansard of March 26, 1934, at pages 1811 and 1812, one sees that the home consumption of pork meat in the year 1932-33 showed an increase over 1930-31 of 1,967,747 hundredweight. Multiplying that number by 13, as the price of pork meat was $13 less in 1933 as compared with 1930, we find that the farmer has suffered a loss in the sale of that commodity of $25,580,712. But to be fair one must deduct from that figure the sum of $4,788,666 representing the surplus of exports in 1933 over 1930, making the net loss suffered by the farmer in the sale of that commodity $20,792,046.
With regard to butter, home consumption in the year 1932-33 showed an increase over 1930-31 of 25,698,173 pounds, or expressing it in hundredweights, 256,981 hundredweight. The average price of butter per pound in 1930 was 30 cents as compared with 17 cents in 1933. Multiplying the difference in the price by the increase in the number of pounds consumed, we find that the farmer suffered a loss in the sale of that butter of $3,340,762, less $416,369, representing the surplus of exports in 1933 over 1930. But as the amount of exports represents a surplus it should be deducted from the $3,340,762, and thus we arrive at a net loss of $2,924,393 in the sale of that butter making allowance for the difference in price between 1933 and 1930.
A very interesting speech was delivered in Montreal last week by the brilliant gentleman who is Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). I quote from a report in the Montreal Gazette as follows:
One aspect of the problem was the difficulty of regulating production and prices, particularly in view of the present situation, which had been described as "plenty amid poverty." Canada consumed 99 per cent of its own butter, 98 per cent of its beef, 90 per cent of its hog products, and 100 per cent of its eggs. By control of prices he was not suggesting government control-he would rather see the government leave prices alone.
"But," he declared, "things can't go on in this country with 50 per cent of the population on the farms and pay them 2J cents a pound for beef, 6 cents a dozen for eggs, 10 or 12 cents a pound for butter. Merchandizers in Canada control these prices, and it is up to them to do it in a way that 50 per cent of the population will not continue in present conditions-or some other factor may have to be introduced."

Marketing Act
One thing which strikes us is the large decrease which has taken place in home consumption. Since the beginning of this session and since the beginning of this parliament the speeches of nearly all hon. members have been in connection with external trade. This is almost wholly true with the exception of the few statistics which have been put on record by the member for Temiscouata. These concern internal ' trade and show to what extent there has been a decrease in the home consumption of farm products. I have before me official statistics which I obtained from the bureau of statistics year book as well as some contained in a letter I received from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). These figures show to what extent there has been a decrease in the home consumption of farm
Apples (bbls.)	
Honey (lbs.)	
Eggs (doz.)	
Dressed beef (cwt.) .... Concentrated milk (cwt.)
Cheese (cwt.)	
Potatoes (cwt.)	
Peas (bushels)	
Oats (bushels)	
Barley (bushels)	
Wheat (bushels)	
Wheat flour (bbls.). . ..
products. This decrease has taken place in the face of an increase in the population when normally there should be an increase in the consumption of farm products. The quantities of decreases appear on pages 1811 and 1812 of Hansard of March 26, and the comparisons are between 1932-33 and 1930-31. I should like to give some figures showing the decrease in the home consumption of twelve farm products. I shall give first the quantity of decrease and then the figured value based on prices prevailing in 1933 as compared with those in 1930. These figures concern not external trade, international trade or Ottawa agreements, they deal with the most vital matter of our home trade, our interprovincial trade, our strictly Canadian trade within the boundaries of the country. The figures are:
Quantity of	Figured value	Figured valuedecrease	1930	19331,209,934	$ 3,920,186	$ 2,601,3589,535,689	858,212	953,56845.959,763	12,409,136	5,974,769891.619	13,978,438	5,198,138489,908	5,731,923	3,674,31075.483	1.243,959	822,0092.284,769	1,290,893	964,172973,616	817,837	473,1774,116,422	2,058,211	1,543,65830.140,741	10,699,963	11,604,18555,146,394	24,760,730	15,165,2581,689,000	8,428,110	5,759,490$86,197,598 34,333,884 $51,863,714	$34,333,884
The total 1932-33 decrease in home consumption is $86,197,598, representing the amount of the loss which the farmers have sustained, if we take into consideration the price that prevailed in 1930. If we take the price that prevailed in 1933 we have a loss of $34,333,884, and the difference between the prices of 1930 and 1933 is $51,863,714.
I will not insist on that point but I would call the attention of the minister to the serious fact that there has been a fabulous decrease in the home consumption of apples, honey, eggs, dressed beef, concentrated milk, cheese, potatoes, peas, oats, barley, wheat and wheat flour, and I urge that something be done to find out the reason for this decrease and to see what is the best way of remedying the situation. I have two or three other questions which I am going to ask the minister afterwards, but for the moment there are two which I should like him to answer. This bill is intended "to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith."
The products I have mentioned are natural products and a decrease in consumption has taken place in Canada. In view of this I would ask the minister these two questions. First, can we still say that we have our local market so far as those commodities are concerned in view of the enormous decrease in their consumption? Secondly, for what reason was there such a decrease, in one year, 1932-33, and what is the proper remedy to be applied to such a situation?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: I wish first to put on record some information asked for by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) at the conclusion of the discussion last week when I was compelled to move that the committee rise and report progress. The hon. member dwelt at great length on the various plans that had been tried for controlled marketing and for the marketing of agricultural products generally. I endeavoured to point out on that occasion that the examples he was citing did not relate to conditions similar to those in Canada, nor were the problems which

Marketing Act
we were attempting to solve similar to the problems presented in the examples he mentioned. I pointed out that the methods set out in the different plans he mentioned were not similar to the chief methods that underlie the legislation embodied in the bill now before this committee. The hon. gentleman continued his recital in this connection however. I am sure that hon. members of this committee will agree with me as to the impossibility of discussing each one of the acts referred to in detail if we wish to make any progress, and therefore I have had prepared a synopsis of the different policies to which my hon. friend referred. If I understood him rightly, he emphasized in the first place the danger of government monopoly, price fixing and controlled production, together with compulsory cooperation, which he referred to more especially at the close of his remarks. The countries and states which he indicated in his address in connection with a marketing policy were Queensland, New South Wales, Bulgaria, Brazil, Chili, Cuba, Germany, Greece, Latvia, the Netherlands, Roumania, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Hungary, Egypt, Jugoslavia and Uruguay, sixteen countries and two states. Of these, twelve provided in their policies for government monopoly of purchase and sale. That is not one of the chief principles of the bill which is before us. The object of the bill before the committee is . to enable producers, in so far as they indicate a desire to this end, to regulate marketing by organization and in some instances, if it is felt desirable, through appointment by the dominion board as its agency in the marketing of their own produce. I contend therefore that the statement put on Hansard by the hon. member was far afield if it was intended to apply to the bill before the committee. In the second place, of the different marketing plans which he discussed at considerable length, fifteen embodied the principle of price fixing; that principle appeared in fifteen out of the sixteen countries and two states he mentioned. The bill before this committee makes no provision for price fixing, and therefore I contend again that the hon. member was very far afield indeed when he compared the eighteen different policies of those sixteen countries and two states to the bill which is now under consideration. As I say, one of the chief principles in the plans he discussed was price fixing, which is not provided for or is not one of the aims of the bill before the committee. Further, of the eighteen policies which he outlined, in which reference was made to production con-
trol, four made provision for such control. In the bill which is before the committee no power is given to reduce or control production. I feel therefore that it is not necessary to dwell at any greater length on the statement made by the hon. member for Ontario.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt the minister, but does he say that in the bill there is no provision which will admit of limiting or controlling production?


Robert Weir: In the bill no power is given to the local or to the dominion board to control or restrict production.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the bill not give power to the local board to draw up any scheme it wishes and might such a scheme not include control of production?


Robert Weir: The scheme that they would submit -might include controlled production, but no power is given to the board to control production and therefore no consideration would be given to a policy of controlled production since no power could be given to enforce it. In the bill there is no provision set out to give a board authority to enforce controlled production.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Supposing we assume that the government as part of its policy desired to control production, would not the provisions of the bill be ample to enable the government to control production? I admit the government -might not in every instance do that, but do not the provisions of the bill enable it to do so if it wishes?


Robert Weir: My understanding is that there is no such provision in the bill. The deduction that the hon. member for Ontario made from his survey of the whole situation as he saw it and the dangers inherent in provisions set out in this bill in regard to marketing, which provisions were altogether different from those he dealt with in the other policies outlined by him, led him to conclude with a very definite statement as to the dangers of compulsory cooperation. He stated that it would sap from the individual his personal initiative; that it would -make him a serf, reduce him to serfdom, to slavery, to becoming a ward of the state; also that it would lessen his credit, that he would not be able to get the same credit from banks, mortgage companies, and so forth that, I take it from what my hon. friend said, the individual would if he retained his individuality without becoming a party to this compulsory cooperation that the hon. gentleman decried so strenuously.

Marketing Act
That sounds all very well in theory or in words, but let us rather examine compulsory cooperation as it is in practice. Have we in Canada any one hundred per cent compulsory cooperation?


Mr. BROWN:: No.


Robert Weir: The hon. member for Lisgar says no. I think he will agree with me that the people in the school district in which he1 did live or lives are compelled to cooperate through the payment of taxes which is certainly not left to their voluntary donation.


Mr. HANBURY:: Pretty far-fetched.


Robert Weir: I do not think we could find, for one example, a better one than that, that the members in a school district are compelled to cooperate to build and support a school and their contribution is certainly not voluntary.


Albert Joseph Brown: If that is the minister's style of reasoning he had better get somebody else to promote this bill.


Robert Weir: I appreciate the fact that the hon. member may not agree, but he will certainly agree with me that that is compulsory cooperation; it is the identical principle of it. If we follow the reasoning of the hon. member for Ontario, what he would advocate is that each man in a certain district would build his own school and hire his own teacher and that in doing so he would have greater credit from the banks and the mortgage companies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the minister has answered the question asked by the hon. member for Ontario. It was: Does this bill contain provisions which imply compulsory cooperation, not have we compulsion elsewhere?


Mr. NEILL:: The word used was "enable."


Robert Weir: I am answering the statement which the hon. member for Ontario made decrying very strenuously the principle of compulsory cooperation. I could give numerous similar examples throughout the dominion where members of a community bind themselves together because the majority feel that it would be of advantage to have compulsory cooperation. For instance, I might cite the building of roads. They are forced to pay taxes because the majority feel that it would be to the interest of the community that this should be done for the purpose of building roads for them. If we follow the argument advanced by the hon. member 74726-183
for Ontario, I suppose he would advocate that each farmer in a community should make his own trail and build his own road to town so that he might thereby retain his own individuality and initiative. I think the whole principle of our democratic institutions is that the majority be given power to effect what they think is in the best interest of the community. If the principle works out in practice as it does, I feel that compulsory cooperation in that form has been acknowledged as a very valuable and necessary instrument for the furtherance of our present day civilization.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the minister by citing those instances defending the principle of compulsory cooperation as it is to be found in this bill?


Robert Weir: If the right hon.
gentleman was listening when I answered him before, he will recall that I said I was dealing with statements made by the hon. member for Ontario.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister has not
yet answered his question.


Robert Weir: I cannot answer his question and every other one at the same time. The hon. member for Ontario asked whether compulsory cooperation was implied-


Wilfred Hanbury: Enabled.


Robert Weir: He changed that
to " enabled1 "-in this bill. But the whole statement leading up to that was that it was government control, government restriction, government sending out of inspectors and so forth. The principle of this bill -and hon. members can judge as well as I can by reading it because I think it is couched in quite clear English-is that if a sufficiently representative body of producers wish to formulate a plan for the more orderly, less wasteful and better regulated marketing of their agricultural products, they are free to submit their scheme to the provincial minister if it has to do with provincial marketing, or to the federal minister if it has to do with federal marketing, or if organized provineially, [DOT]with interprovincial and export trade. If a certain percentage of the producers and of the production-in England, I believe, it is sixty-six and two-thirds per cent-ask for this or show by a poll that they are in favour of it, it is then placed before the provincial minister or the federal minister to decide whether, after submitting it to the lieutenant governor or to the governor in council, a scheme such as that would be approved.

Marketing Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
minister meant after submitting it to the board.


Robert Weir: Yes, after submitting it to the consideration of the board it will then be submitted to the governor in council. In so far as they ask for power such as that, it would force all within an area to conform to the scheme for regulating the marketing of their product. I would think that there is provision for that in this bill.


Wilfred Hanbury: That is, for compulsion.


Robert Weir: Compulsory cooperation, of which hon. members opposite ire so frightened. We sit in this house by compulsory cooperation. The reason there is nothing in this bill as to the percentage of the producers and of production that could be required for such a scheme to be accepted is because my understanding is that that comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. They might decide on different percentages, if they accepted such a scheme, depending not only on the judgment of the lieutenant-governor in council but also on the product to be regulated in marketing.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the minister
to be kind enough to answer the two questions I have asked him, with regard to the decrease in home consumption.


Robert Weir: We have not the
consumption figures at hand. I shall be glad to look up the hon. member's statement that he put on Hansard and endeavour to have an answer for him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman, and I shall send him a copy right away. Those figures are prepared and compiled on the basis of official information, as I said before.
Now there is another aspect of the matter. I shall send that other tabulation to the hon. gentleman with a third one, in order that he may have opportunity to peruse those figures. Let us come to the net losses suffered by the Canadian farmers in the sale of those twelve farm products. The exports must be taken also. This summary includes the amount of decrease in home consumption according to the prices of 1933; also the 1933 exports compared with the exports for 1930, and in the third column the total loss to the producer or farmer:
Losses suffered by the Canadian farmers in the sale of twelve commodities
or farm products
	Value of decrease	1933 exports		
	in home consumption	compared with		
1933 prices	1930	Total lossApples	
$ 2,601,358	+	$ 2,050,494	$ 550,864Honey	
953,568	+	111,363	842,305Eggs	
5,974,769	+	352,507	5,622,262Dressed beef	
5,198,138	-	672,534	5,870,672Concentrated milk	.. .. 3,674,310	-	851.093	4,525,403Cheese	.. .. 822.009	-	5,130.401	5,952,410Potatoes	.. .. 964,172	-	5,504,758	6,468,930Peas	.. .. 473,177	-	3,819	476,996Oats	.. .. 1,543,658	+	635.552	908,106Barley	
11,604,185	+	225,488	11,378,697Wheat	
15,165,258	63,373,340	78,538,598Wheat flour	.. .. 5,759,490	-	18,523,737	24,283,227$34,333,884	$145,418,470
Then, to sum up the whole matter we find that in 1933 the loss sustained in external and internal trade on twelve farm products amounted to $145,418,470. The difference between the 1933 prices on these twelve farm products as compared with the prices in 1930 amounted to $51,863,714. Giving the same comparison in regard to butter we have the figure of $2,924,393 and in regard to pork meat $20,792,046. The loss to the farmer in the year 1933 on the fourteen commodities, namely apples sold by the barrel, honey by the pound, eggs by the dozen, dressed beef, concentrated milk, cheese, potatoes, peas, oats, barley, wheat, wheat flour, butter and pork 
meat, amounted to $220,998,623. This loss is one which has been sustained by the farmers, and when we are considering a decrease in home consumption we are not dealing with tariffs, but are dealing with trade within Canada.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: By how much was
our external trade in apples increased? The hon. member did not mention that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall read it again to
the hon. member. Of course, 'he will see it to-morrow in Hansard. The value of the 1932-33 decrease in home consumption of apples sold by the barrel at the prices pre-

Marketing Act
vailing in 1933 amounted to $2,601,358. From that we have deducted the surplus of the exports of 1933 over those of 1930, amounting to $2,050,494, leaving a total loss to the apple producer of $550,864.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The hon. member's figures are absolutely incorrect.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask the hon. member to give the minister a chance to answer. When he is minister he will have an opportunity to give information to the house. Meantime I should be delighted to have my answers from the minister. I shall send him those statistics. I am sure he realizes fully that it is a great anomaly in a country such as ours to have a decrease in the home consumption of, for instance, eggs, of 45,959,763 dozen. That is incredible. The decrease in the consumption of wheat has been over 55,000,000 bushels. The decrease in the consumption of wheat flour is 1,689,000 barrels. These figures are almost incredible. Presumably there are some people who cannot even eat bread. Despite the fact that our population is now greater, the people must be eating less, because they cannot buy food-farm products. The condition, is all the more incredible because prices of farm products are today much lower; in fact they are one-half and, in some instances, one-third what they were in 1930. Prices have fallen; yet the Canadian people are suffering such hardships that despite the decreases in prices they cannot buy food. What is the reason? What remedy would be applied by the minister? May I say to him that these changes in home consumption developed gradually; the decrease did not come upon us like an earthquake. It developed from year to year, and if the minister would peruse the statistics he would learn that in all . those fourteen products, with the exception of two, namely, butter and pork meat, in each year there was a decline in home consumption. The trend was downward. At this time I shall ask the minister what the government has done in the past four years to stop that decline and to see that the home consumption in farm products shall not decrease any more. I believe I am acting fairly with the minister, because I am not asking him for information about fish, which is mentioned in the bill; neither do I ask him for information with regard to timber. I have not questioned him about the leather industry, or about those industries mentioned by the Prime Minister in his speech of October 12, 1932. Although I have the figures before me in regard to 'fish products and the lumber industry, I shall not ask the minister questions about it. He 74726-183J
is in charge of the department which serves agriculture. As an able farmer he must know more about his department than any other hon. member, because not only has he all the information sent in from all parts of the country, but as boss of his department his officers must work in accordance with his instructions. He receives weekly or monthly reports about the situation of agriculture in all parts of the country. If his information is not complete he has that great privilege which other hon. members envy at times, namely that of ordering his officers to get him the information he desires. Then, he has the valuable services of his deputy, and those of another gentleman who at the present time is sitting in front of him.
To-day I am asking the minister to answer my questions which, I believe, are fair and reasonable. I do not wish to cause trouble, but I want information so that when I go home and my people ask me the same very reasonable and sensible questions I may be in the position to tell them, " I asked this question of the Minister of Agriculture in the House of Commons when I was speaking in your name, and he gave me the illuminating answer which I shall now give to you." I am sure the minister will give me the information at once.


Albert Joseph Brown: Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a moment; I am
just concluding my remarks. I am sure the minister will answer.


Robert Weir: My understanding
was that with these statistics on record in Hansard an answer would be submitted to the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you.


Mr. VERVILLE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, Bill No. 51, under consideration seems to me-pardon the expression-a deceitful bill. I shall not dwell on the title:
An act to improve the methods and practices involved in the marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith.
It is futile to discuss the title of this bill, it is but necessary to examine the provisions to have an immediate and comprehensive idea of the powers which the government was unable to obtain by the signature in blank act, it insists that such powers be granted to it by this bill. The government stated: Pursuant to the unemployment act, grant us full power to relief those in want.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: Hear, hear.
Marketing Act


Joseph-Achille Verville: Through this bill, introduced by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) who is an excellent man, the government intends to help agriculture. How? I ask the minister. How can he help agriculture, at present, by this bill? Price levels will be raised. How? I shall briefly express my views: It is simply intended by this bill to favour the large interests to the detriment of the small wage earner-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Achille Verville: -although giving the impression that the bill is favouring the latter.
After examining this bill, sir, I wonder what it embodies that might be helpful to the farming class. Will it be by preventing too great a spread between the prices paid to producers and those exacted from the consumers by the distributors? How? It is the old saw: We shall endeavour to help you; however our friends are wealthy, they will make money at your expense and nothing will be left for you. It is the same old saw we have been listening to for the last four years and it will continue so after the bill is enacted.
The reason always given is that the opposition has no suggestion to make. This bill affords me, as a humble rural member, an opportunity to offer one. If the hon. minister would include my suggestion in this bill, I readily would support the measure, because the bill then would be helpful to the farmer. Previous to selling his products, the government should see that he grows them. To grow them he must be given the necessary means. I therefore would offer the committee the following suggestion: In each of our parishes, throughout every county there are, at present, at least ten abandoned farms. This is perhaps underestimating the truth, however, I am not exaggerating when I state that, in each parish of Quebec, Ontario and other provinces, at least ten farms, at present, have been abandoned. By whom? By farmers. This bill aims at improving the land where our farmers live. Ten farms by parish and as there are 1,500 municipalities in Quebec, it makes a very large number of farms abandoned. These figures are equally true for other provinces proportionately to their popplation. The endeavours made by the government-and there are some that are very landable which I approve-to help the settlers and unemployed should also be extended to our farmers. It so happens that,

in our rural districts, there are excellent farmers and workers, who, having a large family, wish to purchase adjacent farms which have been abandoned, they cannot do so, however, owing to lack of money. Instead of endeavouring to market the farmers' products, the government should provide them with the means to purchase land. A provision should be embodied in this bill by which the farmer could be granted an amount sufficient to purchase a land that has been cleared, where there is a house and out buildings and where he could settle one of his sons, who the following autumn could, by the sale of his crops, have sufficient to live upon and even get married, make a home for himself and thus be in a position to make use of the services of the blacksmith, the merchant, the doctor and other professional men. That would really be doing good work, and would help the back to the farm movement and would be an inducement to keep on the farm those who like farm life.
In our parishes, at present-I have had some experience-farms can be purchased for $1,500 and even $1,200, by paying $200 cash and $50 per year. These farmers would live on the land and would no further depend on the state. The government would have thus provided them with a home and the whole of Canada would reap the benefit. Such a provision would foe far more beneficial than numerous provisions in this bill, which is veiy obscure. Include such a section and thus afford me an opportunity to vote for this bill. After all, it is preferable to keep in our midst 3,000 sons of our province and 4,000 of Ontario as well as many others from other provinces, instead of their being forced to seek another country. It is better to settle these young men on the land than to endeavour to force upon them profits on products that do not exist and even when they were grown by their fathers, the latter could not dispose of them because the markets had been lost by this government.
That is my suggestion.
Hon. members opposite contend that no suggestion comes from this side; well, this is one. Accept it and include it in the bill. I am expressing my own views; however, a number of members on this side would support such a measure because it would be an efficient remedy. Instead of pretending to help the farming class, the government would really be accomplishing something; even if such a provision has been put forth by a

Marketing Act
member on this side, the government could take all the credit-while the public would be grateful to us.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Achille Verville: The government cannot expect the farmers to benefit from the fact it takes up farming. This bill like others introduced by this government aims at enriching a small group. On behalf of the people, on behalf of my fellow-citizens, I request hon. members opposite to cease making laws to favour the wealthy. Be honest and endeavour to help the farmers, those who produce butter, eggs, pork and beef. Do not attempt after four years to introduce a bill to create markets. Such is not the case. It is simply an attempt to deceive the people who, however, can no longer be fooled.
Be honest! The government have promised that butter would sell at 70 cents per pound, and it sold, on an average, 19 cents for the last four years; they promised that eggs would sell 60 cents a dozen and they sold at 15 cents for the last four years.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Election promises.


Joseph-Achille Verville: The government promised to raise the price of hay. It is true that in Quebec and Ontario it has increased somewhat, but only when farmers had none. The government and members opposite are responsible for such a state of things. That was not to be laid at the door of Providence, for Providence seemed somewhat surprised. Bet the government, but especially the hon. Minister of Agriculture, show their good will by including in this bill the practical suggestion which I have just made. Let them find some remedy to relieve the ills from which our farmers suffer, they who have been left penniless; thus the bill introduced in the house will prove to be of some practical benefit.
I shall support this measure inasmuch as the government agrees to accept my suggestion, otherwise, I shall oppose it for the simple reason that the government is powerless to dispose of the products which have been accumulating on the markets for the last four years. Those that should be helped, at present, are the farmers, especially, those who wish to settle their sons on farms adjacent to theirs and on very reasonable terms.
Some loaners are willing to sacrifice a mortgage of $1,200 for $500. There are people who willingly would make sacrifices, but the
government, themselves, will not do any. Let the government bestir themselves to help the people.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Let them
do something!


Joseph-Achille Verville: I shall
quote a typical case. Recently, a farmer called at my office, the father of eleven children-it appears that a certain U. S. judge finds it criminal to raise such a large family- a good Canadian, a devoted father and devout catholic and, moreover, one of my constituents. He has led a good life and will continue to do so. He purchased a settler's lot and had already cleared 15 acres and had intended to settle his son on it but had not sufficient money, because it would have taken $200 or $300 or even $500 to put the land into shape. He inquired of me whether he could be assisted, I was obliged to inform him that neither the dominion Minister of Agriculture nor the provincial Minister of Agriculture granted any assistance. He was therefore obliged to sacrifice his lot and keep his son at home.
The government have an opportunity to help the farmer by this bill. Let them do so, I beg of them!
I have just quoted an example such as exists not only in Quebec or Ontario but throughout the dominion. If the abject of the bill is to save agriculture and help the farming class, let the government begin by assisting heads of families who wish to settle their sons and own lots close to their farm but who have not the necessary funds to do so.
Those are my suggestions and I beg of the hon. Minister of Agriculture to include them in his bill. Before even regulating the marketing of products, the opportunity must be afforded to farmers and their sons to produce them.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to discuss the principle of the bill on this section, which deals with the title, because I think that would only be prolonging the debate that has already taken place on the principle when the second reading of the bill was before the house. But I wish to ask the minister a question, possibly two, and I do not want to see them meet the fate of the question asked by the hon. member for Ontario which caused at least delay and a good deal of mysticism. I will hedge it around so far as possible to make it perfectly plain, and so that there can be the least opportunity of receiving other than a distinct reply.
Marketing Act

The minister in various speeches at different stages of this bill has stressed quite particularly his desire for cooperation from all sides of the house, and when I heard him express that wish my heart warmed to him. I thought that here was a man who was going to rise superior to party allegiance and' was willing at least to consider the views of others in the house than members of his own party, which certainly was a spirit well calculated in a bill of this kind to produce a serviceable bill and one that would go through expeditiously. But, sir, while the minister gave that lip service to the idea of cooperation I failed to find in his actions any evidence that he would be glad to receive or that he would even allow cooperation. Anyone taking the stand and expressing the desire for cooperation might have refrained from indulging in personalities, as the minister did in his last speech in closing the debate on second reading. That was a course entirely unprovoked unless we must regard it as a crime even to comment on the bill or criticize its very obvious deficiencies.
The minister got a large amount of support, solid support I think, from this corner of the house, supplemented by the two Independents and by two Liberals, and nearly every one of these men who spoke in support of the bill, including the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), the leader of the farmer group in this house, and I am not sure if not some of the members behind the minister-who voted for the second reading-said they did so with the desire that the bill would go to the agriculture committee where its manifest weaknesses, discrepancies and contradictions might be threshed out at greater ease than could possibly be done here. When the minister was pressed to yield that point, the customary thing which has been done before, he would not give way. I do not think there was much spirit of cooperation there.
Then later on we find the minister saying that he had a number of amendments to make to the bill, and the Prime Minister went further than that and said there was a large number of amendments. I have Hansard here, if anyone doubts it. Then the right hon. leader of the opposition, commenting on that fact, suggested, also I think in a spirit of cooperation, that the minister should put these amendments upon Hansard, should read them at the time, so that they would appear in Hansard and be available to us all. But the minister bluntly refused to do so, and while he referred to two amendments that he proposed to introduce he did so vaguely, without 
reference to any particular section merely saying that they were to clarify the bill, giving us no precise indication of the nature of the amendment or where it would come in, in which case we would have had an opportunity of seeing whether it was calculated to carry out the intent behind it.
Later on in the debate before the committee rose I brought the matter up again, and suggested that the minister might well, indeed I begged him to put his amendments in- the votes and proceedings, which would not destroy the continuity of the record in Hansard, but would make the amendments available to us all. But the minister was not willing, or at any rate did not take that action. There is ample precedent for such conduct. In the British House of Commons there is a very distinct rule, a rule hedged around with penalties, that no one, no matter what his position may be in parliament, shall introduce an amendment to a bill without giving notice. That means that the amendment appears on their votes and proceedings, or whatever corresponds to our votes and proceedings. Take the position here. When the Senate sends back a bill with amendments they are not considered in this house until notice has been given of the details of each and every amendment. Those amendments appear in our votes and proceedings and we are therefore able to form an opinion on the actual amendments. We go further than that. There is standing order 113 to be found at page 279 of Beauchesne's rules which provides that in the case of private bills, no important amendment can be moved in committee unless notice has been given. That means, unless it appears in votes and proceedings. The Prime Minister of Canada could not introduce an amendment of any consequence to any private bill, even though it be some tuppeny-ha-penny bill dealing with a bridge or the incorporation of a company to make hair nets or grindstones, unless notice has been given in the ordinary way. I admit that this is not compulsory in connection with government bills but this practice has the sanction of custom. Why does not the minister ask his colleagues what has been the custom in this house in years gone by? Let him ask the Minister of Finance what is the custom in connection with the budget. I recall very clearly, if he does not, that when the Prime Minister was Minister of Finance he introduced a budget containing a great many amendments to the tariff. Partly because of a suggestion of the leader of the opposition and partly through his own initiative he caused to be prepared elaborate

Marketing Act
documents showing the relation and consequence of the amendments proposed to the tariff. He did not need to do that as it was not legally necessary in the presentation of his budget. He could have let us struggle through trying to find out this information the best way we could by asking questions as each item came up but he had the courtesy and good sense to do it in that way. He facilitated the passage of the bill because we had the whole thing in front of us and did not need to ask any questions. I think we all appreciated his courtesy. The cost of printing a few lines in the votes and proceedings would be nothing while the benefit might be the saving of two or three days of debate.
I am quite certain that what I have said meets with the agreement of every hon. member of the house, with the possible exception of the minister himself. He proposes to read out each amendment as we go along. He will stand up and say, "Strike out all the third line after the word 1 and ' and insert these words." There may be considerable noise in the chamber and we may not be able to catch the amendment or not sufficiently appreciate its meaning. Questions will have to be asked and there will be more delay. We will either let it pass in ignorance-I hope that is not his idea-or we will insist on further explanations. Can any hon. member imagine a lawyer pleading a case in court and a judge telling him that the section of the act with which he is dealing has been amended and then reading out the amendment rapidly and expecting the lawyer to base his defence or line of argument upon that? I am certain that if the minister will agree with my suggestion he will greatly facilitate the passage of this bill. I ask him as plainly as I possibly can: Will you not give way to the suggestion I have made and, if not, why not?


Robert Weir: I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken that there is a good deal of force in what he has said. When this question was raised before I stated that consideration would be given but I regret that I have not brought the matter before my colleagues. I shall be glad to do so at the meeting to-morrow of the council and I will then give the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) a reply to his question.


Albert Joseph Brown: Mr. Chairman, I find it
necessary to make some reply to the remarks made this afternoon by the minister. When the committee rose at the last sitting the hon. member for Ontario had asked if this bill implied compulsion in the matter of marketing. A very simple answer could have
been given to that question but the minister has done nothing but skate around it. The minister knows that if this bill goes into effect it will be possible to have, let us say, a compulsory wheat pool. This is a question of outstanding importance in Saskatchewan. It is important also in Alberta; I do not think to the same extent in Manitoba. Should this bill pass it would be possible to establish a compulsory wheat pool under certain conditions. The minister knows just as well as the rest of us that that is what is intended and that that is what is sought by many of those who seek the passing of this legislation. Instead of stating that there was no such implication in the bill he proceeded to define compulsion and asked: Have we compulsion provided for in Canada? Those may not be his exact words but that is their meaning. I answered, "No," thinking, as any other hon. member in the house would have thought, that the compulsion referred to applied to the marketing of our products. The minister then proceeded to give what he considered to be a parallel case and he outlined the way in which our schools are carried on and our roads built. We all know that these matters of public interest are carried on by community effort. I hesitate to say what I think of that kind of argument. I do not think it would be worthy of a debate carried on in one of our country schools.
Apparently the minister does not realize the full implication of the proposals contained in this bill. They are much more far-reaching than he realizes. I should like to quote a few statements which appear already in Hansard and to which reference has already been made. I think these are important enough to be again brought to notice. Speaking on the second reading of this bill I expressed the fear that friction might arise between the provinces in the administration of the legislation. I said:
I see there the possibility of great friction, the possibility of difference arising between the provinces that may strain the bonds of confederation. Let us suppose for a moment that the apple growers of British Columbia view a certain course of action as being in their interest, the apple growers of Ontario take another view, and the apple growers of Nova Scotia still another. Let us suppose that they all want to get into the prairie market. As a consumer of fruit on the prairies I want to see that we can get the kind of apples we want. Yet this board which is to be brought into existence is to have the power to say that British Columbia apples can go to such and such a place, Ontario apples to another place and Nova Scotia apples to another place. *t may be just a prejudice but it is an idea that is strongly held on the prairies, especially
Marketing Act

among those who came from old Ontario, that Ontario apples are just a little better than British Columbia apples.


Alan Webster Neill: Order, order I


Albert Joseph Brown: Mr. Bennett:	What about Nova Scotia
apples?
Mr. Brown: I have not had the privilege of eating many Nova Scotia apples. There was one year in which they came west, and we would be very glad to have the privilege of buying Nova Scotia apples if we find them better than other apples.
I expressed the fear that friction might arise. The Minister of Trade and Commerce sees, as the minister does not see, the far-reaching implications of this bill; for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as quoted 'by the hon. member for Ontario, made this statement:
For instance our friends in Nova Scotia, who are only five or six days distant from the British market can pour their apples in while British Columbia and Ontario might be handicapped in that regard. Or British Columbia might have say 10,000 cases going through by way of the Panama canal in cold storage; the market is in danger of being flooded, and someone from eastern Canada pours his apples in and destroys it. No one, I am sure, desires that.
The hon. member for Ontario, having quoted that statement, made this comment:
Well, may I tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce if I were a Nova Scotia apple grower I would desire it. I would like to take advantage of my geographical situation, and I believe the apple growers of Nova Scotia, generally, will take the same position.
Evidently the Minister of Trade and Commerce appreciates the far-reaching effects of this bill, as the Minister of Agriculture does not; for in advancing reasons for the bill he pointed out that the countries of Europe were setting up quotas applicable to us and that we should need to have this central board in existence to meet the terms of those quotas. Then he proceeds to give what to my mind ought to be the death blow to the bill, so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, when he thinks that the people of Nova Scotia will forego the advantages of their geographical situation. I can imagine that a similar situation might occur again and again. We might wish, as we certainly do wish, that human nature were so unselfish and self-sacrificing that the people of Nova Scotia would be willing to forego that advantage, but it is rather unsafe for us to frame legislation on that supposition. I think we have pointed out a case where friction may very well arise. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has admitted that it is proposed to do certain things. The hon. member for Ontario, speak-

ing I believe what everyone in this house would endorse, said that there would be an objection if any particular community were to be deprived of its geographical advantage. These are some of the things in regard to which there is provision in the bill and we hope that when the minister brings forward his amendments these very grave defects will be corrected.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was rather surprised
at an answer which the minister gave the leader of the opposition. When the leader of the opposition suggested to him that it was possible for this board to control production, the minister said that such power was not given the board. I have read the bill many times and I want to give the minister an opportunity of interpreting for us subsection (f) of section 4, which provides that the board shall, subject to the provisions of the act, have power:
To require any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses and occupations with the board, or to obtain a licence from the board, and such licence shall be subject to cancellation by the board for violation of any provision of this act or regulation made thereunder.
If this board is to have the power indicated in that subsection, either to grant or to withhold a licence from a producer or anyone marketing products, how can the minister argue that it cannot control production? The producer must make application for a licence. I am a producer, let us say: automatically in the first instance, I presume, I get a licence. For some reason, after the first year, the board decides that I shall not have the licence renewed. Can it not by this power control production in regard to all commodities which this bill proposes to market? Will the minister give us his opinion on that point?


Robert Weir: It does not state in section 4 that the producers are registered or licensed for production but for the regulating of the marketing of their product; and the reason the producer is registered or licensed is that the board shall have information as to the quantity of product that is to come forward to be sold. If the scheme required, for example, that in the event of 75 per cent of the producers of any product desiring to do so, they could force the other 25 per cent in, and the provincial government agreed to such a scheme, and if one of the producers in that area insisted on breaking the regulations, his licence could be cancelled, but it would be restored as soon as he conformed to the regulations; otherwise there would be no control.

Marketing Act


John Vallance: Does it say so in the bill
-that the licence will be restored?


Robert Weir: The only reason the licence would be cancelled would be for a violation of the regulations, and if the producer conformed to the regulations the reason for cancelling the licence would disappear.


John Vallance: I suggest, in view of what is taking place now, that if the minister would take the advice that has again been given this afternoon and would place on Hansard the proposed amendments which he is going to bring in it would save a great deal of unnecessary discussion. There may be some amendments to the very clause I am objecting to, and probably the minister has them at the back of his head when he says that the board has not the power to control production. Possibly there is an amendment that makes it clear that the board has not that power, but I argue that subsection (f) of section 4 does provide for control of production by the withholding of the licence, because it says that the licence shall be subject to cancellation. But it does not say anywhere that after certain things have been done the board will renew the licence. I suggest to the minister that as soon as it is possible he should place the amendments at the disposal of the committee so that we could intelligently discuss the subject. If he did that I think the bill would go through much more quickly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Ontario does not happen to be in the house this afternoon, and therefore I wish to revert to what he said to the minister the other day. I would ask the minister if he would not give us a brief, concise and clear answer to the question put to him. The question put by the hon. member for Ontario will be found at page 2813 of Hansard.
Does not this bill imply compulsory cooperation? I am opposed to its compulsory features. If you say that there is no compulsion, that it is purely voluntary, then naturally I withdraw my objections. I am for cooperation.
That brings out the significance of a direct reply. The hon. member for Ontario said- and I think all on this side agree with him- that if this measure, as respects cooperation in marketing, is a purely voluntary one, and does not contain elements of compulsion, then we shall have little or no difference with hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to its main features and we can make rapid headway in the discussion of its provisions. On the other hand, if it is a measure that implies compulsory cooperation, it is of importance
that that fact should be definitely and clearly stated. On the following page the minister himself began to reply to the hon. member for Ontario in these words:
He has asked this question: Does not this bill imply compulsory cooperative marketing?
Mr. Moore (Ontario): Enable compulsory cooperative marketing.
Mr. Weir (Melfort): I understood my hon. friend to use the word imply.
Mr. Moore (Ontario): Enable. If I used the word imply I will substitute the word enable, if I may-enable compulsory cooperative marketing.
That is the question just in four words. Does the bill enable compulsory marketing or compulsory cooperative 'marketing? The answer which I think the house is entitled to receive from the minister is that it either does or does not. The minister is in a somewhat different position from that of most hon. members; he is the minister of the government in charge of the bill and the house has a right to expect from him very specific, definite and clear answers. In what he has said this afternoon-and I hope he will tell me if I am wrong-he has defended compulsion. He is quite within his rights in so doing; that I would expect he would wish to do if the bill embodies features of compulsion. It may be that compulsion is justified; that is for him to say. We are not taking objection to the minister defending any clause in the bill; all we want to know is whether it contains features which enable compulsory marketing. Would the minister advise the house as to that in a direct manner, and without circumlocution?


Robert Weir: I am sure the right hon. gentleman speaks with authority on the question of circumlocution. This afternoon I answered as clearly as it is possible to do, to what extent this bill would involve compulsion. I think hon. members will agree that no controlled marketing can be effected without control or without compulsion in a degree.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I am right in assuming that the bill does enable compulsory marketing?-


Robert Weir: As I stated before in some detail somewhat earlier this afternoon, under those conditions it enables compulsory marketing with qualification; it does not say that compulsory marketing is always resorted to but the bill enables it in certain directions.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Suppose sixty or seventy-five per cent of the growers of any natural

Marketing Act
product desire to form themselves into a cooperative marketing organization and through their local or provincial boards come to the minister here with a scheme for the marketing of that product: can the marketing board under this bill compel the other forty or twenty-five per cent that are growing the same commodity to go into this marketing scheme, or can it not? I would like to have a direct answer to that question.


Robert Weir: That is a possibility under certain conditions.


Mr. MARCIL:: The conditions, I understand, must be the consent of the provincial governments, so this bill is subject to provincial approval or else it becomes a dead letter in that respect.


Robert Weir: I stated this afternoon that in so far as certain schemes are concerned, they would be submitted to the provincial government because it has jurisdiction to deal with questions of property and civil rights.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The minister said: "that is a possibility under certain conditions." Are the conditions under which it might happen mentioned anywhere in the bill? What are the conditions?


Robert Weir: They are in so far as they can be set out in detail.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will the minister tell me what clause in the bill takes care of that? I cannot find it.


Robert Weir: I thought I gave a clear answer this afternoon as to the relationship between compulsion and this bill. If hon. members wish, I will repeat it, but I am quite certain that if the hon. member for Provencher will read Hansard to-morrow he will have the answer to his question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister one other question in order to get the exact information? On the second of May I said to him that I thought many persons believed this bill was not a marketing bill as they understood the use of the word "marketing." That is to say, they agreed that the bill provided for regulation of production and sale, but that it had in it no provision enabling a board to market the product of producers. They could not find any such provisions within the four corners of the bill. My words to the minister were these:
You have not within the four corners of this bill any provision for a board that is going to assist in marketing the natural products of this pountry as producers have been led to believe is the ease. If the minister will just tell us
[Mr. Beaubien.l
where are the provisions that make this a marketing bill as marketing is understood by those who are interested in having their natural products sold abroad through the assistance of the state we may perhaps determine whether or not even this short title is justified.
That is what I said as it appears in Hansard of May 2, 1934, at page 2753. The minister replied as follows:
Mr. Weir (Melfort): The fundamental principle of the bill is the regulation of marketing, and that has to do with marketing; there is no doubt of that.	.
Mr. Mackenzie King: The regulation of production and sale.	.
Mr. Weir (Melfort): Not the regulation of production but the regulation of marketing. There is also in the bill a clause that states that the dominion marketing board has power to buy and sell and to name an agent to buy and sell, which is marketing.
I have looked through the bill since the minister made that statement and I cannot find the clause giving the dominion marketing board power to buy and sell. Would the minister kindly read that clause to us, and indicate wherein it is sufficiently broad to enable the bill to be described as a marketing bill in the sense in which I have referred to the word "marketing"?


Robert Weir: In the first place, as I stated before when the right hon. gentleman asked the question, regulation of marketing or the direction as to through what channels products will be bought and sold, in itself directly bears on marketing, but clause 9 on page 6 states:
Notwithstanding that no petition in relation to any natural product has been filed, the minister may, if he is satisfied that the trade and commerce in the said product is injuriously affected by the lack of a local board to regulate such product, at any time propose a scheme for the marketing of such product.
And the word "marketing" is defined to include buying and selling.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILL



SECOND READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Aziz Koudsy, otherwise known as Eddie Coudsy.-Mr. Gray.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a com-

Marketing Act
munication from two members notifying me that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation, viz:
Of Thomas Herbert Lennox, Esquire, member for the electoral district of North York.
I have accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith.-Mr. Weir (Melfort)-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: On the twenty-fifth of January last this bill No. 51 was forecast in the speech from the throne. Since then winter has gone, spring is upon us, and summer is not far away, yet we have not passed even the first clause of the bill. I wonder whose fault it is.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: Ask those boys
behind you.


William Richard Motherwell: I am beginning to
have a hunch that the government would not mind dropping this bill at the feet of the opposition.


Mr. YOUNG:: We don't want it.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I do not
want that to happen. If the government want to get the bill through in reasonable time they should expedite it by sending it to the right committee, the committee that every bill went to except one during the administration that preceded this, and the same with this present government so far as I can find from the records in the library. Every bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture in this administration has gone to the agriculture committee except the first one, the root vegetables bill. And my good friend had a little trouble with it. Every one who has had to do with a bill amended two or three times knows it is very difficult to get it through. My good friend did not experiment with any more in that way; he afterwards sent them all to the agriculture committee, as far as I can find out. No member of the government has yet given a satisfying alibi for not sending this bill to the same
committee and affording it the same facilities for improvement or amendment as were given to all these other agricultural bills. Just for curiosity, what was the one exception mentioned? The Prime Minister gave the only alibi, and it was a mighty poor one. I am sorry he is not here; I hope he will read what I have to say about it, because I think he spoke without knowledge on the matter. That was a bill to amend the Fruit Act, chapter 3 of 1924. There was a mistake of one word in the French version, it said eighty where it should have been eighty-five. It was very important to have that corrected, sufficiently important to introduce a bill. That was the only bill that came to this committee of the whole, and it is about the size for this committee to deal with, if we are to judge it by what is going on now. All the others, that were important, went to the agriculture committee. The Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced certain grain bills, and they were sent to the agriculture committee also. The Grain Act was sent there, both by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce and by his predecessor. Why did they send it there? Because they thought it was the committee that the house had set up for that purpose. Why should they send it to the banking and commerce committee? That is a committee specially picked for the purpose indicated by its name. Then there was another bill, concerning immigration and colonization, I think it was in 1929, under the late Hon. Mr. Forke, but that is not material. The investigation was wide and the matter was important. I have a book here containing the record of it, at least two and a half inches thick. The hearing lasted for weeks and certain conclusions were arrived at. It was dealt with by the committee on agriculture and colonization because questions of immigration come under its auspices. And that name, agriculture and colonization, has continued since before the beginning of this century, with the result that anything concerning colonization and immigration that required investigation was brought before that committee. So I do not think there is another standing committee of the House of Commons that is so comprehensive in its scope. Yet after bally-hooing this marketing act all over creation as the most important that has ever been brought down-and it is important-the government will not submit it to this important committee on agriculture. They have no precedent for not doing so except this little one-word bill already referred to, brought down in regard to grading apples with just
Marketing Act

one word to change in the French version. That is about the size of the ministry over there, outside of the Minister of Agriculture- a one act government. I except the Minister of Agriculture from that stricture, although I must say he has not done much credit to himself in his very meagre explanation of this bill. Why? Because he is held back by his colleagues; that is the only reason I know of. The minister has two officers sitting in front of him who could tell us more about this bill in five minutes than we have been told up to date, yet we cannot get access to them. Did you ever hear of such a strange, distorted view of things?-and yet people will tell us there is no difference between the Tory and Liberal parties. Here is an instance of all the difference in the world. I see the Minister of Justice sitting over there, and I suppose a finer hon. gentleman does not stand in shoe leather. If he had his way I know this bill would go through the regular route, namely the committee on agriculture. Although the Prime Minister is not in the house, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is in his seat, will do for my purposes. In this house I have spoken more than once about the hydra-headed character of the Department of Agriculture. I do not know of any other department of agriculture in the world which has two heads, but we know that in this country the Minister of Trade and Commerce heads the cereal end and the Minister of Agriculture heads the rest of the department. So we have a double-headed, or hydra-headed proposition, and because of that we have been running up against difficulties all the time. In this particular connection I am not discussing the respective merits of these two gentlemen. I am trying to bring to the attention of the committee the folly of having two heads to any concern while some of the other departments have no head at all, not even a nominal one.


Mr. SPENCE:: That was when you were there.


William Richard Motherwell: This is not a
laughing matter. I do not wish to be sitting here all summer simply to get a little bill through the House of Commons, but I want to get it through in some sort of decent shape, or at least in better shape than it is now. We cannot do that by vainly endeavouring to pass it through this large committee.
There may have been some excuse for adding fisheries to the bill, because in the old country a precedent has been established there by combining agriculture and fisheries. When we include 'fisheries we find that we
[Mr. Motherwell.!
have a triple-headed proposition. I wonder how many fishermen asked to be included in this bill. But when you add forestry and thereby include the Department of the Interior you have a quadra-headed monstrosity the like of which we have not seen in the world. Yet the government seem to think that they have a little NRA puppy of their own off the big Rooseveltian mastiff. They all want to climb into this life-boat so that they may be pulled ashore in political safety. It is a wonder that the whole of the cabinet are not in it, because they will all need a place of refuge before the electoral storm subsides.
Let us read what was said in the speech from the throne so far as the forecast of this bill is concerned, and let us consider whether or not the present bill resembles that which was forecast. At the instance of the Prime Minister His Excellency said:
You will he invited to consider legislation designed to facilitate the efficient and profitable marketing of live stock and agricultural products.
That is the forecast-"live stock and agricultural products." So much for the forecast; let us see what the hindcast is. Here it is: "This act may be cited as the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934." That includes pretty nearly everything outside. It means tha/t under this bill one could make and sell whisky. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni was quite right when he said that one could set up a still and sell all the booze he wanted. I believe water power could be interpreted as coming under it. And what is water power or hydro power but turbined water-processed water, if you like? I do not think my right hon. leader was a bit too extravagant in his interpretation of the interpretation clause of the bill. He may have included too much, but he left out far more than he included. Consequently it is quite as wide as he suggested and, I believe, a little bit wider. I say to my hon. friends opposite that if they have any idea of dropping this bill in our lap over here they had better amend it first or they will be flayed alive for it in the country. No man on two legs could defend it in its present shape. What is more, it is so interlocked, interwoven and everything else of an "inter" nature that you could not get it started. That has occurred with many similar bills in other countries. Much of it is entirely new legislation. I suppose the men in other countries are no more supermen than the men in this country. Even in Great Britain

Marketing Act
the bill would not start itself. In its first year, namely 1929, it would not operate under its own steam. That is the reason such an extraordinary and unfair showing can be made against this type of legislation.
I should like to see the minister bring to the committee all those decrepit, derelict bills, European and other marketing bills, which have fallen by the wayside, and make an effort to avoid the difficulties which confronted them. But he has accentuated his difficulties in the present bill by trying to gobble up everything else, to bring it under the present legislation thereby making his position more difficult and creating more opposition all along the line. So, you see, the government seems to have got off on the wrong foot, from the very beginning. I think everybody knows the history of this legislation. Out in British Columbia the growers have been like harts panting for the water brooks in their anxiety for this legislation when amended. They have been wanting this legislation for years. We are told by the representative grower from Chilliwack that if this bill is passed the seven years legal war will be over. Nearly everybody out there is behind it, because they feel they cannot get along without their previous marketing activities being made constitutional by the present legislation. That, in itself, would be a great advance over conditions which prevailed before, because in the past every commodity had to be dealt with by separate authorization.
I have quoted from the speech from the throne delivered on January 25 words showing chat this should be an agricultural marketing act. On March 26, a little more than two months afterwards, members of the government change their minds and say, "It will be a conglomerate bill taking in nearly every natural product under the sun." Of course, the government have a right to change their minds; as a matter of fact if they like they have a right to bring down no bill at all. Quite frequently legislation which is forecast in the speech from the throne never comes before the house. All hon. members know that. If the government can do that, certainly they can change a 'bill. However, before I go further I should like to ask the minister if the bill forecast in the speech from the throne, an extract from which I have just read, is the same bill as the one now before the committee.


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, it does not look much like the original design, and it will look less like it by the time it is passed. It
would need to be changed, if it is to be of any use. Let the minister take the committee into his confidence and tell it why the change was made. Did the fishermen come from the east and from the west and do like the British Columbia milk producers and the associated growers of the Okanagan and Fraser valleys, respectively? Did they rush down on the ministry after the big meeting in Regina which was held in July or about the first of August, at the time of the international wheat congress, which was to be followed by a big meeting in Toronto? We are told that they even rough drafted the bill, and pretty nearly put a gun at the head of the government demanding that their draft become law. That is as far as they could go. What I want to know is this: When the proposals left the hands of those gentlemen, did they expect a bill like this? I am sure there are many features in this bill about which they never dreamed. Of course I do not suppose they care very much about the supplementary features, so long as they, personally, are not affected. I will say, however, that some features they did want do not appear in the bill. Could we have even a hint from the minister as to whether or not certain pooling amendments were to be made it would be encouraging. Perhaps he has given a hint, but at times his hints are so terribly wide and capable of so many interpretations that we do not know what to make of them. Then, I am to believe this is the same bill which was forecast. Will the minister tell us why a marketing bill was forecast in the speech from the throne and then a bill brought down which is just about as much unlike a proper marketing bill as anything could be? Did the lumbermen also, the men who are getting out saw logs and fence posts and telephone poles come down here like they did from Chilliwack and the Fraser river demanding that the natural products-dairy and fruit-in which they are interested be inserted in this bill? The only reason Ithis bill, this uncanny freak marketing bill is brought down is to get through the next election. That is what it looks like. Why not let it go to the agriculture committee and let us get out of here with a much better bill. I told this house some time ago that there was going to be a little political jamboree in Saskatchewan about next month and I do not want to be fooling around here at that time, but it looks as if I will be if further delay continues. I know, Mr. Chairman, that that is not a valid reason in itself, but I think it will appeal to every member present, especially those from Ontario, who are in the same fix. The only dif-
Marketing Act

ference is that they have not so far to go as I have. The minister should take the committee into his confidence, and tell us why this change. Or, if he says he cannot, I shall not bother him further.
I think the Minister of Pensions, whom I see looking pleasantly at me, spoke on behalf of this bill and reminded the house that it was not strictly an agricultural baby and therefore we had no right to claim that it should go exclusively to the agriculture committee, although he was fair enough to admit that it was predominantly an agricultural bill. I think he was wanting to go back to the maritimes with this bill as a life saver, and they need a life saver badly down there. I do not know why the Minister of the Interior would want this bill particularly, unless it is that he did not get any federal assistance for his Turtle mountain park, but maybe there will be something for that before the session is over. Anyway I ask the Minister of Agriculture to tell the committee why this extraordinary change was made, and if he shows signs of getting up I will sit down; if he does not, I will continue.
Natural products! Why, Mr. Chairman, it is an orphan, this bill. It is nobody's in particular; it is everybody's in general, and it is no wonder it is having the experience it is having right now. What did I call it just now? A quadra-headed monstrosity. Is it any wonder the government has difficulty in presenting this baby to the world? The best veterinary doctor in the world will be required about the time parturition takes place. There will have to be a surgical operation that may endanger the marketing baby, but it will have to be done to save the mother. That is exactly what this bill is for, to save the mother, or the father, or whatever you like to call the government. It is difficult to give birth to anything with four heads, and we want an explanation why three of them cannot be decapitated, and leave the fourth to be dealt with properly in the bill. I will retire now in favour of the minister and maybe have something more to say afterwards.


Mr. GRAY:: This afternoon, Mr. Chairman-


William Richard Motherwell: Hold on a minute. I think the minister should answer my questions.


Robert Weir: First, as to why this bill has not been submitted to the agriculture committee, I think that has been made clear on more than one occasion.
[Mr. Motherwell. 1


William Richard Motherwell: Clear as mud.


Robert Weir: The second question was whether this bill was based on the statement made in the speech from the throne. It is, and in addition to agricultural products the bill includes the products of the sea, the lakes and the forests. I think those are the questions that were raised, Mr. Chairman.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister didn't say anything about the surgical operation on the three heads too many, or trying to give birth to a freak with four heads. He didn't say why three should not be decapitated and leave the bill something like what it should be. What will the farmers in this house say regarding this many headed monster when they go back home? Go over the bill and you will at least see that we have something to instal in the museum. I think the government should be properly and heartilj' ashamed of themselves, for they had the advantage of a precedent-about twenty-five other marketing bills all over the world, including the British act, and I invite them now to quote one act that in the least resembles this critter here. It is not to be found in the heavens above, the waters below nor indeed anywhere else. If the government does not want to follow or avoid precedent, let them at least present something that is reasonable, workable, and sensible.
Where is the Minister of Marine? I wonder that he is not up on his hind legs telling us why 'he wants this bill. Or the Minister of Mines. Somebody should move an amendment to this thing that minerals be included. Then what would the government say? They have just as much right to put minerals in as some of the things we find in this bill. Possibly it was thought that one life saver was enough, and since the Minister of the Interior was brought into this bill, there was no need for them both.
But look how illogical this bill is. Of all the harebrained, rattle brained bills in creation, I never saw the like of it-and yet I supported it on the second reading. You see, Mr. 'Chairman, the position I am in. I have got to rake the blooming thing over again with the aid of the minister, to make something decent and effective out of the bill because I voted for the second reading. Let the government take the breeching straps off the Minister of Agriculture and give him freedom to do what he likes with this bill, and we will make a real worth while bill out of it before it leaves this house at prorogation. That is my belief or I would not have

Marketing Act
voted for the second reading. If I had thought that the bill was going to go through in the shape it was when introduced, I would have nailed it right there. But because I believed that there was a small modicum of horse sense in this government and that we could cooperate in making this a real bill- and we have had no cooperation from the minister yet-or his colleagues either. I have to partially appear as joint father to this abnormal bill, and that is why I am interested in making something out of it; but the government wont let me. They are only the adopted father anyhow. It is the fruit growers and the milk producers of British Columbia who are the real father of it. The government are only the foster father. I do not know exactly what I am unless it is the nurse for the occasion or something like that and whose services seem unacceptable. But putting all joking aside, believing as I do that there was sufficient good in the bill, a nucleus around which something worth while might be built, I voted for the second reading in the hope that we could turn out a bill that the government might be proud of and one that the producers of Canada would express their pleasure at. But if you wait and wait until you are crowded and then put it through the way it is, the government will be the laughing stock of the country. If I were looking at it from the political standpoint pure and simple, I would let them hop to it, put it through the way it is. Then if the bill would not do the producers much good, it certainly would not do the government any good. Look at the government's glaring incapacity to handle this bill after they have produced it. It is so unnatural for a Tory government to bring forth such a bill that having begotten it they know not how to care for it. They do not know the best committee to send it to. Will the Minister of Justice get up like the splendid gentleman he is and tell us why this bill has not been sent to the agriculture committee? Why should this whole house be worried about it? I am sure the professional members would be glad to get rid of it.


James Houston Spence: Why do you worry the committee so long?


William Richard Motherwell: I heard a voice. I think it was the hon. member for Parkdale.


James Houston Spence: Mr. Chairman, is there any order in the committee? Is the hon. gentleman to be allowed to repeat his speech over and over again? I think he should be called to order. He has his conglomeration together-


William Richard Motherwell: If the hon. gentleman is blathering at me I will remind him that the records will show that I did not raise my voice the last day this bill was before the house except for about five words as an interjection. I did not say one word this afternoon.


James Houston Spence: Why did you support the first reading of the bill and then block it night after night?


William Richard Motherwell: Have I spoken forty minutes?


James Houston Spence: You have spoken forty minutes ten times over and you did not say anything any time.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. gentleman is ballyhooing about nothing. If he wants to get up perhaps I had better sit down and give him a chance. Oh, I see as usual he has nothing to say except interrupt.


James Houston Spence: The fellow behind you will take up another half hour.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we were able to wring from the minister the admission that there were certain compulsory features in this bill. He was asked a direct question by my right hon. leader some days ago, which question was repeated on Friday by the hon. member for Ontario and again this afternoon. While admitting that there were compulsory features in the bill, the minister tried to qualify that admission. Hon. members opposite have tried to create the impression throughout Canada that this is a cooperative measure but we on this side are beginning to get used to measures of this kind. Last year we had a bill introduced by the Minister of Railways for the compulsory cooperation of the two railroads and now we have this bill. While the cooperation features have been emphasized by hon. gentlemen opposite, by the minister in particular, as were the cooperative features of the railway bill, I have taken the trouble to look over the bill-I did this rather hurriedly and I may have missed something-to find out what compulsory features there are and what powers are to be given to the boards to be created. I am against the compulsory features to be found in the bill. Like my right hon. leader I am quite prepared to support any cooperative measures but in looking over the bill I find there are but very few. On the other hand, I think I shall be able to prove to the satisfaction of the minister and the committee that there are twenty-three separate clauses entailing compulsion and giving the boards
Marketing Act


Robert Weir: I believe the hon.
member stated that he is in favour of orderly marketing. Would he state how he expects to have orderly or controlled marketing without control or compulsion?


Ross Wilfred Gray: I did not suggest that I was
in favour of orderly marketing; I said I was in favour of cooperative marketing. I repeat, are we Canadians who have boasted of our freedom to go around with numbers on our backs?
10.	To compel any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to obtain licences from the board.
11.	To compel full information relating to the production and marketing of the natural products from the persons engaged therein.
12.	To compel periodic returns to be made by persons engaged in the production and marketing of the regulated product.

13.	To compel the production and inspection of the books of the persons engaged in the production and marketing of the regulated product.
14.	To compel the persons engaged in the production and marketing of the regulated product to be subjected to the inspection of their premises by persons to be appointed by the board. The Minister of Justice will bear me out when I say that under certain acts power is given to make inspections but that power is never granted without certain preliminaries. An information must be laid before a magistrate or whoever is empowered to issue a warrant; certain officers are issued writs of assistance, but we recognize that these are extraordinary powers. This bill will give not only the power to inspect the books of a person producing or marketing the regulated product, but the power to persons to be appointed by this board to go upon premises to inspect as they see fit.
15.	To compel those engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to pay for services rendered in respect to all or any portion of the regulated product.
16.	To compel those engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to pay any necessary expenditure authorized under the act.
17.	To compel those engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to pay after legal action, on the evidence of the chief executive officer alone, the amount found due for necessary expenditure.
18.	To compel those engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to be subjected to the powers of a local board created under the act.
19.	To compel restriction of any product imported into Canada as defined by this act.
20.	To compel restriction of the exporting of any product as defined by this act.
21.	To compel the licensing of importers of the regulated product as defined by this act.
22.	To compel those engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to be confronted with the possibility of expropriation of their real property-and I expressly say that this is not a power that should be given under this act.
23.	To compel by the force of law, as an indictable offence, anyone engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to appear before a magistrate or a judge, such magistrate or judge being clothed with the authority under this act to fine up to $5,000, or to imprison for a term of two years, anyone considered to be acting to the detriment or against the interests of the public.

Marketing Act
I ask the minister, as I ask this house: Is this a cooperative or is it a compulsory measure? And I ask the minister, further, whether he has been quite fair to the committee. After having been asked several times he finally admitted that there were certain compulsory features and he even qualified that as Hansard to-morrow will show. I have outlined, perhaps not all but certainly a large number of the compulsory features contained in this bill, and I ask him whether he will now qualify as he did this afternoon the compulsory features of Bill 51.


Robert Weir: The hon. member (Mr. Gray) has stated in the first place that the committee was able to wring from me the admission that there was compulsion in this bill, and he also says that my statement was made with qualifications. It was made with qualifications, because I believe it is possible to have set up under this bill schemes that will not call for compulsion in any such way as the hon. member has suggested. My hon. friend gets back again to this old cry: Are we to be compelled to do this? Are we to lose our liberty? He says that he agrees entirely with his leader. If he does, his leader, if I remember correctly, moved an amendment and stated in his address that hon. gentlemen opposite would be in favour of orderly marketing. Well, I ask the hon. member this very simple question: How can we have orderly marketing without control or some degree of compulsion? Therein I believe lies the secret of the basis of opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite. They wish to give the impression that in orderly marketing, as they advocate it, there would be no control, which would be typical of their attitude towards this bill and their attitude towards agriculture during the last three years and prior to that time, that is to say, something innocuous, something which they could talk about but which really did not mean very much.
The right hon. gentleman opposite dwelt at length on Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights and then registered strong objection against anything compulsory. Surely we all agree that the very basis of our civilization, of our constitution and of our national life is compulsory cooperation, because we believe that in that compulsory cooperation we have our fullest freedom. Cooperation means working together, forced to work together.


Edward James Young: Forced-the chain gang.


Robert Weir: The hon. member for Weyburn interrupts. The hon. member 74726-184
for Ontario invited us to take a world tour, visiting all the countries in the world. I presume that, as is usual in world tours, we should see some superficial things in each country, but we should miss the real picture.
I would invite the hon. member for Weyburn and the hon. member for Ontario to visit some of our own local districts and give them, as they have given here, an orderly marketing bill accompanied by a copy of Magna Charta and -the Bill of Rights. Here may I say in passing that I take second place to no one in my respect for what is meant by Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, but I do object to hon. gentlemen on any side of the house twisting Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights and freedom and liberty into all conceivable contorted shapes and forms to meet a political argument which they think will result in gain for them in garnering a few votes throughout the country. May I say to the hon. member who took his seat a moment ago (Mr. Gray), and who resents com-plusion so much, that I think he will admit that someone on his behalf was compelled to register his birth, that he was compelled to take out a licence when he got married, and that someone will have to obtain a death certificate after he dies.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I did not intend to speak on -the bill at all; I felt it was a measure that affected farmers more particularly. However, I will try to give an unbiassed diant on it. I do not believe that any political party has all the virtues, and if those responsible for the passing of the bill are wrong in their judgment they will suffer for it.
I think the principle of the bill is in conformity with world forces and world opinion. In my opinion it is an attempt to change anarchy into orderliness in the marketing of the products of the country. I was very much amused when one of the previous speakers this evening, a member of the legal profession, discussed the question of compulsion. I do not know of any group in the community that has benefited more by compulsion than the lawyers. They have complete control of the situation. They insist that their own managers or business agents sitting on the bench shall judge the actions of their fellow men. I am not objecting to that, but if they find this system of organization so beneficial, why not give the farmers the same right and opportune ities to enjoy it themselves? There are in the house many men of the medical profession, and I think we will all agree that the compulsory cooperation which governs the medical and surgical callings is necessary and in line

Marketing Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the hon. member who has just spoken has. by his reference to the subject of education, indicated perhaps more clearly than anyone else has done thus far, wherein the difference exists between the point of view of hon. gentlemen on this side and that of himself and hon. gentlemen opposite. The liberal party in this or any other country has never opposed government action with respect to education.

Marketing Act
As a matter of fact, most of the educational laws in the old land and in this owe their origin very largely to Liberal governments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a matter of history. Hon. members may laugh, but it is true.
The point, however, I wish to make is this: It is one thing to have laws respecting education enacted at the instance of duly constituted legislative bodies, and quite another thing to allow education to be regulated by self interested groups wherever they may happen to be located, apart altogether from representative institutions. If my hon. friend has read this bill with care, he will see that the essence of it is not legislation by this parliament to regulate or promote orderly marketing but to give authority to self interested groups themselves quite apart from any legislative body, to make regulations which are to be regarded as and have the force of laws and which are to apply to the community as a whole. It is to give to a self interested group power to create offences, not to leave that power in the hands of parliament which exists for the purpose of protecting the rights and liberties of the people, but to take it away from parliament and to put it into the hands of self interested groups. Parliament is to make the penalties in advance, the self interested groups are to designate the offences to which the penalties are to apply. When hon. members on this, side speak of voluntary cooperation, they mean that they are ready to further any legislation that will enable voluntary groups to come together in order to carry out in an orderly way the business of marketing or any other business that is in the public interest; that they would be prepared to go whatever lengths this parliament itself may think wise with respect to the regulations that are to govern generally, but that those regulations must be made a part of the law of the land and so enacted as to be known to everyone.
Hon. members opposite keep alluding to my reference to the Magna Charta. I made it designedly; I expected to hear them repeat over and over again: We are being asked to go back to the days of the Magna Charta. But I hope hon. gentlemen will come to realize that in the Magna Charta there is one clause that is the basis of all our rights and freedom, and that is that a man shall not be dispossessed of his rights or property or have his life put in jeopardy except by the judgment of his peers, and by the law of the land. Under this legislation, hon. members opposite propose to make men liable to have their 74726-184J
persons imprisoned and their property taken from them, not by the law of the land as hitherto understood, law made by this parliament, but by regulations of self constituted self interested groups that may be successful in drawing up a scheme and having it approved by the governor in council. That is the objection which we are taking to this measure, and I am sure the hon. member for East Hamilton, if he will study this legislation and realize its implications, will discover that it is of a very different order from enactments with respect to education and that far from there being any differences in the point of view of hon. gentlemen on this side and himself with respect to regulations such as are set forth in educational acts, there is no difference whatever.
I agree with the hon. minister when he says that you cannot have regulation at the instance of the state without some element of compulsion. All law implies compulsion. Regulation that is made by this parliament applicable to the country as a whole, which fixes penalties known in advance, penalties determined by this parliament, which is representative of all classes and groups- that kind of regulation I for one am prepared to support if it can be shown, to be in the interest of the country generally, and with respect to marketing I believe much of it can be shown to be in the public interest, and to be necessary. But I cannot support a measure that takes away from this parliament altogether and gives to local boards or even to a central board the power to create offences, and which simply permits this parliament to name in advance the penalty that may be attached to offences as so created, to say for example that a man shall be subject to imprisonment for two years and to a fine running up to 85,000, without knowing to what offence that particular penalty is to be made applicable. Equally I cannot support a measure which takes away from this parliament all control over the expenditure necessary in connection with the administration of a law of this kind, and leaves it to bodies not yet formed or to the governor in council to take out of the consolidated revenue of the country whatever amounts they may think necessary therefor. These things undermine the power of parliament and individual liberty. That is the reason why we on this side are opposing the compulsory aspects I have referred to. It is not opposition to regulation for the purpose of orderly marketing; let me make that very clear. Any measure looking towards that end which the ministry may bring in that will set forth reasonable regula-
Marketing Act

tions, define offences, and that will be in the nature of a law known to all parts of the country will receive from us cordial approval. It is, however, a very different thing to ask this house to give to one group in British Columbia and to another group in Quebec and to another group in Nova Scotia the right to frame any scheme they please and attach to violations of these several schemes penalties which subject persons to fine and imprisonment. When it comes to creating offences, fixing penalties and generally to the making of laws, then it seems to me it is necessary to have regard for those safeguards that have been made applicable to all representative institutions. The reason we have a franchise act, the reason we have an elections act, the reason we have a secret ballot, and numerous other provisions and safeguards with respect to the election of members of parliament, is to ensure that when legislation is enacted all interested parties will be represented, and that the voice which creates offences and penalties shall be the voice of the people as a whole, not merely the determination of an interested group in a given section or locality. Such legislation as this is subversive entirely of all that parliamentary institutions stand for, and it is to that subversion that we take such strong objection.


Edward James Young: Mr. Chairman, the other
day when this bill was before the house the hon. member for Ontario asked the minister if the bill did not provide for compulsory cooperation. It was a simple, direct question, that could have been answered in a single sentence. The minister in his reply talked all around the matter but did not answer the question. Again this evening the hon. member for West Lamb ton pointed out numerous instances in the bill where compulsion is provided for, and again the minister in his reply did not touch the point.


Robert Weir: May I interrupt?
Twice at least this afternoon I stated very explicity my interpretation of compulsion as embodied in this bill. I resent very much the attempt of the hon. member to leave the impression that I did not.


Edward James Young: I was not in the house this afternoon and do not know what the minister said then. My reference was to what he said Friday afternoon and again this evening. My hon. friend from East Hamilton says that the Liberal party in opposing this bill are in the position of King Canute who thought he could turn back the tide. We do not think we can turn back the tide, but we do not

think it necessary to plunge headlong into the tide. And we know that one of the most industrious nations on the face of this earth when they found the tide submerging their land built dykes to hold it back. It is this rising tide-


Humphrey Mitchell: They have a marketing bill too.


Edward James Young: And they are sorry for it.
That same nation, I say, built dykes to hold back the tide, and in this country, seeing this movement all over the world and in our own country to invade the rights of our people, to undermine our liberties, it is necessary to join together and, if possible, hold back that tide. I have before me Lord Hewart's book on The New Despotism.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The
Prime Minister's favourite.


Edward James Young: The Prime Minister's favourite when he was leader of the opposition. I have no doubt that after the next election he will be quoting from it again.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: He will not be here
then.


Edward James Young: The book is a protest,
written with the idea of pointing out to the people how their liberties are being steadily invaded by a numerous and powerful bureaucracy who seek to make of themselves the one power in the land. Lord Hewart points out that in the old days when a man wished to become a tyrant and deprive the people of their freedom he defied parliament, but later it was discovered that that system did not work, so the would-be usurper adopted the more astute method of using parliament. As Lord Hewart says:
To this end let him. under parliamentary forms, clothe himself with despotic power, and then, because the forms are parliamentary, defy the law courts.
This course will prove tolerably simple if he can (a) get legislation passed in skeleton form; (b) fill up the gaps with his own rules, orders, and regulations; (c) make it difficult or impossible for parliament to check the said rules, orders and regulations; (d) secure for them the force of statute; (e) make his own decision final; ff) arrange that the fact of his decision shall be conclusive proof of its legality; (g) take power to modify the provisions of statutes; and (h) prevent and avoid any sort of appeal to a court of law.
In reading over that paragraph, Mr. Speaker, and reading this bill I could not but be struck with the idea that whoever drafted that bill had those rules distinctly in his mind, for all of them except one is embodied in this bill, and that one is provided for in another way.

Marketing Act
Let us look at them: "(a) get legislation passed in skeleton form." This bill is a skeleton bill. It does not tell how our goods are to be marketed; it provides for the setting up of boards which will devise schemes of their own, those schemes, without submission to the people, will be declared law, and the gaps will be filled in as provided in (b), These are to be the laws, the rules, orders and regulations of these various boards of schemers who are going to have control of our marketing. Then, "(c) make it difficult or impossible for parliament to check the said rules, orders and regulations." Once this legislation is in effect; once these various groups of schemers come together with their schemes and have them made into law, neither this parliament nor any provincial legislature nor the producers nor the consumers of this country will have any effective control over the actions of these boards or schemers. Then, "(d) secure for them the force of statute." That is provided in section 6, which says:
(1)	When a scheme has been approved by the governor in council, the minister shall give public notice thereof in the Canada Gazette.
(2)	The provisions of the scheme as approved shall have the force of law, and the local board shall, from the date of the publication of the said notice of approval, be a body politic and corporate.
Yes, their decisions have the force of law. Then, "(e) make his own decision final." We have that in section 7:
(1) Every local board established hereunder shall continue to have authority to exercise its powers until such time as the governor in council withdraws such authority.
Then, "(f) arrange that the fact of his decision shall be conclusive proof of its legality." Turning to section 4, subsection 4, we find:
Any charge made by the board pursuant to a scheme shall be a debt due to the board and shall be recoverable as such by legal action, and a certificate under the hand of a chief executive officer shall be prima facie evidence that the amount stated therein is due.
All that is necessary for these boards to do, if they wish to make a charge or levy on anybody, is to say, "You owe us so much money"-and that is evidence that they owe it. Then, "(g) take power to modify the provisions of statutes." Yes-look at section 12. It may have the power to modify the Customs Act to forbid the entrance of goods into Canada and to forbid the export of goods from Canada. This power, one which properly belongs to parliament, is to be transferred to these boards over which we will have no control. Then, the last one, "(h) prevent and avoid any sort of appeal to a court of law." I do not see anything in this bill
making provision for that, but in the legislation submitted to the various provincial legislatures and which is to work in conjunction with this legislation such a provision was made. I believe some of the provinces have refused to pass that clause.
The other day in his speech to the house the minister used these words-and he used them twice on the same day-"I maintain that nowhere in this bill is restriction of production mentioned." No, it is not mentioned but it is involved just the same. As the hon. member for Ontario said the other day, when the spider invited the fly into his parlour he did not mention the web, but the web was there. When these various schemes are in effect and the schemers are in control, the minister knows perfectly well that many of the schemes submitted to him will involve restriction of production. I ask him now if he will stand up in his place and promise to put into this bill a clause providing that under no condition shall a scheme involving restriction of production be approved. Will the minister promise that?


Robert Weir: There is nothing in the powers given to the board which states that they can control production or restrict production. That should be sufficient.


Edward James Young: The minister will not answer the question. The spider will say to the fly, "I never said there was a web here to catch you in."


Robert Weir: May I interrupt the hon. member? I am afraid that if I am to accept the interpretations of hon. members opposite I must admit I do not understand the English language as well as some of them. What I did say was that no power was given to the board to restrict production. I do not see how anything could be more definite than that. If they have no power to restrict production, how can they restrict it?


Edward James Young: They can refuse a licence to any man, and there are some groups-


Robert Weir: Not for production.


John Vallance: The bill says "production."


Robert Weir: It does not say that there is any licensing of production.


John Vallance: The bill refers to production or marketing.


Edward James Young: Subsection (f) of section 4 states that the board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power:
(f)	to require any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated
Marketing Act

product to register their names, addresses and occupations with the board, and to obtain a licence from the board, and such licence shall be subject to cancellation by the board for violation of any provision of this act or regulation made thereunder.
If the minister is sincere in what he says, namely that he does not intend that in any way production shall be under restraint, then will he be willing to put a clause in the bill to that effect?


Robert Weir: The bill as it reads does not give power to any person to restrict production. How can they restrict it, if there is no power to do it?


Edward James Young: It gives power to the various boards to have schemes, and it gives power to the minister to approve of those schemes. And many of those schemes will involve restriction of production.


Robert Weir: How does the hon. member know that? Why would any group of people ask for a restriction in their scheme when there is no power given them to restrict?


Edward James Young: If the minister states there is no power to be given to restrict, why not put that in the bill? Why not say so? I know of certain groups in this country who are supporting the bill because they think it does give them power to restrict production. H the minister will say it does not give them power they will not support it.


James Houston Spence: Name the groups.


Edward James Young: There are lots of them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name them.


Edward James Young: The tobacco growers of
Ontario, for one. The principal criticism which has been levelled against this bill by hon. members on this side of the house has been that it invades our personal liberty, the right of the citizen to manage his own business and to dispose of 'his own product in his own way. The other night the hon. member for Labelle made reference to this point. At page 2727 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
This legislation opens the way to all sorts of interference with the liberty of the farmer, the gardener, the fruit grower, the dairyman, and the consumer.
But the hon. member for Labelle, strange to say, seemed to be willing to support the bill, because at page 2725 he said:
Now, admittedly, parliament is unable to do that work; governments are unable to do it.
And therefore he thinks it is all right to turn it over to these boards. But what right has parliament, any more than these boards,

to interfere with the private affairs of an individual? Surely there are some limits to the powers of parliament. Parliaments were never set up to manage our private affairs; they were never established to interfere with our personal liberties. Parliaments were set up to preserve our liberties. It would be well if some one would state clearly just how far parliament should be allowed to go in invading the rights of the people. There is a limit to what parliament can do or should be permitted to do. To a much greater extent should there be a limit to what these irresponsible boards may be permitted to do.
It has been stated by hon. members opposite and also hon. members to my left that people might prefer economic freedom to political freedom. I ask those members this question: Is it economic freedom to own a farm and not be allowed to cultivate it in your own way? Is it economic freedom to raise a crop and not be allowed to market it without the consent of somebody else? Is it economic freedom,, when you have raised a crop or produced an article and have found a market for it, to have some meddlesome board come along and say to you, "You cannot sell it in the market"? Is that economic freedom? Is that the kind of freedom contemplated in this bill. The most casual reading of history seems to reveal that those nations which have preferred economic freedom to political freedom and which have been willing to sacrifice political freedom for a little more personal comfort or ease for the time being have not enjoyed economic freedom. They have not enjoyed the prosperity which they hoped to get, and for which they were willing to sell their liberties. The most prosperous nations are those which have been most insistent upon maintaining their political liberties-always and everywhere. Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, but Esau collected the pottage in advance. Those who would sacrifice their liberty, their freedom and the right to manage their own business for what is promised in this bill are not likely to collect their pottage at all. But since hon. gentlemen opposite say the people are willing to sell their freedom and liberty for what they hope to gain out of this legislation, let us examine it and see if they are likely to get an extra five cents per bushel or one cent per pound for their produce.
Look at the cooperatives we have had in Canada. In one of his speeches on this bill the minister stated that the reason a great many cooperatives failed was that they had an unfortunate way of choosing their managers; that managers had been frequently chosen -because of their ability to sell the idea

Marketing Act
to the people, their ability to put over the propaganada to get themselves elected to office, but that they were not qualified to market the product. I wish to ask if the method provided in this bill for choosing the leaders in the scheme, or the schemers who are to control marketing, is more likely to succeed, and if by that method we are more likely to get good managers than under the old method. How are they to be chosen? If we turn to clauses (g) and (h) of subsection 5, section 5, we find that every scheme as approved shall state,-
(g)	the number of persons who shall comprise the local board and the basis of their selection;
(h)	the name and number of the local board; the place and address of the head office; the chief executive officers; the quorum required to approve any order or resolution; and how vacancies are to be filled;
(i)	any other information required by regulation or by the minister.
These schemers are to have it in their own hands to say who shall be the executive officers, where they shall be located, how they shall be elected, and how they shall be replaced. I ask you, as sensible men, is that a system of choosing executives that is any more likely to succeed than the system in the old cooperative of choosing the most popular man to manage its affairs? I think you will agree with me that it is not. Some of our cooperatives have succeeded; some have not. Speaking broadly, not only in Canada but throughout the world I think that this holds true, that wherever a cooperative has centred its energies and attention on narrowing the spread between the price the consumer pays and the price the producer receives, it has met with a measure of success, and has rendered a service both to its own members and to the public at large. But wherever it has centred its attention on trying to regulate supply to demand, on trying to influence the market, it has met with failure, not only in this country but everywhere. That has been the experience of the world in the matter of wheat, coffee, rubber, copper, hogs and sugar. Wherever it has tried to have this thing that you call regulating the flow to the market, trying to feed the market as it will take it, trying to regulate supply to demand, it has failed. But that is the principle involved in this bill.
The hon. member for Peace River the other day stated I think in very clear and honest language the reason why many members are supporting this bill. He said:	"There is not
a cooperative organization in Canada that can get control of the market without government assistance." That is the idea. They want to get control of the market, and they are coming here and asking the government through this bill to give them some means of getting that control. But the whole history of cooperation is that wherever cooperatives have launched out on that principle they have failed, and here they are likely to do so again.
I close by quoting just one sentence from Emerson's Essay on Wealth:
The basis of political economy is non- interference. The only safe rule is found in the self-adjusting meter of demand' and supply. Do not legislate. Meddle, and you snap the sinews with your sumptuary laws. Give no bounties, make equal laws, secure life and property, and yon need not give alms.


Mr. TURNBULL:: I do not think there is any person in this house who would pay a greater tribute to liberty and the desire for liberty than I would. We are all agreed that liberty is a desirable quality and an essential of our lives, but I think perhaps we disagree to some extent on the definition of liberty. The cave man with his club had individualism and liberty carried to the extreme. The savage living alone on an island with no person to interrupt him can have perfect liberty, but it has been part of the essence of British civilization that all Britishers, and others outside of Britishers, retain for themselves the liberty to subordinate their individual desires or liberty to the common welfare of the nation, and through the common welfare to secure their own individual welfare as well. That is the history of civilization. Civilization in the large is the uniting of sensible people to achieve a purpose for the good of all, and so it is that the individual must at times subordinate his liberty and his own particular views. You would never get common action if each fellow wanted to go his own way. You would not be able to construct these buildings if each workman wanted to build them his own way.


William Richard Motherwell: Or you would not be able to get this bill through.


Franklin White Turnbull: We shall not be able to get this bill through if my hon. friend continues to qpend the time on it that he did this afternoon and this evening. If we will agree that liberty is a desirable thing, and that when our individual liberty encroaches upon the rights and privileges of others it ceases to be liberty and becomes licence, then I think it will be agreed that this bill does not at all encroach on liberty as civilized man defines it although it may encroach on liberty as the savage defines it. I am quite sure that the producers in the province of Saskatchewan
Marketing Act

and elsewhere will be quite pleased to hear of the reference my hon. friend from Weybum made to them as schemers.


Edward James Young: The schemes of the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bill itself uses that term.


Franklin White Turnbull: My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has need to worry too. He represents a Saskatchewan constituency. The bill talks about schemes, but not about schemers in the way my hon. friend referred to them. There are no "schemers," with a sneer in it, in this bill, but there are schemers, with a sneer in it, in the language of my hon. friend from Weybum and that of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. I know producers in Saskatchewan who would have been very glad if this government had been able to prohibit imports last winter. I know that when a cargo of butter left New Zealand for Halifax or Vancouver a number of wires came to Ottawa to see if there was not some way to prevent that cargo from landing and undercutting the prices of Saskatchewan butter and Ontario and Alberta butter. There were producers in our province who would have been very glad indeed had there been some provision in our laws that would have prevented such an import at some particular time, and there may be other occasions of the same kind.
It is true it is a principle of Magna Charta that no man can be dispossessed of his property or imprisoned without due process of law; nor can he be under this bill. No man can be dispossessed of his property under this bill by anybody, and no man can be imprisoned under this bill without due process of law. But parliament is making laws.
The leader of the opposition is very much worried about boards making regulations the breach of which will make a man guilty of an offence and liable to punishment. When did he get the idea that that was wrong? Let him read the wheat board act, to which I referred when the debate on the second reading was in progress, and see if he did not by that act give power to an unnamed board to make regulations which nobody would know about any more than they know about these, and to have power conferred upon them by provincial governments as well as by the federal government to make regulations, the breach of which was an offence and made the offenders liable to punishment. Nobody thought anything very serious the matter with that because regulations are necessary. They have to be provided if you

are to have a marketing bill at all. My right hon. friend agrees that regulations are necessary, and he says parliament must make them; but when he was providing for the marketing of only one commodity, wheat, he did not get his regulations through parliament. Now when we are trying to pass a bill to provide for the marketing of all natural products he wants all the regulations brought down and submitted to parliament and approved before the plans are laid at all. That seems to be carrying opposition and the Magna Charta and things of that kind to an absurdity. Any good thing can be carried to an absurdity. Take this idea of compulsion. There is not a single step that any member of this house takes from the time he gets up till the time he goes to bed when he is not subject to compulsion and regulation, and nobody worries about it. We are compelled and regulated and we allow our individual freedom to be restricted for the common good of all. When my hon. friend is out on the road with his car he drives on the right hand side of the road. Why? So that he will not do any injury to anybody else. And under this bill when my hon. friends go out to market their products they are liable to a certain amount of regulation and control so as not to injure the products of anybody else. That is all. There is not a shadow of difference between the two.
This bill does not put it into the hands of anybody to put anybody else in gaol. This bill does not provide for action being taken against any person without due process of law. It does provide that regulations are to be made and I assume that those regulations have been made known to those who are concerned. If they have not, provision can be made by way of amendment that they shall be made known. As far as I am concerned, if there is any danger of people not knowing what the regulations are, that should be fixed up. All this bill says is that boards may meet and may lay plans and regulations before a minister responsible to parliament. If the minister approves of those regulations and they are approved by the governor in council, which is responsible to government, then they have the force of law. There is nothing in this bill that is new or startling and it contains no feature different from those contained in our legislation for the past fifty years. Why should there be all this opposition? When these regulations have the force of law there is the provision that if anyone breaks a regulation he can be summoned before a competent court. If he is

Marketing Act
found guilty of a breach of a regulation he may be convicted and put in prison. But that is not done by a board or a group of schemers, as the hon. member for Weyburn calls them; it is done by the court before *which the man is tried. His offence is that he has broken a regulation which is the law of the land and these regulations have been made the law of the land by this parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
have not been drawn up yet.


Franklin White Turnbull: That does not make
any difference. The regulations with respect to the wheat board were not drawn up; the regulations with respect to fifty other acts which appear on our statute books were not drawn up until after the bills were passed and enacted into law. This bill provides for regulations but they will not be drawn up until after it is passed. Acts have been passed by every parliament and by the provincial legislatures containing regulations which were not drawn up and put into force until the bills were passed. The same is to be done in this case, and if there are violations, people will be prosecuted and if found guilty, fined. That is all there is; it is no different from other legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member who has just taken his seat has been distinguishing liberty from license, and he says the way in which he distinguishes between the two is that true liberty consists in subordinating the particular interest to the common welfare. I think I am reporting my hon. friend correctly when I say that. I agree with that as a means of securing liberty, namely that liberty is attained by subordinating particular interests to the general. But it is because I believe in that definition of liberty and wish to preserve liberty that I oppose this legislation. It seeks to subordinate the general interest to the particular, instead of subordinating the particular interest to the general. The general interest is kept uppermost through the institution of parliament, and the enactment of laws by parliament, laws which are known and applicable to all as a consequence of parliaments' action. What this bill proposes to do is to have the laws made not by parliament but by self interested, occupational groups in different localities throughout the country.


Franklin White Turnbull: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By these local boards wherever they may be constituted.


Franklin White Turnbull: Approved by governor
in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend comes back to "approved by governor in council." Once this House of Commons ceases to function or once this parliament is prorogued, no one will be the wiser as to what is or is to be the law of the land, if it is to be left in the hands of the governor in council.


Franklin White Turnbull: Can my right hon.
friend distinguish between the method by which these regulations are to be made law with the approval of the governor in council and the regulations in connection with the Canada wheat board? In that case the regulations were drawn up by somebody outside of parliament but they were approved by the governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There may be other cases which violate the principle for which I am contending at the moment, but two wrongs do not make a right. We are not going to get any farther ahead with our legislation in this country by taking as precedents those things which are wrong and which are departures from the correct method. I think we should follow what is generally accepted as the method of parliament.


Robert Weir: Is the right hon.
gentleman stating that he believes the power given to the wheat board was wrong?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not discussing the wheat board, I am discussing this legislation. I think the chairman could very properly call me to order if I began to discuss the wheat board. I am discussing the bill before the committee at the present time. I repeat that my objection lies in the very statement which the hon. member for Regina, sitting at present beside the minister, asserted a moment ago, namely, that you can preserve liberty only as you subject particular interests to the general interest, and you begin to destroy liberty the moment you subject the general interest to the particular interest.
My hon. friend from Regina, who has sought to ridicule me for my reference to the Magna Charta, did not quote correctly the clause in that document which he purported to be quoting. The Magna Charta, in the clause to which I referred, does not speak of due process of law, it speaks of the law of the land, an entirely different thing. With all due deference, I would inform my hon. friend, who is a lawyer, that the law of the land is something which is supposed to be generally known and generally applicable. It is not something which must be discovered; it is
Marketing Act

something which is in existence in the statute books and which he who runs may read. It is not vague and indistinct, it is clear as day.
There is one point I should like to make very clear. Where power to make regulations is given to the governor in council by a statute passed by this parliament those regulations apply to the country as a whole. You do not have the governor in council making one set of regulations which govern in Saint John one day, a different set of regulations to govern in Quebec another day, another set for Winnipeg the next day, and a further set for Kamloops the following day. But that is exactly the kind of thing to be done under this legislation. It is not to be the law of the land, made by the representatives of the people as a whole and to stand till repealed by parliament; it is to be the law as made by particular self interested groups in any locality, at any time. It is not, as respects law making, representation by population, but representation by occupation. That is indefensible legislation. I repeat that by this legislation we are not enacting what is to be the law of the land; all we are doing is as respects certain offences to fix penalties which may go as far as a fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for a term of two years, and leaving it to unknown bodies to determine what is to be the nature of the offence. To what offence is that penalty to attach? Not a single hon. member in the House of Commons can say; the minister himself cannot say, and the governor in council cannot say. The board which is to be called a marketing board will not be able to say. A self interested group of producers in a given community are to say what is to constitute the offence under the, scheme which they draw up and submit to the government. That is the offence to which this House of Commons is to attach a penalty before the offence itself is known.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite who say "no" cannot have read the bill.


Mr. STIRLING:: Certainly they have read the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Read the bill.


Grote Stirling: Where do you find that?


Mr. ERNST:: What section, if you please?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friends will find them if they read the bill.


Grote Stirling: I cannot find them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will take them up when we come to that stage in committee.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gobeil):: I would remind the committee that we are on the title of the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Section 12
reads:
(1)	The governor in council may, by order or regulation published in the Canada Gazette, restrict the importation into Canada of any natural product which enters Canada in competition with a regulated product, and the governor in council shall have power to make regulations to provide for the licensing by the minister of importers, or otherwise to enforce any order made hereunder.
(2)	The governor in council may, by order or regulation published in the Canada Gazette

(a)	provide that any natural product shall not be exported from Canada without a licence;
(b)	prescribe the forms of such licences, the terms and conditions thereof and' the persons who shall have authority to issue the same;
(c)	impose penalties for breach of any such order or regulation or of any licence issued thereunder, and, generally, make such provision or authorize the doing of such acts or things as may in his discretion be deemed necessary or expedient for giving full effect to any orders, regulations or licences made or issued hereunder.
That broad section gives to the governor in council the power to impose any penalties they please with respect to offences which they create. That is going very far. Incidentally those powers are taken away from parliament. Blit let me take hon. members to two clauses further on, to No. 14:
Every person who fails to comply with any order or determination of the board or of a local board or any regulation of the governor in council shall be guilty of an offence and punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not less than $25 and not more than $500, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
Then, go a step further and look at that part of the act which deals with investigations conducted under its provisions and which gives power to the investigating boards to determine offences; one finds that:
Every person who, to the detriment or against the interest of the public, charges, receives or attempts to receive any spread which is excessive or results in undue enhancement of prices or otherwise restrains or injures trade or commerce in the regulated product, shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding $5,000 or to two years' imprisonment, or, if a corporation, to a penalty not exceeding $10,000.
Yet there is not set forth in this bill what is to be considered detrimental to the public interests, or an excessive spread etc. It is the committee, which has to do with the investigating and which is appointed by the minister that it is to be the body to determine what is to constitute this particular offence which is against the public interest.

Marketing Act


Franklin White Turnbull: The offence is set out in the section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The general
statement is made that there must not be an enhancement of prices, and so on. But if my hon. friend will read the previous provisions he will see that section 19 provides for determination by the committee:
A committee may after investigation as hereinbefore provided determine, in connection with any operation occurring in the course of marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion of the regulated product, what spread is detrimental to or against the interest of the public in that it is excessive or results in undue enhancement of prices or otherwise restrains or injures trade or commerce in the regulated product.
In other words, one committee may be investigating in British Columbia and find a spread of ten per cent to be a violation of the act, while another committee in some other province may find a spread of seven per cent and another committee somewhere else a spread of three per cent. The committee in each instance is to determine what percentage is to constitute the offence; but we as a legislative body, representing the general wellbeing of society, the community as a whole, the general interest, are to have no say as to that; we are supposed to fix the penalty and then to leave it to yet unknown bodies to determine the offence to which the penalty is to be attached.


William Gordon Ernst: Who tries the offender?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The courts
try the offender, certainly; but I do not believe that my hon. friend or any other member of this house can cite an instance where the courts may be called upon to try a man, say, next week, for some offence which even the courts themselves at the present time are unable to find set forth in any statute or regulation made by a legislative body.


William Gordon Ernst: What about the Combines
Investigation Act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Combines Investigation Act specifically designates what are offences and contains many safeguards, not to be found in this measure, with respect to the protection of innocent parties. '


Franklin White Turnbull: The court will not
try the offender until after the passing of the regulations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But a regulation to be made by a local board in some, locality, with respect to the production, purchase, sale or offering for sale of a particular class of commodities, is very different from
a known condition constituting an offence that forms part of the law of the land, and I submit that no man should be obliged to have both his life and his property placed in jeopardy except by the law of the land and the judgment of his peers.
Hon. members are elected to parliament not by any single self interested group but by the people as a whole. That is the only way in which the rights of the community as a whole can be safeguarded. Are we to establish the precedent of giving to self interested groups, which happen in this instance to be producers, the right to determine what is to foe an offence, simply on the basis that a majority in, that particular group wish to have such and such a thing made an offence? Yet that is what we are doing if we enact this legislation. No regard is to be had for the consumers in the district, for the professional classes, those in other industries or for the business classes. I do not think that my hon. friend from East Hamilton could have appreciated the significance of the legislation, because after all probably no class is more in need of protection of its rights by parliament than the working classes; if we are to allow self interested producing groups to determine how much of any product is to be produced, how much is to foe sold, at what price it is to be sold, and the like, I hesitate to say to what extent the position of the working classes as consumers may come to foe affected.
One has to look at this legislation as it stands. It is not an answer for the minister to say, "We do not intend these things". In the first place, the bill does not say who the minister is, or who he is to be; and if it did say that would not be a guarantee that any minister would continue indefinitely in the position. When we pass legislation we must pass it with regard to any condition which may arise. As the Prime Minister has frequently said, it is not the intention in the mind of the person who may foe seeking to put through an enactment that is of importance, but what the law is, as expressed. And that is the exception which we take to this legislation; the law makes possible all kinds of restriction of production and trade, and infringement of personal rights and rights of property. The hon. member from Regina is right when he says that the particular interest must be made subject to the general; otherwise you destroy individual liberty. I say that this bill by its provisions asserts the supremacy of particular interests over the general interest, and it is the business of this parliament, and particularly of
Marketing Act

this House of Commons, to protect the general interest whenever it is brought into conflict with particular interests.


Mr. PICKEL:: No one doubts the necessity for the passage of a measure of this kind. The producer to-day is up against it, it matters not what he produces. The market is controlled by monopolies and it is absolutely impossible for the farmer or the primary producer to get his just share of the proceeds of what he produces. We hear a good deal from across the floor about compulsion. One hon. member opposite cited twenty-two or twenty-three instances of compulsion in the bill. Well, I defy any member of this house to point his finger to one single clause in which there is compulsion


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Follin Horace Pickel: Don't laugh so suddenlyuntil it is asked for. It is the regulated product-


Edward James Young: Asked for by whom?


Follin Horace Pickel: By the producer.


John Vallance: The minister may.


Follin Horace Pickel: The producers apply to the minister or the board, asking that such and such a product shall be regulated.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read
section 9.


Follin Horace Pickel: You have to use compulsion. Use your common sense if you have any. You cannot frame a bill without compulsion; the middlemen and packers are so strongly entrenched in their position that you have to use force. The minister distinctly stated when he introduced the bill, and has said several times since, that he did not think this was a perfect bill. I do not think so myself. Perhaps in a year or two you may not know the bill by reason of the amendments that may be found necessary. But let us make a beginning and try to help the primary producer; he is entitled to it. You talk about compulsion. Now, I have been interested in two milk strikes in my section. In both instances forty per cent of the producers continued to ship. We lost our point. After the strike was over the milk men in Montreal cut off a number of those who refused to ship. The producers have in their own hands the control of the whole marketing of the primary products of this country, and the object of this bill is to aid the primary producers who cannot bring about orderly marketing except by compulsion.


Mr. SANDERSON:: My hon. friend said that there was no compulsion in the bill.


Franklin White Turnbull: No, he did not.


Follin Horace Pickel: I did not say anything of the kind; I said that there was no compulsion until it was asked for. It is simply a measure of cooperation. A representative number of producers ask that the board do so and so, and then there is compulsion, as there should be.


Mr. VENIOT:: Coercion.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: The arguments advanced to-night seem to centre around three main points: first, the question of compulsion; second, the attack upon individual liberty, and, third, the subversive doctrine, according to my hon. friends to my right, of subordinating the general weal to that of individual self interested groups. I believe I am quoting the leader of the opposition fairly correctly.
So far as compulsion is concerned the discussion reminds me of what was said about this bill by an outstanding representative of agriculture. I asked him what he thought of the bill and he said: "Your opinion of the bill will depend entirely upon your appreciation of the conditions which led up to the bill. If you believe that the producers are at the present time receiving a fair deal and a fair price; that they as individuals in this organized country and organized world are able to maintain a decent standard of living and maintain their rights upon a level equal to that of others, then you with some others will believe that this bill is unnecessary. But if you understand the situation and if you realize, as many of us do, that the producer at present and for years past has been selling under compulsion, not compulsion brought into force by his own will or that of other producers, but compulsion imposed upon him by those who now control his marketing, you will approve the bill." I think I am familiar with the situation, and to my mind the choice does not lie between freedom of marketing and compulsion. The choice is as to who shall exert compulsion upon that particular industry, and the producers as a whole, so far as I know them, would regard it as far more beneficial if they by their own cooperative action, by their own majority choice, could supply the degree of compulsion necessary to be exercised, not upon the general public but upon the members of their own particular class of producers-because that is as far as the compulsion goes. They would prefer that to selling as they do to-day, to accepting under compulsion any price offered without the slightest voice as to what they shall receive and, as during past years, to selling at a price

Marketing Act
that does not meet the cost of production, let alone permit them to maintain a decent standard of living. There is the choice.
This is not a free world, nor is there much individual liberty left. Individual liberty! It reminds me of an illustration given in the house a little while ago. Drive on any highway and you may have your choice-or rather, you have not your choice because the majority has ruled. But putting a hypothetical proposition, you might have your choice between majority rule and individual liberty which would disregard all stop and go signs, disregard the rules of the road, disregard all by-laws and claim individual liberty to drive exactly as you like. How long would the liberty of anyone last, and how long could the highways be used? It is only under a certain degree of regulation, of control, of subordination of a recalcitrant minority to a majority, that we can live, do business in this world, carry on civilization at all. This bill proposes that.
As to the subordination of the common weal to self interested groups, it is my profound conviction that the groups referred to in this bill have been subordinated long enough to the general weal and that it is time they took their place on an equality with other organized bodies in this country.


Miss MACPHAIL:: For the general weal.


Alfred Speakman: Yes. It is for the general weal that no one class in this country, producers or others, should, through the individual liberty which they are supposed to possess, through their unfettered right of self competition and self destruction, be on a plane far below that occupied by the rest of the people in the dominion. Look where you will and what do you find? You find that this individual liberty is to-day confined, practically speaking, to the one class of producer; that they go out into a business world in which almost every other element is organized; they meet in their daily marketing operations a completely organized trade which deals in their product. Liberty? Liberty to starve! Liberty to cut each others' throats! That sort of liberty should, I believe, be taken away, not by the choice of other people but by the common agreement of the majority of those who are suffering under such conditions. In that way I believe, all being put on an equality, the common weal will be best assured, not by the subordinating of one class of a community to the others as is the case to-day.
Then we are told of the danger of leaving to those self interested groups the right of imposing regulations. I have touched partly on that, but in what degree do those regulations apply? On whom are they imposed? As I read the bill, the regulations are, by the producers themselves in that class of goods, self imposed upon the members of their own society, their own profession or calling, and not upon the general public. Who has the better right? It has been accepted throughout every civlized country that where a minority is recalcitrant, where it disagrees with the majority, where it determines to go its own way no matter at what cost, where it is destroying the prosperity of the majority, that majority has and exercises the right in almost every calling to impose restrictions and control and to force the minority to bow to the will of the majority.
Mention has been made of the cooperatives, and reasons for their failures have been advanced. It has been suggested that they have *failed largely because of lack of leadership. *I have had some association with cooperatives' and to my mind, while that is a weakness, the main rock upon which they have split has been the recalcitrant minority in their own ranks, willing to take advantage of the organization without incurring any responsibility. To my mind any bill which does not give the producers the power and right through [DOT]majority action to control their own minority, to impose upon them restrictions, to force [DOT]them to comply with the regulations passed for the good of that class, is not worth the paper it is written on. That is why the cooperatives are asking for the bill; were they not insisting on some form of compulsion it would not be applied.


Edward James Young: What about section 9 of
the bill?


Alfred Speakman: Were this a perfect
country and were all classes of producers in a position to organize intelligently and well, in my opinion this measure would not be necessary. But when you look over this country and see in many communities the helpless despairing producers who have ceased to be able to come together and act intelligently for themselves, then the necessity of such a measure at this time is apparent. This clause may have to deal with conditions beyond the control of any group of producers. It may have to deal with interprovincial matters, or with export trade.


Edward James Young: Where is the majority provided for in section 9?


Alfred Speakman: There is no majority.
That is what I say, that there are parts of
Marketing Act

the producing class so disorganized, so scattered and helpless, as to be unable at the present time to organize and manage their own affairs. To those the state owes the responsibility of doing it for them until they are set upon their feet.


Alan Webster Neill: Could the hon. member suggest one of these industries?


Alfred Speakman: I think those classes
are well known to every hon. member of this house who is acquainted with the problem of the producers. I am not speaking at length to-night; I am simply stating these principles on the first clause, and I think the truth of what I say will be acknowledged by those familiar with the situation. I may say at once that this bill does not fully satisfy me-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why do you vote for
it? What do you want?


Alfred Speakman: I am going to say
what I believe are the three points that require further clarification and strengthening. First, I am not certain, although I believe it is implied in it, that under the bill as at present drafted the members of any body of producers will have the right to gather together in cooperative pools, pooling profits, proceeds and products, and acting as a cooperative pool has always wished and attempted to act. Second, I believe that these pools when fully organized should have the right and power to set up their selling agency to deal with their own product.


Edward James Young: Regardless of the marketing board?


Alfred Speakman: Under the direction of the marketing board-"the selling agency authorized by the marketing board shall be that appointed by the producers,'' if you want exact language. Third, I would like to see section 9 or some other section clarified to make it certain that the board itself can establish or itself act as the agency to dispose of the exportable surplus. All these conditions may be involved in the amendments to be brought down, but as I do not know what the amendments are I strongly support and ask the minister to give sympathetic consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), that these amendments be placed on Hansard or in the votes and proceedings as soon as possible in order that all of us who are vitally interested may be able to study, understand and apply them to the conditions and the particular clause that is sought to be amended. I could say more but I think it better to say it as each section of the bill is being considered.

The desire to protect the consumer is not confined to hon. gentlemen on my right, but to my mind there is nothing in this bill which will jeopardize the consumer. The consumer, if I may say so, has exploited the farmer for a long time, in the sense of having been able to buy things for less than they are worth. But it is not the consumer against whom this bill is aimed; it is aimed largely against those who stand between the producer and the consumer. It was stated by some economist in the United States something like a year ago when some provision was suggested for assisting agriculture in that country that anything which would double the price of farm products would benefit some twenty million people there and penalize to an equal degree some eighty to one hundred million people. To my mind that economist betrayed his ignorance of conditions as they affect farm products, because this must be remembered: that no matter whether the price of an article to the producer be high or low, the cost of transportation, of handling, of processing, all the multitudinous costs which come between the producer and the consumer, remain practically the same. You could double the average price received by the average farmer for most of his products and it would not add twenty per cent to the cost to the consumer, and in any case that twenty per cent would be far more than offset by the stimulation given to business by the added purchasing power in the hands of the producers. These are merely arbitrary figures; I do not know that this measure can double prices to farmers, but the suggestion that any increase in price to the farmers is passed on in the same degree and ratio to the consumer is one which will not and cannot stand up under any study of the situation.


Mr. RINFRET:: There is a point about this bill that gives it a particular character. It has been voted for by a large majority on second reading, but practically every member who spoke in favour of it made it clear that he would not approve the bill on the third reading unless it were considerably improved in committee. Although we have now been in committee on the bill for a couple of days, I notice that no improvement has been suggested from the government side, but on the contrary a determined conviction is manifested to support the bill as it stands both as to principle and as to details.


William Gordon Ernst: We are stall only on the title.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If it is to go on as at present I am very much disquieted. Every hon. member who has stood up on the other

Marketing Act
side has made it clear that in his opinion the bill is all right, and has made no suggestion of any change. I have been in the house for some years, but have never seen a bill receive so large a majority and yet be so hedged about with reservations during the discussion on second reading.
At first sight there is something attractive about the bill, but when one begins to study it he finds himself very much in doubt as to how it will work out in practice. I am afraid that some, like the hon. member for Melville, who voted for the bill on second reading, were unduly optimistic as to its possible effect. I strongly support the stand taken to-night by the hon. member for Melville, that instead of the bill being dealt with in committee of the whole house it should have been sent to the agriculture committee, where it could have been discussed more intimately as to detail, and where witnesses could be brought and experts heard. I am very much afraid that if we keep at it in committee of the whole we are not going to get very far. In fact to be frank I am not too sure that the government are anxious to have this bill adopted at all. I think if they could leave with the country the impression that they had tried to do something wonderful for the farmers and could at the same time save the farmer from the very doubtful advantage of the bill as it is drafted now, the government would have achieved their aim. If instead of protecting the farmer we merely wanted to play politics with this measure, I would advise my friends on this side to let it pass and let the people learn for themselves what is involved in it. I am sure if innumerable small local boards were to be set up in this country to decide what quantity and quality of a product should be marketed and at what price, and if farmers who did not follow the ruling of that board were to be fined or gaoled, the days of this government would be numbered.
The peculiarity about this measure is that at first sight it is very attractive, a fact which I believe explains the large number of votes it received on second reading. But the more you read it and the more you read about it the more you are convinced that it is a pure delusion, and that the putting into operation of an act founded upon this bill as at present drafted would indeed be nefarious for the very people it is supposed to help. As has been properly said, there is no doubt that the whole discussion to-day has centered upon the question whether or not this bill constitutes compulsion or free cooperation.
I think everything can be improved, even a very bad bill brought down by this government; but at the same time the principle of compulsion is so closely linked with practically every section of the bill that we cannot get away from it. We might improve upon it by saying that the poor farmer might be gaoled for two months instead of three, or be subjected to a fine of $100 instead of $200. But we cannot get away from the main principle of the bill as detailed section after section. We cannot forget that this is a bill to institute not only a central board but a large number of small boards throughout the country, and that those boards may force the farmer to market his products in a certain way, whether he likes it or not. If he does not do what he is told he will suffer the penalty.
We heard the argument a moment ago that there is a certain degree of compulsion in everything we do in life. Perhaps there is, but it is a very poor argument to say that because in everything we do we have to be subject to compulsion in certain respects, every compulsory measure must be adopted at once. On the contrary, if in the ordinary acts of life we cannot escape from compulsion, by all means let us try to prevent it where it can be prevented.
Of course I expected, as my right hon. leader expected, that his reference to Magna Charta would not be well received in all quarters. I do not see why it should not have been. The Magna Charta is the well known basis of justice in British countries. But what we do say is that the people who have objected to any reference to Magna Charta have tried to connect this bill either with King Canute or with the cave men of the early days in our history. I submit in all frankness that the Magna Charta, that document which has stretched over many years of history, is more closely connected with this bill than is good old King Canute of legendary days.


Alfred Speakman: It was a reference to
the opposition and not to the bill.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That only shows that
every speaker has a way of expressing himself which should be respected by listeners who are to become speakers a little later. I submit that unless the government does not wish the bill to pass, which is possible, it is a great mistake to try to put it through the committee of the whole house. My own opinion about the bill is that the only improvement of which it is capable is that it be dropped altogether. But if the government wishes the house to adopt the bill it should do as my optimistic friend from Melville has suggested, namely, send it to the committee on agriculture. There it could be
Marketing Act

discussed in a more intimate way, and possibly experts in the matter could be heard. Some improvements might be made there, but my impression is becoming stronger every moment that this legislation is framed to impress the farmers with the idea that the government is contemplating something wonderful for them, and that the very bad Liberal party does not want them to do it. That is my impression. But once the bill is studied very strong objection can be taken to it by many sections of the country.
I have in my hand a letter addressed to the Prime Minister from the Montreal board of trade. Possibly this document has been read before in the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was read.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Surely the Montreal board of trade is not a body inimical to the present government. Neither is it a body which would be inimical to any legislation of this type if it had the good qualities the government pretends it has. Yet the board of trade of Montreal has objected to the bill. I must say that the arguments presented in this letter are strong, and the government would do well to heed them and give them much attention. The letter has been read and I shall not read it again to-night. I refer to it only to show that the opposition we are offering to this measure is not restricted to the Liberal party, and that in fact this is a very contentious measure. I could name many other instances of opposition to it.
The minister has taken a strange stand in connection with this bill. As I said before- and I insist upon this point-the bill was passed on second reading on the very very precise agreement that it would be modified and improved upon in committee. It is now in committee, and yet no hon. member opposite, whether he be a private member or a government member, has suggested the least change; on the contrary the government has given the impression that it wants the bill to pass in its present form. Even the mandate from the house given on the second reading is contrary to the attitude taken by the minister. He is being asked for information. I do not wish to be discourteous to him, and I will agree that he is an able man and an able minister, but I must say that his replies have been very terse and concise. He says either, "Well, I gave it yesterday" or "You will have it tomorrow." The result is that no information is forthcoming at the moment. Frankly I voted against the measure because I do not

believe in any board trying to impose its decisions upon the population, but I am quite willing in a most open minded fashion to discuss the measure. May I ask the minister this question:	Is it the intention of the
government to change or materially to improve the bill? The minister might as well inform the committee, because the mandate from the house given on second reading was not that the bill had been approved as drafted. Practically every speaker who approved of it said that it needed considerable changing. Some changes have been suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and no doubt others will be forthcoming. So far, however, we have not heard from the government. As my genial friend has said, we have reached only the short title, but, the government would help the progress of the bill if it would indicate that it contemplates making changes as we proceed in committee. Every hon. member opposite who has spoken on the measure has tried to defend it in its present form, and has not indicated the least inclination to listen to amendments or changes. Personally I believe the government could deal best with the bill by accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Melville, namely to have the committee rise and refer the measure to the committee on agriculture. However, if it is going to be before the whole house we are entitled to know to. what extent the government is disposed to amend and to improve upon the bill.-if it is capable of improvement, which I very much doubt.


Franklin White Turnbull: If the hon. member for St. James would let us make some progress we might reach some of the amendments when the particular clauses are under discussion. I am not making this statement because I know anything in particular about the matter but because t'he other evening the minister said he had amendments to propose which he would offer as the clauses were reached. For that reason I say that as soon as we reach the clauses in question we shall no doubt hear the amendments.
I was encouraged to speak again because I have had the privilege of having the right hon. gentleman opposite at least in partial agreement with me, and I hope before we have finished we shall reach full agreement. I quite agree that liberty does not consist in the subordination of the general to the particular, but I disagree with him if he thinks this bill is a subordination of the general to the particular because it is the majority, or at least a representative body of producers, who ask for a scheme; consequently when we

Marketing Act
ask the minority to subordinate themselves to the majority we are asking the particular to be subordinated to the general.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend? He is still confining his remarks solely to the producers. These regulations are going to affect all classes in the community. He leaves out of account altogether those who do not happen to belong to the particular group of producers who are making the regulations that are to be the law.


Franklin White Turnbull: I think I shall be able to convince my right hon. friend that the other part of the population is not forgotten, but before I deal with that let me refer to my right hon. friend's statement that there might be one set of regulations for Nova Scotia, another for Kamloops, another for Winnipeg, and that it would not be generally known all over the country what the regulations were with regard to each particular place. I do not know any particular reason why they should be known all over the country. But the boundaries of the area in which the regulations are in force are known, because the boundaries of the area in which the local board operates are known, and all the people of that area will require to know will be the regulations that affect them in that particular area. The regulations might be different in different parts of the country.
The board itself does not make the regulations; it is finally the governor in council that makes them. The board suggests a plan and may suggest regulations; the deputy minister and any officer of the department may suggest regulations, but they are finally arrived at because they are approved by the minister and by the governor in council just the 6ame as the regulations in connection with a hundred other acts on the statute books become law when they are prepared and have been approved by the governor in council. Only then do they become law. That is where the general interests of the people are taken care of. The government is responsible to parliament; parliament represents the whole body of the people, and since the government approves these regulations, the general interests of the people are taken care of.
If it were possible it might be advisable to have all the regulations approved by parliament, but we are not living under the same conditions in this country as they are in England. In the first place the boards are apparently going to exercise powers conferred upon them by provincial legislation. If the regulations are to be approved by parliament before they are put in force, not only by the dominion parliament, which is not in
session all the time, but by provincial assemblies in order to comply with the provisions of the British North America Act as to legislative jurisdiction, it would be impracticable, no matter how desirable it might be, to have parliamentary approval. We are dealing not with theories but with conditions, and in this parliament we are trying to make theories meet the practical conditions that prevail from day to day.


Mir. FRASER (Northumberland):: Do I understand the hon. member to say that a majority of the producers had requested this bill and were behind it?


Franklin White Turnbull: No. I said the producers would propose a plan or scheme.


William Alexander Fraser: May I put my question in another way? Is it the assumption of the government that a majority of the producers approve of this bill or want it?


Franklin White Turnbull: My own personal belief is that they do, but when it comes to putting the bill into operation with regard to any regulated product the proposal for the regulation comes from the producers, and unless it comes from a representative body of producers there is no scheme.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Except under section 9.


Franklin White Turnbull: Except under section 9, which is for an emergency.


William Alexander Fraser: May I say to the hon. member on behalf of the apple growers of Ontario, particularly of my riding, that they do not approve of this bill?


Franklin White Turnbull: If the apple growers of Canada do not approve of the bill and do not want to come under its operation they will not ask that a plan be put into effect; consequently they will not come under its operation, except under section 9, as my hon. friend from Vancouver points out, which is there for emergency purposes.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Where is there any mention of emergency in section 9?


Franklin White Turnbull: It was stated by the Minister of Agriculture when discussing the bill -that that was its purpose.


John Vallance: Is he going to administer this?


Franklin White Turnbull: I say that the minister speaking for the government and sponsoring the bill made the statement that section 9
was intended to cover an emergency.

Marketing Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under the interpretation clause, minister means "the minister designated by the governor in council to administer this act."


Franklin White Turnbull: I am speaking of the minister whose name appears as sponsoring the bill, and who is sponsoring the bill at the present moment.
Through the necessity of the approval of these regulations by the governor in council, the governor in council representing the whole people of this dominion, the general interest is safeguarded. The individual group asks for the plan, but it is the governor in council who has to approve of the plan on behalf of the whole population of the country, and in that way the general interest is looked after. I represent a city constituency where the people are what I might call consumers, but I do not know of any consumers in this country who are not also producers, nor of any producers who are not also consumers. I do not see how you can divide them arbitrarily into two separate bodies.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I point out that under section 14 the offence consists of failure to comply not only with any order or determination of the board or of a local board, but with any regulation of the governor in council.


William Gordon Ernst: The regulations of the local board must be confirmed by the governor in council.


Franklin White Turnbull: All these orders of the local board, as I have stated already five times, must be approved by the governor in council, and the local board does not make orders except to approve of them.
So far as the producers and consumers are concerned I think it is agreed among us all that in times of depression the price of primary products falls away further than does the price of secondary products, that there is in times of depression a greater spread between the prices of primary and secondary products, and the extent of that spread contributes very largely to the depression. Now, in order to get rid of depression I think governments should apply themselves to narrowing as much as possible the spread between the low price of primary products and the relatively higher prices of secondary products, although the prices of both are low. As you narrow the spread you restore the balance between secondary and primary products, and as you restore that balance you help to bring about a normal use of purchasing

power and the resumption of normal operations. Things are out of gear at the moment because the price of the primary product is lower in comparison with the price of the secondary product than it is in normal times.


Edward James Young: But this bill will not help that.


Franklin White Turnbull: I am not so sure of that. If this bill does raise the price of primary products it helps to narrow that spread. But if as the hon. member for Weybum suggests this bill will not raise the price of primary products, why the holler about the consumer?


Edward James Young: I said it would not narrow the spread.


Franklin White Turnbull: I hope that the leader of the opposition is now in agreement with me that the general interest is taken care of by the governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very far from being in agreement with my hon. friend on that particular phase. May I say to him that I think it is important that the house should realize that this measure goes very much farther than simply dealing with agricultural products. I for one believe that the design back of the measure relates quite as much to the application of its provisions later on to commodities other than agricultural products as it does to the position of the agricultural producer at the present time.


William Gordon Ernst: May I say, I hope so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that this committee should consider every possible use that could be made of this measure. If I may, I would like to illustrate one of the many ways in which this measure may react so far as producers themselves are concerned. As the Minister of Agriculture pointed out this evening, the term "natural product" has not been given the wide interpretation which it has in this bill without some reason on the part of the ministry. If the ministry had in mind only the interests of the farmers, they would have brought in a bill confined to the agricultural industry and to the producers in the agricultural industry. Here is the definition of natural product:
"Natural product" means any product of agriculture or of the forest, sea, lake or river, and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product;
The other day I cited a number of articles which might be manufactured from these primary products. In fact all manufactures

Marketing Act
are nothing more than primary products processed on a few stages. The scope of this measure is broad enough to take in practically most of the necessaries that are manufactured in the country as well as those that are produced. I see my hon. friend shaking his head, but there is in the interpretation clause of the bill the definition of a natural product.


Alfred Speakman: Articles of food or drink.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Anything in that line; that covers most everything that people eat or drink.


William Gordon Ernst: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It covers
articles of food or drink; it includes everything that can be eaten or drunk. That is apart altogether from the primary products of agriculture. Also our attention has been directed almost exclusively to these local boards but the bill states that the governor in council-I think this is prdbably the main feature of the measure-may restrict the importation into Canada of any natural product which enters Canada in competition with a regulated product. The governor in council may say that any natural product shall not be exported from Canada without licence. Has the committee stopped to consider the effect of that? Apart from all these other powers we have been discussing, it means that the governor in council may by order in council restrict the importation or exportation of different classes of commodities into or out of the country. For the last day or two I have been directing attention to dispatches which have appeared in the press to the effect that so far as the 'British parliament and the dominions are concerned there is to be an effort made to restrict trade within the British empire. We have a good many instances in this parliament of legislation already enacted whereby it is made clear that as far as this government in Ottawa is concerned it intends to see that the channels of trade are kept as exclusively as possible within the British empire. In other words, it is not so much trade in general in which the present administration is interested, as it is trade within the British empire. Under this legislation, if the government wished to force the channels of trade more or less exclusively within the British empire, they could pass an order in council the provisions of which would have that effect. First of all, they could restrict the exportation of agricultural or other products to any country other than countries of the British empire. I wonder if the
74726-185J
agriculturists of this country realize that under this legislation an order in council could be passed any day making it impossible for them to ship their products to countries other than those the government itself wished; that they would have to ship their products only to the countries named by the governor in council. They may allege that may not be the intention, but the power is there. Similarly with respect to the importation of goods other than agricultural products, the farmers of this country may find that many of these may be permitted to come in only from countries of the British empire; that they cannot be brought in from other countries with which we may wish to trade in order to sell our agricultural products abroad. The very life and existence of agriculture may depend upon trade with those very countries. That to my mind is the most serious part of this measure, and as yet it has scarcely been alluded to. I submit that there is not an hon. member of the house who would not wish to see legislation enacted which was certain to help the farming industry. But if an act is to be placed upon the statutes of this country which gives to the governor in council the power to prevent the export of any natural product to any country other than that which the governor in council determines, and to prevent the bringing into this country of any commodities which may come under the provisions of this bill, then I think the farming communities of this country may find if this bill goes through in its present form they have been hamstrung, to use a well understood expression.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: What position are they in to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is no
answer. Why make their position worse? That is the objection I take to the manner in which hon. gentlemen opposite are legislating.


Mr. BURY:: On a point of order; the right hon. gentleman is discussing section 12 of the bill. Much of the discussion this afternoon might be held to be out of order but it might come within the wide terms of section 4. The things being discussed by the right hon. gentleman come expressly within section 12.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I say to my hon. friend that I am discussing section 1. Does he realize that the committee is on section 1, which reads:
This act may be cited as The Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934.
Marketing Act


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I thought we were on section
4.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are on section 1.


William Gordon Ernst: Does the right hon. gentleman object to the title?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do object to the title as I think it is a misnomer altogether. I do not think it is an act to assist marketing; I think it is an act to restrict trade; I think it is an act to prohibit trade; I think it is an act to limit production, and an act to create monopolies in certain natural products; I think it is an act to restrict sales; I think it is an act which serves to bring about restrictions in several other ways. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to be going on the theory that because the farmers and producers have been having a hard time they are going to be satisfied with any legislation brought down regardless altogether of its character or provisions. They talk about this bill as though it was one the farmers wished for. May I say that there is a great difference between a marketing bill which will do something effective in the interests of the farming communities and a measure under which the governor in council can do almost anything it pleases with respect to the limiting of production and the restriction of trade. That is a phase of this measure which I think should be considered very carefully by the committee before they proceed further with the enactment of these provisions.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: Notwithstanding
everything that has been said with regard to the curtailment of liberty and constitutionalism by the provisions of this bill, I have come to the conclusion that the protagonists of liberty and constitutionalism have laboured very hard to produce an argument only to give birth to a squeaky constitutional mouse.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon. friend referring to himself?


Michael Luchkovich: The leader of the opposition asks me if I am referring to myself when I speak of liberty-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not liberty.


Michael Luchkovich: Well, then by the assumption of his parentage to myself the leader of the opposition is neither logical nor natural. When I spoke of the squeaky constitutional mouse I was referring to the squeaky constitutional mouse which he produced when he spoke for two hours the other day. On more than one occasion the leader of the opposition has said that base money drives

out good money. If the wheat pool was not one hundred per cent successful I think the reason was the forty-five or fifty per cent who refused to join. If the farmers had joined the wheat pool one hundred per cent I do not think there would have been any argument as to its success. The hon. member for West Lambton was asked by the Minister of Agriculture how we could have orderly marketing without some degree of compulsion. He said that he did not say he was in favour of orderly marketing, that he was in favour of cooperative marketing. How in the world can you have cooperative marketing without orderly marketing? The hon. member is absolutely inconsistent in that position. I am not averse to some form of compulsion. It is not possible to have a marketing bill, whether that bill be introduced by the member for Melfort or by the member for Melville, without embodying in it a measure of compulsion. In my opinion the only liberty that is being interfered with here is the liberty of small-minorities to oppress and enslave the community as a whole; there is no question in my mind about that. Liberty is really the greatest good of the greatest number.
Reference has been made to-day to the system of education in this country, and it has been said that we have a good system owing to the past policies of the Liberal government. Well, I have been educated in schools directed by ministers of education who were both Democratic and Republican, Conservative and Liberal, and I think that the courses in education which have been carried on in this country have been fairly well conducted whether under one government or the other. But there is a phase of the system of education which I would bring to the attention of the house and that is compulsion- compulsory education. I was a teacher once, and I know that in the Education Act there is a section which makes it compulsory for all children between the ages of seven and fifteen to attend school. Parents by the dozen have often come and asked me to allow their children to stay at home during the harvest or at other times for five or six weeks, and some have stayed at home in spite of the fact that I wanted them to attend. The result was that the Department of Education had them up before a justice of the peace and they were obliged to pay a fine. And this is done whether the Minister of Education is Liberal or Conservative or United Farmer. I do not think that these arguments in regard to liberty have anything at all to do with this bill. When hon. members bring up this ques-

Marketing Act
tion of liberty and constitutionalism they remind me of a man sweating very hard to drive an ordinary carpet tack with a sledge hammer or, to use a biblical metaphor, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Undoubtedly the principle involved in this bill is a worthy one and I am quite sure that the farmers of the west, if not all of them at any rate the great majority, are absolutely in favour of that principle, namely, orderly marketing.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I listened with much interest to the remarks of the hon. member for St. James, who is not now in his place. The hon. gentleman must have had his ear to the ground; apparently he has realized that the opposition is making a grave mistake in opposing the bill. He very adroitly suggested that they ought to withdraw their opposition and allow the bill to pass. It was exceedingly clever and I compliment him. He even went so far as to intimate, if I understood him, that he would support the bill himself.
I do not know what the attitude of farmers in other parts of Canada may be towards compulsory marketing, but I am satisfied that so far as British Columbia is concerned the dairy farmers and the fruit growers are heartily in favour of a compulsory marketing organization. I think it was in 1926 that the milk producers of the Fraser valley first approached the government of British Columbia for a dairy produce marketing act. Their bill was turned down on that occasion, and again in 1927 they approached the government with a similar measure. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre was a member of the legislature at the time. They did not pass the bill on that occasion but appointed a commission to investigate the milk producer situation in that province, and that committee reported unanimously in favour of a bill for compulsory marketing and pooling of profits, with the result that the following year, in 1928 or 1929, the legislation was given effect to. However, like all our marketing legislation in Canada-that is, all provincial legislation-it was taken to the courts by a minority who did not wish to come under the bill and that legislation was declared ultra vires. The same happened with the efforts of the fruit growers in regard to their affairs. Last year in the Okanagan the fruit growers, without any legislation at all, took matters in their own hands and by sheer force compelled cooperative marketing.
So far as British Columbia is concerned, some form of compulsory marketing legislation is essential and they must have it. Whether this bill goes far enough or too far I
do not know, but I think it would be much better for us to take up the various sections and either allow the government to amend them as we come to them or propose amendments ourselves, as private members, with regard to provisions that are obnoxious to us.
When I hear hon. members talking about individual liberty-well, I was going to say that it gives me a pain in the neck, but that might not be parliamentary. The member for Weyburn says that the farmer should be allowed to cultivate his land in whatever way he likes and to sell his products wherever he likes. But suppose he wished to cultivate it so that it grew nothing but weeds; would the hon. member agree that this was right in relation to the farmer's neighbour? If the state has a right to say that the farmer must not grow weeds on his land, then it has a right to say that he must grow other things and that he must not do certain things that are detrimental to his neighbours. And he may be doing something just as detrimental to other farmers through his marketing policies as in his methods of cultivation. And when I hear Liberals from Quebec talking about liberty, I would ask them-did they ever hear about Bill 28, which compels every organization which proposes to call a public meeting, and issues notice, to obtain the approval of the police before the notice is posted? Of course, that is aimed at people with whose opinions we do not agree, and for that reason I suppose it is all right.
Mr. DUPUIS; May I ask the hon. member whether he knows the difference between liberty and licence?
Mr. MacINNIS; Yes, I know it quite well. Liberty is allowing people to do anything they wish to do in so far as it does not interfere with the welfare of others, in so far as it does not prejudice the interests of the community. I am quite clear with regard to the difference. But my hon. friend will not say that it was licence to call a public meeting, and issue notices with regard to that meeting, without having to hand that notice to the police to see whether they would allow the meeting to be held or not.
Last year Dean Clement of the University of British Columbia was asked to make a report on the fruit marketing situation in that province and this is part of his report. He said:
Dean Clement claims that ten times too many men are making a living between the growers and the consumers and says several large wealthy jobbing firms are trying to drive *wedges into the fruit industry in an effort to gain or retain control. Growers are urgml
Questions

sticky together and it is stated that the only solution to the present difficulties is one hundred per cent grower control.
You cannot have one hundred per cent fruit growers' control without some compulsion. Our Liberal friends are great on liberty. I am reminded of an item I read in a book by H. N. Brailsford that came out a few years ago, and I am going to quote it in conclusion. This is what he says:
A network of parties, trading associations and newspapers is engaged in propagating this belief in the efficacy of competition. It is instilled into us with such persistency that it avails with the majority to counteract the evidence of daily experience. There are still millions who listen with acquiescence to the defence of the competitive system by the Liberal press and the Liberal party. Yet they must know that this press is mainly, and this party largely, financed by captains of industry who long ago discarded unrestricted competition. In the making of thread and soap, cocoa and chemicals, the great Liberal industrialists have found a more excellent way. In their own business _ they practice combination, but they still maintain an expensive organization to sustain our belief in the virtues of competition. It is an intelligible form of insurance.
Yes, it is an intelligible form of insurance. For the good of the farmers of the dominion we had better get down to this bill, deal with it clause by clause, bring forward our amendments and then, after it is amended, if it is what we would like it to be, let us vote for it when it comes up for third reading.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Richard Bedford Bennett: In 1912 the house was in recess
on Ascension Day. In 1913 and 1914 it did not sit on that day. In 1915 and 1916 it was in recess. My information is that on Ascension Day there was no sitting in 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 or 1926. In 1927 the house was in recess. In 1928 and 1929 there was no sitting. In 1930 the house sat on May 29. In 1931 the house sat on Ascension Day, and it will be recalled that there was some protest against its sitting. In 1932 it did not sit, and last year we sat in order that the business might be concluded so that I might attend the conference in London. Under these circumstances my intention is to move to-morrow that when the house adjourns to-morrow, it stand adjourned until Friday at three o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 1056 p.m.

Wednesday, May 9, 1934