[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on standing orders and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (Toronto South) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government as follows:	.
Your committee, in accordance with order of reference dated March 4, 1935, has considered the annual reports respecting the accounts of the Canadian National Railways and' the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and in connection therewith has examined the following witnesses:
Hon. C. P. Fullerton, K.C., Chairman, Board of Trustees, Canadian National Railways;
Mr. J. E. Labelle, K.C., Trustee, Canadian National Railways;
Mr. S. J. Hungerford, President, Canadian National Railways;
Mr. S. W. Fairweather, Director, Bureau of Economics, Canadian National Railways;
Mr. T. H. Cooper, Auditor of General Accounts, Canadian National Railways;
Mr. B. J. Roberts, Comptroller, Government Guarantee Branch, Department of Finance;
Mr. 0. A. Matthews, George A. Touche & Company, Accountants and Auditors.
Your committee had under consideration Bill No. 24, an act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1935, and in its second report presented on the 9th of April, 1935, reported the said bill without amendment. A full explanation of this bill was given in the House of Commons by the Minister of Railways and Canals.
Your committee had under consideration items numbers 293, 294. 295, 296 and 207 (Canadian National Steamships and Maritime Freight Rates Act), of the estimates of the fiscal year
1935-1936 approved the same and recommended them to the house in its third report dated the 19th of April, 1935.
The budget for the year 1935 of Canadian National Railways and Canadian National Steamships estimates totals operating revenues for the year at $180,000,000 and operating expenses of $163,200,000. In addition to operating expenses there are sundry other items charged against operating revenues including interest on funded debt due to the public amounting to $62,600,000, showing an estimated deficit on the year's operations of $45,800,000. Of this amount, however, $1,020,000, depreciation reserve and $780,000 amortization of discount on funded debt, or $1,800,000 in all, are not required in cash; so that the estimated net cash requirement on deficit account for the year is $44,000,000.
The total capital expenditures for the year, estimated as follows:
For additions and betterments, $5,279,600; for investments and securities representing capital expenditures, $220,400; a total of $5,500,000, call for no special comment beyond the fact that under the item of "hotels" some $600,000 is provided for opening the Saskatoon hotel, and $300,000 to continue the construction of the Vancouver hotel.

Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria, Ontario) moved:: That for the remainder of the session all private bills when presented be read a first and second time and referred forthwith, and that standing order 105 respecting the posting of private bills be suspended.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: Bank oj Canada
C.P.R. Double bell and wigwag at crossing just east of Dixie station. Twp. of Toronto, Oat.,^county of Peel, mile 12.61 London sub.-1.
_ C.N.R. Two floodlights at crossing immediately west of station platform at Tillsonburg, Ont.-l.
C.N.R. Bell and' wigwag at crossing at mile 23.2 Huntsville sub., Ont.-1.
C.N.R. Bell and wigwag at second crossing east of Delhi, Ont., mile 82.66 Cayuga sub.-1.
C.N.R. Add wigwag to bell at Drummond road. Twp. of Stamford, Ont.-1.
C.N.R. Bell and wigwag, mile 23.89 Brampton sub., Ont.-1.
C.N.R. Improvement to view at crossing just north of Falkenburg, Ont., mile 15.59 Huntsville sub.-1.	.
C.N.R. Improvement to view at crossing, mile 47.79 Milton sub., south of Palgrave station, Ont.-1.
C.N.R. Improvement to view at crossing at mile 12.15 Chester sub., at Ilubley, N.S.-1.
C.N.R. Improvement to view at crossing 3 miles east of Moulton, Ont., mile 30.06 Cayuga sub.-1.
C.N.R. Bell and wigwag, Fourth and Centre streets, village of King, county of York, Ont.-1.
M.C. Rd. Improving view, crossing of Provincial Highway No. 3. Dunnville road, mile 3.51 miles east of Canfield jet.-1.
C.N.R. Improving view at crossing just east of Peffers station, county of Perth, Ont.-1.
C.N.R. Diversion and subway, at Alma, N.S. Pictou branch.-2.
C.P.R. Diversion and overhead crossing at mile 43.73 Nelson sub., B.C.-1.
C.	P.R. Diversion and subway at mile 0.76 Kingsgate sub., B.C.-2.
D.	A. ry. Diversion at Kentville, N.S.-2.
C.P.R. Bell and wigwag at Queen st., Twp.
of Etobicoke, Ont,, mile 1.21 Obico cut-off.-1.
C.N.R. Improvement to grade of crossing at Onslow, N.S., mile 2.49 Springliill sub.-1.- Total, 32.	'
Urban Crossings
C.	N.R. Double bells and wigwags, London street, Thamesville, Ont.-1.
M.C. rd. Bell and wigwag, Clifton Hill st., Niagara Falls.-1.
D.	A. ry. Stannus street, Windsor. N.S.-1.
D.A. ry. Main street, Yarmouth, N.S.-1.
C.P.R. Double bell and wigwag, Raglan st.,
Renfrew, Ont.-1.
C.N.R. Add wigwag to bell at Timothy st., Newmarket, Ont.-1.
C.N.R. Add wigwag to bell at Water st., Newmarket, Ont.-1.
C.P.R. & T. & N. 0. ry. Crossings at Golf street, North Bay, Ont.-2.
C.N.R. Add wigwag to bell at John st., New Glasgow, N.S.-1.
C.N.R. Add wigwag to bell, crossing at Matapedia, Que.-1.
C.N.R. Double bells and wigwags, Huron-tario st., Port Credit. Ont.-l.
CNR. Double bell and wigwag, Memorial ave. Port Arthur, Ont.

1.
C.P.R. Add wigwag to bell, Talbot st., St. Thomas, Ont.-1.
T.H. & B. ry. & C.N.R. Hamilton viaduot.

8.-Total, 22.



BANK OF CANADA ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved for lea-ve to introduce a bill to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
[Mr. Manion.l
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Explain.


Mr. REID:: There are two changes contemplated in the proposed bill. The first is to amend paragraph (b), subsection 3, of section 25, and would empower the minister to purchase silver for the redemption of dominion notes. The second amendment is to repeal subsection 4 of section 26. As the section stands at present, it expressly prohibits the Bank of Canada from purchasing a greater amount of silver than 1,671,802. fine ounces during a period of three years- 1935, 1936 and 1937. The change proposed in the bill provides that the Bank of Canada shall not hold less than 1,671,802 fine ounces and so removes the prohibitory provision of the section.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: If the hon. gentleman's statement is accurate, as it is no doubt intended to be, the motion is out of order. He said a moment ago that the bill contemplates the expenditure by the minister of moneys for the purpose of dealing with silver, and it comes directly within the prohibition whereby measures of this kind must emanate from the government of the day, with the authority of a message. Apart from all that, the effect is to change the policy that has been defined by parliament. I suppose a private member could move to do that were it not that it involves the question of the expenditure of money, as a bill did the other day. I therefore submit that the motion is out of order.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I rise to a point of order. In this matter we have to consider the corporation as it is, whether it is a private capital corporation or a state-owned corporation. It is not state-owned. The capital of the bank is private. If the remarks of the Prime Minister are correct, if the Bank of Canada is a public institution with no private capital, I submit that the government should answer the questions which wrere put by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre some time ago. If not, very well. I contend that the motion proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster should be accepted.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: On the point of order, the Prime Minister raised two points, though he abandoned the second one in regard to a private member's right to propose an amendment to the Bank of Canada Act. That objection could not stand for a moment. As I understand the bill as explained by the hon. member who proposes it, it does not seek to impose obligations on the crown.

Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said the government would purchase


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think so. My understanding is that it seeks to abolish the maximum limitation of the amount of silver, which is specifically limited by one of the sections of the act. If that is the case I do not think it does impose obligations on the crown. However, I should be glad if Your Honour would look into the matter. It is different from the point raised by the Prime Minister the other day. I agree that the former bill did affect the revenues of the crown., but I do not think that is the case here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I may be allowed to speak again, I would point out that it is not a question of the revenues but of the expenditure of moneys for the acquisition of silver. The hon. gentleman proposed that the government should expend money for the purchase of silver.


An hon. MEMBER:: I do not think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what he said in moving for leave to introduce the bill; that was what caught my attention. The bill clearly contemplates that the minister shall spend money, and it is not competent for a private member to instruct the house that the minister shall spend money to buy silver.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am inclined to think that the objection raised by the Prime Minister is a vital one. However, if the hon. member will allow the matter to stand until to-morrow I shall have an opportunity in the meantime to consider his remarks as reported in Hansard and will then rule on the question.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MUNN:: 1.	How much timber was sold from Homalco Indian reserve No. 4, Orford bay, British Columbia, since 1920?
2.	What was the price per thousand' feet B.M.?
3.	What	disposition	was	made	of	these
moneys since 1920?
4.	How much money Avas received from rentals and leases since 1910 from the above reserve ?
5.	What	disposition	was	made	of	these
moneys?
6.	How much timber was sold from Homalco Indian reserve No. 1, Homalco river and Bute inlet, since 1917?
7.	What price was received per thousand feet B.M.?
8.	What disposition was made of the above moneys since 1916?
9.	How much money was received from rentals and leases from Homalco Indian reserve No. 1. since 1910?
10.	What disposition was made of these moneys ?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	11,881,426 f.b.m.
2.	$1.70.
3.	Credited to band funds and distributed to Indians in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Act.
4.	Rentals and leases: timber, $192; land, $10,700.35.
5.	Credited to band funds.
6.	7,495,258 f.b.m.
7.	$1.90.
8.	Credited to funds of the band and distributed to Indians in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Act.
9.	Rentals and leases: timber, $156; land, $400.
10.	Credited to band funds.


NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. PONTAINE:: What is the exact amount of the national debt?


Mr. RHODES:: The net debt of Canada as at March 31, 1935, as estimated in the budget speech, was $2,847,678,000. The accounts for the year have not yet been finally closed.


FIRMS PAYING INCOME TAX
Mr. STEWART (West Edmonton):: 1.	What is the total number of firms paying income tax in Canada?
2.	What is business turnover of firms paying income tax (total amount only) ?
3.	What is percentage of net earnings to turnover ?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1.	8.913 corporations (fiscal year 1933-34).
2 and 3. Not available as statistics are not maintained in such a manner as to give the information requested.


MR. RAY STEWART
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What position, if any, does Mr. Ray Stewart, in the county of Leeds, hold with the present government?
2.	What are his duties, and his salary?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1 and 2. Not employed in federal government service.
The Late Viscount Byng



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DUBOIS:: 1. What are the names, occupations and salaries of the persons hitherto employed by the Canadian Farm Loan Board at the Quebec provincial office who were dismissed after the latest amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act were assented to, and on what date was each such person dismissed?
2. What are the names, occupations and salaries of the persons appointed by the government to the Quebec provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board after April 17, 1935. and on what date was each such person appointed ?
3.	How long was the Quebec provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board closed to the public?
4.	Since April 17, 1935, to date, how many letters were received at the Quebec provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board, and how many of such letters are still unanswered?
5.	Since April 17, 1935, how many loan applications have been received at the Quebec provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board, and how many of such applications have not yet been considered?
6.	What is the number of inspectors actually in the employ of the Quebec provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board for the purpose of appraising the value of farms of prospective borrowers?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Return tabled herewith.



AIRPORT PROJECT EXPENDITURES

Mr. ARTHURS:: What amount, if any, has been spent for the opening of an airport at or near Emsdale, at or near South River and at Lake Two Rivers, project 144	(a) for land; (b) for
salaries and wages; (e) other expenditures; (d) board and clothing; (e) what is average number of men employed?



THE LATE VISCOUNT BYNG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
members of both houses of parliament and the people of Canada generally will greatly appreciate the tribute which has just been paid by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to the memory of the late Lord Byng. As leader of the opposition and one who for a number of years enjoyed the closest official and personal relations with Lord Byng, may I say in depp sincerity that I join with all that has been said in praise of the great career which has just drawn to its close, and of the qualities which won for Lord Byng in his lifetime not only the admiration but the abiding regard and esteem of those who served with him and of all who knew him best. The loss which Britain mourns to-day in the passing of one of her most distinguished sons is a loss which will be felt in all parts of the British empire, but in no other part as much as in this dominion. Because of his immediate contact with Canadians in the great war as commander of the Canadian corps, and of the high position he held in Canada as governor general, Lord Byng was brought, on the field of battle and in affairs of state, into closer association with a larger number of Canadians than any other person who has held either of those positions. In that twofold way his life was more intimately linked with the lives of many of our people than that of any other governor general.
I shall not attempt to review the career of the late Lord Byng; that has already been done by the Prime Minister, and indeed it is already a part of history itself. But I should like to join with the Prime Minister in giving expression to a thought or two arising out of the personal association which I was privileged to have with Lord Byng during the years that I enjoyed the intimate and close association to which I have referred. Of the many qualities which served to endear Lord Byng to those who knew him I should say the greatest of all was his ever present sense of duty. Viewing hia life as a whole, one cannot but see in it much that, from the point of view of service to the crown and to the state, was exemplary. From the very beginning of his interest in affairs it was a life of service, and service in a very large way. That life of service carried with it those characteristics of conscientiousness, fearlessness, love of
The Late Viscount Byng

justice, the desire to see the right thing done, and to further the right with which one associates faithfulness to duty. Another quality which endeared Lord Byng to those who knew him best was his great modesty and accessibility. There was something exceptionally fine in the directness and simplicity of his nature. There was nothing affected about him, he was naturalness itself in his relations with his fellow men. Moreover, by nature, he was genuinely considerate and kind. He had a very great love for his fellow men. I think it was a distinguishing characteristic, that he was particularly fond of the average man. He had an especial concern, naturally, for those who- had served with him in the great war, and it is little wonder that his name is held in reverence by the veterans of that, great struggle. But his sympathy was essentially with human nature andl with men of all classes. That was evidenced while he was in Canada by the extent to which he went from one end of this country to the other to become personally informed and acquainted with conditions, and to meet and know the people. I venture to say there are few, if any, who have held the great office of governor general in Canada who have left behind more personal friends and acquaintances than it was Lord Byng's privilege to have made during the time he was in this country.
There were other qualities, to one of which the Prime Minister has referred, which were also outstanding. Lord Byng was a great friend. I always felt in my association with him during the years I was in office that I had in him a friend with whom' I could discuss most intimately and advantageously all the affairs that came before the government for consideration. The years from 1921 to 1925 were difficult and trying years. I should like to say that throughout that period I constantly felt that the government could not have received from a governor general more helpful counsel and assistance than was sought to be given to my colleagues and myself by Lord Byng.
Perhaps I can best express what my feelings were towards Lord Byng when I say to the house that in the early part of 1926, when we were drawing near to the end of Lord Byng's term of office and it became necessary to recommend a successor, I wrote to the British Prime Minister and said that, so happy and cordial had our relations been in all respects throughout all the time that Lord Byng had heen here and we had shared so fully each others confidence, there was nothing which my colleagues and myself would

more welcome, if it were agreeable to Lord Byng himself and to His Majesty the King, than an extension or renewal of his term of office as governor general. Such was the nature of our official relations. As is known, those official relations were severed owing to a difference of view on, a constitutional question. But I felt then, I feel now, and I shall always feel, as regards both Lord Byng and myself, that each of us, with respect to that particular matter, did that which was right in his own eyes.
I feel that the empire has lost a great soldier, an exemplary citizen and a good man. I think we may all be proud that the name of Lord Byng of Vimy will have an enduring association with our dominion both at home and abroad. I join with the Prime Minister, as my colleagues on this side of the house will wish to do, in his request that Your Honour convey to Lady Byng an expression of the deep sympathy felt for her in her great bereavement by all hon,. members of this House of Commons.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: It was with deep regret that we learned a few minutes ago of the passing of Lord Byng, former governor general of Canada. Those of us who had the privilege of meeting him here, and indeed citizens resident in different parts of Canada who had that privilege, realize that his most outstanding quality was his broad human sympathy. I join with the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition in extending to his bereaved relatives and to all those who are near and dear to him an expression of deep sympathy with them in their sad loss.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre): I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling) whether he has yet received the report of the Macdonald commission investigating unemployment relief in British Columbia. If so, will he table the report.
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence):: The report to which the hon. member refers reached me this morning. I have not had time to look into it yet.

Privilege-Mr. Veniot



RADIO BROADCASTING COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if he is aware that a certain number of employees of the radio broadcasting commission have not been paid since the last 15th March?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
know that the payment of salaries of a certain number of employees of that commission, whose appointment had not been authorized by the treasury board, has been delayed for some time. Not very long ago, a list of these employees was forwarded to the treasury board and I believe that the payment of their salaries was authorized last Monday.



PRIVILEGE-MR. VENIOT REPORT OF HON. J. B. M. BAXTER, ROYAL COMMISSIONER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: I desire to bring up a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, but before doing so may I say that I hesitate to refer to this matter at this late stage of the session, when there are other more important matters to be decided before prorogation. I feel, however, that I am entitled to bring up this matter on a question of privilege. I am not sure that I am right, however, so I am now submitting the matter for Your Honour's consideration. On a question of privilege would I be entitled to deal with the report, that was laid on the table of the house yesterday, of Commissioner Baxter in connection with charges made by me on the floor of this house?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If I were to decide the
matter offhand I would say no, but I should prefer not to do that. I should like to give the matter consideration until to-morrow, if that would be satisfactory to the hon. member.


Peter John Veniot: May I also request Your
Honour, after you have given consideration to the matter, to indicate when or under what circumstances I might be permitted to bring up this matter.



VICTORIA BRIDGE TOLLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: On Friday last a delegation came from the counties of Chambly, Verdheres, Rouville, Laprairie and Napierville, asking the government to reduce the tolls on the Victoria bridge.
I understand that this delegation was received by the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman when he will be in a position to tell the house what will be the reduction, if any.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the delegation to which the hon. member has referred met a committee of the cabinet and presented a memorial in which they asked for modification of the present tolls on the Victoria bridge. As the matter was one wholly within the province of the railway company it was referred to that corporation in order that a report might be made upon the representations that were presented by the delegation. The report has not yet been received from the railway company. When it is received appropriate action will be taken.



GIBB REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay): I should like to ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if he has any information to give the house as to whether the government intend to implement the Gibb report which was presented to the government a few years ago, and if so whether such implementation will be carried out before the end of the session or before the dissolution of parliament.
Alfred Duranleau: In reply to my hon. friend I may say that the report has not been implemented by legislation, but has helped to bring about improvements in the administration of our national harbours. No legislation implementing the report will be brought down during this session.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I promised the house that I would have the report of the answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) brought down from the Hansard office. The original is in my hands; it is initialled by "F", the clerk assistant at the table, and is in language exactly similar to that reproduced in Hansard of Thursday, January 24, 1935. It is open for inspection, but will be returned to Hansard.

Trade and Industry Commission


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the Prime Minister the answer that was handed by the Secretary of State-


Richard Bedford Bennett: To the clerk of the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -to the hon. member for Gloucester.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, a page took that to the hon. member.


Peter John Veniot: I never stated that the answer that appeared in Hansard had not been prepared by the department. My only contention was that what was handed to me as the official document did not appear in Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not handed as an official document.



INTERPRETATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 74, to amend the Interpretation Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish a dominion trade and industry commission, and to provide that the tariff board shall act as the commissioners with prescribed powers and duties, and that a director of prosecutions be appointed to carry on such legal proceedings as may be required under the provisions of the act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the terms of the resolution indicate clearly the purposes for which it is placed before the house. It is proposed to bring in a measure to establish a dominion trade and industry commission, and to provide that the tariff board shall act as commissioners with powers and duties as indicated in the bill. There is a further provision that there be appointed a director of prosecutions to carry on such legal proceedings as may be required properly to make effective the terms of the bill. I believe a discussion on the resolution might be more effective in committee, and I would recommend that we proceed to that stage.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the director of prosecutions be a full-time appointee?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the minister any information to give out as to whether the government has decided who the appointee will be?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; no
consideration has been given the matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the minister given any consideration to the question of remuneration for the commissioner?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, full
consideration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
much?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will be disclosed in the bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the rate of remuneration be fixed in the bill to be introduced?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any particular
reason for the government's decision to have the present tariff board act as commissioners, rather than setting up a separate board of commissioners for the purposes of this measure ?


Richard Burpee Hanson: One of
the reasons is that we feel quite confident the tariff board can carry out the duties of the dominion trade and industry commission without setting up an independent body, and we will be saving money to the treasury.


Mr. EULER:: The minister states that is
one reason; what are the others?


Richard Burpee Hanson: We feel
the members of the tariff board are well qualified to carry out the work.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: Is it the
government's intention to add to the personnel of the tariff board, if this work is allotted to it, or is it considered that the present personnel is large enough to carry out the work?


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is
no provision in the bill for adding to the personnel of the tariff board, but there is a provision in the legislation setting up the tariff board whereby additional personnel may be added if required.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Will supplementary machinery be established in each province in order to enforce the provisions of the board?

Supply-M arine-R adio


Richard Burpee Hanson: As the hon. member must know, the administration of justice in Canada is in the hands of the attorneys-general of the provinces. The public prosecutor would be expected so far as may be necessary to collaborate with the various attorneys-general.
Mr. McTNTOBlH: I am not a legal expert; that is the reason I asked for the information.


Robert Gardiner: Before the question is put may I ask if the minister really believes the present tariff board will have sufficient time to attend to the duties of both branches of their work, namely, that connected with tariffs and the work which will come to them as the result of this measure?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: That is the point about which I am most concerned at the moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, they will.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Is this to be the brain trust which is to control and regulate industry in Canada?
by the commission and paid out of the program allotment, and I understand that the auditor general ruled that these employees had not been regularly appointed, that such appointments should have been authorized by the treasury board. There was a difference of opinion in this connection and the Department of Justice ruled in favour of the decision of the auditor general. The matter was submitted to the treasury board and at its meeting the appointment of these employees was authorized.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Surely the minister does not mean to say that the artists employed by the commission must have their engagement confirmed by the treasury board. Has the commission not the right to hire its own artists?


Alfred Duranleau: I was referring more
particularly to the announcers.


James Malcolm: They should be in the
same position.


Alfred Duranleau: I understand that the Department of Justice ruled that these employments should have been authorized by the treasury board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I don't know anything about a brain trust.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 86, to establish a dominion trade and industry commission.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Canadian radio broadcasting service, $1,500,000.
['Yes.\nProgress reported.']
Ernest Lapointe: In answer to a question asked before the orders of the day were called the minister replied that certain employees of the radio commission have not been paid since the month of March, because they had been employed without the necessary authorization of the treasury board, and that this condition must be adjusted before they receive payment. How did it happen that these people were given employment without the approval of the treasury board being obtained?


Alfred Duranleau: Certain employees were taken


Ernest Lapointe: The announcers and
people in similar positions are temporary rather than permanent employees, are they not?


Alfred Duranleau: Some of the announcers are permanent, others are temporary.


James Malcolm: They should not be
permanent.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Some time before the recess we extended the life of the commission for a few months and I should like to know if it is the intention of the government to extend the life of the radio commission still further.


Alfred Duranleau: This matter has been under careful consideration by the government and we have come to the conclusion that we should ask the house to extend the life of the commission to the end of this fiscal year. The commission has been in operation only since January 1, 1933, and it was thought that it should be continued a few months longer and we should let another parliament decide whether it should be abolished or its powers modified. A bill will be presented shortly to extend the life of the commission to the end of this fiscal year.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: This is the vote under which extension of services will take place. The sendee in British Columbia is
S up pi y-Marine-Radio

very unsatisfactory and I should like to know what works are to be undertaken to bring about improvements.


Alfred Duranleau: I am not in a position to give details but I may say that the commission has in mind the construction of powerful stations throughout Canada, one to be located in Vancouver. The commission hopes to be able to start this program of construction within a very short time.


John Anderson Fraser: Is anything provided in this vote for that work?


Alfred Duranleau: I understand that the commission intends to use a certain part of this vote to start its program. I believe it intends to commence the construction of the station in Vancouver as soon as it is authorized by the government.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister has just indicated that the commission proposes to construct a high-powered station in Vancouver. As briefly as possible I should like to outline the situation in British Columbia. Vancouver and its immediate environments on the lower mainland is situated in the southwest corner of the province and I believe this is one of the reasons why we have such unsatisfactory service. There are six private stations operating in Vancouver and even though -the city and its immediate surroundings contains two-thirds of the population of the province I believe it has pretty fair service at the present time. The government should consider carefully before it decides to construct another high-powered station in Vancouver. The minister should consider if it would not be for the general benefit of the outlying sections of the province to locate such a station at a more central point than the city of Vancouver. The reception received by points in the interior of the province is exceedingly unsatisfactory and the construction of a high-powered station in Vancouver will not improve the situation. One quarter of the power of such a station will go out over the Pacific ocean while another quarter will go south across the line where the American people are well served with their own stations. The people in the interior of the province have no reception at all except when they turn on the American stations. The general complaint throughout the province is that they can only get reception from the American stations. -I therefore appeal to the minister to have this situation looked into carefully and to see whether a 'better location could not be secured than the city of Vancouver.
(Mr. J. A. Fraser.]


Alfred Duranleau: I shall ibe pleased to call the attention of the radio commission to my hon. friend's remarks, which I am sure they will consider carefully.


Mr. BOULANGER:: Is it the intention of the commission to discontinue broadcasting French programs in the western provinces?


Alfred Duranleau: I have no intimation or knowledge of any such intention on the part of the commission.


Mr. MUNN:: It is recognized that Vancouver is the most central point in British Columbia as regards population, and I would impress on the minister the advisability when the station is built of having it sufficiently strong and sufficiently high powered that interior points will be taken care of, especially in tihe riding of Cariboo, from which my hon. friend comes.


Robert Gardiner: What progress has been made in the last year by the commission either in acquiring stations or in building new ones?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the details before me of what they have done in the last twelve months. I know however that the commission has built and opened a station in the city of Quebec and another one, more than a year ago, at Chicoutimi. Another one is in operation at New Carlisle in Bonaventure county, and I believe a station of 1,000 watts was purchased and is operated at Windsor, Ontario. There are other stations which have been opened up by the commission, not very powerful however-1,000 and 5,000 watt stations.


Robert Gardiner: What progress has been made by the commission in talcing care of outlying districts, not only in Quebec but in other parts of Canada, which do not get very much service from the ordinary stations?


Alfred Duranleau: The aim of the commission is to cover every section of Canada as far as possible, but as I have already stated the appropriations that have been voted have not been sufficient to allow the commission to build expensive stations such as are built in other countries. The commissioners have been doing all they possibly could with the moneys available, 81,000,000 odd voted last year and the amount being voted this year; but they cannot maintain first class programs and build powerful stations all over Canada in one year. Everyone will admit, I think, that the amount is inadequate, but it was our view that in these years of depression we should not have been justified in asking this house to vote large amounts to build powerful stations

Supply-Marine-Radio
throughout the country. I hope that during this fiscal year the commission will be in a position to execute a part of its program.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Last year,
Mr. Chairman, your were the chairman of a radio committee which, with a good deal of care and time, undertook to make an examination into the conditions that had affected radio broadcasting in this country up to that time. Your committee reported, making certain recommendations, which I think were well thought of. One of them advised the government to undertake the further consideration during the recess of amendments to the act to meet the suggestions made by the committee. I should like to know what the government has done in regard to the report of the radio committee of last year-whether an investigation has taken place with respect to its recommendations and whether the government proposes to amend the act and, if not, why not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the bill is introduced extending the life of the radio commission until the end of the next fiscal year, as it will be, I desire to make some observations touching the whole radio situation in this dominion. The real truth is that the effort to destroy this publicly owned utility is very well known and is very active, and whether or not the utility can be saved will depend upon the attitude of the House of Commons towards it and their willingness to realize that a country that is as poor as we are cannot spend at once the money that is required to make this facility as perfect as it should be. I may say to this committee very frankly that it will require a very large sum of money to give a country of the size of this that coverage which would approach perfection. I had occasion the other day in England to make some inquiries regarding the manner in which they were proceeding with their broadcasting corporation. It will be known to members of this committee that Sir John Reith, who is managing director of the British Broadcasting Corporation, went to South Africa to make them a report, and he reported-I think the report has been published; if not, I am not divulging any confidence when I say that he reported in favour of a publicly owned service. The same applies to Australia and New Zealand. We in this country are in an exceedingly difficult position. We have ten and a half millions of people and we have to rent several thousands of miles of wire in order to broadcast on an efficient scale. That is very expensive having regard to the existing rates for leasing wires both from railways and telephone 92582-213
companies. And then always insidiously is the attack made against the publicly owned facility and the effort made to destroy it. I will deal with that at somewhat greater length, but I should like to say this to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). Possibly he realizes that sometimes in our anxiety to be critical-I am not referring to anything that has taken place to-day but more to what occurred last year-we do the thing itself an injury. I think that perhaps that is recognized by most men who have studied the situation. I have a considerable amount of information and I shall be pleased to place it before the house on the second reading or when the bill is in committee. I am convinced that at the present time only one of two things can be done. Whoever is on the treasury benches will have to ask parliament for a grant of money to enable these facilities to be provided, if they think the conditions in the country will stand it, or to utilize the revenues to the extent that may be possible, gradually to build the stations necessary-gradually.
That is one in the east, one in the west and one somewhere else, in order that there may be a complete coverage. I do not know how the committee feel about the matter, but the more I see of it and know of it, the more determined I would be, if I were here, that I should not yield this facility to any private enterprise. That is my firm conclusion with respect to the matter. I say that very strongly, and the more I see of the matter, the more convinced I am.
I also realize the committee must take cognizance of the fact that we must proceed gradually or else parliament must be prepared to provide a larger sum of money than we feel we can ask at the moment, in order to give effect to some of the recommendations that were made last year. I should like to ask the tolerance of the committee at the present moment in order that when the bill is moved, they may be presented with such facts as various officials have been able to gather together during the past few months and there may be added to it, such observations as are prompted by the information that I have received, for, as the members of the committee possibly know, a committee has been set up again to consider the broadcasting situation in Great Britain. I think it is headed by the former speaker of the House of Commons, the present Lord Ellsworth. That is my memory; I speak subject to correction in that regard. I shall endeavour to

Supply-M arine-Radio

place before the committee at the proper time, when the bill is being moved, such information as I have on the subject.


William Daum Euler: When does the Prime
Minister propose to introduce the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Right away.


William Daum Euler: To-day?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: I regard
the statement made by the Prime Minister as probably one of the most important he has made this year in the house. I can assure him now, in the future as in the past, of my hearty cooperation with him in maintaining the principle of public ownership. My purpose in asking the question was far from being critical as I think you, sir, as chairman of the committee of last year will remember. I wish to know, however, whether the government has taken into consideration a recommendation of the committee for an alteration in the set-up of the personnel of the commission, with a view to eliminating certain, charges and difficulties of management that had become apparent to the committee.
As for the commission's work itself, I have for the greater part of that work a very sincere admiration, and I think the commission on the whole is to be congratulated on what it has succeeded in doing with the meagre funds at its disposal and the technical difficulties under which it operates. But that should not prevent those of us who feel that in this question the whole principle of public ownership may be at stake, in doing all we can to see to it that the recommendations of the committee of last year, in so far as they may be practical and possible, are carried out. We felt those recommendations were calculated to stimulate the character of the commission, to strengthen the principle of public ownership in regard to radio broadcasting and to improve the facilities of the commission. I am glad to hear what the Prime Minister has said, and I am sure the committee will wait with interest a further statement from him when the bill comes down.


William Daum Euler: I was one of those who were on, the original committee that brought in the report upon which was based the bill establishing a radio commission. I was then and I am still in favour of public ownership of this utility. I also earlier this session made some rather strong criticisms of the way in which the work was carried on. I do not propose to repeat those criticisms to-day, but I do hope when the Prime Minister or the 
Minister of Marine, if he has the matter in charge, discusses the bill, some of the criticisms made at that time in good faith will be answered and that there will be some hope at least that the conditions complained of will be remedied.
Before I sit down I would like to ask a question-and it is called forth by an observation of the Prime Minister himself-with regard to the funds available, whether all the revenues that come from licences, any revenues that may come on the account of the radio commission, are used for radio purposes? If they are not, they ought to be and no complaint should be made that- there is not enough money if all the money that comes in on radio account is not used.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend knows the amount of revenue in licence fees.


William Daum Euler: No, I do not.


Alfred Duranleau: Last year we collected, I think, $1,480,000, or around $1,500,000. A small balance was left last year. That is why I am asking the committee to vote an amount of SI .500.000. It covers all the .moneys collected from radio licences.


William Daum Euler: Was the total revenue spent last year?


Alfred Duranleau: The total was spent last year.


Edward Joseph Garland: Arising out of that very matter, may I ask the minister whether he recollects that before the radio commission was set up, there had been on the part of radio listeners an overpayment in relation, to services of a sum that, I am informed, is in the neighbourhood1 of $1,100,000. It is true that that was placed in consolidated revenue account, but in my opinion-and I feel sure, other members of the committee will agree w'ith me-that money should have been appropriated and placed at the disposal of the commission when it was set up. In that case the commission would certainly have had more ample funds to operate with than it has had in the past.
In the event of the amendment proposing an appropriation by parliament to the extent of $1,000,000 to assist in setting up stations owned by the commission, it should be regarded not as a charge upon the radio users of this year but as a general charge upon all the taxpayers for that account, because of the fact that it has been used on general taxpayers' account instead of going, as it should have gone from the beginning, to improve the facilities for those who paid the fees. There is about $1,000,000 of a surplus. Of course it

Supply-M arine-Radio
went into consolidated revenue account and was expended in the usual way, but that amount should never have been 'regarded as usable for that purpose; it should have been kept for the commission or, rather, should have been turned back to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of funds is of course the vital one. In Great Britain they have now over 7,000.000 licensees, a licence costing substantially S2.50 of our money; it is a little more than that. Of that amount the broadcasting commission has only four shillings and sixpence at its disposal; the rest of it goes to the government. But there you have a compact little island of 40,000,000 people, and you have not any such problems as we have such as cost of wires and costs of leasing wires and things of that sort. To-day in France they are projecting advertisements across the channel throughout England, and also in Germany a high-power station is advertising certain goods that are sold largely in the British islands. The problem with us-


William Daum Euler: Put up a tariff wall.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is it exactly. The problem with us is one of money and I desire to speak at some length about that, because I am going to be extremely frank with the committee. The life or death of our adventure in the field of public ownership of the radio depends largely upon our willingness to nurse this infant until it can become strong enough to fend for itself. That is the real truth about the matter and to do that means that it has to be fed money. The difficulty is to find the money except from the licence payers. I think we should at this time use for the purposes of the commission all the money that comes from licences; that is my view.


Mr. NEILL:: I wonder whether the minister could give us any declaration of his policy in regard to a matter about which I had some correspondence with him.
It is the question of giving authority to his inspectors or some branch of the board to compel people who are running electrical machines that cause interference to remedy the trouble. The board spends considerable money in sending cars throughout the country to locate what is called interference. In British Columbia the minister has some very capable men, one especially; he comes around, being requested to do so, and locates the cause of interference. But he is utterly powerless to do anything to have that source of trouble eliminated. He can go and advise people and plead with them, but that is all. Unfortunately, there are hogs in the world 92582-213J
who are indifferent to any appeal of that kind, and will only pay attention to a direct mandate backed by law. Often the trouble can be so easily eliminated. I tied up the whole radio service of the little town where I live one day by starting a small electric fan in my office, and for political reasons L did not wish to be so highly unpopular. It only cost me about $4 to provide the necessary remedj''. There are people who are totally indifferent to the convenience of anyone but themselves, and who will run little electrical machines, which could easily be fixed to avoid any trouble, but, regardless of the inconvenience they are causing, they refuse to do so. In the case of a power plant and the like the cost might run into a greater amount, perhaps $100, but still there is no reason why even they should not march with the times and not cause trouble to a large number of people who now own radios. In these days, when everything we do or say is regimented, from babies upward or downward, as in the case of Ontario, I think we might well put some teeth in the act and give the inspector or the board power to compel the removal of the grievances to which I have alluded.


Alfred Duranleau: There is no doubt that one of the great difficulties of our inspectors is that they have no power over those who operate electrical machines which cause interference. I had a report some time ago from the chief of my department suggesting an amendment to the Canadian Radio* Broadcasting Act which would give authority to the inspectors to order certain amelioration of these machines and to confiscate the machines in case the orders of the inspector are not complied with. This is a delicate question, the government have had it under consideration for some time. Would it be advisable to bring in such legislation at this session?


Alan Webster Neill: But it has been under consideration for some months, if not a year or more, and I suggest that now is the time for action, in view of the approach of an election when we shall all want to listen to the radio addresses of the leaders. The minister has agreed that this evil exists, then why not take some action? I think the Scriptures say that now is the accepted time, to-morrow may be too late.


Alfred Duranleau: There may be a constitutional question on that point; it is a matter of interfering with the right of operation of private property. For instance, phy-
Supply-M arine-R adio

sicians nearly all have electrical machines in their offices which in some cases cause interference with radio reception.


William Daum Euler: And oil-burners in furnaces.


Alfred Duranleau: Some oil-burners, too, but I am told that it is the machines operated by doctors which are causing most trouble at the present time.


Alan Webster Neill: But is it not a fact that often it could be remedied at very slight cost? Some are old-fashioned machines, or machines with defective brushes, I think they are called, which could be readily altered. I suggest that the inspectors should have power to use discretion in these matters, and where people deliberately tell him to go to a warmer place and will do nothing, however small the cost, I think he should have power to compel them. 'Why should the convenience of a large number of people suffer from the miserliness or meanness or dog-in-the-manger attitude of such people?


Mr. BROWN:: I am not very familiar with the activities of the radio commission. It may well be that the complaints which have arisen are well-founded; indeed one can scarcely think otherwise since they come from all parts of the country. At the same time I feel it is the duty of this house and of the people to give this commission every possible chance to make good. I am a long way from being a socialist to the degree of wanting all our activities brought under government control. I disagree with many of the propositions which are now being made to control us in the activities of our private lives, but at the same time I believe there are some activities that can be performed1 properly only by the people as a whole represented by their government. Such activities we speak of as natural monopolies. There is no reason why broadcasting should be in the hands of private parties. No private individual or company has any vested right to give this service to the people, it is one of the- things that the government should control. When the proposal was made for a radio commission I gave it my heartiest support, and I am still prepared to give it that support. We can well believe that there are private interests that are doing their best to destroy public ownership in radio broadcasting. To me it would be a disaster if through any fault of the commission, whether it be incapacity from the business point of view, or from motives of partisanship, government control of radio should come into such disrepute among the people that they would want the act which

brought the commission into being repealed. The disaster to my mind would be just as great if it were brought about by undue impatience on the part of the people. We should be willing to give the commission a reasonable time in which to make good. That is not saying that there are not some grievances which should be aired. But while having that in view it is in the interest of the Canadian people to give the commission a fair chance, criticizing them where they should be criticized, but at the same time maintaining our stand for public ownership. If public ownership cannot succeed in connection with radio broadcasting, then I do not see any activity in which it can be successful. I am a public ownership man to the extent at least of believing that these natural monopolies should be held by the people. So as I say I hope that nothing in the activities of the commission itself or of undue impatience on the part of the people with imperfections in the service will tend towards putting the whole matter back into the hands of private owners.
Mr. EULEtR: I agree with a good deal of what the last speaker has said. My complaint originally was that so little progress has been made in the purposes for which the commission was established, that is gradually to eliminate private broadcasting. But I shall not deal with that further at the moment. Can the minister say whether the commission has given any consideration to a complaint which has been made by others as well as myself concerning a certain regulation? I have not the exact wording, but this is what I said a few weeks ago:
Then finally I come to the censorship established by the commission .... Article 90 provides that no broadcasting station may broadcast any statements or suggestions contrary to the expressed purpose of any existing legislation.
If I understand the English language that means that any speaker, we will say during the coming .campaign, who criticizes any legislation now on the statute books will be in danger of imprisonment, perhaps. Surely that is not a fair regulation to maintain. It is perfectly certain that during the coming campaign there will be a great deal of criticism of legislation on the statute books to-day, perhaps some of it placed there by the present government. Surely a member of parliament or anyone else speaking publicly during the campaign should not be exposed to any penalty whatever if he declares himself opposed to any legislation that may now exist. That is the only way in which progress can be made, by criticising that which we have

Supply-Marine-Radio
and correcting it if the people see fit to do so. I believe that regulation should be struck out or altered.


Alfred Duranleau: Probably my hon.
friend knows that this section of the regulations has not been put into force in any particular case.


William Daum Euler: It should not 'be there.


Alfred Duranleau: The commission has been very broad and lenient towards any public man who wanted to speak over the radio, to criticize laws, governments or parties. The commission has never interfered. The question of whether or not this section should disappear probably will be considered. Certainly I will direct the matter to the attention of the commission and ascertain whether they intend to put that regulation into force.


James Malcolm: Does the minister mean to say that the commission has power to pass a regulation with regard to what may be said over the radio that will stifle the speeches broadcast by every hon. member of this house so that, in order to get our opinions expressed, we will have to rely on the daily newspapers and have those opinions circulated. Does the minister mean to imply that he will speak only to the commission about a matter of such great national importance? It sounds to me like the height of absurdity. The government should amend the regulation.


Alfred Duranleau: Of course the commission has some control over the private stations and it has the right to prohibit any defamatory speech, for instance.


James Malcolm: That is not what it says.


William Daum Euler: It says a man may not express any opinion contrary to any legislation we now have on the statute books. I protest against the extreme nature of the regulation. I could understand it if they were empowered to prohibit the broadcasting of speeches of an inflammatory nature, or those which perhaps advocate violence or anything like that. But if a man gets up, as hundreds and thousands will during the coming campaign, and criticizes legislation that has been placed on the statute books by this or perhaps the preceding government, surely he Should not be liable to a penalty or to imprisonment for doing so. The minister says the commission have never exercised that power, but I do not regard that as a satisfactory answer at all. We might pass a law providing that a man might be hanged for stealing; it might be said that no one ever is hanged for stealing, but that would not be a
sufficient excuse. I .maintain that this power should not be in the hands of the commission at all.


Mr. HEAPS:: Are these the regulations of the commission?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would it not be very easy for the minister to see that this regulation is removed? So long as the regulation is there it is quite possible that the man in charge of radio broadcasting, that is to say Mr. Charlesworth, might decide to live up to the regulations, as he should. If he lives up to them and carries out the intent of that provision then any opposition member of this house would be barred from speaking against any legislation that has been enacted by the government. Since that is the case I think in fairness, and in order to protect the right of freedom of expression, the minister should see that this restriction is removed from the regulations of the commission. I believe there was some difficulty last year in British Columbia, where a political organization was deprived of the right to use the radio because they were delivering political speeches which evidently were not satisfactory to certain persons who were opposed to them. I believe in that case the regulations were carried out. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister pledge himself to this committee-


James Malcolm: No; let the minister present the amended regulations to the house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: He should either present the regulations to the house or pledge himself to the committee that at least this regulation will be eliminated from the rules governing broadcasting in Canada. I agree that there may be times when a broadcasting station may be justified in barring certain types of radio speeches. I need not mention the types that probably would be objectionable, but I think when it comes to a fair discussion of political questions and a fair expression of opinion there should be no limit to the use of the radio in this country.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of public ownership may I say that if the radio commission is a sample of public ownership the sooner it dies a natural death the better it will be for this country. I sat in opposition when a royal commission was appointed, consisting of Sir John Aird and others, to go into this question; that was about the time of the Beauhamois deal. They went all over the world; they even went to Japan, and in their report they recommended the appointment of such a commission. Last
Supply-M arine-Radio

year we voted $1,250,000 for the radio commission, which represented an increase of $250,000 over the previous year.
There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the administration of this commission and with the gentlemen who are members of it. I was listening to the radio last Sunday evening; I was receiving an Anglican service from St. Simon's church, Toronto, from seven to eight o'clock. The prayer before the recessional hymn was written by the great Archbishop Cranmer, who was burned at the stake during the reformation; then, in the midst of the singing, the station switched off the church service and switched on a cocoa advertisement, a Yankee tobacco advertisement and other programs of that kind. Where does the Lord's Day Act come in? It would be a good thing for the people of Canada if this particular kind of public ownership were abolished; even if it meant an increase in licence fees it would be better for us, if we could get rid of some of the objectionable advertising that is being broadcast day after day. We have heard a good deal about the new deal. I know of no agency that is doing more to Americanize the people of Canada than this same radio commission. This commission was set up by a Liberal government., and in the Toronto district the employees are very largely Liberals. What they know about announcing is beyond me; I do not know where they obtained their experience. If the minister wants to have public ownership let him have real public ownership and give the people of this country radio service at cost. Let the people pay for it, and then perhaps we will not have to listen to the jazz that is broadcast night and day, winter and summer. Upon my word, as a Conservative I am surprised at what is heard over the radio, and even at what appears in the newspapers, in connection with politics, sports and everything else. The morning papers of Toronto carry about a page of American baseball news and about half a column of news about the House of Commons. The evening papers contain a few lines more. I would say in connection with this radio question that we have to go to the old country to see what is being done. I could tell you what the British Broadcasting Corporation did with the Baldwin government in 1924, 1925 and 1926; they put them out of office. Protests were received from Italy, Poland and other countries as to the political propaganda which was waged against Italy by the British Broadcasting Corporation. If we wish to continue as a Conservative party the people on the treasury

benches will have to take steps to put the brakes on the radio commission before the election.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many private licences
have been issued by the department since the radio commission came into existence?


Alfred Duranleau: We have issued1 74
private licences for radio stations.


William Daum Euler: How many were there when the commission was established?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not informed
as to that.


William Daum Euler: I am informed that there
were only 49 when the commission was established. On the other hand we have established hardly any nationally owned stations, although that was the purpose behind the formation of the commission. The fact is however that we have immensely increased the number of private licences for radio broadcasting stations.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In what position would the
government be if at some future time it attempted to nationalize the broadcasting services? How would they take over the privately owned! stations?


Alfred Duranleau: Under the act the
radio commission has power to expropriate privately owned stations. I would refer the hon._ member to section 11 of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In order to take over
privately owned stations upon what basis would the government have to proceed to undertake expropriation proceedings? What compensation would be expected?


Alfred Duranleau: Section 12 of the act covers the point:
The compensation payable in respect of the taking of any property so vested in the commission or of any interest therein or of lands injuriously affected by the construction of the undertakings or works shall be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the Expropriation Act, and for that purpose the Attorney General of Canada may file an information in the Exchequer court on behalf of the commission-
And so on. In the event of there being no agreement between the owner and the government the exchequer court will pass on the amount of compensation.
M.r. HEAPS:	I am trying to get at
that. If it comes to arbitration I am wondering if we will have to pay anything for that which is commonly described as goodwill?

Supply-M arine-R adio


Alfred Duranleau: I do not believe
anything would have to be paid for goodwill because the owners of stations have no vested rights in the channels. The licence is for a period of only six months, and may be withdrawn at the end of that time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If such a matter were
referred to the exchequer court and that court were empowered to determine as to whether or not there may be any goodwill in the station taken over by the government, is there anything in the licence granted by the government to the private broadcasting stations which distinctly states that in the event of the government expropriating stations nothing will be paid for goodwill?


Alfred Duranleau: There is no such
provision in the licence because the departr-ment contends it is not necessary as such licence is issued for only six months.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know that these matters
have been interpreted by courts on other occasions. Annual renewals almost assume the proportion of vested rights. Sometimes courts uphold such rights, and I have known of large amounts being spent in arbitration proceedings. In other words, if we grant privileges to these private companies and the time comes when we have to take over the stations we may have to pay a very heavy sum by way of damages for the privileges we are now granting. I have an objection to the granting of so many private licences, and when they are reissued I believe a clause ought to be inserted stating definitely and explicitly the conditions under which the licences are granted to the private broadcasting stations.


William Daum Euler: I should like to support
the observations of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). I have a distinct recollection that during the proceedings of the original committee which sat in 1932, the matter was very fully discussed, and it was agreed at that time that if any private stations were expropriated or purchased by the government there was not to be any compensation for so-called goodwill of any concerns erecting private broadcasting stations in the future. There was a very clear understanding that they could not expect compensation for goodwill if at a later time they were expropriated by the government. I think the government should be sure it does not enter into any contract through which later on it might be compelled by court process to pay for goodwill.


Alfred Duranleau: I believe the point
is covered by section 13 of the act.


William Daum Euler: I hope it is.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall read the
section:
13 (1) In determining the compensation to be paid no allowance shall be made for the value of a licence terminated by the taking of any private station and no person shall be deemed to have any proprietary right in any channel heretofore or hereafter allotted, and no person shall be entitled to any compensation by reason of the cancellation of the allotment of a channel or by reason of the allotment of a new channel in substitution therefor.
(2) If the commission recommends the cancellation of or refusal to renew any licence in the interest of broadcasting generally in Canada and certifies that such cancellation or refusal is not on account of any failure to comply with this act or the Radiotelegraph Aot or regulations thereunder, compensation may be paid to the extent of the depreciated value of radio equipment, together with an allowance for the cost of restoring the premises to a tenantable condition for ordinary purposes.
So I say the act clearly defines the compensation to which owners are entitled, such compensation being very limited.


James Malcolm: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member for North Winnipeg, but it is unfortunate that he interrupted the point we were discussing, namely, as to why the commission and not parliament or the government has the right to enact regulations as to what may or may not be said over the radio. Will the minister read the section of the act which authorizes the commission to institute regulations, and will he read the regulation covering the point?


Alfred Duranleau: In the session of
1932 the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act was adopted unanimously by this house. The regulations are provided for by section 10, which reads:
The commission may, with the approval of the governor in council, make by-laws or regulations respecting any of the matters mentioned in the last two preceding sections and generally for the fulfilment of the purposes of the commission.
The regulations are proposed by the radio commission and then submitted to the governor in council for approval.


James Malcolm: Has this regulation
which, generally speaking, prohibits any hon. member of this house from criticizing any previous legislation been approved by the governor in council?


Alfred Duranleau: All the by-laws of the radio commission have been approved by the governor in council.
Supply-M arine-R adio


James Malcolm: We are to understand that the government approves of no man being allowed to criticize any previous legislation.
Mr. DURAiNLEAU: No, this government does not approve of that as it believes that members of all parties have the right to criticize legislation which has been adopted by any government.


William Daum Euler: Will the minister read the regulation?
Mr. DURAiNLEAU: I can tell the committee that there is nothing political in this.


James Malcolm: We are not talking about politics.


Alfred Duranleau: The commission is entirely independent of politics and it gives full liberty to any member or any speaker.


William Daum Euler: Will the minister read the regulation so that we can judge for ourselves what power it gives?


Alfred Duranleau: I have just read the regulation. If it is interpreted strictly it does not seem-


James Malcolm: Read it, please.


Alfred Duranleau: I have read it but I have no objection to putting it on Hansard. Regulation number 90 reads:
No broadcasting station may broadcast any speech, printed matter, program or advertising matter containing abusive or defamatory statements with regard to individuals or institutions-
I suppose there is no objection to that? The regulation continues:
-or statements or suggestions contrary to the express purpose of any existing legislation; as for example, the Patent Medicine Act or any regulations promulgated thereunder.
It all turns on the interpretation given to the last part of the regulation. It might be interpreted as prohibiting the criticism of legislation but not in the sense suggested by my hon. friends.


James Malcolm: What other sense could there be? Under this particular legislation hon. members of this house who were not in favour of the radio commission could be fined and imprisoned for criticising that commission. That is a most absurd position for any member of parliament to be in.


Alfred Duranleau: If that is the proper interpretation, the hon. member is right.


William Daum Euler: That is what is stated in the legislation.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be pleased to have an explanation from the radio commission as to why they have asked for such powers. The power has never been exercised in the sense suggested by my hon. friends.


Alan Webster Neill: There has not been an election yet.


Alfred Duranleau: There have been a lot of speeches broadcast.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Will the minister ask
the official sitting in front of him to interpret that clause?


Alfred Duranleau: I understand my hon. friend refers to the man in charge in the department.


John Vallance: I want to know the
interpretation of this clause by the commission.


Alfred Duranleau: They have never interpreted it as prohibiting public speeches criticizing legislation.


John Vallance: Why is it there?


Alfred Duranleau: They have never
taken any steps in connection with such speeches.


John Vallance: What does it mean?


Alfred Duranleau: Quite frankly, I do
not see the necessity of the last part of that regulation.


James Malcolm: Cancel it then.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the minister cancel it?


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be pleased to ask the commission to give an explanation of this regulation. If they do not give a satisfactory one I shall ask them to consider changing it.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Has the minister the
power to compel the commission to change that regulation?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think so.
The governor in council has no right to draft regulations although we have to approve them.


Mr. WOODSWGRTH:: That is a most
extraordinary position to take. The regulation distinctly states that it must be approved by the governor in council. If it can be disapproved by the governor in council, surely it could be cancelled.


William Daum Euler: They can withdraw ratification.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we have
a perfect right to ask that that be withdrawn.

Supply-M arine-R adio


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: We can hold up the
vote until it is withdrawn.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think this is important as it strikes at the very root of free speech.


John Vallance: Is the regulation compelling individuals proposing to talk over the radio to tender to the commission a copy of their speeches still in force?


Alfred Duranleau: Under section 91 the
commission has the right to prohibit the broadcasting of any matter until a continuity or a record or both have been submitted to the commission for examination and approval.


John Vallance: Is that being lived up
to in the case of all broadcasts?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Did the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) submit his?


Alfred Duranleau: As a matter of fact
the commission has been rather broad in its interpretation of this section. Complaints were made in connection with speeches which had been delivered over the radio but as a matter of fact the commission gives absolute liberty providing there are no defamatory statements.


John Vallance: Would a man be permitted to broadcast anything he liked over a private station without interference by the radio commission? Were the speeches of Mr. Aberhart of Alberta approved by the commission before they were delivered?


Alfred Duranleau: I could not say.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: He uses a
private station.


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say how far the commission goes in scrutinizing speeches made over private stations.


John Vallance: Were the speeches
delivered last autumn by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) scrutinized and approved by the commission before they were delivered?


Alfred Duranleau: I could not say. They were broadcast from the Ottawa station.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Were they submitted
to council before being delivered?


Alfred Duranleau: I could not say.


John Vallance: Apparently no member
of the radio commission is sitting in front of the minister so we cannot find out these things. I should like to change the subject for a moment. I understand it is the intention of the radio commission to establish a new station in western Canada, probably in Saskatchewan. Is the minister in position to
speak for the commission and state where they propose to locate this station? He knows that I have made some suggestions to the commission-at least the commission know I have-and there is quite a controversy out there as to where the station should be. I was wondering whether the minister could tell me what the opinion of the commission is on the question.


Alfred Duranleau: I am not in a position to give that information. The commission has a scheme of construction of different powerful stations in various parts of Canada but I cannot say exactly what the location will be of the station in Saskatchewan.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Can the minister give
this committee the undertaking that this provision will be removed from the regulations? This particular clause gives the commission the power to prevent any member of the House of Commons from criticizing the legislation of any government, and especially the legislation passed by this government in the last five years. I intend to criticize practically every act that this government has put through in that period, and I shall want to speak over the radio. But this commission sitting in Ottawa will demand that I submit to them whatever I have to say over the radio, even if it is a private station; they are liable to stop me from criticizing the government. The man who does not criticize this government is derelict in his duties. Now is the minister prepared to give the committee the undertaking that that article that refers to political speeches or speeches delivered by persons interested in political life will be removed from the regulations before this estimate goes through? It is ridiculous.


William Daum Euler: It has to come out.


Alfred Duranleau: I can tell my hon.
friend that he has nothing to fear in that respect. It was never the intention of the commission, I am sure, and it was not the intention of the government when it was approved, to prohibit or restrict in any sense freedom of criticism.


William Daum Euler: But it is there.


Alfred Duranleau: It was not intended
to prohibit or restrict criticism of the acts of the government or of the laws adopted by this parliament. My hon. friend can rest assured that no action whatever will be taken by the commission against any political speaker who may criticize the legislation adopted during this parliament or the administration of this government.
S upply-M arine-R adio


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The minister cannot get away with that. We had the same thing when the marketing bill was introduced. Certain powers were given to the board but they were not supposed to be exercised. We all know however that if you do not follow the regulations drawn up under that act you are put in gaol. Here is another commission that has power to make regulations and enforce them, with fine or imprisonment for their violation. Surely the minister must have some power in the matter; if he has not he should get that power as soon as possible. If the commission were politically minded it might prevent me from criticizing any legislation this government has passed. The minister is fair, and I submit that he should be prepared to give this committee the assurance that this particular provision in the regulations will be removed before this session closes; otherwise he should not get the vote through.


William Daum Euler: The minister himself has
said-I do not want to misquote him-that he sees no reason why it should be in the regulations. It must be evident to every member that a regulation which prohibits free speech and the freedom to criticize legislation now on the statutes is wrong; it is subversive of free speech. It is not a sufficient reason for the minister to say that it was never intended to be used in an arbitrary way. If that is not the intention it should not be there. The power is there and it might be used. I have no objection to the minister amending that article 90 if he wants to prohibit criticism of legislation with respect to patent medicines- that parenthesis is thrown in, though I do not see for what reason. If he wants to protect the right of free speech, if he wants to protect the freedom of every member to criticize existing legislation, he can draw up the regulation in decent language that is not violent. But I am not satisfied to let this vote go through without a definite understanding that our rights in this matter will be fully protected.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not see any
reason why this last part of the section should exist. Unless the commissioners give sound reasons-


Mr. FACTOR:: What reasons were given
to the governor in council when they approved of it?


Alfred Duranleau: They did not give
any reason. They sent their regulations and they were accepted as a whole.


William Daum Euler: Probably not considered.


James Malcolm: Will the minister recommend that they be modified?


Alfred Duranleau: I will ask the commissioners to explain-


William Daum Euler: No; that won't do.


Alfred Duranleau: -why they wish to have it retained, and if they do not give satisfactory reasons-


Mr. YOUNG:: Satisfactory to whom?


Alfred Duranleau: -I will ask them to repeal this part of the section objected to.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why should the minister go to the commission? Why can he not go to the government and have the regulation repealed? It is not a question of the commission at all but of the government, who are the supreme governing authority. They should deal with the question and repeal the regulation.


Alfred Duranleau: I am willing to go
the length of the minister's power or the power of the government.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What are the powers?


Alfred Duranleau: My intention is to
ask the commission their reasons for embodying in their regulations the provision with respect to legislation, and if their reasons are not sound I intend to ask them to withdraw that part. If they do not do so, and if the Department of Justice rules that I have the power-


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is no doubt about that.


Alfred Duranleau: -I will do it.


William Daum Euler: I suggest that this item stand until that opinion is obtained. We must know whether the minister will recommend that the regulation be removed1 altogether, or that it will be altered in such a way that the objection we raise will no longer be valid.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I support that
view; it is the only reasonable thing. I do not like the position of the minister, where a few minutes ago he threw doubt on his own powers in this regard. The government has power to change the regulations, and when this parliament decides the matter the government should be under obligation to carry it through. Under the circumstances I think the item should stand.


Samuel Factor: If I rightly interpret the minister's remarks, then apparently the only power this parliament has is to withhold the vote temporarily until the matter is adjusted. The Prime Minister said there were criticisms against public ownership. Well, one way to destroy confidence in public ownership is to enact regulations such as this. We are in the

Supply-M arine-Radio
unfortunate position where even the minister doubts that he has authority to compel the commission to withdraw the regulation. As a matter of fact, I doubt whether the minister can compel the commission to withdraw the regulation, though he may be able to recommend an order in council to withdraw the approval by the governor in council of the regulations, then have them re-enacted. But the only protection afforded to parliament now is to withhold the vote until something is done. I know of nothing so repugnant to the sense of freedom as to allow a regulation of that kind to remain on the statute books. Surely it is not unreasonable, because that is the only protection afforded to the house, to allow the vote to stand until some negotiations take place. The situation is rather an unfortunate one; it shows a tendency toward a loss of the rights of parliament when it has to negotiate with an outside party in order to protect the rights of its citizens. It is about time that .something was done to return to parliament the right to control its own public bodies.


Alan Webster Neill: I just want to endorse the remarks made by the last speaker. This is an illustration of what several of us on this side have so often complained of. We give a department or a commission power to make its own regulations, offences and penalties; we have been doing that this year; it has been done once or twice. The minister said, in justification of the regulation, that the act was passed unanimously by the house. If he will take the trouble to look up Hansard, he will find that I protested very strongly about the matter which has been under discussion for the last hour and that I read that identical regulation and protested against it and was supported by other members. Therefore the government can hardly say that the house was unanimous in that regard. I am glad to hear the complaints this afternoon. It has come home to the house now what we are doing. We are in the habit of giving commissions and departments power to usurp our powers, to divest us of our powers, and when we are in this deadlock, the government does not know and we do not know whether we have the power to change the situation. The government approved the regulation and now a deadlock ensues. We should never have given the commission power to make such farreaching regulations; these matters should be settled in the House of Commons. I hope this will be a lesson to us in days to come that we should hesitate a great deal before we give commissions and departments these extraordinary powers. I remember, when
the matter was up before, the very question arose that was raised by the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor). I asked the Minister of Marine then, had he power to control the commission? He said: "Not exactly." I said: "Well, does the commission control you?" He smiled and said that he was not quite sure.


Mr. McGIBBON:: With a good deal of
what has been said, I am in sympathy. Two years ago I moved in this house a resolution to abolish the civil service commission and neither the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat nor any other hon. member would second it; I could not get a seconder among over two hundred and forty members. I think we should be consistent. We should not talk one way and act another.
I admit the difficulties because they are great. I do not believe eighteen men, no matter how brilliant they are, or even if they are supermen, can control everything that has to be controlled in this country; that is an utter impossibility; it cannot be done. If you are going to delegate anything, you must delegate it in full. What is the good of saying on the one hand: We are going to give men power to do a thing, and then on the other saying: We are going to control you politically, and if you do not do what we want, why, off goes your head? Such an idea is absurd. We have to adopt either one system or the other and stick to it; we have to go the complete length of the journey. I have been on record more than once in this house as saying that the minister of any department should take full responsibility in the house for everything that is controlled by his department. That means the abolition of all commissions, but it is absurd to say that you can appoint a commission and then control it. I believe also the complexities of the problems are becoming so great, that they are beyond the power of any cabinet of men to control and to carry out properly and judiciously. This is something we might well take into consideration and try to find a solution for, because we have not the solution today, and I doubt if the present state of affairs is any better than or as good as it was before. But stand on one side or the other. I have not been on both sides, and have talked consistently throughout. After all, the problems of this country are getting so serious that this house should direct itself more to the conditions of the dominion and what is going to remedy them, than to what is going to help either political party, whether it sits on the right or on the left.
Supply-Marine-Radio


Mr. MITCHELL:: I just want to raise my voice in sympathy with the expressions used in connection with the right of the commission to pass regulations to make criticisms of the government a crime. We might as well be frank about the matter. The next thing we will be doing-and I heard it suggested in some parts of this country by responsible people in public life-that there should be regulation of the press. Let us go a step further and shut up the House of Commons.


Peter McGibbon: One might do worse
than that.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true, too, but if you are going to make criticism of the government a crime, you are merely imitating conditions in other countries, where, if you criticise the government, off goes your head. Frankly, I believe this is absolutely unsound. The driving force of our Anglo-Saxon civilization has been the right to express criticism of government, and I think we have reached a sorry stage when we give that commission power, because that is what it amounts to, to withdraw from any individual, whether he is high in the political sphere or low in the social scale, the right to criticise any legislation or any government that may be in power.
I am not unmindful of the fact that regulations are necessary, but I believe it is going a step too far when criticism of any governmental institution or of any legislation is forbidden over the radio of this country because, after all is said and done, the radio is only another form of education, a part of the life of this dominion, just as much as is this House of Commons. It will be a sorry day for some of us on this side of the house, at the moment anyway, if criticism of the government, either in the House of Commons or on the public platform, is made a crime. So I join with those who have raised their voices in opposition to this particular policy. I believe it is a step in the wrong direction. In my judgment, perfect freedom should be given to those who wish to use the air to criticise any legislation or any government that may be in power.


Charles A. Stewart: Let me say to the minister that he can settle this matter in two seconds. What is the use of denying responsibility, when the regulations cannot be put into effect except by order in council? Once it is submitted for the consideration of the government the government take the responsibility. This is an obnoxious thing, and he can get that order in council amended. The government will have to take responsibility for amending it because they will have 
to take responsibility of passing an amended order in council. So what is the use of talking about the commission doing this and that when the government have to take the responsibility?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Surely. Do not shirk
your responsibilities.


Alfred Duranleau: Would this suggestion satisfy my hon. friends; I suggest that they let this item pass-


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no. We have done that for you before.


Alfred Duranleau: -and I shall report on this point when the bill is in committee. The bill to extend the life of the commission to the end of this fiscal year will be presented in a day or two. We might discuss this matter when that bill comes to the committee in the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.
Mr. YALLAN'CE: If you get the money you can carry on.


Alfred Duranleau: I am entirely in
accord with what has been said by my hon. friends on the other side as to the right- and I would go further and say the duty-of criticism. If a public man thinks that legislation is bad it is not only his right but his duty to criticize such legislation.


William Daum Euler: Go the whole way.


Alfred Duranleau: And also to criticize the administration of any government. If a man thinks administration has not been what it should be he must have the right to say so in- public. I do not think the intention of the commission was to prohibit such criticism. As a matter of fact no action was ever taken by the commission under that section.


William Daum Euler: But it could be.


Mr. RALSTON:: Is it not a simple thing for the minister to bring to the council a recommendation for an order repealing the previous order in council in so far as it approves of regulation No. 90? That is all that is necessary. You do not have to go to the commission, but simply repeal the government's approval of that regulation.


Alfred Duranleau: I would not go so far as to ask the repeal of the whole section.


William Daum Euler: No, just strike out those words.


James Layton Ralston: Let them repeal that
section and enact a new one and bring it to you for approval.

Supply-M ariixe-Radio


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am at a disadvantage in not having heard the previous discussion or the precise nature of the objection to this section 90 of the regulations, which I may say I have seen just a moment ago for the very first time.


James Layton Ralston: And never observed, I
suppose.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It reads:
No broadcasting station may broadcast any speech, printed matter, program or advertising matter containing abusive or defamatory statements with regard to individuals or institutions, or statements or suggestions contrary to the express purpose of any existing legislation-


William Daum Euler: That last is the point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -as for example, the Patent Medicine Act or any regulations promulgated thereunder.
I do not want to stand as an apologist for the construction of this regulation, although I must assume my share of responsibility as a member of the government for having approved by order in, council the regulation itself. But surely there would be no contention that it could be in the public interest or in the interest of the radio commission that there should be matter broadcast over the radio containing abusive or defamatory statements-


William Daum Euler: No, no objection.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -with regard to the individuals or institutions, or statements or suggestions contrary to the express purpose of any existing legislation.


William Daum Euler: Yes, that is the objection. We could not criticize any act that is on the statute books.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I see the point at once. The objection is not to the spirit or apparent intent of this regulation-


William Daum Euler: Perhaps not.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -but the wording goes beyond what was the original intention.


William Daum Euler: Exactly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think in those circumstances the wording could properly be reviewed, because I am certain it never was intended to be tortured into enabling such a construction as that to be placed upon it.


William Daum Euler: But it is there.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That may be so, I defer at once to legal gentlemen who place that interpretation upon it, but certainly as a layman I would not. I think my colleague would be
quite justified in saying that if upon consideration it appears that that interpretation can be placed upon these words, then the governor in council would be well warranted in taking action to change it. That suggestion may not appeal to him, as I say I am handicapped by coming into this discussion without having heard the preliminary part, but I offer that suggestion in order that we may make progress.


Ernest Lapointe: Was this prepared by the commission itself?


Alfred Duranleau: By the commission itself.
Mr. VALLAN'CE: And approved by the government?


Alfred Duranleau: Approved by the government.


William Daum Euler: I think we should have some assurance that these particular words, that no broadcasting station may broadcast any statements contrary to the express purpose of any existing legislation, shall be struck out, and something else put in their place if desired. In the opinion of those who are lawyers, it apparently gives the commission power to prohibit any person whatsoever, whether a member of parliament or not, criticizing any existing legislation. I do not know how the courts would interpret that, because it is followed by what would be regarded as a modifying clause, "as for example, the Patent Medicine Act." We think that there is at least a possibility that a court might interpret it that no existing legislation of any sort may be criticized. I think the government would be well advised to make it perfectly clear that no man could be prosecuted for criticizing existing legislation. I think that is not asking too much.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I apparently did not make my meaning clear. Let me say first to the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) that I do not think a member of parliament should seek one whit more right over the radio than any other citizen of the country.


William Daum Euler: No, he should not; anybody.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He should not be entitled to make defamatory statements because he is a member of parliament.


William Daum Euler: No, you misunderstood me.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then I come back to my
original intention, that is that we should review that section with the object of making it clear that the interpretation which has been placed upon it by certain hon. members
Supply-M arine-R adio

cannot properly be placed upon it, that there should be no danger of that. I would certainly subscribe to that point of view. For myself I think it is a torturing of the language to suggest that it could, but I defer to hon. gentlemen opposite who say the language is capable of that interpretation. I have made the suggestion to my colleague that we say we will review and revise it to meet what I understand was the original intent of the regulation.


Alfred Duranleau: Well, I have expressed my views already. I have a doubt as to the power of the minister. As to the intent, the government never intended and I am sure the commission never intended to prohibit criticism of legislation over the radio.


Ernest Lapointe: Then why is it there?


Alfred Duranleau: As my hon. friend
the Minister of Finance has said, if this committee thinks it could be interpreted in that sense we will surely, if we have the power- and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance thinks we have apparently-revise that section, and when the bill extending the life of the commission comes before the committee next week we will put before the committee the wording of the new section, which I am sure will be agreeable to my hon. friends.


John Vallance: Suppose next week the minister comes back with an interpretation by the commission, submitting that we are misinterpreting this regulation and maintaining that it should be retained for a specific purpose. What will happen? We are voting the $1,500,000 now.


Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon.
friend is going too far.


John Vallance: No, I am not. There
was a great deal in what was said by the hon. member for North Waterloo. Suppose this was placed before a court, what would be the result? The only court we have is the commission, and: we must accept the interpretation given by the commission. This is the only weapon we have, and I would suggest to the minister-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I assure the hon.
member for South Battleford that there is no intention on the part of the minister, and certainly there is no intention on the part of the government, to shield ourselves behind the possibility that the radio commission might not do this, that or the other thing. I think the statement was intended to be made unequivocally that the government will assume the responsibility, if need1 be, of revising the language in order to make it 
clear that the interpretation that has been placed upon it could not properly be placed upon, it. I may say in all frankness that I think the interpretation referred to cannot properly be placed upon this section; nevertheless I shall be delighted to see if we cannot find some language which will preserve the intent of the section and obviate any fears that hon. gentlemen have expressed.


Charles A. Stewart: If the minister will give the assurance that the person who supervises the manuscripts will take the same view there can be no argument about it, but the minister will bear in mind the fact that the interpretation is made by an individual, who may place upon the regulation the same construction that we have.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would doubt it.


Charles A. Stewart: I have
reason to believe that it might be done. The provision is extremely objectionable, and for that reason we are opposing this particular clause in the regulations. Anything short of its elimination will not be satisfactory to us.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Surely my hon. friend is
not advocating that a person broadcasting over the radio should have the right to utter defamatory statements.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is altogether mistaken; I am dealing with the one clause concerning the criticism of existing legislation, and nothing else.


Mr. GEARY:: It is not criticism of legislation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I understand it, this
has to do with offences which have been prohibited by legislation.


William Daum Euler: It says " contrary to the
express purpose of any existing legislation."


George Reginald Geary: Surely the reference to the Patent Medicine Act indicates clearly the intent, that you shall not over the radio do what you are forbidden to do by legislation, for example the Patent Medicine Act. That act does not allow you to advertise anything as a cure. I admit that this regulation is badly drawn, but surely the sensible view-


John Vallance: Then that might eliminate any opposition, because we might prove that it was a cure.
Mr. Mac'ENNIS: I do not see just what a talk over the radio has to do with the Patent Medicine Act.

Supply-Marine-Radio


George Reginald Geary: If the hon. member is referring to my remarks he will find that the regulation under discussion refers to the Patent Medicine Act.
Mr. iSTEWART (Edmonton): With all due deference to my hon. friend may I point out that the reference to the Patent Medicine Act is simply an illustration.


George Reginald Geary: As an example of what the regulation is directed to.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend has asked for an undertaking on the part of the government as to the kind of interpretation that will be placed upon this or any other section by the responsible official of the radio commission. Obviously that is a matter over which we have no control. We cannot be responsible for the judgment, even the mistaken judgment, of an official. We might cause an official to be reprimanded or dismissed if he abused the privileges of his position. but all we can be responsible for is the language of the regulation. I thought I had made the assurance abundantly clear that it will be our purpose to see that the regulation is revised in order to express the interpretation which I know is intended to be expressed to meet the object in mind. I cannot make my language any stronger than that.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I think when a person hires the radio in order to broadcast a message he is in about the same position as when he hires a hall in order to deliver a speech.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


Angus MacInnis: I must disagree with the minister; I cannot see the difference. I know that in Vancouver when a person hires the radio in order to broadcast a speech, in most instances he has to submit the manuscript for censorship before the speech can be delivered. I think that is going just a little bit too far. Not only that, but sometimes they insist on making certain deletions; the best part of a speech may be deleted. We have to accept that condition or we are not allowed to broadcast the speech. The person in charge of the station goes over the speech; he may or may not know anything about it, but that is the situation and in my opinion it is going too far. I am in favour of public ownership, of course, and I am in favour of having radio under a commission of some sort, but I think it is going very much too far if that commission is to be allowed to say what can be or cannot be said over the radio.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to know what the minister has to say in reply to the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver South. It is a serious matter if speeches are to be censored by the man in charge of the radio station. Is that done with the knowledge and consent of the Department of Marine?


Alfred Duranleau: In regard to private radio stations, the owner of the station has control over the speeches broadcast. I know that in my own province the owner of the radio station is jointly and severally responsible in damages with the speaker for any defamatory statements made over his radio. The owner of every private radio station is therefore interested in knowing what is to be broadcast over his station, because he is personally responsible for damages. With regard to the commission stations, the commission has been very lenient in regard to the speeches broadcast. Of course they have to protect the reputations of individuals and institutions; in some instances, when they fear that defamatory statements may be made, they may ask to see the manuscript, but as a rule they are very broad in that regard.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Personally I do not know that I would object very much to the regulation if there were a corresponding clause prohibiting any commendation of the legislation that has been put through this house in the last few years. I think if a clause of that kind were put in the benefit would outweigh the disadvantage.


Albert Joseph Brown: Would not the purpose be perfectly well served if reference were made only to abusive or defamatory language? No person wants to justify language of that kind, but why should there be any reference to criticism of existing legislation? I do not think the committee will be satisfied unless that reference is entirely removed.


Ernest Lapointe: Sometimes it is pretty hard to define what is abusive. I should like to know whether calling an opponent a Judas is abusive language.


Mr. COOTE:: I do not wish to delay
passage of the item, but before it is passed I should like the minister to state the total amount expended last year by the radio commission. I ask that question because when I was in western Canada not long ago I was shown a statement published in a British Columbia paper to the effect that last year the radio commission had spent over
Supply-Marine

$11,000,000. I am sure the statement was incorrect, and if the minister would indicate the exact expenditure it would be helpful.


Alfred Duranleau: The estimate for last
year, together with the supplementary estimate, was, if I am not mistaken, $1,225,000 -it may have been $1,250,000; I am not sure of the exact figure. So far as I know the commission did not overexpend that amount.


George Gibson Coote: There is no way by which
the commission could have spent anything like $11,000,000?


Alfred Duranleau: No, that would be
ridiculous. The statement to which the hon. member refers is ridiculous; the amount voted was spent, and that is all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To appoint David Ballantyne Carswell as superintendent of the government shipyard at Sorel and superintendent of the dredging fleet at a salary of $8,000 per annum, less such deduction as may be provided, $8,000.
['No, that would be\nridiculous. The statement to which the hon. member refers is ridiculous; the amount voted was spent, and that is all.']
Ernest Lapointe: Why the appointment
of this gentleman in any other way than through the usual channel of the civil service commission?


Alfred Duranleau: The position of
superintendent of the shipyard at Sorel was extended to take in the fleet. The department has deemed it advisable to place both the shipyard and the fleet under one head. It is felt that this move will result in substantial economies for the department. We had the opportunity of securing the services of this man as superintendent, a position which is now very important, and we believe that the sum of $8,000 was reasonable.


Ernest Lapointe: Where does he come
from? Who recommended him? Was he an employee of the department in some other capacity? Who is he? What actuated the minister in appointing this man, especially at such a high salary and at a time when the business at Sorel instead of increasing is decreasing?


Alfred Duranleau: Up to two years ago Mr. Carswell was manager of Vickers Limited of Montreal, and has proven himself to be an efficient engineer and manager of shipbuilding. When Mr. Bridges retired eighteen months ago, I secured the services of Mr. Carswell as his successor. I think I have made a good move. He has been employed in many shipyards in England and the United States, and in other shipyards in Canada. He is an able executive as well as a specialist in naval construction. Since he has been in charge of our plant he has proven himself to be
[Mr. Coote.J
efficient. Authority over the machinery of the fleet was given to the superintendent of the yard in order to prevent damage and cause large expense for repairs. Mr. Carswell has been in charge of the plant for a year and a half, and his services have been most valuable. Substantial economies have been effected in the repairing of our ships.


Ernest Lapointe: What salary was paid
his predecessor?


Alfred Duranleau: I believe it was around $5,000; it may have been $4,700 or $4,800. He was only superintendent of the yard. The duties and responsibilities of Mr. Carswell have been enlarged; it is only fair that his salary be raised accordingly. It is the opinion of my department and the opinion I hold personally that in giving this man authority over the fleet the department is making substantial economies.


Ernest Lapointe: If the stand taken by
the minister is accepted by the committee it will mean that a minister will always be able to go outside the provisions of the Civil Service Act and, by an item in the estimates, appoint someone to the public service and give such person a salary not fixed or accepted by the civil service commission. I cannot let the item pass without as vigorously as possible registering my protest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio service, to provide for the suppression of local electrical interferences and for the issue of radio receiving licences, $263,038.
['If the stand taken by\nthe minister is accepted by the committee it will mean that a minister will always be able to go outside the provisions of the Civil Service Act and, by an item in the estimates, appoint someone to the public service and give such person a salary not fixed or accepted by the civil service commission. I cannot let the item pass without as vigorously as possible registering my protest.']
George Gibson Coote: I should like to know where
this money will be spent, because I am continually receiving protests from the general public about interference with radio service coming from electrical equipment. I believe the committee should have some information from the minister as to how and where the money is to be spent, and the service given.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Tokyo. Representation, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments, $68,800.
Thomas Reid: I think some explanation is due under this item in connection with the building being erected at Tokyo. I notice that the

Supply-External Affairs
report of the auditor general states that a loan was made to this government by the minister at Tokyo bearing interest at five per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall be pleased to let
the item stand so that an explanation can be given when it is called again.
Item stands.
Geneva. Salaries and expenses of the office of the Canadian advisory officer, $28,000.


James J. Donnelly: Why the increase?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand it is only
exchange.


William Daum Euler: Who is the Canadian advisory officer-Doctor Riddell?
* Mr. RHODES:	Yes.


James J. Donnelly: What is the reason for the increase in vote number 204?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot give that information offhand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations for 1935, including secretariat, international labour organization and permanent court of international justice, $204,640.
William Daum Euler: I recall that five years ago
many of the members of the League of Nations were not paying their proportion of the expenses of the league. Could the minister give us any information in that connection?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not the details
before me but I am advised that there are still a number of members in default.


Robert James Manion: They allow for those in
default, mostly South American countries. The estimates are made high enough to cover those in default.


William Daum Euler: That means that those who do pay are assessed more than they ordinarily would be?


Robert James Manion: That is correct.


George Gibson Coote: How much of this vote was spent last year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry I have no information before me., I called these items pending the return of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) who is taking up his estimates next and for the purpose of facilitating the estimates of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). If the hon. member desires, the item can stand until the information is available.


George Gibson Coote: It will be all right if the
minister will promise to let me have the information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Public buildings. Tokyo, Japan-Canadian legation, $200,000.
John Campbell Elliott: What is the present state of this building and how much of the cost of construction is this vote expected to cover?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This vote is to make payment in full of the expenditures in connection with the construction of the Canadian legation at Tokyo, Japan.


William Daum Euler: What was the total cost?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The total cost
was $200,549.21.


Thomas Reid: Why could not this money
have been taken out of that voted for the relief of unemployment? According to the report of the auditor general this money has been borrowed at five per cent and we have been raising loans bearing four and a half per cent interest and selling short term debentures bearing only two and a half per cent interest. Why should we borrow from an appointee of the government?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Canadian
representative at Tokyo, Sir Herbert Marler, was very much interested in having a suitable building for the Canadian legation, so much so that he undertook that the building would be constructed at a cost not exceeding $200,000. The actual cost of the building was in excess of the amount of this vote by $549.21. That amount he has paid himself; what he was paid was the cost of the building.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many people are employed there?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot tell;
that is a matter for the Department of External Affairs.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many rooms are there
in the building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know.


Abraham Albert Heaps: All we know is what it cost and what we have to pay.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Item 205, Department of
External Affairs, stands and the information can be elicited when that item is called.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]


Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
[Stage Direction]
Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, $545,500.
Alan Webster Neill: The other night when the
minister was speaking on this vote he told us that there were certain schemes that had not been acted upon, not being considered expedient. One was the butter export scheme. Can he tell us why this one was not considered desirable in the public interest?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: The hon. member wrote me a
letter, asking for this information. I replied but I do not know whether he has received the letter.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, but the letter simply
states that it was not regarded as likely to operate effectively in the interests of the butter industry. What I want to know is what was wrong with the scheme.


Robert Weir: I have not a copy of the scheme before me, but if the hon. member will let it stand I will get the information as soon as the officials come in.


Alan Webster Neill: The next matter I want to
speak about is the British Columbia sheep breeders' scheme, which was rejected because the principal market for the regulated product was within the area of production. The minister's letter states:
This scheme has now been gazetted under the Natural Products Marketing Act (British Columbia) 1934, and has been presented) to the Dominion Marketing Board for supplementary powers' under the federal act. It is receiving consideration by the board.
It is receiving consideration by the board. I have a statement from the British Columbia newspapers which says:
Activities of the British Columbia sheep marketing board have been suspended at Victoria. A letter was sent to Hon. K. C. Macdonald, Minister of Agriculture, over the week end, from the Salt Spring Island sheep breeders' association, asking for delay and calling the minister's attention to the fact that less than five per cent of the actual sheep breeders of the province have yet expressed am opinion for or against th-e marketing scheme.
The minister tells us that the scheme has been approved by the local marketing board of British Columbia and is now before the dominion board for consideration. Is he aware of this other statement, that only five per cent of the actual sheep breeders have expressed an opinion? Is it a desirable system whereby schemes can pass the provincial board and come to the dominion board for consideration, when only five per cent of the people have been consulted?
[Mr. Rhodes.1


Robert Weir: Certain things were included in the scheme which the dominion board doubted could be put into effect. My information is that a long wire has been sent to the proponents of the scheme, asking them to give it further consideration.


Alan Webster Neill: The provincial government has been asked to give further consideration?


Robert Weir: Not the provincial government but the British Columbia sheep-breeders' Association, those submitting the scheme.


Alan Webster Neill: But I understood the minister to say that it was rejected because the market for the regulated product was within the area of production. It was then taken* up under the British Columbia act and O.K.'d and sent to the dominion board. It is now being considered by the dominion board, but I say that it should not be considered favourably if only five per cent of the people have been consulted.


Robert Weir: That matter will be taken into consideration. The scheme is under consideration by the dominion board.


Alan Webster Neill: There is another point. In
connection with the British Columbia salt fish board, it appears that this has been formed as I am afraid so many of these boards will be formed, and it is one of the greatest weaknesses of the act. We did not follow the British system, which is confined exclusively to producers. Under our act we very unwisely, as I thought at the time, extended the provisions to take in middlemen, marketers, or even marketers alone can start a scheme; and that opens the door to what will prove in the future to be a great deal of trouble. I do not mind prophesying now that within eighteen months it will be discovered, not in connection with this board but in some of these schemes, that the manipulation of a few small groups of middlemen, the men engaged in marketing the product, will lend itself to a gross misuse of their powers. If it had been confined to producers it would have been very different. I have not a word to say about the management of this British Columbia salt fish board; no doubt they are all right. But I want to make this other point. It appears that no fisherman is on the local board, which is composed entirely of men engaged in the marketing end. Now the whole purpose of the marketing act, if it had any precise object in view, was to benefit the primary producers. Here we are dealing with the fish industry, and surely the primary producers are those who catch the fish. Yet

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
there are none of these on the board. The statement is made that the operation of the scheme has been satisfactory and profitable, but profitable to whom? To the men who compose the board and not to the fishermen, who have not had an opportunity to benefit, not having been represented on the board. The scheme was put into effect after the fish were all caught. I point this out as an illustration of the way in which we are getting away from the real object of the act and drifting along the lines I predicted a year ago, with the result that certain schemes are entirely in the hands of middlemen.
There is one other point I wish to make -it was brought home forcibly to us in British Columbia, and it appears to me to strike at the very crux, the whole existence of the act- and it is this: a local board could be formed and organized to handle a certain product in a certain area; then it presently discovered, as we found out in British Columbia, that it was not possible to prevent the particular product, namely, potatoes, from being shipped in from an outside district. The result was that the whole scheme was absolutely abortive. I appealed to the British Columbia government and asked what was their interpretation and their proposed remedy. I pointed out that we had a potato board proposing to operate on Vancouver island, and I suspected that the scheme would be ruined because potatoes could1 and would be imported from any area outside that designated, in other words, from the neighbourhood of Lulu island where they grow a large quantity to the acre of an inferior quality. The answer I received from the British Columbia marketing board was that the only way to deal with the situation was to get the two districts to agree not to ship into each other's territory. That sounded very nice, but naturally it would not work. Vancouver island, which was an importing area, which had a shortage, would not ship into an area of cheap production, but the area of cheap production would not agree voluntarily and1 with no recompense to stop shipping its product into a considerable market on Vancouver island. The result was that this particular scheme fell flat. The area was then enlarged to take in both Vancouver island and a considerable section of the lower mainland. It was then discovered that potatoes outside that area were being shipped in quite legitimately, not bootlegged, and without any restrictions as to price, quantity or marketing regulations. In other words the local scheme is threatened with complete failure.
The same thing is likely to happen, and I think it was indicated it would1 happen, in 92582-214^
connection with the sheep and lamb board proposed in British Columbia. It was all very nice as long as we regulated our own lambs, but we could not stop the Alberta lambs from being shipped in and flooding the market. The whole purpose of the act seems to be dissipated on account of inability to control the product from areas outside that designated by the board. The remedy would appear to be to have given the local board power to deal with all produce of that particular variety, either grown or imported into the area. I submit that to the minister and I would like his opinion whether that would not be advisable or at least whether it will not be highly necessary, or else all these boards will be just a joke. What is the use of regulating a large area of a province when another part of that province or another province can ship in stuff to the total destruction of the market? These boards cost money to handle, fifty cents or a dollar a ton, and what is to be the benefit? The minister will either have to give the local board power to handle imported as well as locally grown stuff or else to explain of what use the board is.


Robert Weir: This was one of the most troublesome problems we had in developing this legislation. The particular scheme to which the hon. member refe'rs was given- very serious consideration by the dominion marketing board, and it was first thought that the only solution in connection with this one particular scheme was that the area should have been in the first place large enough to get over those local conditions. The hon. member realizes that if an attempt were made to restrict areas so that products could not be shipped under any conditions into certain areas where products were being regulated, that would be equivalent to setting up a prohibitive tariff wall around that area. That would create a complicated and almost impossible situation. It was the purpose when this act was brought before the house and enacted, and it still is, that the areas would be sufficiently large to get over the difficulty that has been mentioned. But I can again assure the hon. member that the government had a full appreciation of those difficulties, and they probably gave us more concern than anything else in connection with the marketing board. We have been trying to devise some amendment to the act that will to some extent overcome this.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the legislation be introduced this year?


Robert Weir: I would not be prepared yet to go that far.
3366	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
Perhaps I might be allowed to put on Hansard some information that I promised the other day to give the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). The hon. member asked these questions and asked that the information be submitted:
I understand from the minister that the chairman of the board is also the owner or part owner of one of the syndicates that grow tobacco that the people who grew tobacco previously now have licences and that the growing of tobacco has become a privilege, a monopoly if you like, and that one of the syndicate holders has been made chairman of the marketing board. Is that correct or incorrect?
Has the minister any knowledge of the increase in prices of the lands held by the licensed growers including the lands held by the syndicate of which the chairman of the marketing board is a member?
Would the minster be kind enough to give the names of the two associations?
What is the acreage that was licensed, and what was the acreage contained in the two syndicates in which the chairman is interested?
How many of those producers were working for or under the two associations in which the chairman is interested?
Am I to understand that the minister will give me the information required as to the acreage of the two associations in which the chairman is interested as compared with the total acreage? And the number of producers represented by the two associations as compared with the total number of producers?
A precedent has been created when a gentleman engaged in an industry has a privilege as part of a monopoly and then is made chairman of the board controlling those privileges. The chairman of. the board is a holder in two syndicates that have certain privileges under the marketing act, privileges which are not enjoyed by people holding lands suitable for growing tobacco but which have not hitherto been devoted to that purpose.
How many growers were renting land from the syndicate represented by the chairman of the board and what proportion of the growers were independent owners? I should like to know also how many syndicates there are similar to the one in which the chairman is interested and what proportion of the total acreage is controlled by the syndicate.
The present chairman of the board is president and managing director and large shareholder of Windham Plantations Limited, a company owning and operating fifty farms; total acreage, 5,308, producing 1,900 to 2,200 acres of tobacco per year; also president and managing director and large shareholder of St. Williams Plantations Limited, owning and operating fifteen farms comprising 1,750 acres, of which fourteen are equipped for tobacco and produce 435 to 500 acres annually.
The acreage of tobacco planted by these two companies averages about twelve per cent of the total acreage grown in Ontario and the production averages about fifteen per cent to sixteen per cent of the total pounds produced in Ontario. About 1,000 separate individuals

and seven limited companies produce the balance of the tobacco. These two companies employ sixty-four principal growers under yearly contract whose labour is paid for by a share of the crop but the sole right of selling the crop is in the discretion of the companies owning the land. So these sharegrowers are not producers in the sense that they take part in marketing the tobacco.
With regard to land speculating activities referred to, there are absolutely none, either personally or for companies. Since acquiring these properties in 1928 neither himself nor his companies have bought or sold or otherwise traded in a single foot of land, nor does he nor they own or have any interest directly or indirectly in a single acre of farm land within or without the tobacco area, except that used for purposes of growing tobacco as indicated above.
In his relations with grower association activities, Mr. Leitch is vice-president of Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers' association, a general service growers' organization comprising producers of about forty per cent of the total tobacco produoed, and in which each producer, irrespective of his acreage, has only one vote on all matters. Mr. Leitch is one of the three representatives of this association on the local tobacco marketing board. He is also president of Ontario Tobacco Sales Co-operative Limited, a tobacco packing and marketing co-operative society formed by the service associations to provide a voluntary alternative means of selling their tobacco to those smaller growers who find it difficult to market their own crops satisfactorily. This society handles satisfactorily from $150,000 to $1,000,000 worth of tobacco annually, and is one of the most important elements in tobacco marketing stabilization machinery. Mr. Leitch owns only one share of the capital stock of this company, to qualify him as a director, as he does not need to use the services of the society in selling the tobacco of his two companies. He is trustee for the Ontario government for any credits advanced to small producers to enable them to market their crops to advantage, and chairman of the local flue-cured tobacco marketing board under the Natural Products Marketing Act, by unanimous vote of the fourteen members thereof.
The Ontario flue-cured tobacco marketing scheme was dealt with by the dominion marketing board before Mr. Leitch became chairman of the marketing board. Mr. Leitch agreed to accept the position of chairman for only a year. We did feel that with the record that he has in. both production and marketing, and as a student, investigator and teacher in agricultural economics, also a farmer's son

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
who has made every cent that he has by his business ability, and a man of recognized integrity, we were very fortunate in securing his services at this time to head the dominion marketing board.


Edward James Young: The figures just given by the minister are not in exact agreement with the figures submitted to the price spreads commission. If my memory serves me aright Mr. Leitch told that commission that there were only 30,000 acres of land in Canada suitable for growing flue-cured tobacco, and that his companies control 7,300 acres, or nearly twenty-five per cent of that. Then I want to ask the minister a question with regard to this tobacco industry. How would a man proceed who owns a farm say in Norfolk county, the flue-cured tobacco district, on which he has not been growing tobacco in recent years, if he wanted to start growing? How would he get permission to grow and market tobacco?


Robert Weir: He does not have to have any permission to grow tobacco in that area or any other.


Edward James Young: How about selling; what step does he have to take to sell it?


Robert Weir: The same as the others who are in that area and whose tobacco is being marketed or the marketing of which is being regulated by this scheme.


Edward James Young: Will the minister then say what is meant by the preferred and deferred lists of growers which are given to the buyers when they get their licences?


Robert Weir: I do not know to what list the hon. member refers. There is nothing in the scheme or in connection with the scheme that has anything to do with preferred growers or sellers or the giving of licences to them in a preferred way.


Edward James Young: I understand that every buyer when he gets his licence from the local board receives a list of preferred growers and a list of deferred growers, and his instructions are that he must buy no tobacco from anyone on the deferred list until those on the preferred list have sold all their crop.


Robert Weir: The board has no such power and takes no such action.


Edward James Young: The minister is sure of that?


Robert Weir: That is my information.


Edward James Young: Then will the minister explain how it comes about that certain growers down there are selling their rights to grow tobacco to other growers?


Robert Weir: I cannot explain
that; certainly it has nothing to do with this marketing scheme.


Edward James Young: It is precisely with this scheme that it has to do and with nothing else.


Robert Weir: There is no provision in the marketing scheme by which any grower has any rights or any special privileges in that connection.


Edward James Young: If his name is on the preferred list?


Robert Weir: There is no preferred list in connection with the scheme.


Edward James Young: Is there no preferred list in the operation of the scheme down there by the local men?


Robert Weir: Not by the board, no.


Edward James Young: The answers of the minister are not at all in accord with the information that I have. Another question:	Is it true
that a certain buyer was put in gaol down there for buying tobacco when he had no licence to do so?


Robert Weir: My information is that a buyer was fined because he evaded the regulations, but he was not put in gaol.


Edward James Young: The report in the press states that he could not pay the fine and was sent to gaol. Then there is another report, that a farmer who sold his tobacco to a buyer who did not have a licence was taken up and fined. Is that correct?


Robert Weir: No, that could not be correct, because every producer was given a licence to sell his tobacco; a blanket licence was published in the press.


Albert Joseph Brown: But it is admitted that a buyer was fined, is it?


Robert Weir: That is my information, yes.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: If the buyer who was fined had been unable to pay the fine, what would have happened to him?


Robert Weir: That would rest entirely with the court.
3368	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


William Alexander Fraser: Then would the minister's interpretation of the Natural Products Marketing Act be that the court would have the right and have had no other course except to send him to gaol?


Robert Weir: That is for the court to interpret.


William Alexander Fraser: May
I have an answer, yes or no, from the minister?


Robert Weir: I think the hon. .member is not serious in asking for an answer, ;yes or no, to a question of that nature. No mne but the court could answer that question.


William Alexander Fraser: May I refer the minister to the act known as the Natural Products Marketing Act, which provides for either fine or imprisonment. My question to the minister is whether under that act a man who is convicted of infringement of its provisions and sentenced to a fine and is unable to pay the fine, that is the only alternative for the court?


Mr.   HOUCKS@: There is not necessarily any "only" alternative.


William Alexander Fraser: How much assistance does the minister need? The hon. member is not the minister. May I have an answer to that question?


Robert Weir: The board has no authority either to fine or to send a man to prison for the breaking of any of these regulations. The matter would be referred to the courts and the courts would decide. I cannot give any statement as to what the court would decide. It might take into consideration the fact that the man was not able to pay his fine and might give him a second chance. But certainly any act, if it is to be effective, must have provisions giving power to make people conform to the regulations under the act.


William Alexander Fraser: 'In connection with the minister's reply, May I ask this question: Has the court the right, under the clauses of the act, to send a person found guilty of a violation of the regulations or stipulations of the board to gaol if he is unable to pay a fine?


Robert Weir: That, I repeat, is
a question for the court's interpretation. The hon. member can read the section and give it his own interpretation, just as I may give it mine.


James Layton Ralston: Would the minister read
the section, if he has it there?


Robert Weir: The section reads:
Every person who fails to comply with any order of the board or of a local board or any regulation of the governor in council shall be guilty of an offence and punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars and not more than five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.


James Layton Ralston: Has the minister any
difficulty in interpreting that, when he was the one who introduced the bill and proposed this very section? Is there any doubt that it does provide for a fine of from $25 to to $500 and for imprisonment up to three months or to both fine and imprisonment? Has the minister any doubt about that? Does he need any judicial interpretation to explain the meaning of that section, which he himself brought down in this house?


Robert Weir: The hon. member
for Shelburne-Yarmouth is a lawyer, and I am sure he will agree with me that the clause speaks for itself; I think it is quite definite. He would be the last to state that anyone should be asked to interpret the decision to which any court may come.


Albert Joseph Brown: Surely the minister can interpret his own statute.


James Layton Ralston: All I suggest is that
every minister, so far as I know, who has introduced an act has purported to explain what it means. No one has been left to rely simply on the text of the statute. I think we should be able to take it that the minister understood the statute which he introduced last year and the penal clauses that he put into it. He must remember the objections raised from this side of the house to the compulsory features of the act and particularly to this very clause under which new crimes were permitted to be created by the board making the regulations, which regulations were not before the house. I do not know why the minister hides behind the idea of a judicial interpretation of a clause which seems to be quite clear. I submit that the minister is not dealing quite fairly with the hon. member who asked the question when he says the clause speaks for itself and1 when he is not prepared to express an opinion on it.


Mr. McGTBBON:: Surely you do not expect the minister to anticipate the action of a judge.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


Robert Weir: I agree that the
clause should speak for itself; that is the point I have been endeavouring to make.
-Mr. RALSTON:	I thought the minister
should speak for himself.


William Alexander Fraser: Mr. Chairman, as a fruit grower I am very anxious that the minister should speak for himself, and as a member of this committee I do not see any reason why he should not do so. I should like to ask this direct question. Is it within the power of the court under this act to send a natural producer to gaol if he violates or infringes upon the conditions laid down by the marketing board or any local board set up under it? Let us get this quite clear; as a fruit grower I want to hear the reply and I know there are many other fruit growers and producers in Canada who want to know the situation, so let us get it on record. Has the court the right, under these clauses of the Natural Products Marketing Act, to send a producer to gaol if he breaks a regulation or departs from a stipulation made under the act by the federal or any subsidiary board? I think I am entitled to a direct reply to this question.


Robert Weir: In reply to the hon. member I would state that this clause sets out specifically that the court may have that power, but it is up to the court to decide whether that power should be exercised in any particular case.


William Alexander Fraser: Thank you very much. The other night when this committee had the opportunity of discussing the pros and cons of the Natural Products Marketing Act under the vote of $545,000 for the administration, the publication, the advocation, the extension, the coercion, the selling and the adoption of this act, we had a very remarkable speech by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). I wish to take this opportunity of sincerely complimenting the hon. member on the wonderful oration he delivered at that time. For the last five years, off and on, it has been my privilege and pleasure to listen to speeches in this house on different topics. Never during that period have I listened to a speech which included a wider scope of interpretation, a broader application of a multiplicity of ramifications in connection with any act, any subject, any bill or any amendment before this house than I had the pleasure of hearing the other night from the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. He covered everything in a first class
hustings speech from a Tory platform, from the Natural Products Marketing Act to the discrimination between different schools of political thought in Canada, including a bun fight and a bowery row. There was nothing he left unsaid. He went back to ancient history; he even accused the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) of flirting with the clock or something like that.
As I said the other night, I am not particularly interested in past history; I have no particular interest in the abortive attempts of this government to assist the farmers. What we were discussing the other night and what we are discussing now is a vote of $545,000 of the money of the taxpayers of Canada for the administration of what is known as the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934. At this time I should like to ask the minister to be good enough to explain to this committee in as great detail as possible just how in the world we are going to spend, he is going to spend, or his department is going to spend $545,000, half a million dollars plus $45,000, sugar tax, income tax, food tax, liquor tax, or some other tax, under the Natural Products Marketing Act. What is he going to do with it? How is he going to spend it? Who is going to direct that expenditure? What is the purpose of it? What is to be accomplished by it? The minister may need the assistance of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) before he is through answering that question; in fact I think he will need the assistance of everyone on that side of the house. As a member of the committee I want to know how he is going to spend that money.
Before giving the minister an opportunity to answer the question I should like to couple with it another. I have before me a return tabled in the house in connection with the $50,000 spent in the three western provinces. At page 20 of that return there is a list of items covering, as I found upon inquiry, money paid to public speakers. Included in that list is an item of $94.25 paid to A. Speakman. May I ask the minister to tell me who Mr. A. Speakman is. Will the minister please answer these two questions?


Robert Weir: Accompanying the
statements we received from the associations to which we advanced the money there was no information with regard to specific individuals, as to who they were, to distinguish them from other individuals, except by their names. I could not hazard a guess as to who the A. Speakman might be, but I shall be pleased to get the information for the hon. member.
3370	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


William Alexander Fraser: May I
have a reply to my former question? How is the department going to spend the $545,000?


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Perhaps the minister
would permit me to say a word, because whether or not I am the A. Speakman to whom reference is made, it is obvious that it is intended to convey to the house that I was that person, and that I was paid for speaking. I want to say at once, without having seen the item in question, that while I spoke throughout Alberta during the last year on this particular subject, and did attend a number of meetings outside that province, I did so on my own time and at my own expense. The money I received in connection with this act amounts not to $90 but to $190.
Before Christmas I was appointed by the live stock board of the western provinces, which body by the way has received no money from the federal government, to represent them down here. I travelled to this point and spent two weeks here discussing plans of the board and representing it, as by their appointment I had a perfect right to do. They paid me my actual out of pocket expenses during the time I was absent from home, and that is the money I received. The rest of the time I put in at my own expense. Not only am I not at all ashamed of having received that money, but I say they were perfectly right in paying it. They believed it was worth their while to pay my expenses, because unfortunately I am not sufficiently wealthy to travel to Ottawa and spend two weeks in this city at my own expense, no matter how anxious I may be to help the farmers organize under the act. That is the dreadful secret about the money I received, and that is the amount I received. They advanced me $200, out of which I returned $10, giving an itemized account of every cent I spent from the time I left Red Deer until I arrived back-and if any member thinks he can make that trip, spend that time and do what I did on a smaller amount of money, I should like to see him do it.


Robert Weir: In further reply
to the question asked by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) I would state that the estimated expenditures for 1935-36 are broken down in the following way: Salary, $25,000; travelling, $10,000; printing and stationery, $6,000; equipment, $2,500; communications, $2,000; organization of local boards, investigations and so on, $500,000.
A number of schemes are now under way, one of which, that respecting the dairy industry, is nation wide. If that scheme is brought to a point where it is considered by the dominion marketing board that it would 
be advisable to make a recommendation, a good deal of money would be required to bring the scheme before all the Canadian dairymen. Then, there are other schemes well advanced. There are live stock schemes from the western provinces, and another one from British Columbia which will require a considerable sum of money. Hon. members will bear in mind that under the second part of the act there is provision to ascertain whether or not certain industries are making undue profits through their operations in processing farmers7 products. To carry on those investigations over a period of time is a difficult matter and gains its importance because there is a body of opinion in Canada which holds that the primary producer is not getting his fair share of the consumer's dollar. So long as that opinion, whether it be right or wrong, remains in the minds of producers, they are unable to give that same degree of skill and concentration to the production of a high quality product as they would give under other circumstances. When the act was introduced last year it was intended that the investigations would have been commenced before this time, but the board did not wish to leave itself open to the criticism of promoting investigations when investigations were being held by the price spreads commission. There is no doubt, however, that in the very near future inquiries of a very far reaching nature will be carried on. I am certain the amount is by no means too large to do the work which we believe should be undertaken.


William Alexander Fraser: I must
thank the minister for his lengthy reply, but I would point out that we are asked to vote $500,000, half a million dollars, of the taxpayers' money for the promotion of marketing schemes throughout the dominion. Ostensibly the expenditure of that money


Robert Weir: If I may be permitted to interrupt, I would say that the hon. member must have misunderstood my statement. I did not say it was contemplated to spend that sum for the promotion of marketing schemes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, an arrangement was made this afternoon whereby we would proceed with bills arising out of the budget resolutions which earlier in the day were held over because of the absence of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth. When he arrived I arranged with him to proceed with the bills at nine o'clock. If we finish the discussion of them we will revert to the committee of supply. I move, therefore: that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Special War Revenue Act


William Alexander Fraser: Is it the intention to return to this item if we finish the bills?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.
Progress reported.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 81, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Excise tax on duty paid value modified.
James Layton Ralston: May I ask the minister
for an explanation of the last two lines of the new subsection 2 enacted by this bill? As I understand it the purpose of the subsection is to exempt goods coming in under the British preference from the three per cent excise tax, or the one and a hah per cent excise tax as it was modified last year. In addition to that the subsection provides that goods imported into Canada under trade agreements between Canada and other British countries shall be exempt. Does the minister think that by using the words "under the British preferential tariff" with the words "under trade agreements between Canada and other British countries" he is covering goods imported from all British countries? In other words, can we be satisfied now that goods imported from all British countries will be exempt from this three per cent excise tax?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the section were passed without the lines to which my hon. friend has referred it would still cover goods admitted under the British preferential tariff, which covers all British countries, protectorates and possessions with the possible exception of Hong Kong. The last two lines are really an enlargement of the section. Under the Australian treaty, which is a specific instance, there are certain items admitted at rates even more favourable than the British preferential. If the exemptions covered only the British preferential the result would be that the excise tax would be applicable to those items which now enjoy rates much lower than the British preferential. The reference to the trade agreements is made to include such items as might come in under more favourable rates than the British preferential.


Thomas Reid: Could the minister give me a decision in connection with the sales tax on peat moss?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That can be dealt with when we reach section 7.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-schedule III amended.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can see no reasonable objection to acceding to the suggestion made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and I therefore move:
That section 7 of Bill No. 81, an act to amend the Special War Revenue Aet, be amended by adding thereto the following words: "peat moss, when used for agricultural purposes, including poultry litter."


Thomas Reid: I can assure the minister that this addition will be appreciated in British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-schedule IV amended.
George Gibson Coote: In connection with section 6, does that mean that a tax of at least ten per cent will be placed on every cigarette lighter?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It means that the minimum tax will be ten cents.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 82, to amend the Excise Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-power to restore duties which have beeen reduced on liquors.
Albert Joseph Brown: The minister said that I might make some remarks at this time with regard to the administration of the Customs Act. I am glad to see both the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) in the chamber. The Minister of Finance determines the amount of taxation and then the Minister of National Revenue and his department undertake to collect that taxation. We have reason to believe that sometimes the Depart-
Excise Act Amendment

ment of National Revenue is so much interested in obtaining the last cent of revenue that it violates the spirit of the Customs Act We had an illustration of this two or three years ago in connection with the duty on repair parts for farm implements. I want to bring that matter again to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue and also to take up another matter to which I referred the other day when speaking on the motion to go into supply. At that time I referred to the complaint which had been made in connection with the imposing of a dump duty upon certain fishermen's supplies which came in free of duty. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) expressed the opinion that that had reference to goods coming in from Japan, but I hold in my hand a copy of a letter which indicates that the complaint was made in connection with goods coming in from Norway. This letter, which is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue, reads:
The representatives of your local customs called on us to-day in connection with the importation of nets and rope from Norway, lit is our understanding that you propose assessing dump duty on nets imported from Norway, and which .are o-n the free list. We take some credit for stirring up this trouble between Japan and your government, as we wrote some of our principals there, explaining the difficulty of importing goods from them on account of your unreasonable dump duty. It is our understanding that the balance of trade between Norway and Canada is in favour of ourselves. Therefore we propose advising Norway of the rate, so that they, like Japan, may take steps to convince your government that they cannot carry on a one-sided trade.
We trust that you will not be sufficiently blind to the interests of Canada to put a dump duty on goods that are admitted free, because similar goods are made in Canada. Our fishermen are compelled to sell their goods on the markets of the world and take the world price. They cannot exist and pay the high protected prices in, existence in Canada. If the Canadian manufacturers are desirous of selling goods to those who have to sell their wares in world markets, then they must be prepared to get their prices down to those of the world.
Personally, I have no immediate interest in the fishermen, but fishermen are one class of primary producers in Canada, and the interests of Canada as well as of the primary producers themselves demand that the implements of production, whatever they may be, be admitted at the lowest possible rate. And since these articles used by fishermen are put on the free list, it would seem to be a violation of the spirit and intent of the act that a dumping duty should be imposed. I call attention also to the question of repairs on agricultural implements. So far as the general run of agricultural implements are concerned,

that was satisfactorily adjusted two years ago when the Minister of Finance placed these repairs on the list at the duties prevailing before the tariff was raised in the fall of 1930. There is, however, one implement on which the ruling of the Department of National Revenue is by no means satisfactory; I refer to the situation in regard to. repairs for tractors. Item 409m reads:
Internal combustion traction engines for farm purposes, valued at not more than fourteen hundred dollars each; traction attachments designed and imported to be combined with automobiles in Canada for use as traction engines for farm purposes; and complete parte of all tbe foregoing: Free.
It was the understanding that repair parts for implements should come in at the rate of duty that prevailed on repairs before the tariff was raised in the fall of 1930. Now in regard to these repair parts for tractors, I have already called the attention of the house to the fact that the department has ruled that these repairs, constituting bolts, nuts, washers, rivets, lock washers, screws-copper or brass-* tractor gaskets, cork gaskets, copper gaskets, asbestos gaskets and paper gaskets, shall now be charged a duty of from 25 to 35 per cent. A bulletin of the department, issued November 12, 1927, reads:
Declares that any article which constitutes a part of a part, provided it requires no further fabrication and is not adapted for any other use, is entitled to entry as a complete part.
I submit that these words "and is not adapted for any other use" should be stricken out. It is perfectly true in regard to engines that many of the bolts, for instance, which are used on engines, whether steam or gasoline, may be used for something else; but it is also true that 'bolts are made especially suited for a particular engine and only that particular bolt can be used in that part of the engine, though undoubtedly, as I say, a bolt may be used for some other purpose. If the department bases its ruling on the fact that these bolts may be used for some other purpose, then I suggest that that clause be stricken out, "and is not adapted for any other use." To the users of engines this is an important consideration. The companies that handle these supplies have to keep a large stock on hand in order to meet the necessities of the farmers, because these engine Tepairs are often needed at very short notice and it would not be possible for the wholesaler in Winnipeg to get them readily from the manufacturer in the United States. I submit that the Minister of National Revenue should give this subject con-

Excise Act Amendment
sideration and instruct the officers of his department to apply the law according to what we believe was the spirit and intent of it when it was passed under the leadership of the Minister of Finance.


Hon. R. C. MATTHEWS (Minister of National Revenue):: I am very glad the hon. member has called my attentiop to the matter and I will endeavour to reply with the information at my command. The first complaint has reference to representations made direct to the department on May 22 last, by a firm of ship chandlers in Prince Rupert, I believe, to the effect that currency dump should not apply to importations from Norway of fishermen's ropes and nets which are entitled to free entry from all countries under tariff item 682. I may say that order in council P.C. 2549, passed on October 10, 1931, provided, in respect of goods imported from countries having depreciated currencies, that the value for duty of such goods should be computed in accordance with currency values as proclaimed by the governor in council under section 55 of the Customs Act. This order in council, which also provided for the collection of special duty under section 6 of the customs tariff, in cases where the selling price to the purchaser in Canada was for a lesser amount than the value for duty as computed in the manner stated, applies to all currencies whose values have been proclaimed and which have become depreciated. The proclaimed value of the Norwegian krone is 26-80 cents in Canadian currency and at the present time it has depreciated to a value of about 24-75 cents. In this instance therefore the currency dump is practically negligible. In any event, I am informed that there are very few importations of fishermen's ropes and nets from Norway.
Section 6 of the customs tariff provides for a special duty in respect of goods of a class or kind produced in Canada, although the goods are not otherwise dutiable; and in this connection fishing nets and netting, whether of linen or of cotton, with the exception of salmon gill nets with double knots, are regarded by the department as of a class or kind produced in Canada and are therefore liable to special or dumping duty.
Accordingly it will be apparent that in this particular instance there has been no discrimination whatever against fish nets from Norway. The correspondence from the Prince Rupert company is now receiving consideration by the department and an adequate reply will be sent to them direct in due course.
With regard to the second complaint made by my hon. friend, which has reference to the tariff status of repair parts for farm traction engines, I may say that so far as anyone at present on the staff of the Department of National Revenue can remember, it has always been ruled and held for customs tariff purposes that a complete part is precisely as defined in appraisers bulletin 3383 of November 12, 1027, which was quoted by my hon. friend and which reads as follows:
That any article which constitutes a part of a part, provided it requires no further fabrication and is not adapted for any other use, is entitled to entry as a complete part.
The decision of the board of customs as contained in appraisers bulletin 3383 merely confirmed this ruling on appeal.
For the information of my hon. friend I may say that the department classifies as complete parts such articles as cylinder head gaskets, manifold gaskets, oil pan gaskets and other special gaskets irrespective of the material of which they are made, which are obviously specially designed for use only as parts of a particular traction engine, and admits the same to duty free entry under tariff item 409m when for use on traction engines for farm purposes, valued at not more than SI,400 each. The department also deals similarly with washers so-called, of special shape, which are specially designed for use as parts of tractors and which do not lend themselves to other use. However, bolts, nuts, washers, rivets and screws which are adapted for other uses cannot be classified by the department as "complete parts" in view of the decision of the former board of customs. I think this answer will cover the point raised by my hon. friend.
Mr. BRXJW1N: According to my information tractor gaskets, cork, are being charged at 20 per cent, and, copper, at 30 per cent. We all know that a gasket for a tractor is made for one particular type of engine and cannot be used for any other. That is a matter of common knowledge.


Robert Charles Matthews: It is my understanding that such gaskets are free, but if a specific case is referred to me, I shall be glad to look into it.


Albert Joseph Brown: I can give only the information that is furnished to me. It states that tractor gaskets are being charged at 20 and 30 per cent.


Robert Charles Matthews: Has my hon. friend any specific case into which I can inquire?
Excise Act Amendment


Albert Joseph Brown: I have only the general information that has been furnished to me.


Edward James Young: I would like to ask the minister what he thinks of a ruling which states that a complete part is not a complete part if it can be used for any other purpose than that for which it was designed. That is a ridiculous ruling.
Mr. MiATTHEWS: If my hon. friend had the responsibility of collecting the revenue, I do not think he would regard that particular ruling as ridiculous.


Edward James Young: Yes, I would.


Robert Charles Matthews: I am afraid I will have to differ, because when they are used for other purposes I do not think he would claim they should be free.


Edward James Young: There is hardly any part of a machine that cannot be used for some other purpose.


William Daum Euler: Clause 1 of this bill has,
I take it, a very laudable purpose, namely, that the benefit of the reduction in duties on liquors shall be passed on to the consumers in the various provinces. It just occurs to me that it might be fairly difficult for the minister to make a change which would not cause discrimination; in fact the change could not possibly be made without an injustice being done. For example, let us say that Ontario does pass on the reductions to the consumer and some other province does not; perhaps two or three provinces reduce their prices to the consumer and one or two do not. I was just wondering what method the minister could apply to correct that situation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question submitted
by my hon. friend is a practical one, but there is no way whereby one could have liquor imported under one tariff for one province and under another for the others.


William Daum Euler: That is exactly the trouble.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There had to be one tariff, and so the provision in this clause is applicable generally. But inasmuch as the provinces are interested in attaining the object which we have in mind in reducing the price of liquors, they have all complied, if not to the exact cent, at least in a reasonable spirit. Some of the provinces have, I think properly, made some slight further reductions. But the practical effect would be this:	Let us
assume that one province declined to comply with this clause. I have not the slightest 
doubt that moral suasion, if I may use that term in association with an enterprise of this kind, would be brought to bear by the other provinces with the net result that they would all conform to the legislation.


William Daum Euler: A kind of pious hope.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No; the best answer to
that is this, that I have before me a complete schedule of the prices under the new lists in all the provinces, and, speaking by and large, they have conformed to the dpsign of this section by making the proper reductions, although in certain cases of individual classes of spirits they may not. have gone the whole way. That is a matter which will be dealt with immediately between the Department of National Revenue and the various liquor commissions.


James Malcolm: I cannot quite understand why the minister wants to incorporate the bargain in legislation, when he could do it by agreement. On a former occasion he reduced the excise on cigarettes. I think at that time it was understood that cigarettes were to be reduced in price to a cent apiece. That was quite a proper arrangement for the minister to make and quite a normal concession for the manufacturer of cigarettes to make to the people when the excise was reduced from $8 to $4 a thousand. There was no incorporation of the bargain in legislation, and I think it is rather a peculiar principle to follow to put this bargain into legislation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think my hon. friend
will be the first to admit it would be a very difficult matter to call into conference representatives of the liquor commissions of nine different provinces and consult them in advance in respect to a reduction in tariff involving as it does revenue running into hundreds of thousands of dollars. As a matter of fact it is a practical impossibility, having regard to the secrecy which of necessity must surround a change in tariff. The result is that the liquor commissions receive the information through the press, and the only lever we could keep in our hands was to insert a provision such as obtains in the clause in question. This was an idea of my own; I think it will work; the purpose is plain and I believe it would be worth while to give it a year's trial.


James Malcolm: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I think the plan would work without this clause. The principle of introducing a bargain of this kind

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
into legislation is not sound. Does the minister suggest that while it was difficult to get into touch with the representatives of nine provinces, it was easier to get into touch with the representatives of the tobacco industry?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not wish the assumption to go abroad that there was an agreement between the tobacco interests and the department-


James Malcolm: The results followed
just the same.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is not the case.
Representations were made by the tobacco interests to the government that if such and such a thing were done they would do thus and so. But there was no undertaking by the Department of Finance that the representations that they made would be adhered to, any more than there is in the case of any submission, and they come in in hundreds, indeed thousands, prior to the budget each year.


Mr. DUFF:: I would like to refer to the
question of nets and twine for fishermen. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) read a letter from Prince Rupert, and the minister replied that the difference was due to depreciated currency of Norway. He informed the committee, quite correctly of course, that the depreciation was so small in the case of that country that there would not be much increase of tax. But that does not apply to Japan. As the minister knows, the depreciation of Japanese currency is very great. Let me give a specific case which came to my notice when I was in Nova Scotia during the recess. I had sufficient time to go around and visit some of my fishermen friends, not in my own constituency but in another. The afternoon I called on one man he was engaged in putting a piece in his fish trap, and I noticed that he had some very nice twine. I asked him where he got it, he told me it came from Japan. I asked him what it cost, he told me it cost him twenty cents a pound, but, he said, the duty on it was more than the cost of the twine. I asked him how much he paid for the twine, and he said he paid S600, but that the tax was S630. This was a fisherman, a man who had to go out in the ocean and risk his gear and sometimes his life to earn his livelihood. This government, or the minister of the department, made this poor man pay S30 more than the cost of the twine in duty; the twine cost him S600 and he had to pay at the customs house S630 in duty before he could get delivery. That seems to me an outrage,
especially in view of the condition of the fishing industry in this country. I was always opposed to dumping duties; I believe in free trade. The people should not have to pay customs duties, whether dumping or otherwise, and I say it is an outrage to the fishermen of this country that they should have to pay $630 tax on $600 worth of twine.


Robert Charles Matthews: My hon. friend will
appreciate that the dumping duty of which he speaks is due entirely to the depreciated currency of Japan. The par value of the yen is 49'89 cents, and the proclaimed value for duty purposes is the same, but the present value of the yen is only about 28-90 cents. That is where the difference comes in, and the dumping duty. The hon. member will also appreciate that this department merely administers the law in collecting the duty.


William Duff: Quite right, but it is a very
bad law when a poor fisherman, finding a place where he can get some cheap twine, imports it and has to pay $630 on a $600 article, whether it be dumping duty or whatever you like to call it. I say the law should be changed. It is not fair to the industry or to the individual, and in my opinion it is not right.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend from
Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) I am sure will forgive me if I do not follow him in his discussion, as in other circumstances I should be glad to do.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) dealt with the whole question of valuation, which has no reference to the bill under discussion. We cannot enlarge the discussion into a general tariff debate; I hope that will not take place.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, $545,500.
Albert Joseph Brown: I wish to make a few remarks on some statements that were made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). The hon. member for Northumberland. Ont. (Mr. Fraser) characterized that speech very well. I must admit it was a noble and courageous effort on the part of the hon. member to respond to the SOS call of the
3376	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). But while it was a noble effort we cannot say much in praise of the material of his speech. I shall not deal with it at any length, but there is one sentence to which I call attention. He said, as reported on page 3300 of Hansard:
Mr. Rowe: Danish bacon was being sold in our western stores, and our barley was being used to fatten Danish hogs.
I take the first part of that statement, that Danish bacon was being sold in our western stares. Perhaps the hon. member made that statement in good faith; sometimes men repeat so often statements they have heard that they come to believe them. It is said of George IV that he declared so often that he had been present at the battle of Waterloo that he came to believe he had been, and when the Duke of Wellington was asked about it by the king he replied "Well, I have heard your Majesty say so." This is one of the loose statements which Conservative speakers have been making all through the country. Similar loose statements have been made in regard to the tariff in many respects. I took occasion to look up the trade returns of Canada, and I found that from 1923 to 1930 there is no record of a single pound of Danish bacon being imported. So much for the first part of that statement. Then, the hon. member said that our barley was being used to fatten Danish hogs. This was just one of the loose statements made by the hon. member in the course of the rambling speech he made in response to the SOS call of the Minister of Agriculture. We know the minister needed his help very badly, as he needs it again to-night. So I just want to call the attention of the house and the country to the fact that, according to the trade returns, that statement will not bear investigation.


Mr. ROWE:: In response to the hon. member for Lisgar, I should like to say that I did not receive an SOS call from the Minister of Agriculture.


Albert Joseph Brown: Then your effort is still more worthy of commendation.


William Earl Rowe: I thank my good friend1, but that is an evidence of his own loose statements. The Minister of Agriculture does not need any help from me; as a matter of fact I asked if he would mind if I made a few remarks. I regret that due to the interruptions from the other side I perhaps did not make the remarks I intended to make when I rose. It is not my intention to speak at any length tonight; I know it is not the desire of the hon. members who interrupted so vociferously the other evening that I should do so.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier - Outremont):: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Through you, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether this is the same speech he made the other evening, or a new speech?


William Earl Rowe: Through you, Mr. Chairman, I might tell my genial friend that the policy of his party for the last twenty years has been to wait and see, and I might suggest that he follow that policy still.


Vincent Dupuis: It would have cost less if your government had done the same thing.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, another voice suggesting that we should have done the same thing. Thank God we did not, so far as Canada is concerned. I do not propose that the hon. member for Lisgar or anyone else shall direct me away from what I propose to say. I know very well that I could find many loose statements that have been made by the hon. member; in fact, I remember his saying, when he sat in the far corner of the house, what little regard he had for either of the major parties.


Albert Joseph Brown: You never did.


William Earl Rowe: Even now, apparently, the
people of his own riding doubt his sincerity when he talks there about being a Progressive.


Albert Joseph Brown: Will the hon. gentleman
just permit me and my constituents to settle that matter between ourselves?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: They have settled it.


William Earl Rowe: According to all reports the matter is already settled. I know that my hon. friend came here with good intentions, as I said the other night. He did not intend to make any reckless statements; he came here intending to assist in the cooperative marketing of agricultural products, which was the object of the organization he represented. In the first place the farmers of old Ontario organized in order to help the farmers to get a fair price for their products, and it was through the organization that followed that first step that the hon. member for Lisgar and other hon. members first came to this parliament. But when he saw the advantage of getting back to his first love he not only made reckless statements, he recklessly disregarded his second love and came nearer the front benches of the party to which he now belongs.
It was no reckless statement the other night when I said that our overseas markets were lost before this government came into power. I say that the Natural Products Marketing Act is more fundamentally as-

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
sociated with our agricultural prosperity than perhaps those on this side of the house who drafted the act can imagine, certainly much more than those who sit to your left appreciate. I know the leaders in every line of Canadian enterprise and activity have stated repeatedly that unless agriculture is brought back to prosperity there is little hope for the future, and I will say that I believe hon. gentlemen opposite are in agreement with that statement. One thing is sure; only through the wise and careful marketing of our products can we hope to receive the best return for what we produce. I think that is generally acknowledged. I have stated before in this house, Mr. Chairman, and I repeat-and this is no reckless or ill-considered statement-that we had ten years of an absolutely lopsided agricultural policy in this country from 1920 to 1030, with little regard paid to marketing conditions. That was so much the case that the sound development of Canadian agriculture almost disappeared. I know it is true that we marketed much more wheat, but undoubtedly if we had possessed a natural products marketing act in 1920 and had exercised the powers now contained in that act we would have preserved some of our overseas markets which were lost when hon. gentlemen who sit opposite were in power.
I think everyone will appreciate that if any phase of Canadian agriculture should be developed on a sound basis it is the careful and systematic sale of the products of mixed farming. I know that for years my friends from western Canada, both in this parliament and on the hustings, have criticized this government for their policy of protection. 1 can remember, some eight or ten years ago, istening to the wheat growers tell us in this nouse that we should have free trade or at least a lower tariff on farm implements, and I rather admired the zeal of my hon. friend from Lisgar to-night in requesting that even the nuts, bolts and screws that go to make up a binder should be put on the free list. But may I remind him that when the tariff on farm implements was reduced before 1930 we paid more for those implements than we had paid before the change was made. May I remind him also that the tariffs have been raised since that time but we pay less for these implements, so apparently the tariff has very little bearing on the price paid.
One thing, and one thing only, was emphasized by those inclined to that fiscal theory; in this country we developed the sale of wheat, and wheat only. So much was that
so that the agricultural interests in this country seemed to feel that when you mentioned wheat you had mentioned everything in relation to agricultural prosperity. They forgot that in 1920 we sold $133,000,000 worth of live stock products, and that overseas we sold $16,000,000 more of live stock products than of wheat. But what happened? With reckless disregard for the systematic marketing of these products, by 1930 we had lost our position in the world market. I say it is fundamental to the security of Canadian agriculture, which is the basis of Canadian prosperity. that we have an up to date marketing system for our agricultural products. As I mentioned the other evening, Denmark and other countries have planned their marketing very carefully. While in 1920 we had 26 per cent of the British market, and Denmark had less than 12 per cent, when the party to which hon. members opposite belong went out of power we had less than 1J per cent of the British market, and Denmark had 60 per cent of it. In 1930 Denmark sold to the British market over 600.000 000 pounds of bacon, and we sold less than 9.000.000 pounds.


Albert Joseph Brown: How much do we sell
now?


William Earl Rowe: Nine times as much as when your party went out of power. In 1920 and 1921 we lost that market for the Canadian producer. I know hon. members will smile. They will say that these were war conditions, that the war had a great deal to do with it, increased production and so on. I do not blame the right hon. leader of the opposition for losing that market when he was Prime Minister-T do not say he is absolutely to blame, but as a farmer, I do say that there was an utter disregard for the careful marketing of our products during the years when Denmark and other countries were so carefully surveying the fields of demand for similar products.
This is the first attempt on the part of any political party since confederation to give the farmer a square deal. It is all very well to say that there are principles in the marketing act that are unsound; that its principles do not coincide with the laissez-faire doctrine of the Liberal party. I have listened to hon. members opposite; I have read the speeches they deliver on the hustings, and I know how many of them travelling throughout the country endeavour to convince the Canadian people that since the Conservative party took office markets have been lost. Mr. Chairman, may I call your

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
attention to the fact that in 1904 we sold in the British market three times as much cheese as we did in 1930

three times as much. We sold three times as much bacon sixty years ago as we sold when the Liberal party went out of power in 1930. The fact is that in 1870 we sold three times as much bacon in the British market as was sold when the late government left office. I repeat- and I shall not let the enthusiasm of hon. members opposite drive me from the point -I repeat what I have said1; because every child in Canada knows that through the empire trade agreements we are gradually recovering our lost markets for primary products.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: Hon. members may laugh
if they wish. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) knows that his province has shipped more lumber to the United Kingdom in the last year-four times more than was shipped before.


Thomas Reid: What about salmon?
Mr. ROW'E:	I would say to the hon.
member who has interrupted that you do not find salmon in the bush; perhaps he will recall that I was talking about lumber.
The Natural Products Marketing Act is fundamentally sound. It is all very well for members of the legal profession across the way to laugh; quite possibly none of them has milked a cow in his life. I know the hon. member for Vancouver Centre would not know which end of a cow to approach. I venture to say that even the right hon. leader of the opposition knows more about milking than the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Hon. members opposite must know that any plan for the development of Canadian agriculture cannot ignore the principles which have made production possible and profitable in the old- European countries during the last twelve hundred years. Those principles, may I point out to the hon. member for Lisgar, do not countenance buying where you can buy the cheapest and mining the soil continually. Without return. I say to hon. members opposite that in this dominion there are over 500,000 farms of less than two hundred acres. Western farmers may have the acreage, but mixed farmers have the numbers. I say further that the story will be told and1 has been written in western Canada that wheat mining is unsound. We have to put the fibre back into the soil if we are to follow sound principles of agriculture. The hon. member

knows very well that principle which he advocates has contributed in no small measure, to the bankruptcy of the three western provinces.
In 1937 the empire trade agreements will come before an empire conference for renewal, and I know and every business man within sound of my voice knows that unless we establish a regulated system of marketing, and unless we have influence on -the British market through placing on that market a high grade quality with regularity and continuity of supply, we shall be in a poor position to ask the empire conference for a renewal of the agreements which hon. members to your left have been so doubtful about.


William Alexander Fraser: You
won't have to worry about it.


William Earl Rowe: Don't be too sure about that. I say to the hon. member for Northumberland, who has gone up and down the province of Ontario telling the people that the empire conference agreements are no good, that he should take the wily advice of his leader, who, although at first opposing them, has remained to adore them. He is still doubtful whether or not he could go to the country opposing them.


Albert Joseph Brown: Let us vote on it; there is a resolution before the house with respect to the trade agreements.


William Earl Rowe: How would the hon. member for Lisgar vote on them?


Albert Joseph Brown: I will vote against them.


William Earl Rowe: How would the hon. member
for Northumberland vote on them?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Make
your speech.


Thomas Reid: Bring on the resolution.


William Earl Rowe: I would suggest that the hon. member for Lisgar take a leaf out of the -canny book of the hon. member for Northumberland, who does not say anything. His right hon. leader has said on different occasions that while at first he was doubtful, he now reserves the right to renegotiate them

but not abrogate them absolutely. He knows very well that those trade agreements preserve the solvency of Canadian agriculture. I say that had Canada maintained the markets overseas which were established back in 1900, and had she achieved the gradual development of those markets, the wheat price debacle of the last few years would not have occurred, and the unemployment in this country-

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


Charles A. Stewart: That is the proper word for it.


William Earl Rowe: -would be entirely different from what it is to-day.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: My good friend laughs, and says that I have used the proper word. Let me say to him that nothing has contributed more to that debacle than the lopsided policy of the late government. We know that the production of wheat has increased, and that between 1915 and 1930 it almost doubled. While in the earlier years we exported only about ten per cent of the world's supply, in 1930 we were exporting about 35 per cent of the exportable surplus of the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has it done since?


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite do not even see the point. Successful farmers in Canada know that had we established the marketing system they had in Denmark, and had we sold the large quantity of bacon Denmark sold, the farmers would have received the benefit. I have listened to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) and to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) and others who seem to be very doubtful as to the soundness of this legislation, but in the speech from the throne presented by a Liberal government at the opening of parliament in British Columbia I find this paragraph-


An hon. MEMBER:: We have had that.


William Earl Rowe: Some hon. member says that they have had that, but I suggest to the genial hon. member for Vancouver Centre that he read it a few times.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was
read by the minister.


John Campbell Elliott: It is already on Hansard.


William Earl Rowe: This paragraph reads:
Agriculture generally in British Cohiimibiia has improved and an upward trend is noticeable both in the matter of markets and price structure. As >a result of the natural products marketing legislation passed last session several producers' schemes have 'been proclaimed, which, with a further broadening of the federal act, will, it is believed, result in establishing agriculture on a sounder basis in this province.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
glad hon. friends opposite are applauding the work of a Liberal government.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friends laugh and
apparently disagree with me, but I do not expect them to believe everything I say. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I ask them to recall the words of one who was as bright as any of them, in fact I have always thought a little brighter, a former minister of finance who stated in the last session of the previous parliament that Canada had lost $244,000,000 of her trade and that there was practically no market left in the world with the exception of the United Kingdom.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
has been no improvement since then.


William Earl Rowe: Since the empire trade agreements were put into effect we have added more than $250,000,000 worth of trade.


Charles A. Stewart: From zero.


William Earl Rowe: No, not from zero. There
are those who are in business who will oppose this Natural Products Marketing Act. In the very nature of the industry, agriculture is difficult to organize. It is practically impossible to get 500,000 or 700,000 farmers properly organized to sell their products. We have been selling in a buyer's market since before confederation and we have been buying in a seller's market. We have been dancing to the tune of the highly organized monopolies and mergers who consider the farmer as merely a glorified pedlar of his own products. We have listened to bank managers and leaders of industry tell us that we are the backbone of Canada and we have subscribed to every plan which has been brought forward to ameliorate the hardships of the labouring man. It may have meant that we had to work another hour or two longer but we were ready to do it. We have never had a voice as to what we should get for our products. The hon. member for Lisgar knows as well as any other farmer in this house that what I have said is absolutely true. He has had to pay what the manufacturer has told him he would have to pay, and the manufacturer a;nd his friends John, Bill and the others, have organized and fixed the prices of his products.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under a Tory government.


William Earl Rowe: Not especially under a Tory government. The hon. member for Northumberland knows both sides of the game as well as any hon. member.


William Alexander Fraser: Give
me a chance and I will tell it to you.

3380	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


William Earl Rowe: I might as well tell part of it for fear you might miss it.


William Alexander Fraser: No, I
will not.


William Earl Rowe: We have heard the appeals of the hon. member for Northumberland for fairness. He has spoken two or three times and has made reference to this vicious legislation. I saw on the front page of the Toronto Globe of yesterday a reference to how he is martyring himself as a poor fruit grower who may have to go to gaol. He comes back to parliament and he says to the Minister of Agriculture: What can you put me in gaol for? I say to the hon. member that if they ever put him in gaol I will come down to see him.


William Alexander Fraser: You will be there with me.


William Earl Rowe: I say in all seriousness that, while hon. members opposite plead for the freedom and liberty of the producer to sell his product for whatever price he likes, they know that the producer will be keeping his eyes cocked on our prices. As I said before, the hon. member for Northumberland1 knows how both sides of the game is played. I understand my hon. friend has a large interest in a cooperage company at Trenton. Back in 1919 that company did not go out like the producers as glorified pedlars. My hon. friend has very good judgment in business matters. I can see him going to Toronto and sitting in with the cooperage manufacturers of western Ontario. I do not know just what was said, but I believe the effect of the dialogue would be this: You can have western Ontario and I will take eastern Ontario.


William Alexander Fraser: I rise
to a point of order. I object to the hon. member putting words in my mouth or imputing ulterior motives.


William Earl Rowe: Then I do not know what happened.


William Alexander Fraser: That is right.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friends says, "that is right." I am sure the fruit producers did not appreciate the increase in-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Alexander Fraser: The
statement made by the hon. member contains not one tittle of truth. He is going a little bit too far in hatching jokes which appeal, I was going to say, to the vacant minds of his colleagues.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is your point of order?


William Alexander Fraser: The hon. member is stating something which is absolutely untrue.


William Earl Rowe: Then we are to believe that my hon. friend has nothing to do with the Trenton Cooperage Company, Limited, which manufactures barrels.


Onésime Gagnon: He will not deny that.


William Earl Rowe: And that he does not sell barrels in western Ontario, that he is not interested in the price of barrels to the same extent that he is in the price of apples, and that the producers have not had to pay almost twice as much for their barrels as they did in 1919. The producers here have to pay from 65 to 75 cents for the same type of barrel which can be purchased in Nova Scotia for from 23 to 25 cents.


William Duff: That is not true.


William Alexander Fraser: For the hon. member's information: My name is William Alexander Fraser; my address is, Trenton, Ontario; I am president and owner of the Trenton Cooperage Mills, Limited, which manufacture cooperage stock from which are made sugar barrels, kegs, apple barrels and other lines of cooperage stock which are sold to the trade on an uncontrolled market at competitive prices. If in this debate the hon. member for Duflferin-Simcoe chooses to disregard the subject and continue along the lines he has been following, I shall be glad to answer any personal questions he may ask. I really enjoy it, and judging by the loud peals of laughter among his colleagues they evidently enjoy it, too. I suggest, however, that we get back to a consideration of the marketing act.


William Earl Rowe: It has reference to the marketing of apples. I do not know what eastern manufacturers of barrels can compete with the Trenton Cooperage Company.


William Alexander Fraser: Why
don't you Stick to the marketing act?


William Earl Rowe: I will say this, however, that the marketing of these implements, barrels or containers, or any other articles used in the sale of the product, practically everything you buy, from a tin plate to a barrel, is controlled by the organized industry. The price is set by the organized industry.


William Alexander Fraser: Absolutely incorrect.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend says, absolutely incorrect. I can only say that the prices of barrels are higher and have been higher in eastern and western Ontario than in the state of Virginia or in New York or in Nova Scotia, for a period of ten years.


William Alexander Fraser: You
don't know what you are talking about; why not admit it?


William Earl Rowe: The Natural Products Marketing Act is fundamental. I know that those hon. gentlemen who have never fully recognized the difficulties under which the farmer is labouring in his endeavour to get value for his products are unconscious of the critical position of agriculture in this country at the present time. They do not fully realize what the industry has had to face in the last five years in the hazards of marketing. If I had any criticism to make of this marketing act it would not be, as my hon. friend has said, with regard to the vicious principle of the act, it would not be because the vote is too large, but the very opposite. For I do not think that it should be S545,000; in my opinion there should be set aside in connection with the Natural Products Marketing Act the sum of $5,000,000. I know that the government themselves might oppose that idea; it might be said that the imperial trade agreements would be affected by state aided products. Well, we have an advantage in the British market of SI 25 in connection with our apples and we enjoy an advantage in other lines as well, but I repeat-I have said this before and I repeat it now by way of emphasis- that it is absolutely necessary that Canadian agriculture should be made prosperous once more if Canadian industry generally is to return to prosperity. And if this is to come about we must have an increase in agricultural prices. I believe that under the act we have the power to set aside a stabilization fund for the purpose of disposing of our surplus products in the export market. It is generally understood that apart from wheat we have only a very small percentage which is sold in the British or world market-in bacon it is four or five per cent and in fruits the percentage is small. When practically every country in the world has adopted the system of bonuses, subventions and subsidies, it is high time that this or any other government forgot the political effect of commendable actions in a period of crisis. We have spent millions of dollars to feed the unemployed. Now if we are to make agriculture prosperous so that it may be the means of absorbing thousands and hundreds of thousands of the 92582-2154
unemployed in this country, we must have higher prices for agricultural products, ar.d every farmer within the sound of my voice will appreciate the fact that it is the exportable surplus, which is small compared to the amount we produce, that automatically sets the price. There should be under this act a branch, an export board, with a stabilization fund to standardize and stabilize the prices of our exportable surplus going into the world market. As regards state aid, I would point out that we have wheat state aided to the extent of from $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 in the way of freight rates. We have state aided coal, iron and steel, and industry is state aided by means of protection. I say, therefore, that if I had any objection to make to the present act it is, not that it goes too far but that it does not go far enough. I think it should meet with the approval of hon. members on both sides of the house.
I appreciate what the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) said yesterday and what the hon. member for Northumberland has said; it is difficult to evolve something that will be satisfactory to everyone. No doubt my hon. friends, when they want to indulge in technicalities, will find in the act something which will give them an argument, but I urge on this house to consider the act not from the point of view of politics but as a means of restoring Canadian prosperity; and I submit to the government that instead of setting aside $545,000 in connection with the act they should think in terms adequate to stabilize prices by disposing of the exportable surplus, thus raising the price for the rest of the product. I am satisfied that the only hope of increasing employment in the country is to increase and to stabilize the prices of our exportable surplus. That is our only hope for expansion and for maintaining the balance of trade. It is the only thing that will provide the necessary stimulus for industry and commerce in this country. Again I urge the government to reconsider this vote of $545,000 and to add another decimal in the interests of agriculture. It is absolutely essential that the exportable surplus should be taken off the market, and for that reason I say that prices should be stabilized and standardized in keeping with the costs of production. This would have a far-reaching effect, in processing our coarse grains and giving employment, thus stimulating business all along the line. I submit that the Natural Products Marketing Act should receive the support of hon. members on all sides, because while in the letter it may not be absolutely perfect, it is undoubtedly sound in
3382	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
principle and is a step in the right direction. I am not surprised that the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) the one who on the opposite side understands it best, has supported it.
Mr. BROWN I apologize to the committee for having been the occasion of drawing forth that speech.


William Alexander Fraser: Let me say to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe that I regret he was so unethical as to interject into the discussion of a national question a matter of personal or private business. I would point out to him that as a manufacturer of cooperage stock and lumber in Canada I have the privilege, under the Natural Products Marketing Act, of evading the combines act and, by combining my business with those of others interested in the same line, I can stabilize, maintain and charge a set price for barrels or other products coming under 'the act, which I manufacture-something I do not at present enjoy. In this connection I would point out that the Natural Products Marketing Act gives the right of monopoly. The other night I expressed the opinion that it was ultra vires and contrary to the Combines Investigation Act, giving the right of combine with respect to over fifty-five per cent of the total production in the dominion. That is the right of combine under the Natural Products Marketing Act to "sock" the basic producers, so that those who are . enjoying monopolies, cartels and combines in Canada may have some further excuse for a continuation of their privileges and as the hon. member suggested for "socking" the farmer in his depressed state under the mistaken policies of the government that my hon. friend supports.
May I also say to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe and the Minister of Agriculture, in connection with the Natural Products Marketing Act as it applies to the canning industry in Canada, involving every branch of that industry from asparagus to tomatoes, that under the government that has been in power since 1930 and under the empire agreements of 1932, every user of a Canadian commodity packed in tin plate or packed in a tin or can is at the present time paying a levy of 20 per cent on tin plate to an international cartel under the 20 per cent duty applied under the empire agreements as a sop to an international cartel. May I say to the hon. member and the minister-and I am going to give the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe a little additional information about my private affairs-for four years I was a TMr. Rowe,]
director of the second largest tin can company in Canada. As he rightly said, I know something about both sides. I know this much, that if the Minister of Agriculture would appeal to the Minister of National Revenue in the interests of the basic producers to cancel the 20 per cent duty on tin plate, which has forced the price of tomatoes in Canada from thirty-five cents to twenty-five cents a bushel since 1932 or 1933, a direct and effective move would have been taken by this government to assist the basic producers in receiving more from the results of their toil.
Permit me to go one step further, and I am very glad the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe brought these details to my experienced mind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander Fraser: Let me tell my hon. friends, whom I might place in the category of-to use a word which I rarely use, because I do not like it-buffoons, that as a matter of policy there are only one or two places where you can align the cost of a baaic product when it comes into conflict with a product under a controlled price or a cartel, and that is the cost of labour or the cost of the product to the basic producer. When the twenty per cent duty was imposed on tin plate and we in the canning business were confronted with an increase in the price of cans, we and others in that business looked around to see some place where we could lower our costs, because we are bound and tied by the twenty per cent duty on tin plate. I happen to have before me the annual statement issued by the company in which I am a shareholder and was originally a director. We were bound and tied by the duty of twenty per cent on tin plate, twenty per cent on tin cans, so not only we but every other Canadian manufacturer took it out of the basic producer and labour. That is the reason why the farmers work sixteen hours a day to keep even and pay their taxes and the interest on their mortgages; it is because they are selling a product that it is impossible to align under this or any other act which is in direct conflict with a prohibitive economic tariff such as the one on tin plate. When the tomato grower whom the Minister of Agriculture hopes to assist, and when the basic producer for whom the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe was a few minutes ago expressing his sympathy in such melancholy tones, are working sixteen hours a day and getting less for their products than will enable them to pay their taxes and interest, the company of which I have the honour and privilege to be a shareholder increased its
33S3

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
profits in 1934 by twelve per cent under a highly protected cartel on which the canning industry depends. That is all I have to say in that connection to my hon. friend.
But I would like to get back to the Natural Products Marketing Act. A little while ago I asked the minister for some information in regard to the $50,000 paid to the poultry schemes in the three western provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. This did not exactly start a controversy, but it brought forth an explanation from an hon. member on this side. The hon. member stated that he did not receive any money directly from the government or from a government board, but nevertheless he, I believe, has acknowledged in what he has said that the name appearing on this list opposite an amount of $94.20 is his name. My contention is that the government under this vote of $545,000 is paying money to paid propagandists to promote these schemes. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have your permission to place on Hansard this return which will give the record in detail of the money spent and who received it in regard to the $50,000 in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Shall I read' it or may I have it taken as read and placed on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.
M'r. ROWE:	Put it on Hansard.


The CHAIRMAN:: With the consent of
the 'house the hon. member may put it on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


William Alexander Fraser: Very
well, I will read it in a minute or two. In that connection may I say this to the minister and to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe in order that we may get down to a proper basis on this matter. As I said the other night, I am a farmer and interested in farming as an industry, individually, collectively and nationally, and I believe in cooperative marketing. My hon. friend laughs, but I may say that I have a good many dollars invested in the farming industry and I am greatly interested in it. I am interested in the farming industry, in the assistance of that industry, in anything that will promote the interests of the farmer, but I feel it my bounden duty not only as a farmer but as a member of this house to the best of my ability to prevent the expenditure of public funds in a way that is absolutely uneconomical, diametrically opposed' to sound economics and in a way that will reflect detrimentally on the interests of the farmers. I am not making a political issue out of this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander Fraser: If that
is my hon. friends' interpretation, they have a perfect right to it. Perhaps, if they were as serious about this matter as I am, they would cry instead of laughing even if they had to use an onion to do so. But this is a serious matter, apart from politics. I want to say to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe and to the Minister of Agriculture:
I am not interested in the question whether an act was passed by a Liberal government in British Columbia or a Tory government at Ottawa or a Liberal government in Ontario. To me it i9 wrong, it does not matter which government passed it. I do not endorse it because Mr. Pattullo passed it.


William Earl Rowe: I did1 not say he passed it.


William Alexander Fraser: Or because they passed enabling legislation.


William Earl Rowe: They just approved.


William Alexander Fraser: However you put it, I still contend it is absolutely wrong-wrong first in the matter of the expenditure of public funds, as this return shows, and secondly as an attempt to do things which have been proven wrong, such as the rubber monopoly in the Malay states, the Patterson scheme in Australia, the Coffee scheme in Brazil, or the wheat marketing scheme in Canada, which will probably result in a loss to the treasury of several million dollars. I will do anything, in this house or out of it, on the public platform or otherwise, to assist the Canadian farmer, no one wishes to do that more than I. I am absolutely in favour of cooperative marketing, of orderly marketing, and I am in favour of the government spending money in an educational way to improve the methods used by the farmers, whether they be fruit growers or tomato growers or wheat growers. But I say that it is wrong to use the public funds to the extent that they are being used at the present time, without the control of parliament, for schemes that are hatched and concocted perhaps not by members of the staff but in a great many cases in the minds of those from one end of this country to the other who have ulterior and personal motives. I am not making that statement without a basis of fact; the facts are before us, the expenditures are before us; the methods are before us and the results are before us. The results are before us in connection with the potato board in Ontario and in the eastern provinces. To-day potatoes are not worth a

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
nickel a bag in Ontario. All that scheme did in Ontario was to lower the price of maritime province potatoes coming into Ontario and force down the prices all along the line.
Now 1 wish to put this on record. As fruit and vegetable growers we have all that we require for the regulation of our industry, the grading and marketing of our product, the designation of grades and the definition and methods of marketing under the Fruit and Honey Act and under the Root Vegetables Act. We have the approach to the Canadian Horticultural Council and direct to the Department of Agriculture. In my experience as a charter member of the Canadian Horticultural 'Council and up to the present time, regardless of which government was in power, I can say the council and its officers have been given sympathetic hearing by the Ministers of Agriculture of the federal government and have been given all possible assistance. Grades have been changed as recommended by the council. Things were done in conference with the Canadian Horticultural Council when the industry was represented from one end of the country to the other, and we have under these acts everything that is necessary for the orderly marketing and grading and packing of fruits and vegetables. I do not wish to be misunderstood in this house or outside, but I wish to convey to the Minister of Agriculture that we as fruit growers object to the compulsory clauses of this Act. The schemes have been turned down in Ontario and other parts of Canada except British Columbia. As basic producers we do not believe that this act is economically sound. We believe that changes must be made eliminating objectionable features that cannot be enforced, and such powers as the minister admitted to-night exist under the act, by virtue of which if the court so decided it could send a producer to gaol. Let these features be eliminated and the act amended in such a way that the basio producers shall be neither coerced nor persuaded by propaganda paid for out of public funds to try to do something that cannot be done.
I wish to ask the minister one or two definite questions. First I would like to read an extract from the Tillsonburg News, of Tillsonburg, Ontario, under date of January 31, 1935:
First Tobacco Conviction "Simcoe.-The sale of a quantity of tobacco, not a crime six months ago, has landed Antal Csopari, South Norwich farmer, in gaol for a twenty day term, when he was the victim of the first conviction under the provisions of the {Mr. W. A. Fraser.]
Ontario flue-cured tobacco marketing act. He was found guilty of purchasing unmanufactured tobacco from a fellow Hungarian, A. Listock, while not possessing a licence. Magistrate Cross imposed a fine of $25 and costs or twenty days in gaol on Csopari, the accused going to gaol when he was unable to meet the fine. At the same session Frank Latos of Middleton paid the fine of $25 and costs after pleading guilty to selling unmanufactured tobacco to a person not licensed by the board."
Remember there is more a.t stake than your interest as a poultry producer. If this compulsory monopolistic scheme carries what chance will you have to resist a gasoline and tractor fuel monopoly; a twine, coal, flour or boot monopoly, in this country, once farmers themselves vote for a monopoly, or for that matter a monopoly in any other commodity?
My question is whether that report is correct, that a man was sent to gaol for selling tobacco, whether he had a licence or had not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Alexander Fraser: No.
Will the minister answer the question?


Robert Weir: I regret that I did not get the definite question.


William Alexander Fraser: My
definite question is: Was Mr. Csopari, a South Norwich farmer, sent to gaol for twenty days for selling tobacco?


Robert Weir: I have not a record of this case at hand, but the circumstances are more complicated than as stated by the hon. member. I believe this case came up under a _ different charge, but as the actual information is not before me I would not care to take the risk of placing a statement on Hansard. I think the hon. member may agree with me that this was a more complicated case in the first place than he has made out. But I do not wish to evade saying this, that it is felt, and has been felt for years by those who have been actively engaged in cooperative effort and marketing, that in many cases their endeavours were made of no avail because of the fact that even a small percentage of producers remained outside of the organization and were sufficient to break the effectiveness of it. The purpose of this act is, in that connection, although it can be made use of in many ways without the compulsory feature, to give full control when the great majority of producers are anxious that it should be done. Under legislation passed in this house by the previous government as well as this government there are compulsory features, especially in connection with grading as the hon. member men-

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
tioned. For example I refer to section 14, page 4, of the Root Vegetables Act and regulations:
Every person who by himself or through the agency of another person violates any of the provisions of this act or regulations made thereunder, shall be liable upon summary conviction, for the first offence to a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars and not less than ten dollars, for the second offence to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars and not less than twenty-five dollars, and for the third and each subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars, together in all cases with the costs of prosecution; and in default of payment of such fine and costs shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month unless such fine and costs and the costs of enforcing them are sooner paid.
That is an example of legislation that was passed, I have no doubt, with the support of the hon. member who has spoken at such length. So it would seem that either he has changed his mind with reference to these things or his objection is not so much to the compulsory feature as it is to the political point involved. I would not care to be unfair in that connection; if the hon. member has changed his mind it is his privilege to do so. When he first rose to his feet he referred at length to the fact that the Natural Products Marketing Act made it possible to form a combine. That may be so, but it is only a combine concerning a regulated product, and not a combine that could be used to the detriment or injury of the public, 'because if it should be so used the powers of the board could be withdrawn.
Before taking my sea't I should like to refer to the request of the horn, member for permission to place on Hansard .the statement he has in his hand, without reading it. In view of the fact that on quite a number of occasions I have requested permission to do the same thing and that permission has been always refused by hon. members opposite, I think the proper thing in this case would be for hon. members on this side of the house to agree unanimously to permit the horn, member to place the statement on Hansard without reading it.


William Alexander Fraser: I take it, then, that I must read it?


Robert Weir: No, hand it in.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacNicol):: Is it the wish of the committee that the hon. member be permitted to .place the statement he has in his hand on record without reading it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Alexander Fraser: I will read, from the statement submitted by the Alberta Poultry Producers Limited, the disbursement of their advance of 820,000.


Robert Weir: The hon. member need not read it; the committee has given him permission to place it on Hansard.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the hon. gentleman reading the statement? The committee consented to allow him to hand the statement to Hansard.


William Alexander Fraser: Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
Pram School Di&t. No. 3466 ....	4	00Marsden Community Hall ....	3	OOMarshall School Diist. No. 1499 ..	2	00Rink Hall, Maryfield	
2	75Assumption Parish Hall	
2	00J.	Nouch	
3	50J. M. Moskalyk	
3	00Legion Hall, Maymomt	
2 00U.F.C. Hall, Mazenod	
1 50Meachiam Communiiity Hall ....	5 00N.	J. Sowko	
3 00R. Malowski	
3 00W. J. Boiart	
2 50Orange Hall, Mdaval	
2 00Cecil Hotel	
3 00Ralph Carson	
3 00J. Zohn	
3 00E.	Rinns	
2 50Miidale Hall	
5 00Mrs. 0. Wilson	
3 00John Lengyel	
1 00N.	K. Cynnbalsky	
3 00Mildred Community Hall	
2 00Milestone Town Hail	
3 00Orange Hall, Moosomin	
3 00Morfclaeh Town Halil	
3 55Muenster Hall	
3 00Walter Hanson	
3 00P. J. Hannon	
0 75J. H. Johnston	
200G.	H. Greenwood	
2 00W. R. Peer	
3 00Beaver Lumber Ltd., Naieaim ...	5 00A. G. Thompson	
3 50Neilburg Town Hall	
5 00J. E. Bowles	
2 00John Ulmer	
8 00G.	H. Dawson	
4 00Mrs. J. E. Bell	
3 00A. Hage	
1 00Norquay Hall	
7 50M. Reborn	
5 00North Portal, TJ. Church	
1 35North Side Hall	
3 00F.	Willisey	
3 00Odide*ssa School District No. 5868	3 00Church of England, Ogema ....	4 00Miss E. McAllister	
3 00Ottban Village Hall	
2 50Oungre Community Hall	
3 00Rromhead Hall	
2 00P. J. Helmke	
3 00C.O. of Forresters, Oxbow ....	3 00J. W. Taflan	
3 001.0.	0.F., Hangman	
5 00Paugman School Diist. No. 98 . .	1 00Frank Noulan	
5 00Mrs. Krause	
3 15Sam Ladyka	
2 00Par km,an Community Hall ....	2 50Parkside Hotel	
2 00Paiswegin Community Hall ....	2 00Pathlow Community Hall	
3 00J.	F. Fulton	
2 25Peebles School Di&t	
0 75Messrs. Pearse & Edwonthy ....	4 00A. Sanderson	
4 80A.F. & A.M., Pennant	
4 00A. E. Boyle	
3 00Penzance Hall	
2 001.0.	0.F., Perdue	
4 00J.	J. Felix	
3 001.0.	0.F., Piajpot	
3 50L. J. Cody	
1 50Plato Community Hall	
2 50Pleasant Dale Community Hall ..	5 00Pleasant Valley Community	Hall	2	00W. Struton	
1	50C. A. Receveur	
2	50Ponteix Theatre	
5	00S.	H. Miiley	
3	OOPreeeevidle Public Hall	
1	00Atlas Lumber, Prelate	
2	50Primate Hall	
3	00Prince Homemaker's Club	....	5	00Prince Albert Daily Herald	....	3	36Hotel Flanders	
1	00F. Flanchot	
4	00H.	0. Bjornson	
5	OOQuinton Hotel	
3	50Rabbit Lake Hall	
3	00A. Matisz	
3	00R. P. D. Hicke	
5	00J.	Blady	
3	00Hotel Raymore	
2	00
Readlyn Memorial Community
Hall	
3	00Red Deer Hill Hall	
4	OORobert Norris	
1	50Resource Hall	
2	50L.	Laturnus	
1	50P. Schraeder	
3	OOJ. M. Galbraith	
5	50Rioetown United Church	
5	00Charles Ducklow	
5	00Riohmound Community Hall	....	3	00Rodgedale Theatre Stock Co.	..	3	00T.	K. Sullivan	
1	50Robinhood Community Hall	....	5	00Robsart Community Hall	
3	00A. H. Wyatt	
5	75Roohe Percee Hall	
2	50Rockhaven Village Hail	
2	00Security Lumber Co	
2	00Canadian Legion, Rosetown ....	5	00Town Hall, Rosthern	
11	00Istban Szeudi	
3	00W. Barregar	
4	25W. L. Bieuthaer	
1	00Ruddell Village Hall	
5	00A.	G. Hamilton	
2	50Rutland Hall	
3	00Saltcoats Town Hall	
3	00Mrs. S. M. Wooster	
3	OOSanctuary Mission Hall	
2	OOSeeptre Lodge Hall	
5	00E.	G. Knebler	
1	50Scotsguard Village Hall	
3	50Charles Wing	
1	00Seimans Town Hall	
2	75Senlac Coop. Assoc. Ltd	
3	00I.	O.O.F., Shackleton	
3	OOShamrock Community Hall ....	5	00J.	Koropatnieki	
3	00Rich Valley Hall	
2	OOSidewood Community Hail ....	2	00Silton Hall Co	
4	00J. C. Steen	
5	50St. Ignatius Hall	
5	00'Sintaluta Memorial Hall	
2	25Sonningdale United ChuTch ....	3	00Southey Town Hall	
4	00W. G. Scott	
5	00St. Stevens Hall	
10	00F.	L. Murray	
4	00Springside Village Hall	
3	00Arnold Park	
3	00Springwater Hall	
3	00B.	B. Wood	
I	00Spy Hill Community Hall	
3	00St. Benedict Community Hall ..	5	OOM.	M. Classen	
4	OO
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
W. Labaiek	
5	00Stair City Hall	
2	00W. Northrop	
5	00Stamen Village Hall	
5	00W. S. Esche	
1	50Stockholm U.C. Hall	
3	00D.	L. Iverr	
5	00Stranraer Community Hall ....	5	00J. R. Hutchinson	
5	00dement Wood	
2	00Sturgis Town Hall	
5	00C.O. of Forresters, Success ....	2	40F.	W.	Linmell	
3	00G.	H.	Callard	
3	00W. T.	Ross	
2	00J. W.	Burrows	
2	50E.	F. Gibbs	
2	00S.	Solonjnko	
2	00Joe Johnson	
4	00Tesser Community Hall	
5	00Theodore Village Hall	
1	50Tiger Hills Hall	
3	50Mrs. D. J. Luck	
3	00Harry Parlisky	
3	00C. O. Foresters, Torquay	
3	00G.	D. Spoor	
2	00Traynor Municipal Hall	
1	00Imperial Bank Hall, Tribune. .	3	00Tuberose Mission Hall	
2	00Tugaske Theatre	
3	00Turtleford Hall	
3	50James Barry	
2	00Tyvan Community Hall	
4	00Unity Town Hall	
4	00F.	Gilliland	
2	00Valor Home Maker Hall	
1	00Valparaiso Community Hall. ..	3	00Vangura Church Hall	
3	00J. T. Gray	
5	50O.	L. Loraas	
3	50Grace U. Church	1 00U.	D. Wilyghalowa	
7	00J_. E. Pollock	
3	00Vidora Hall	
1	50Vonda Town Hall	
2	00Legion Hall, Wadena	
5	30Wakaw Village Hall	
2	00St. Catharines W.A., Waldeek..	2	00Waldron Village Hall	
2	00H.	Birnie	
2	00A. R. Erickson	
3	50Waseka Memorial Hall	
5	00Watson Town Hall	
8	00Wawota Village Hall	
4	00Shaw's Hall	
3	50Weldon Village Hall	
1	50Bert Santer	
3	00T.	Halyn	
2	00A. C. Ferguson	
7	00Orange Hall, White Bear.. ..	3	00L.O.L. Hall, White Fox	
5	00A. Baines	
6	00I.	O.O.F., Wilkie	
5	00C. L. Lightbody	
5	50Legion Hall, Windthorst	
2	50Charles Adie	
2	00W. A. Downs	
1	50Wolfe Hall	
1	00Woolsely Town Hall	
2	50Woodrow Village Hall	
5	00United Stores, Wordsworh.. ..	2	00E. N. Wojiechowsky	
2	50Yellow Brass Town Hall	
3	00Yorkton Town Hall	
5	00Zelma Village Hall	
3	00Mrs. Rose Wilson	
589	20Mrs. J. N. Culham	
161	96Mrs. N. Morrison	
205 60Mrs. J. D. McKenzie	
224 43iC. F. Holmes	
205	70F.	T. Marks	
187	20T.	Tyler	
194	11D.	K. Cameron	
90	10Thos. E. Bobier	
104 00W. S. Macmillan	
128	70Mrs. Anne W. Cusiek	
83	24J.	G. Wellbelove	
68	80J. R. Mitchell	
140	20J. R. Dodds	
112	08J. L. Campbell	
157	35I.	F. Schmidt	
106	80M. Campbell	
144	30Adam Alexander	
Ill	31Albert Wilson	
116	45C.	C. Staliker	
96	55R.	A. Robinson	
101	65Nels W. Noren	
102	55Mrs. A. Coleman	
108	80Wm. Schaefer	
73	00Percy Simmons	
89	70Elias J. O'Dell	
92	90M. Joyce	
27	18J.	E. Stratychuk	
122	90Fred Milne	
70	66Thos. Watchman	
89	95J. J. Bell	
133	45W. T. Botkin	
106	70Geo. M. Emmons	
130	65T.	E. Pomeroy	
104	90S.	Thraher	
145	35,S. Pask	
147	20Everett Boker	
126	00P.	A. Kennedy	
92	90W. A. Urton	
120	95Jos. Woodburn	
109	75A. D. Young	
93	01W. M. W. Amery	
118	55D.	J. Statychuk	
138	70Tom Johnston	
116	80John N. Burrill	
99	80H.	A. Crofford	
127	35L.	J. Bright	
112	46Howard Cross	
143	15J. V. Patterson	
130	95Michael Checknita	
150	15G. B. Gregory	
11100Wilson Parker	
143	05John Meikle	
91	60P. J. Hoffman	
85	05Fred R. Eyre	
132	10Denis Downing	
145	90A. Mansfield	
122	85'Sask. Poultry Poll, Ltd	
400	00Underwood Elliott Fisher, Ltd. .	10	50O.	Steele	
47	25Geo. Bickerton	
369	90E.	Rowson	
24	75M.	Westbrock	
115	30J. Wright & W. Watt	
55	00W. Watt	
15	90J. Wright	
13	50J. Stinson	
14	00M. Solter	
23	20M. Slater	
13	92Sask. Oo-op. Livestock Producers. 199	75Dept, of Telephones	
201	57C.N.R. Telegraphs	
58	94O.P.R. Telegraphs	
17	61
19,955 46
Returned to Dominion Marketing Board	 44 54

3392	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
Statement submitted by the Alberta Poultry Producers Limited showing disbursement of advance of $20,000 made in connection with the Alberta Poultry Marketing Scheme.
Office Specialty		54 47
Mundy Map Co		8 50
Kemdngton Co., Typewriters ....	15 00
National Home Furnishers .. ..	4 00
Willson Stationery		8 20
Northern Investment		93 40
Post Office		503 15
Petty Gash		103 13
Miss M. Laycock		328 00
Miss G. Blakey		17 00
O. K. Younge		261 50
Miss M. Sinclair		55 50
J. H. Rhodes		120 00
Registrar of Companies		5 00
City of Edmonton-Electric Light	1 80
Exchange on Cheques	,	0 50
Edmonton Lodge No. 30, I.O.O.F.	9 00
E. W. Brunsden-Miscellaneous	55 00
Alberta Livestock Marketing	
Board		14 50
L. L. Barnett		94 90
E. A. Carey		176 01
Eldon Chambers		176 90
Wm. Chernawsky		141 75
C. E. Church		129 94
Ed. Cimon		113 15
J. E. Cook		201 79
H. Critehlow		161 62
R. H. Cuthbertson		178 57
Elnisky, Andrew		188 50
Mirs. R. H. Elliott		184 42
S. J. Ewiing		141 28
A. E. Faulkner		101 50
J. M. Fontaine		193 64
John Fowlie		127 60
N. R. Cylinder		177 84
R. P. Giiibb		138 56
E. A. Hanson		165 10
W. J. Harper		168 65
R. F. Hick		145 42
Dr. <T. C. Hide		142 12
Ben Holden		157 10
Q. E. Hollenberg		180 95
P. R. Hooper		136 85
C. F. Hopkins		133 40
T. H. Howes		115 40
L. L. Hinds		200 36
J. A. Johansen		159 06
Bert Kingston		179 60
Wm. Kotyishyh		203 55
W. Leonard		119 00
John Liss		178 20
T. F. Lovelock .. ..	158 35
H. J. Mather		150 80
L. V. Macklin		128 05
J. R. MeFall		167 85
D. McLachlan		154 06
Joe Messmer		127 71
Alberta government telephones ..	76 58
City of Edmonton-telephones . .	15 00
Government telegraph service . .	3 05
Northern Alberta Railway Tele-	
graphs 		22 23
Canadian National Telegraphs ..	80 76
Canadian Pacific Telegraphs ....	41 87
Bank of Montreal-wire with	
advance 		0 75
Canadian poultry pool		1,588 63
A. Speakman		94 20
J. H. Rhodes		335 35
J. M. Hughes		286 70
C. 0. Pool		359 93
[Mr. W. A. Fraser. 1
Provincial Dept, of Agriculture ..	182 80
W. B. Young		214 07
Carl Antonson		166 75
R. H. M. Bailey		163 50
W. Boisvert		190 63
Biggs, G. H		158 47
Levi Bone		123 75
H. R. Boutdllier		131 15
H. E. B r o nson		152 44
J. E. Brown		134 67
W. Burns		185 73
Harry W. Braden		180 60
John H. Badger		139 60
J. M. Bentley .. ..	129 10
Norward Printing Co		6 83
C. W. Willis		23 84
Commercial Printers		222 61
La Survivance Printing Co.	5 61
Hamby Press, Ltd.	9 00-
Ernest Cote		15 00
V. H. Haryonak		15 00
Heintzman & Co., Ltd.	3 00
Taylor Pearson & Carson broad-	
casting		584 10
Inmrisfaiil Province		2 40
United Farmer		10 08
Edmonton Journal			9 24
Maifkiet Examiner		8 40
Calgary Herald .. .	9 24
Alberta Labor News		4 50
Lethbridge Herald		3 36
Edmonton Bulletin		8 40
Albentain Publishing Co.	5 88
Manville Mirror		0 50
H. G. McGrea, C.W.N.A.	230 89
A. G. Moore		128 84
R. H. McDonald		125 31
E. J. Oleson		139 40
P. H. Oliver		190 97
Wm. Odynsky .. ..	170 50
A. D. Paul		158 60
W. T. Propp		156 38
Ronald Pye		145 42
Andrew Rafn		84 05
T. Gordon Reeves	183 10
E. E. Kequiere		97 45
W. R. Roberts		130 25
Col. 0. W. Robinson		178 25
S. W. Romani uk	159 50
Alex. S. Sbronach		146 80
W. W. Scott		190 66
Snow S. Sears ..	163 09
W. Stevens		141 63
E. E. Sparks		113 85
1 . A. Brazil		385 00
R. S. Johnson		260 35
J. W. Hosford		255 72
I1'. J. Higginson		257 96
T. Wright		168 05
Hugh F. Spencer		162 94
Glen Storie		116 92
F. Strashok				155 40
W. R. Squance		115 55
Leland B. Shields		179 98
Emil Thomashewsky		134 55
Thomas Thomashewsky		136 35
John K. Thom		132 51
C. C. Wager		182 65
Ken Walker		174 26
J. M. Wheatley		171 55
Henry Walker		128 33
H. C. Young		175 93
J. Sereda		8 50
Total	$20,000 00

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
I should like to say, in reply to the statement of the minister concerning the act to which he referred1 a moment ago, that the penalties imposed under that act bring it into exactly the same category as the Weights and Measures Act; it is a case of standardizing and selling the consumer products of a certain quality. That is an entirely different feature; that is an entirely different purpose from the Natural Products Marketing Act. In that case, if you sell a man a rotten apple you are fined. If he wants to buy a Spy and you try to sell him a Ben Davis, naturally you will be fined, just the same as if you give a man a counterfeit dollar you will be fined. That bill is in exactly the same category as the Weights and Measures Act, with which we all agree. With that principle I entirely agree, as I always have agreed, but the penalties under the Natural Products Marketing Act are entirely different. These penalties are to be applied in order to try to make a person do what you cannot make him do. I quite realize, as the minister has said, that in all these schemes some people break away; in this case you are going to apply penalties to a minority, in the way of fines and gaol sentences, in order to force the minority to do as the majority desire. As I said the other night, that was what we tried to do in connection with liquor and narcotics, and we found that it could not be done. Now you are trying to do it in connection with food products.
In the first place, Mr. Chairman, there are four distinct features to this act. There are the penalty clauses; there is the removal from the House of Commons of the right to regulate exports and imports; there is the clause which places in the hands of a board not under the control of the parliament of Canada the right of taxation, and in the fourth place you put in the hands of that board rights which should be and are under the sole jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. Those are the objectionable features of the act. If the act were so drafted that it could be used to assist the farmers instead of trying to do these things you cannot do, it would be a different proposition; as I have already said, cooperation is all right.
I should like to mention another point in connection with this act. A moment ago the Minister of Agriculture said that it did not provide for monopolies or for price fixing I agree with only part of what the minister has said. I have in mind the jam scheme. Under that scheme, which I believe has been adopted by the federal board, the price of jam has been fixed; specifically, the price of marmalade, which is made out of an imported product-Jaffa, Spanish or Italian oranges- has been increased to the Canadian consumer by neatly one hundred per cent. If any producers are to benefit under that scheme it can only be the Arabs or Jews of Jerusalem, the Spaniards of Spain or the Italians of Italy. Unquestionably, there is the right of monopoly under this act.
I should like to return to the fact that public moneys are being spent under the jurisdiction of this board1 in an endeavour to coerce-or I might use the word "kid"

people into trying to do something they do not want to do. Just listen to this for a moment. In Alberta the sum of $584 was spent for broadcasting. Just imagine using a propagandist over a broadcasting station to tell the Alberta farmers how to raise chickens and how to sell eggs. That is the way the money is being spent. Then there is item after item for speakers. Imagine paying speakers to go out on the public platform to advocate a scheme such as this. I happen to know some of the speakers by name, and if I did not know any more about keeping chickens, raising hens, or producing eggs than some of the people on this list know I would go into the horse doctor business without any hesitation. That is the way this money has been spent. I want to be emphatic about this. Apparently, from this statement, that is the way it is intended to proceed in 1935 and spend $500,000 of the people's money. And let me repeat that this $500,000 will not be spent under the direction of people who have spent their lives in successful business, farming or otherwise. It will be spent under the direction of academic minds and a lot of people who think they know more about other people's business than they do know. If you think the basic producers, whom the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said to-night are toiling sixteen hours a day in order to get enough money to pay the sugar tax, their other taxes and the interest on their mortgages, are going to let any white collar, ten thousand dollar a year men, with shining cars, run around this country and broadcast over expensive stations, telling them how to get more eggs out of a hen, you are very much mistaken. I suggest to the minister that before this item passes he should carefully consider how this money is to be spent. He should be very careful before spending half a million dollars of the money of the taxpayers in trying to do impossible, uneconomic things that have been proven wrong from the Malay straits to south of

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
the forty-ninth parallel. Look across the forty-ninth parallel to-day; the minister knows as well as I do what has happened1 to the cotton business in that country. He knows also that there are forty per cent less cattle there to-day than there were when the NRA first came into operation. Do we think we can change the Almighty's works over night, the growing of grass where grass should grow? You cannot do that, or anybody else.


Robert Weir: I would like to
correct the hon. member on one point. This money was not distributed by any white-collared gentleman driving around in a shiny car, but by producers themselves, who are sponsors of the schemes and members of the different organizations supporting them in western Canada. The money was given to the provincial organizations, practically all of which represented producers.


William Alexander Fraser: If there were not any shiny cars in western Canada they must have used old Fords or horses and buggies, because there were surely shiny cars used in eastern Canada.


Robert Weir: In' connection with the distribution of this money?


William Alexander Fraser: Not
that part of it, no.


Edward James Young: I understood the other night from the minister that there were eleven schemes in operation; could he tell me if under any of these schemes marketing is being done either by the marketing board or toy the local board?


Robert Weir: No.


Edward James Young: Why?


Robert Weir: Because it provides [DOT]only for the regulation of marketing, not the actual marketing.


Edward James Young: Is it not the intention of
the act that either the marketing board or a local board shall do the marketing?


Robert Weir: No, even if it were desired they could not do it under the act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Shall the resolution carry?


Alan Webster Neill: Would you call it eleven
o'clock?


Robert James Manion: Carried.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I will go on, if you
insist.


Robert James Manion: Go ahead, then.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the minister insist
upon going on?


Robert Weir: I cannot see any
objection to going on; we have to get it through some time.


Alan Webster Neill: All right. I am sorry the
hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has left the chamber. I was going to remark that it was curious to find him spending fifty minutes the other day eulogizing the marketing act and spending nearly as long to-night repeating most of it. It is even more curious to note that he concluded his remarks with very faint praise, by saying that it was a step in the right direction, while at the beginning or very early in his observations he alluded to the vicious principles contained in the act. He made some reference to my not being convinced of its usefulness, but I do not believe I ever went so far as to talk about its vicious principles. I am sorry he is not in his seat, but so that there will be no doubt about his statement I shall quote from his observations as they are recorded at page 3296 of Hansard for June 4, 1935. Speaking about the hon. member for Melville, he said:
He suggests further that the vicious principles of the act might well be removed. With that view I am somewhat in agreement.
He began by telling us that the act contained vicious principles but ended with the statement that it was a step in the right direction, and fills in ninety minutes in an endeavour to show what a great and gallant act it is. He brought my name into the matter by stating that I had doubts about the efficacy of the measure. I never went so far as to talk about its vicious principles.
Now, to get back from the hustings to the House of Commons I should like to draw the attention of the minister to a certain point, and ask him to make a statement of policy on behalf of the government concerning a matter which to my mind seems to strike at the very root of the usefulness of the act.
I refer to a decision given by the Saskatchewan court of appeal, to which I shall presently allude. This is a matter which more or less is of a constitutional nature, something which as a rule I am very careful to leave alone. However it is put into such simple and plain language that even he who runs may read. QDb would appear as we are all aware, that there was doubt as to the dual jurisdiction of the dominion and the provinces, and they got around it by passing an act in the federal house and the provinces passing what is known as enabling legislation. In all the provinces the enabling legis-

Bank of Canada
lation was in very much the same language. Then, on an appeal concerning live stock products to the court I have mentioned, a ruling was given. In connection with that ruling this statement is made:
The net result of the judgment delivered at Regina within the past fortnight is to throw grave doubt on the constitutionality of all dominion enactments which rely upon provincial enabling statutes.
The judgment proceeds to state why they find fault, but I have not time to go into that phase of the matter. The fact is however that one of the higher courts-possibly it was the supreme court-of the province of Saskatchewan has decided that that method of solving the question of dual jurisdiction is all wrong and invalid. If it is invalid in Saskatchewan I suppose it would be equally so in Alberta, British Columbia or Ontario, because the basic principle upon which the decision has been given appears to lie right at the root of the matter. This statement is made:
The judgment nullifies the Saskatchewan enabling act on the ground that it is merely an attempt to give a jurisdiction to the dominion which it does not possess and in a matter which, by the British North America Act, is assigned to the province.
Then they cite the converse:
The dominion cannot give jurisdiction or leave jurisdiction with the province. The provincial parliament cannot give legislative jurisdiction to the dominion parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: Who were the judges?


Alan Webster Neill: The article does not say. This statement is made:
This act has received a crushing blow at the hands of the Saskatchewan court of appeal. It now appears that all the enabling legislation at present supporting such dominion statutes as the marketing act and the industrial disputes act, to cite but two, is imperilled.


Robert Weir: That case did not refer to the provisions of the marketing act: it had nothing to do with the marketing act.


Alan Webster Neill: I know that.


Robert Weir: The hon. member is reading a newspaper opinion with respect to it concerning the effect the decision might have on the Natural Products Marketing Act. If the hon. member would read the judgment I think he would find that the objection taken to this particular piece of legislation was the manner in which the enabling legislation was passed.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to continue the discussion to-morrow, because the minister's
statement is not in accordance with my understanding.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 87, respecting The Wapiti Insurance Company.-Mr. Weir (Macdonald).
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Muriel Mabel Muttart.-Mr. Myers.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Emile Fossion. -Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Eva Bennett.- Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)'.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Helen Gertrude Bryant Wilson.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Gladys Sarah Jenkins Weeks.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Taylor Nicholson.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 7, 1935