[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.

Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I would like if possible to get the resolution standing on the order paper in my name advanced into committee to-day. The bill founded on the resolution is very short and it has the single purpose of extending for one year the appointment of a judge as acting chairman of the commission.


Mr. SPEAKER:: with the unanimous consent of the house.
Mr. SUTHERLAND moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to extend for one year the provisions of the act to amend the Pension Act, chapter 58 of the statutes of 1934, respecting the appointment of a judge as acting chairman of the commission.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Hours of Labour


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, as you are aware the Pension Act was amended at the last session of parliament to provide that if the chairmanship of the board of pension commissioners became vacant it would be possible to appoint a judge of the superior court of any province of Canada to occupy that position for a period not exceeding one year. That year is up on August 1 next, and the government would like if possible to have the present holder of that office, Mr. Justice Taylor, continue for another year if it can be arranged without trouble to the court to which he belongs in Manitoba. That is the sole intent of the resolution.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the resolution of the minister and I would take this opportunity of saying that I think Mr. Justice Taylor has rendered very wonderful service during the past year.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. -Mr. Sutherland thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 119, to amend the Pension Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I see a dispatch from Geneva in the American press to the effect that the forty-hour week principle has been voted by the international labour conference by a majority of six, and that the delegates of the governments of Great Britain and the British dominions, with the exception of the Irish Free State, abstained from voting. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not this is so, and if so whether they have taken that stand under the instructions of the government.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I explained a few days ago in answer, I believe, to a question of the hon. member himself that we did instruct our delegates that we had now proceeded to give effect to the convention ratified some time ago, registration of which ratification had taken place at the time, and that we thought it undesirable at the moment to take any part in the further discussion of lessening hours of labour in view of the position that had been

taken with respect to the existing convention. That is, if the position which we took is sound in connection with the convention itself and it is intended, as was suggested during the progress of the debate, that it might be determined judicially, it was desirable that we should abstain from voting until such time as an opportunity had been afforded to enable that matter to be determined.


Ernest Lapointe: It is an admission that we are not sure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is hardly correct. The hon. member is a lawyer; it is hardly to be said that because a case is litigated both sides are certain.


Ernest Lapointe: Very well.



DOMINION HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 112, to assist the construction of houses-Sir George Perley (for the Minister of Finance)-Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 2

Definitions.
Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Chairman, last night just prior to adjournment the right hon. gentleman in charge of the bill, at least to my way of thinking, was unable to give a satisfactory answer to certain questions I put to him in connection with what is looked upon in the bill as a lending institution. I have certain objections to this clause. I object to it because it puts elected bodies, provincial and municipal, in a position inferior to that held by financial institutions. According to this bill if they wish to take advantage of the funds the government is providing and which, in my estimation are very meagre, then these publicly elected bodies will ultimately be compelled to go to lending institutions before proceeding with a housing scheme.
Last night the right hon. gentleman could not satisfy my questions in this connection. I feel that our city councils and municipal and provincial governments under the terms of the bill before us will be compelled to go to these lending institutions before they will be able to receive the funds provided by the federal government. I wonder if the minister has considered that aspect of the matter, and if he is prepared to modify the attitude of the government concerning that particular clause of the bill?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I have nothing to add to what I said last night.

Housing Act


Mr. NEILL:: Would not the objections of
the hon. member for North Winnipeg be met if subsection 1 of section 4 were amended to read as follows:
(1) The minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, enter into a contract with an approved lending institution or local authority.
I have added the words "or local authority." Under section 2, which is now under discussion, "local authority" is defined as "any province, municipality, society, association or corporation" and so on. I believe that would meet the objection of the hon. member. The local authority would then have the same opportunity to lend money as is now afforded under subsection (e) of section 2.


Mr. COOTE:: I believe tlhe suggestion
offered by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is a very sensible one, and I cannot understand why "local authority" under paragraph (f) is meant to include a province or municipality unless it is intended that under this measure a municipality might have the same rights as a mortgage or loan company. I believe the minister might very well take that point into consideration.
While on my feet I should like to .put another question to the minister. I find that paragraph (d) of section 2 is as follows:
(d)	"Housing scheme" means a scheme for the construction of houses and their occupation by tenants or purchasers.
Will that limit the scheme to the construction of new houses? In other words, under the measure will rehabilitation of present buildings be possible?


George Halsey Perley: I regret to say
that there is no provision in this bill for rehabilitation.


George Gibson Coote: No provision for rehabilitation? Then I should like to suggest to the government that before the bill is passed a section be inserted to make such rehabilitation possible. I believe a great deal of employment could be given through rehabilitation, and if such work were permitted under this section the other provisions in the bill are wide enough to allow it to be done. I hope the bill as finally passed will not shut out the rehabilitation of present dwellings. That is one thing that is very necessary and which should be made possible, if we are to pass this bill.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I believe there is logic
in the point raised by the hon. members for Comox-Alberni and North Winnipeg. I think it is fair to say that one of the major driving forces behind the bill was the report of the
Lieutenant Governor of Ontario respecting slum conditions in Toronto and also the report on the contemplated policy of the civic government of Montreal in connection with slum clearance in that metropolitan centre. Considering the ability of the municipal organizations to borrow money at rates even lower than private companies can, I feel that every opportunity should be given them to avail themselves of this bill in the elimination of slum conditions in the urban centres of Canada. The insertion of the words "or local authority" would at least convey to the municipalities the idea that this bill was intended to meet the very pressing problem that confronts them at the moment in connection with slum clearance.


George Halsey Perley: Section 3 of the bill provides that the economic council shall go into all these matters most carefully; there are five different subsections. Among other questions the problem of slum clearance is indicated. I agree with the hon. gentleman that this is one of the most important questions involved in the housing scheme, but I would point out that my hon. friends opposite last night argued very strongly against our proceeding with the bill at all until the economic council had reported under section 3. We propose to have this question thoroughly investigated right away by the economic council, and in the meantime we have brought forward this moderate plan for giving assistance in the building of new houses. That is why we have not set up any authority to deal with this plan but are leaving it to the Minister of Finance to make arrangements with the loan and insurance companies to carry it out.


Humphrey Mitchell: Notwithstanding the fact that I criticized the bill, I do not agree with some members who have said that it should not be gone on with, because in my judgment the most important thing about it is the establishment of a principle, the recognition of responsibility on the part of the federal government in matters of this kind. I still think, however, that the government would be well advised to leave the thing open so as to permit the municipalities to take advantage of the same opportunities as the private loan companies are given under the bill. It would be a distinct advance in view of the fact that they can raise money so much more cheaply. When a working man pays seven per cent on a first mortgage he is licked before he starts. I submit that an opportunity should be given the municipalities. Further, I believe that the best kind of government with respect to legislation of this description is the govern-
Housing Act

ment that is closest to the people. I would rather see the municipalities undertake such work than have it done by a government at long distance, because as a rule things are watched more closely in the municipality than they are when they are supervised by a government so many miles away.


George Halsey Perley: Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that the municipalities should borrow money to put into effect a scheme of this kind, instead of the provision we have made for getting it from the loan companies?


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely. Take the city of Montreal or Toronto: where in the judgment of the municipal council they think that the only way to eliminate slums is by their own initiative, they should not be denied the right of the assistance which this bill offers. They would undertake the work on their own initiative, because the private loan companies will not do it themselves. If we are to wait until the private loan companies eliminate slums in this country we shall wait a very long time.


George Halsey Perley: This bill is not intended primarily to take care of the slum question; I have explained that several times. We wish to have further reports from the economic council before taking up the question of slum areas. Bub as regards the municipalities going into this building program themselves, what I said1 last night I still feel, and that is that very few municipalities are in a position to borrow the money necessary to take the place of what we are getting from the loan companies. And if one of them did, all that is necessary for them to do is to form a company for that purpose, which they will control and provide with funds. It is quite simple.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I would1 point out to the minister that practically all the municipalities are prevented from incorporating companies for purposes of that kind, except by special act of the provincial legislature. They cannot do what my right hon. friend suggests.


George Halsey Perley: I am not sure that that is not a wise provision. We had a case in Ottawa, and I believe elsewhere, where they started a building program which turned out disastrously.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. But what my right hon. friend said, if I understood him correctly, was that the municipalities would have a housing company formed.


George Halsey Perley: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: But there is no authority under the municipal act in Ontario to do anything like that. The only way it could be done would be by means of a private act.


George Halsey Perley: Quite so.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is involved in this
question a principle which I hope the right bon. gentleman in charge of the bill appreciates. I do not want to see any of our public-elected bodies in a subservient position in relation to financial institutions, and that is what this bill does. It means that the municipalities and even the provincial bodies, which are solvent in their own right, cannot proceed with a housing scheme under this bill unless they first of all go to the loaning corporations designated1 in the bill before us. That is what I object to. When we are speaking of the supremacy of parliament and when we are talking about the power of financial institutions, I think it is a most unfortunate time to emphasize such a principle in a bill of this kind. The right hon. gentleman has said that if the bill is allowed to go through as it is the economic council will at some future time investigate the question of slum clearance, and the question of the power which the municipal bodies should have. Assuming that the council did suggest such a thing, as the bill stands now the municipal bodies could- not do anything because the act would have to be amended before the elected bodies, either provincial or municipal, could take advantage of the very small percentage which the government is providing. It is true, as the minister is pointing out, that at present our municipalities are not in a position to go into the open market and obtain funds. Assuming that they want- to go into the housing scheme, they would have to go to the loan or mortgage companies and obtain the money at 5J per cent. We are forcing our municipalities to pay 5| per cent, whereas under more favourable conditions they might go into the open market and get it at 4 per cent. The very basis of any successful housing scheme in any municipality in Canada is that of low interest charges, and unless a municipality or any other body is able to secure funds at a low rate of interest, much below five or five and a half per cent which this bill would compel them to pay, I cannot conceive of any successful housing scheme ever being evolved out of the bill that is now before parliament. That is why I am so anxious in regard to the matter; I wish to see this bill made a success; I do not want to see a bill which is a failure before it goes

Housing Act
through the house, and that in my opinion is what this bill is likely to be. It is going to have very little effect upon building in this country.
On the other hand it is quite possible there may 'be a few houses built under it; there may be a wealthy or fairly wealthy individual who may want to build a $20,000 home. If he wants to do that there is nothing that I know of in this bill that would prevent him from obtaining twenty per cent from- the government toward the construction of that home. He could obtain from the federal government $4,000 at four per cent and he might be able to put up $16,000 in cash out of his own pocket. But the poor man who is trying to buy a home on thie basis of a low rate of interest is completely barred so long as we have the high interest charges which this bill will foist upon the people of this country, assuming that any houses are built under this scheme.
'Sir GEORGE PERLEY: The hon. gentleman should not assume any case like the one he has cited, that an expensive house would be built under this scheme; there is not the slightest intention of anything of that kind being done. The matter is of course left to the discretion of the Minister of Finance, but the purpose of the bill is to assist the building of smaller houses.


Alan Webster Neill: I am sorry the minister has rejected the proposal put forward iby the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) but as he has done so, I wish to deal with another aspect of the matter. The minister told us a few minutes ago that this bill did not propose to deal with slums. He also told us that it did not propose to deal with repairs. If he goes on explaining much more, we shall need a microscope to see what is left in the bill. He told us last night that the committee had brought in a report and1 that the government had implemented the recommendations by legislation. I cannot agree with that claim, and I rather agreed with the hon. member for North Winnipeg last night when he said that the relationship of the legislation to the report was no more close than that between pig and pig iron. I thought that was rather plainly and wittily expressed.
During the progress of the price spreads legislation, so to speak, through the house, we were told repeatedly that while legislation was introduced that appeared to be of somewhat doubtful constitutionality, this was done with the deliberate design and intention of complying as far as possible with the recommendations of the commission and that it
verged upon the unconstitutional in order to do so; that was the object and determination. This is a case where there is no constitutionality involved, and therefore, if anywhere, we would expect to see the legislation conform very closely to the recommendations, and that is exactly what it has not done in three material points which I shad mention. One is the question which I shall touch on in a moment as regards repairs; the committee were very insistent on that; that was one of their vital recommendations. The second was the question of interest, the necessity of having a low rate of interest. This bill entirely ignores and makes no provision for that. The third was a recommendation by the committee that special attention should be shown in regard to selective tenancy.
This report is a very able one, prepared by able men. Looking at the names, I find them with few exceptions able, outstanding men in this house and they have brought down a unanimous report. In the resolution under which they were acting I find these words:
To include the construction, reconstruction and repair of urban and rural dwelling houses.
Therefore the very foundation upon which the committee went to work was to have in mind the repair of buildings as well as the construction of new ones. We find a little later on that they devoted under a whole heading special attention to this rehabilitation, in other words to repairs. What did they say? They said:
More living units could be obtained more rapidly by repairing existing houses up to reasonable standards than by any other means.
That of course is quite obvious. They also said:
And had the merit of making available a large mass of work, general in nature, and more or less equitably distributed throughout the country.
They stated further:
Funds made available will provide a larger number of standard living units than if confined) to new construction alone.
In this legislation all that has gone by the board. We find them later pointing out that there had to be a very precise line drawn. If there was any plan costing above $3,500, it was only going to make it a little easier for men able to pay the difference between the cost and loan on a building to finance cheaply, but efforts had to be concentrated upon providing buildings by repair or construction for the low wage earners. The committee were very strong on that .point. We find them a little further on making two alternative proposals to the government, neither of which the
Housing Act

government has apparently hee'ded. One was that the government would advance eighty-five per cent of the necessary funds at five per cent or less; the other was that it would advance twenty-five per cent at a cost of not more than three and a half per cent and that this would meet the situation. The government has apparently paid no heed to that. The committee point out very emphatically and more than once that it is important to keep rents as low as possible and that there is nothing that can do more to keep down costs than a low rate of interest. They point out:
The lower the rent the larger the number who can afford to pay it.
And so on. As regards selective tenancy, they said:
There is no justification for allowing those who can afford economic rents

That is rents based on houses put up in the ordinary way.
*-to be housed at less cost to themselves in subsidized houses at the expense of the public purse. Selective tendancy, based on the ability to pay, is essential.
That is in their report, and we know what "essential" means.
Then they submit seventeen points which they say require emphasis, and the eighth one reads:
Selective tenancy of government-aided housing should be based on total family income and ability to pay economic rent.
The eleventh one reads:
A major item in the financing of houses is interest charges. There is, therefore, a close and vital relationship between interest charges and economic rents.
Is that to be found in this legislation? There is no mention of any suggestion of what the interest charges should be. Then the committee boiled their recommendations down to four points, and the second one is:
That said authority be authorized to negotiate agreements ... with a view to promoting construction, reconstruction and repairs of such buildings-
Then the third one is:
That as its first consideration-
Mark this!
-the said authority be urged to take action in respect to repairs (rehabilitation), presently needed.	,
There is this one other point I would like to mention that appears not to have been brought up by hon. members who have been criticising this section of the bill. The whole benefit of the legislation will be nullified to a large extent if we are going to confine it to
rMr. Neill.]
the building of houses and to the selling of them. That is to say, this scheme will help to build a house which is to be purchased by a working man. The average worker of the lower grade of income has not to-day $500 to put down as a deposit. He hasn't got a hundred dollars. Unless you can do something to help him his condition is going to be made worse, for he is going to be forced out of the more or less slum-like condition in which he is now into another slum where it will be more congested and therefore worse, because the slum he is now living in will be taken away and there will be a nice house built for $3,500 which is quite out of reach of his purse. It will go to the white collar worker with an income of $1,200 to $1,800, who will take advantage of the cheaper rate and move into this house, which will be cheaper than that for which he is now paying an economic rent. He will be the man who gets the benefit, not the man for whom it was primarily designed. No provision has been made in the bill so far as I can see for a system of tenancy. The hon. member for North Winnipeg, I think, glimpsed the idea when he suggested that the municipality should be allowed to put up the sixty per cent, then they would have control and could see that the benefit went to the class of people it is desirable to help, the low wage earner living on the verge of slumdom. When the house is built, which apparently may be done by a speculator, aided by a loan from the lending institution, and twenty per cent from the government, is there any obligation on him under this bill to rent that house at a rent in conformity with the assistance he has received from the government in order that the poor man shall get cheap rent? I cannot see it. The speculator, or private citizen, call him that if it sounds better, is going to be induced by a government loan at a low rate of interest-at least we hope it will be a low rate, there is no evidence of it-to build these houses, but there is no obligation expressed or implied that he shall rent them at a low rent. He may charge as much as the traffic will bear, and if there is competition for that class of house, as we know there is, for you can easily rent a house at a low rent when you cannot rent houses of higher value; he is liable to get the same rent as now and there is nothing to compel him to do anything else. I say the bill should be framed with a view to provide a ready and cheap form of tenancy, a selected tenancy is the term used in the report, so that the need of the people for whose benefit it is designed can be supplied, and through some guarantee to the municipality

Housing Act
or the local authority or in some way there will be an obligation on the man who builds the house to rent it at a reasonable rent. I should like to hear from the minister on that.


George Halsey Perley: I think the hon. gentleman overlooks the fact that this is a bill for one purpose at the present time. That purpose is to help the building of houses, and also to give work to the trades which perhaps need it most now, those having to do with building of all kinds. The purpose is twofold. Under section 3 it provides for further investigation and report by the economic council-


Alan Webster Neill: That is putting the cart before the horse.


George Halsey Perley: Not at all. My feeling is that we are doing very well to bring in a bill to provide for housing, something that has been discussed for many years, but this government has had the courage to do it. And at the same time it is designed to give work. If a proposal for slum clearance is brought up another year and I am here I shall be very glad to give assistance to any reasonable plan for that purpose also. In spite of the argument of the hon. gentleman last night, who stated that we ought not to go on with this bill at all without more information, the government say: We will do this now and we will have an investigation as well. Then another year we shall be in a position to consider the matter more fully.


Mr. EULER:: I would gather from what the minister said that the chief purpose of the bill is to provide that further investigation may be made. Surely that is a rather barren resullt to come from the deliberations of the committee.


George Halsey Perley: I do not think I said anything of the kind.


William Daum Euler: That is the inference I drew. I want to refer again to what I said yesterday because the minister made a reply to a certain representation I made yesterday. I criticized the bill as being almost useless from a practical point of view because of its financial set up. First a lending company is to provide sixty per cent of the capital, the government providing twenty per cent and the owner the final twenty per cent. The government is joined with the lending company in the mortgage which is to be given for the eighty per cent advanced by those two bodies. I criticized the bill from that point of view. If this bill is intended to make it possible for the small wage earner to own his own house I say it is impracticable in
the first place because of the fact that the small wage earner will not have ordinarily the S500 or $600 which it is necessary for him to provide. Anyone who knows the situation in the towns and cities of this country after four or five years of depression will admit that there are very few mien earning small wages who will be able to provide the $500 or $600 necessary to start under the scheme at all. I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) is needlessly concerned when he expresses the fear that well-to-do men are going to take the advantage of this legislation. Even they will not be able to take advantage of it because in their case it involves getting sixty per cent from the lending companies, which are then to join in a mortgage with the government on an eighty per cent loan. I said yesterday, and I reiterate to-day and I would like a further reply from the minister, that no lending company in this country will lend money to the extent of eighty per cent, which is what it amounts to. It is entirely contrary to their principles. The minister stated yesterday that he had had some interviews with lending companies. The hon. member for West Lamibton (Mr. Gray) said that there are only two lending companies with federal charters. I do not know as to that, but my right hon. friend may have information to-day more definite than he had yesterday as to there being lending companies willing to put up sixty per cent and have their security lowered by the government coming in on that security for their twenty per cent. The chairman of the committee said yesterday, as reported at page 3931 of Hansard, referring to what I had said in regard to that:
The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) said that the mortgage companies would not be willing to advance an eighty per cent mortgage. We had the representatives of the mortgage companies before our committee, and they said that there was a great deal of money available at five and a half per cent. Further, they were very anxious to lend it. Section 5, under which the minister and the lending institutions jointly take the mortgage, is no doubt there for some special reason. This I do not know, but I should be inclined to think, and it will undoubtedly be discussed in committee, that the mortgage companies would be willing to do it.
Some of my objection to the bill as being useless would be removed if the minister could assure the committee that the mortgage companies which he interviewed or which interviewed him gave him any specific undertaking that they were willing to lend money under the conditions outlined in this bill. I said yesterday I would be very much surprised, and the minister replied that I have been surprised
Housing Act

at other times, which is true, but I wish the minister would tell us specifically if these companies are willing to advance sixty per cent of the cost of the house together with the land and then share their mortgage with the government which has advanced twenty per cent making the mortgage up to eighty per cent. It means then that the mortgage company has a very poor security relatively speaking, because out of the eighty per cent the government puts up twenty per cent, which is twenty-five per cent of the total advance. In case of depreciation in value 'the margin of security would be very small indeed.
Then, as I said at the outset of my remarks to-day, practically the only merit the bill has is that it provides for further investigation. There was one other point, and this was advanced yesterday by one hon. member as well as by the minister; this provides a start and establishes the principle that it is the duty of the government to interest itself in housing. I do not think it has even that merit, and my hon. friend from East Hamilton said the same thing, because I think in 1919 this government established the principle that it should be interested in housing. I think it was in that year that the government loaned something like 823,000,000 to the provinces, and the provinces then advanced that money to others for the construction of houses. I think I am right also when I say that, with the exception of the money loaned to the province of Ontario, that money was never paid back to the government, at least not in full. I am informed, though I am open to correction-and I should like the minister to say something with regard to this-that of the $23,000,000 odd advanced by this government to the provinces for the purpose of promoting housing, only about $10,000.000 was ever returned. I should like to ask the minister what prospect there is that the provinces will ever return the balance owing on this account.


George Halsey Perley: I am informed that the money is coming in gradually, though I am unable to give my hon. friend any figures in that regard. I think I said yesterday that this would not be the first time my hon. friend had been surprised, and I was very glad that he was not quite so positive to-day as he was yesterday.


William Daum Euler: Just as positive.


George Halsey Perley: Not quite. I have two telegrams that came in this morning which I should like to read. The first is signed by Mr. T. Bradshaw of the North American Life Insurance Company. It reads:
[Mr. Euler.l
For some time have not been important loaners on house property but now looking forward to proposed housing legislation to stimulate legitimate residential construction and will be prepared to loan considerable mortgage money on suitable house properties on basis of sixty per cent sound valuation at current rates now approximating five.and half.


William Daum Euler: Is that all there is to it?


George Halsey Perley: That is that telegram.


William Daum Euler: If I may say so there is absolutely nothing in that telegram that would indicate that the insurance company is willing to loan its money on the basis of a joint mortgage with the government. That is the point.


George Halsey Perley: The telegram is sent on the basis of this bill. The next telegram is signed by Mr. W. H. Sommerville, of the Mutual Life of Canada. It reads:
We see no reason why the housing act should not be successful. In any event the hearty cooperation and support of our company in its operation may be expected.


William Daum Euler: That is not definite at all.


George Halsey Perley: Of course if the hon. gentleman questions telegrams of that kind I have nothing further to say, but I should like to read an extract from a memorandum by Mr. T. D'Arcy Leonard, solicitor for the Dominion Mortgage and Investment Association and secretary of the Ontario Mortgage Companies' Association, which was handed to Mr. Clark some days ago:
We believe that the soundest housing scheme would be one that would enable the existing mortgage lending institutions to lend up to eighty per cent on approved new houses, in approved locations, to be built for home owners.... If approved, a loan up to an amount of eighty per cent of the value of the property would be made by a lending institution, of which sixty per cent would be supplied by the institution and twenty per cent by the government. The government's contribution would be in the form of a cheque handled by the lending institution so that the borrower would have only the one organization to deal with himself.
If that is not an expression of opinion that the proposed bill is workable and that the loan companies will join together to help make it successful, then I do not understand what it is.


William Daum Euler: Is the last telegram from a
loan company?


George Halsey Perley: That was a
memorandum from Mr. T. D'Arcy Leonard, solicitor for the Dominion Mortgage and Investment Association.

Housing Act


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the date of that
memorandum?


George Halsey Perley: There is no date on it, but it was handed to Mr. Clark two or three weeks ago. I suppose the hon. gentleman will tell me now that all this is in bad faith, but I do not think that is quite fair.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That was prepared before
the bill was drafted.


William Daum Euler: I do not wish to delay the
committee, but not one of the telegrams read by the minister specifically commits any company to loan money on the basis of the terms of this bill.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to say a few
words in connection with this bill; perhaps they relate a little more to section 4 but since section 2 is the interpretation section it has a certain bearing on all the other sections of the bill. I have several objections to this bill. I may say that I have been interested in the question -of government action in connection with housing in Canada for some years and in 1932, during the debate on the unemployment relief bill, I suggested the formation of a housing commission in order to get under way a project for the construction of houses in Canada.
My first objection to the bill is that sixty per cent of the funds will have to be advanced by one of the lending companies and, as the bill is drafted, it seems that this refers in effect to existing mortgage, insurance and loan companies. So it does seem to me that the effect of the bill is to continue to load all housing in Canada with an interest charge of five and a half or six per cent. I should like hon. members to consider carefully the interest burden that is attached to any house carrying that rate of interest. Even on a house costing $3,000-and it seems to me that is the smallest amount for which a habitable house can be built t'o-day-a rate of five and a half per cent per annum means an interest charge of S13.75 per month before you include other charges for depreciation, upkeep, taxes or anything else. That seems to me too high; it seems definitely to make the type of houses that would be possible under this act available only to people with incomes of perhaps more than $1,200 per year.
Then it is quite evident that under this scheme only those wiho can advance twenty per cent of the purchase price will be able to secure any advantage. I think it is clear from the telegrams that were read by the right hon. gentleman that we cannot expect any lower rate than five and a half per cent, and I want to say again that an interest
change of $13.75 per month for any house makes this thing prohibitive to the class of people who need houses so badly.
Mr. JACOBS': Where do you find the interest rate in the bill?


George Gibson Coote: himself in this class of people has interviewed the Canadian National railway authorities and has secured from them the use, or I might say the gift, of a lot of old railway coaches and freight cars which the Canadian National Railways would be dismantling because they are going to build new equipment. He has also secured a piece of property and is getting the railway company to lay a spur line to it and is running a lot of these old coaches out to that district and expects to have enough coaches to house three thousand people. That gentleman is to be commended for that work because these people are being forced out of their homes and out of their rooms in Montreal. I was told by another gentleman from Montreal who interviewed me last week, that there is nowhere for them to go. This man before referred to is doing splendid work but I think where a housing scheme ought to start is to provide housing for people in Canada who cannot afford, on their income to-day, to pay economic rent.
Under this housing scheme the government is to advance only twenty per cent of the cost of the houses. I would suggest to the government that they might very well advance sixty or eighty per cent, and at a low rate of interest, and then we could build houses that could be rented to these people for not much more than half the rental necessary under the present contemplated setup.
Perhaps I will be asked where can we find the money to do it? We have in Canada a machine for the creation of money, and we could very well afford to set aside-this would suit me-$100,000,000 as a start until this scheme is in operation.
May I point out to the committee just what has happened in Canada in regard to the amount of money that the government or the government agency has under issue. The Bank of Canada's last statement shows that they have a note issue outstanding of approximately $75,000,000 and they have deposit liabilities of $183,000,000, which is largely the deposits of the chartered banks. Their total deposit liabilities are $259,000,000. The gold reserve of the Bank of Canada is $106,000,000, with gold valued at $20.67 per ounce, but now it is agreed that gold is worth $35 per ounce, so at that valuation the present gold reserve held by the Bank of Canada is worth $180,000,000. The Bank of Canada Act provides for a reserve of 25 per cent against notes and deposit liabilities, and on that basis the present gold reserve of 1180,000,000 is sufficient for a total liability of note issue and deposit liabilities of $720,000,000.

At the present time, as I say, the deposit liabilities of the Bank of Canada together with the note issue amounts to $259,000,000. So that there is a margin for the bank to work on of $460,000,000. Surely with that wide margin the central bank might safely issue another $100,000,000 for the financing of a housing program, and that I think would be quite within the canons of sound finance. The margin that would still be left to the Bank of Canada would be almost two to one.
I would like hon. members to compare the present issue of notes in Canada with what it was in 1920. I take these figures from the Canada Year Book for 1933. On June 30, 1919, the issue of dominion notes outstanding was $300,000,000, and the amount of bank notes outstanding was $228,000,000, or a total of $528,000,000. The issue of Bank of Canada notes at the present time is $75,000,000, and of the notes of the chartered banks $120,000.000, or $195,000,000. I suppose there is still $10,000,000 of dominion notes outstanding, but taking them all together it is not half what it was in the year 1920. I assume that somebody will say that the deposits of the chartered banks in the central bank are equivalent to a holding of dominion notes. For the sake of argument I will grant that. The deposits of the chartered banks are $165,000,000, and adding that to the $75,000000 of notes issued and outstanding, makes a total of $240,000,000 issued. As I said before, with the gold reserve of the Bank of Canada at approximately $180,000,000 there you have the basis for an issue of $720,000,000 including deposits. I cannot see but what it would be the most sensible thing in the world to issue $100,000,000 and to make it available for any housing project which the economic council might recommend, and that it be advanced at a rate of interest not more than two per cent I would say, to build homes for the classes of people in Canada that are most in need of them. I do not want to labour this point.
I just want to say again that what I have suggested here is quite within what I think might be called the orthodox ideas of money, that we must have a 25 per cent reserve for our notes and deposit liabilities of the central bank. It would only be making use of the right of issue of a little over 50 per cent of what is possible under the Bank of Canada Act and I really cannot see what objection there can be to it.
Before I sit down I would like to say again that we are badly in need of some assistance in securing adequate homes in the rural areas, and if this bill does not make provision for

Housing Act
that I hope that such provision will be made in tihe bill before it passes this committee, even though the scheme is not availed of until the projects have been approved by the economic council. But once approved I would like this bill to be wide enough for such schemes as are approved of to be carried out.
I would also like to be sure that there is available money for this project at a rate less than 5J per cent. I agree with what was said by my hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) last night, that the man who starts off to pay for a house with money costing 6 or 7 per cent is defeated before he starts. We have seen thousands of cases during the last five years of people who have lost their homes because there was an interest rate of six or seven or eight per cent which had to be carried in the man's payments, and with the low level of wages which the masses of the people are getting to-day and the low prices our farmers are getting for their products they cannot stand these high interest rates. If this scheme is to be started in only a small way, let us at least start it in a sound way. I am not so much concerned about it being started in a big way as I am that it be started in a sound way. I know it is stated that tfhe interest rate under this scheme will be 5J per cent, but by the time the purchaser pays the various charges, inspection fees, and cost of drawing papers the rate is not likely to be under six per cent, and I think six per cent is too high a rate. I do not think it is economically possible for people to carry it. I believe that those who have studied economics extending over the last few hundred years agree with Thomas Woodlock that nature in the long run will allow for a very low rate of interest if indeed she will allow for the payment of any. Let us not begin a housing scheme on an unsound basis. The basis of this scheme is the interest rate; I say the interest rate at six per cent is too high, and the scheme will not amount to very much if it is built on that foundation.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister deal specifically with the point raised by the hon. member for North Waterloo and myself, namely, that apparently this bill contemplates only those people who wish to buy houses. We have urged that the great need of the low wage earner to-day is not to have cheap houses which they cannot afford to buy, but to have cheap tenancy. Has the minister any proposal in mind which he intends to add to the bill, or does he find anything in the bill to permit a poor man, one who cannot afford to buy a house, to obtain cheap rent? The poor
man, the casual labourer who moves around does not wish to tie himself down to a certain town or part of a town. He wishes to be in a position to move and, above all things, must have cheap tenancy.
I see nothing in the bill to prevent a speculator building a row of houses by the aid of cheap government money. Is there anything to compel that speculator to rent his houses to poor people at a price in proportion to the benefit he receives from the government? I can see nothing in the bill to prevent him holding us for as high rentals as the. traffic will stand. I should like the minister to develop those points.


George Halsey Perley: Paragraph (d) of the interpretation clause states .that "'housing scheme" means a scheme for the construction of houses and their occupation by tenants or purchasers. That covers the first point raised by the hon. member. The workman desiring to move about will be able to rent these houses.


Alan Webster Neill: Paragraph (d) deals with the definition of the term "housing scheme," and has to do with possible action under section 3, in connection with which we are not legislating at this time.


George Halsey Perley: It contains the expression "by tenants or purchasers." That means that these houses will be available for tenants or purchasers.


William Daum Euler: Where does it say that?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Apart altogether from the point raised by the 'hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) respecting the monetary policy involved in the financing of a scheme of this kind, .may I say that this government is perhaps as responsible as any other body for the present lack of housing throughout the country. I would direct the attention of the minister and the committee to the fact that extraordinarily high tariff duties, especially dumping duties, have resulted in such high costs to those who construct houses that they cannot continue to do so. I have in my hand a comparison in costs of plumbing fixtures necessary in construction. A bath 4 feet 6 inches in length would cost $31.50 in Vancouver and only $11.45 in Seattle,-precisely the same specifications. A 5-foot bath costing $24.30 in Vancouver would cost only $13.45 in Seattle. The next size would cost $32.30 in Vancouver and only $16.45 in Seattle. A recess bath would cost $45.30 in Vancouver and only $27.95 in Seattle; the next larger size would cost $55.10 in Vancouver and only $31.25 in Seattle.
Housing Act

I set out these illustrations simply to indicate that there is an extraordinary discrimination against Canadian contractors building houses, or those wishing to pay for the building of them. That discrimination arises through the high tariff duties and especially the high dumping rates assessed against the trade. I have in my hand a letter from one of the big concerns in Vancouver, the Sanitary and Heating Association of British Columbia, complaining about this condition. They point out that while they might be able to meet the 35 per cent duty and freight charges for equal quality products, they cannot compete in the face of present dumping duties. There appears to be no competition in the supply of these goods; the manufacture of plumbing fixtures would seem to be in the hands of what is virtually a monopoly. Certainly the control in the west is in the hands of two concerns. There is no doubt about the measure of price fixation which must ensue, and no doubt that they take the fullest advantage of the duties and the dump. This means an added cost in plumbing fixtures to the extent of 30 per cent to 50 per cent, and in some cases as high as 70 per cent. Obviously if the government were interested in the building of houses, as one of its first acts it would have undertaken to modify the rates of duty on these goods which enter into the construction.
While under section 3 of the bill the economic council is advised to study practices which enter into the construction of houses, I contend that the minister and the government already know sufficient-possibly I should say that the facts are already sufficiently known-to have justified them long ago in taking this step towards reducing the cost of house construction.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I should like to endorse the observations of the hon. member for Macleod to the effect that it is very important that the scheme be properly started. I know of no industry which would absorb more of the unemployed than would the building trades. The one great essential exists, namely, a market in the cities, towns and villages for houses. In considering a matter of this kind I believe it essential that the government should consider the type of construction. I believe these houses should be designed by architects; ventilation should be properly attended to and in the cities and towns where electricity is available they should be properly wired. I believe it would be to the advantage of a scheme of this kind if the 
houses were standardized; certainly that factor would cheapen them and standardization could be effected with a view to increasing efficiency and utility.
Not long ago I read an article written by Alfred Sloan vice-president of General Motors, in which he pointed out that properly designed houses could be erected in two days, including electric wiring, refrigeration, ventilation and the like. By standardization and through what might be described as high pressure practices they could be cheapened so as to be brought within the reach of nearly every labouring man. Houses built in that way would add to the health of Canadians, a factor which is to-day worthy of serious consideration. If the scheme were carried out properly it could be extended to the point where the labouring man in a town or city or the farmer in the country might have an up-to-date house equipped in every particular.
I do not know of anything which would have a greater effect in absorbing the unemployed than would a project of this kind. Canada has paid out .about $180,000,000 for relief. How much better it would have been if that money and the moneys paid by the provinces and municipalities could have been turned into a. Channel of this kind. I am pressing upon the government the importance of having this scheme properly started. These houses should be properly drafted by competent architects, and ventilation, refrigeration and1 everything of that kind looked after. I think it would add greatly to the health of the country, which is becoming a problem, involving so much expense to the provinces and the municipalities that they cannot keep going. We have here a scheme which practically has no limit, because there is no limit to the market for houses. It only becomes a matter of getting the houses cheap enough so that those desiring them can purchase them. I hope the government has given the situation that study which its seriousness deserves because it is one that will not end this year or next year but will increase from year to year as the efficiency is demonstrated and the necessity grows.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Duties.
Mr. STEVENS:: Under section 3 there
should come more properly a discussion much of which has been going on and to which I have listened with some interest.
I want to make one or two observations and perhaps the right hon. gentlemen in charge

Housing Act
of the bill can clarify what at present is not clear to me. The question has been raised as to provision for that class of person who is unable to put up any money at all for the initial payment, and1 one must recognize that housing is more vitally needed by that class than by any other in the .community. That is basic and should be the gravamen of any discussion -on this matter. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to section 4 in discussing the section now before us, because the two must be read together. I will not trespass too far on the rules, however. Section 3 provides that the economic council shall study, investigate, report and advise, when required to do so, into certain things, among which we find the following in paragraph (b):
upon a proposal for a housing scheme in any urban or rural locality, submitted by a local authority, and particularly as to the necessity for and feasibility of establishing a housing scheme in any locality for the construction of houses, with the assistance of the state, to be leased to low wage earners.
I read that in conjunction with a clause in section 2, the interpretation clause to which the right hon. gentleman has already called attention. Paragraph (d) of section 2 reads: .
"Housing scheme" means a scheme for the construction of houses and their occupation by tenants or purchasers.
Now I apprehend that the right hon. gentleman means to say, in bis utterances, that by virtue of these two subsections provision is made in this bill for housing for those who are unable to provide any initial payment, and that this shall be on a tenancy basis. If that is so, then I submit that section 4 is faulty or weak in its construction, because section 4 is the operative section of the bill, and it provides the power and the only power in the bill for the Minister of Finance or the government to make payments or to do anything that is effective.
I will read from section 4:
The minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, enter into a contract with an approved lending institution to join with such institution in the making of loans to assist in the building of houses under conditions hereinafter mentioned.
Then in the subsections following I notice it limits to specific things that power of entering into agreement. I submit to the right hon. gentleman that in the subsequent subsections of section 4 .there is no power given to do wihat it is suggested might be done under section 3 or in accordance with the interpretation clause-that is, to loan
money for a housing scheme intended to 'be built on a tenancy basis. If the right hon. gentleman will note that point I will proceed with one or two other observations, so that I may not interrupt him unduly.


George Halsey Perley: I am only too glad to have the bon. gentleman, make suggestions looking to the improvement of the wording of the bill. When I referred to tenants, in connection with subsection (dl) of section 2, I referred to the fact that there might be put under this scheme houses which would not foe owned by the people who occupied .them; that is to say, they might be erected by a company or association and rented to tenants. That was the idea. With regard to the other question of providing houses for people who are not able themselves to pay anything, this is supposed to be covered by the provision with respect to further investigation, under (b) of section 3. It is mot the intention of this bill, as I understand it, to provide houses for people if they cannot contribute something towards their construction; but it is the intention to have the economic council go into all these matters most carefully and make a report as soon as possible. The question which the ihon. gentleman raises, with regard to houses for people who cannot provide any of the money themselves, is one which the council will have to consider carefully; and if section 3 is not broad enough in its terms, so far as investigation by the counoil is concerned, I shall be glad to consider suggestions for its improvement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not referring to section 3; I am calling the right hon. gentleman's attention to the inadequacy of section 4. In section 3 we infer-and I submit that is as far as we go-that it is possible that a scheme may be suggested by the economic council which would provide for low rental tenancy habitations. That is suggested, and my point is that the bill does not give corresponding power to the government to do what it suggests in section 3 might be done. I therefore suggest that before section 4 passes there should be added thereto a subsection positively authorizing the government to accept a scheme such as might arise under (b) of section 3. That is in so far as the bill is now drafted.
There is another point I wish to raise. I refer to the situation throughout Canada in many cities, but certainly in the larger cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Windsor and any of the
Housing Act

other industrial centres. I think there is no one who has visited these places but will agree that there is very grave necessity-and I cannot emphasize that too strongly-for the establishment of sanitary housing on a low rental basis for what might be termed the working class. Furthermore I doubt if there are any cities that do not have on their hands properties that have come back to them under tax sales, what are known in the west as tax sale properties, which might form the basis of a municipal housing scheme. This is nothing new; it is something that has been in operation very extensively in Great Britain. In some United States cities it is now being canvassed very carefully, and I think in some cities it is actually in operation where the municipalities have taken advantage of this property that is now non-tax producing, backed up on their hands, very often well situated, and upon which very suitable, comfortable and cheap forms of housing could be erected in a modern way. I think we must recognize the fact that the construction of houses in Canada as well as in the United States is woefully behind the times; it is oldfashioned, obsolete. We know from some of the great world exhibitions, for instance, that there is a modern type of construction with conveniences that can be erected at very moderate cost permitting of a rental much below what is normal to-day. So I think we should review the situation from that standpoint and anticipate in this bill a new era in type of construction. We should provide in this bill that the government will have power to enter upon such a scheme, because without any doubt the economic municil, if it does its duty at all, will present to the government a scheme of that character. But this bill does not provide for the government carrying out the scheme should such a one be submitted.
Another point I would like to submit is this: in the ordinary method followed in loaning for construction purposes in Canada, the costs of making the loan, the appraisal, the transfer fee, the mortgage charge, the insurance and all those charges usually make initial fees that are entirely disproportionate to the services rendered. That I think is today so commonly an abuse-and I use that term "abuse" advisedly-that it ought to be guarded against in this bill. This measure provides simply that the government, the minister in this case or the loaning authority, as it is indicated, shall cooperate with existing private institutions and carries into whatever scheme is adopted, wherever it is adopted, all of those oldfashioned and I believe ob-

solete abuses which to-day characterize the loaning of money. That feature ought to be eliminated from any scheme into which the Canadian taxpayers' money enters. I believe section 4 should be so redrafted that we would guard against such abuses being again perpetrated.
There is another point to which I should like to draw attention, and for the moment it escapes my mind what is the accepted ratio of rentals to salaries, but if I am in error in what I say I shall be very glad if some hon. member would set me right. I believe it is an accepted principle in economics that no one should be asked to pay more than twenty-five per cent of his earnings for rental; I think that is correct.


Mr. HOWARD:: Twenty per cent is better, but twenty-five per cent maximum.


George Halsey Perley: Twenty to twenty-five per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a matter of fact I venture the statement that many of the working class are to-day paying at a rate of about thirty per cent or more, or they overcome that impossible handicap by doubling up. There is not in Canada a city where you will not find in one habitation whose cubic content is suitable only for one family, two and even three families. Why? Because of the economic stress. They cannot afford to pay the thirty, thirty-five or forty per cent as the case may be, so in order to live at all, two or three families will get together and live in one habitation. I was in Montreal not long ago, and I imagine the committee may have had this data before them where it was said that an investigation had disclosed a very serious unsanitary condition because of this doubling or trebling up of families in one apartment or house as the case may be. That is a very serious matter; to my mind it is fundamental; it strikes at the very root of this whole problem of housing. The danger that I see in this bill is that the powers given to the minister or the government permit the carrying of these abuses into any new scheme instead of in a mandatory manner making such abuses impossible in connection with any scheme which is adopted.
There is another point already mentioned by several hon. gentlemen. Leaving for the moment the question of tenancy, we come to a class that may have a small amount of money in hand. A sum of $400, $500, $600 or $700 is something that it would be very difficult for many to find. On the other hand, if a person has $500 to $1,000 to invest in a

Housing Act
home, there is not much that we need to worry about in connection with such a class, but the persons that I am concerned about are, first, the working class in the congested areas of Canada and, second, the other class referred to by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), namely, the rural class. I would like to say just one or two words in regard to that. I do not know what a survey of Canada would disclose, but there have been some very excellent surveys made of the United States, and the condition of the average rural home in that country is I think an appalling story largely because of the costliness of sanitary arrangements, lack of proper lighting facilities and the general costliness of construction. I believe we should aim in this bill, as I have already indicated, at providing, first, for the low rental class in industrial centres and, second, a typical, comfortable, sanitary home for those in rural and agricultural districts, so as to make possible decent living conditions in this country. I do not think any survey has been made of Canada, but I recall the survey carried on in some parts of the United States in the last two years and the fact that so few houses have even a bath is simply appalling.


George Gibson Coote: Five per cent in the rural districts of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. We need to be seized not only with the seriousness of this situation but its disgrace to us as a civilized people, and the absolute necessity of laying the foundation for a new era in low cost sanitary housing in this country.
The last point to which I wish to refer is interest. I do not think this parliament will discharge its duty if we pass a housing bill that contemplates a rate of interest of five and a half per cent, which with charges will be more than six per cent, I think at least six and a half. That rate is altogether too high. I am not concerned about well-to-do people who want a nice home, they can borrow money and pay five and a half or six per cent and take care of themselves. But for those who have low wages or insufficient returns in the price of their produce-and they outnumber the others five to one-a rate of five and a half or six per cent is too high. This bill ought to provide for a rate of interest close to the rate at which it is possible for the government of Canada to borrow money, that is a basic rate of three to three and a half per cent. Therefore I draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the fact while subsection (b) of section 3 permits the economic council to look 92582-251
into these things and report, I submit that section 4, the operative section, is inadequate to permit of a reasonably effective measure being put into operation.


George Halsey Perley: My impression
is that the hon. gentleman was not here yesterday evening when we were discussing this question. I simply tell him that there were many here who argued that we should not have any bill at all just now for the provision of housing, but simply go on with further investigation. The government, however, thought that they would make a start at any rate in providing housing under this scheme. The hon. gentleman has said quite rightly that there is no provision in section 4 for the government to take further action on the report made by the economic council under section 3. The idea was that this investigation by the economic council would take some time and would necessitate rather minute inquiry into many phases of this question. They would have to work out something as to cooperative arrangements between municipal, provincial and dominion authorities, and consider other questions such as slum areas and the provision of houses for people who cannot afford to put up any money to .help build for themselves. There was no intention under section 4 that there should be provision for the government to implement the suggestions made by the economic council. The idea we had was that probably before the economic council really made a complete report there would be another session of parliament, and this matter would then be taken up for further consideration and implemented with further legislation. I am just as anxious about providing accommodation for low wage earners as the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens) can possibly be. I think we are taking a step in the direction of doing something about housing which has never been done by this parliament before, and it certainly is not the intention to stop here. But as information is provided and we can see our way to go further it certainly is the intention of the members of this government as I understand to try to do so.
With regard to interest and charges, the hon. gentleman will find that subsection (g) of section 4 gives the minister authority in making his agreement to impose such other conditions as will safeguard the interest of His Majesty. Our idea is that this will be administered under the Department of Finance. The Minister of Finance will give consideration to all such questions and it certainly would

Housing Act

be the aim that the charges incidental to a scheme of this kind should be as low as possible.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Could the right hon.
gentleman indicate from the telegrams and the memoranda he read a moment ago what rate of interest is contemplated by the companies who have expressed a willingness to cooperate?


George Halsey Perley: I explained yesterday evening that the rate they suggested is five and a half per cent, and the rate at which we expect the government will put up their twenty per cent will be three and a half per cent, which would give an average of five per cent. Whether it will be possible to get the companies' rate below five and a half per cent, I cannot say, but my hon. friend can rest assured that every effort will be made to carry out this scheme as economically as possible.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The five per cent in that case would be on the whole eighty per cent loaned?


George Halsey Perley: Yes, certainly,
an average of five per cent.


John Campbell Elliott: In answer to a query by
the hon. member for East Kootenay may I say that the committee had evidence from Mr. Cudmore of the statistical department, and yesterday I put on Hansard at page 3911 the figures showing the conditions in rural and urban sections. I am sure it will be a great surprise to hon. members, as it was to me, to know that there are nearly double as many one-family households living in one room in the rural parts of Canada as there are in the urban sections. The figures given to the committee in the evidence, which is available to every hon. member, were 21,116 one-family households of owners, and 7,261 one-family households of tenants, while in urban sections there were 11,975 households of one family of two or more persons in a single room, and only 94 households of two or more families in a single room. The conditions disclosed by the representative of the statistical department as reported in the last census show the great necessity for something being done in the rural sections. Conditions were worse there than in the urban sections. That is one reason why I think it is a great mistake to limit the operation of this bill to new construction and not allow advances to be made for repairs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Campbell Elliott: Following what has taken place in other countries-I do not intend to

repeat what I said yesterday in that regard- the greatest relief that can be given to the unemployed in various sections of Canada today can be given by furnishing little farm plots out in the country, away from the congested areas, where land is not expensive and where buildings now in existence could be repaired. But under this bill that cannot be done. I call the attention of the committee to subsection (a) of section 4:
A loan shall be made only for the purpose of assisting the construction of a house ...
So that absolutely settles the question of whether the loan can be made for any other purpose. As I underetood the telegram that came from Mr. Bradshaw, it stated that his company was willing to advance sixty per cent. That is very different from adyancing three-quarters of eighty per cent, and that is the percentage provided.


George Halsey Perley: I see the point made by the hon. gentleman, but may I say that when Mr. Bradshaw sent the telegram he was fully conversant with the terms of this bill, and I take it that he sent the telegram to show his willingness to cooperate in an attempt to carry out the provisions of the bill.


John Campbell Elliott: I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would read that telegram again.


George Halsey Perley: I sent it to Hansard.


John Campbell Elliott: There is no question about it; the terms of the telegram were that the company would advance sixty per oent. If Mr. Bradshaw was conversant with the terms of the bill, that telegram meant that his company do not intend to advance more than sixty per cent; at least that was how it sounded to me.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It would be entirely a first mortgage, and the twenty per cent advanced by the government would be a second mortgage.


John Campbell Elliott: From the telegram stating that they were willing to advance sixty per cent-


Mr. GRAY:: That would have to be a first mortgage loan.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, he evidently calculated that he was going to get the first sixty per cent, and I want to point out that this is a very different thing from getting a share of an eighty per cent -loan, as was pointed out yesterday by the hon. member for North Waterloo and others.


George Halsey Perley: I must repeat that I think Mr. Bradshaw understood the terms of this bill .perfectly. I do not think he would have sent the telegram at all if he had not been willing to carry out the terms of the bill.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not intend to labour the point, but Mr. Bradshaw is not a stupid man by any means. He is a financier, and I think probably it was because he is a financier that he sent the telegram stating that he would advance sixty per cent. If he will advance sixty per cent he will advance a higher percentage than most of the companies in the business have been advancing for several years past; there is no doulbt about that.
Apparently we are discussing sections 3 and 4 together; I think perhaps it is advisable to do so. I believe the government should consider very seriously this question: If we are right in understanding that loan companies are willing to advance three-quarters of an eighty per cent mortgage, this bill should provide for the proportion of the loss!, if any, that they should bear. Let us look at the position in which the government will be put. They advance twenty per cent, and under this bill they may be liable for eighty per cent or ninety-nine per cent of the loss if they make a contract of that kind. The minister in charge, with the approval of the governor in council, has power to enter into an agreement with the lending institution with regard to the proportion in which the loss is to be bonne. I wonder if my right hon. friend who is piloting this bill through the house has had from any of these financial institutions any indication of the proportion of the loss they are willing to bear. If he has had any such intimation, it should be in this bill. If they are willing to set the figure at twenty per cent of the loss- and I think that is a fair proportion-it should be in the bill. If they would be satisfied with thirty-three and a third per cent, then the bill should say that the loss borne by the government shall in no case be more than thirty-three and a third per cent. The minister owes it to this house before we give him and the government carte blanche to enter into agreements-if any are made in pursuance of this bill-by which the dominion treasury .may be called upon to bear a much greater proportion of the loss than its proportion of the advance, to see that these clauses are so amended as to make that clear. I do not really insist on limiting it to twenty per cent, but I say it is not fair to the people whom the members of this house represent that we should give authority to a minister 92582-2511
Housing Act
to render the taxpayers of this country liable for that great proportion. There should be some limit fixed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Advances.
Mr. MacNIOOL:: I should like to make
a few observations in connection with this section, which sets out the conditions under which an adlvanoe shall be made by the government to start email house construction. After reading over these conditions I do not see anything provided to safeguard the wages to be paid the workers engaged in the construction of houses that may be built as a result of this bill, unless that safeguard is contained in the wordls "sound standards" in subsection (a). I believe if thalt phrase does not deal with the situation another clause should be added that will protect the wages to be paid those engaged in all the trades concerned with these works. I had occasion this morning to discuss with a delegation here from Toronto a matter in connection with bill 86. I will not refer to bill 86 now, but in the discussion it came out that in connection with a good many houses being erected in Toronto to-day-and I presume in other cities throughout Canada-contractors and builders are taking advantage of the fact that many of their workmen are on relief. One member of the delegation stated that in connection with a building on which I understood he was doing some work in order to obtain a job a mechanic first had to present his relief card. I am not associated with building, so I do not know whether or not that is so and I am only repeating what was told me. That gentleman said further that in applying for a position a workman would stipulate that he would take less than $12 a week for what work he was to do on the building, and that as long .as he received less than $12 a week he would at the same time receive the ordinary relief in his community.
If that is the situation I think some steps ought to be taken to see t-o it that the plumbers, steamfitters, carpenters, bricklayers, masons, painters, tinsmiths and all the others engaged in the work covered by this bill, work that will be started through the fact that the government proposes generously to assist in the construction of houses, should receive fair wages.
I am in hearty accord with the bill and I want to compliment the government as strongly as I can on introducing it because it my opinion it will provide an immense amount of work throughout Canada. But I
Housing Act


George Halsey Perley: I just want to say a word in reply to my hon. friend. Paragraph (b) of subsection 2 provides that the land is included in the cost. As far as investigation by the economic council is concerned regarding slum areas and the construction of houses for low wage earners, my hon. friend may be very certain that the economic council will give all these questions very careful consideration.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my right hon. friend give a statement as to the proportions that are likely to be agreed upon?


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry that that question has not been settled at all. That is a question that comes under the Minister of Finance, and I am sure that my hon. friend will be willing to trust him to make these agreements as carefully as it is possible for anybody to do. I have not been present at all the discussions regarding these various matters and am not as conversant with them as I might be, but the hon. member must know very well that the Minister of Finance will take every precaution to guard the treasury and to make agreements as reasonable as possible in connection with the building of these houses.


John Campbell Elliott: The members of parliament should take the precaution.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am glad one hon. member
has had the courage to get up and congratulate the government on this bill. It would seem that he thought the bill was all right-that is, if we do not consider the fact that he wanted provision for low interest rates, rehabilitation and repairs. But if the hon. member can find anything in this bill which will give the rural sections what he wants them to have and provides rehabilitation for houses in the cities he certainly finds something in it which no other hon. member up to this time has been able to find.
The right hon. gentleman who sponsors the bill has stated that it provides for action which has not been taken previously by parliament, and that is makes provision for recognition of the right of parliament to do something in connection with housing. I do not believe the right hon. gentleman is quite correct in his statement because in 1919 an act was passed as a result of which $23,000,000 was appropriated by the federal government for loans to the provinces to built houses. I would a thousand times rather have an act similar to that of 1919 than the one now before us. The 1919 legislation provided for control and supervision, a point to which I attach a great deal of importance. I believe that procedure would be preferable and that we would make more headway under a comprehensive federal housing scheme than we wall make under the measure before us.
Within the last few minutes I have been reading some of the statements made upon the introduction of the bill by the right hon. gentleman, and I should like to quote one or two of them. At page 3776 of Hansard the right hon. gentleman is reported as follows:
The object of this bill is to formulate a plan to assist in providing houses suitable particularly for the low wage earner and to keep down the cost and interest charges within his ability to pay; it is also to provide work for the unemployed. It is evident that construction of this kind' would stimulate business and hasten recovery by providing employment for those trades and industries in which unemployment is most acute.
It might provide employment for a few thousand people who would benefit. Later on the right hon. member states:
The other point which I wish to stress is the obvious desirability of taking certain immediate steps of a practical nature designed to assist in solving the existing problem of unemployment.
Forsooth, this bill is one of the measures which the government is bringing before parliament to solve the problem of unemployment. When I listened to the observations made a week ago by the right hon. gentleman I was under the impression that a worth while bill would be introduced. I certainly did not expect to see one such as that we now have before us, one which hon. members from all parts of the house have criticized. In my experience as an hon. member I have never known as cool a reception of a government bill as that given to the one now under consideration.
The importance of interest rates in the matter of home construction is evidenced by observations made in the report of the housing committee. I do not believe the committee can attach too much importance to the rate of interest, because unless we have a low rate of interest I say no successful housing scheme can be inaugurated in Canada. At page 20 of the report of the housing committee I find this:
The British MacMillan report claims that in reference to British conditions "a fall from six
Housing Act

per cent to four and a half per cent in the rate of interest on loans against houses is nearly as good as a fall of twenty-five per cent in the cost of production."
It is for reasons such as these that I attach so much importance to the question of cheap money for the construction of homes, a provision which does not appear in the measure before us.
I suggest that before section 4 is passed the minister ought to state specifically and without qualification the position of government security as compared with that of private lending corporations. We do not know. He states only this, that at some time in the future by an agreement with the loan companies the Minister of Finance will safeguard the interests of the federal treasury. I say there is only one way the government can safeguard the interests of the treasury, namely, by putting the 20 per cent provided by the government at a much lower rate of interest than that received by the private corporations on a basis at least equal to that of the advance by private corporations. Will the minister tell the committee whether the 20 per cent advanced by the government at a rate of three and a half per cent, as he has indicated, will have the same standing, so far as security is concerned, as the money to be provided by private corporations?


George Halsey Perley: I have already
pointed out that as I understand it, that is to be the arrangement. The agreements made by the Minister of Finance will give every care and consideration to this point. The hon. member for West Middlesex asked a question about terms which at the present time I am unable to answer. I assure him however that the Minister of Finance will take every care to see that agreements are made in proper form.
Last night the hon. member for North Winnipeg ond other hon. members suggested that the words "or local authority" as defined in paragraph (f) of section 2 should be inserted in section 4 at various points, so that the minister would be in a position to make arrangements with them as well as with lending institutions. After giving the matter careful consideration I see no reason why we should not accept the suggestion. By accepting it we find that the words "or local authority" should be inserted after the word "institution" in the third line of subsection (1) and again after the word "institution" in the same line. Then, the same words should be added after the word "institution" in the

fourth line of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) and after the words "lending institution" in paragraph (c). Then, the words "or local authority" would be added before the word "jointly" in paragraph (e), and the same words would be added after the word "institution" in the second line of paragraph (f). They would be added again in paragraph (g) at the end of the second line. In this way we would bring the clause into line with the suggestions made. The Solicitor General will move these amendments.


Mr. DUPRE:: I so move.


John Campbell Elliott: As I read the bill no individual may loan money under it, no matter how much money he may have or the terms upon which he may be willing to make advances. If an individual is willing to lend money on terms as favourable as those offered by lending institutions why should he not be allowed to do so, when it is being extended to local authorities?


George Halsey Perley: Theoretically
there is no reason why that should not be done, but as a matter of fact it would involve arrangements being made 'throughout the country. After all, my experience has been that there are very few individuals who care to loan money on that basis.


John Campbell Elliott: I submit they should
have an opportunity.


George Halsey Perley: Theoretically I
could see no objection to it.


Ross Wilfred Gray: In view of the fact that the
lending company and1 His Majesty will be joint mortgagees on all these loans, will the minister tell us whether or not the provincial moratorium and the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act will apply to the loans when made?


George Halsey Perley: I understand
that the provincial moratorium would not affect mortgages taken in that way.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The provincial moratorium
will not apply to these mortgages simply because His Majesty has a portion of the loan; is that the argument? Or will it apply to sixty per cent of the loan and not to the twenty per cent which His Majesty loans? In what proportion will it apply? This house has passed what is known as the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, for which the government takes a lot of credit, and I think we should know whether it is to apply, or

Housing Act
whether it will apply in certain provinces only, or just where we stand when the loans are made. It is important that the committee should know what position the lending companies and His Majesty as joint mortgagee will be in respectively, because I cannot see how in law you can separate the one from the other once you sign the mortgage. I should like the minister to explain fully.


George Halsey Perley: I understand
that the provincial moratorium would not apply.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Would the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?


George Halsey Perley: That act is for
farmers.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Well, often houses are built on farms, and I am not being facetious when I say that. I presume that if this act applies in the way the minister hopes it will be applied there will be rural as well as urban houses. It is intended to include all, and I should like to know whether the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act will apply to these loans.


George Halsey Perley: I am very sorry but I have never considered that question.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The Solicitor General is here and he might assist in the legal phases of the bill.


Maurice Dupré: I could not answer offhand any more than the right hon. gentleman can.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Will the minister let the section stand until we get an opinion from the law officers of the crown?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I welcome the amendment which the right hon. gentleman has made to section 4, but before that section is finally carried-


George Halsey Perley: Is the amendment carried?


The CHAIRMAN:: The amendment is not carried yet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before the amendment passes I might direct attention to one other point already referred to, and that is subsection (f) of section 4. It is the question raised by my hon. friend from West Middlesex. It provides that any loss sustained in respect of any loan shall be borne by His Majesty and the lending institution, or local institution, as amended, in such proportions as are fixed by the terms of the contract. It
will be noted that section 5 authorizes the lending institutions to disregard the limitations of their charter. For instance, a mortgage company may be limited by statute or by its charter to, say, forty per cent. Some of them do in practice refuse to go beyond forty per cent, but as a matter of fact they may be limited by their charter to that percentage, let us say by way of illustration. This section waives that limitation, and the lending company will therefore be permitted to loan up to sixty per cent. The question I want to submit is this. Will not the government, when they come to make the contract with the lending institution, be faced with this argument, that inasmuch as their charter limits them to forty per cent, and this bill authorizes the waiving of that limitation, they can claim that the government in its contract with them should agree to bear a larger proportion of the loss than is represented by sixty to forty? That is a very real and practical problem that will probably arise, and it strikes me that in passing this bill, which is really more or less an enabling bill for lending institutions, we should definitely limit or delimit or define the loss of the parties respectively. That could easily be done by amending the bill to this effect, that any loss sustained shall be borne by His Majesty and the lending institution, or the local institution. in the proportions that they have advanced-or words to that effect. I submit to the right hon. gentleman that such an amendment would greatly improve the bill.
Amendment (Mr. Dupre) agreed to on division.


Alan Webster Neill: Seeing that the minister has adopted that amendment suggested by myself some two hours ago, perhaps he will be equally complaisant with one I am now about to propose. I move to amend subsection 2 (a) of section 4. line 32, by inserting after the word "construction" the words "or repairs to." It includes the principle of repairs.


George Halsey Perley: The question of repairs has been raised by several members and it is one which requires the most careful consideration. The administration of such an amendment as my hon. friend suggests would present a problem of great magnitude. How, for instance, should we arrange for repairs to my hon. friend's house in Alberni, to a house in the back end of Argenteuil, to a house in Nova Scotia, and so on. These are all small amounts and the question has to be carefully considered by itself. It is an important matter that ought to be gone into
Housing Act

and I hope that the economic council will consider it and make some suggestion. The administration of such a provision would be very difficult indeed and we are not prepared at the present time to insert it in this bill.


Alan Webster Neill: That is what the committee recommended.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the right hon. gentleman mind giving consideration to the suggestion I made?


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry,
but I hope the hon member will not press an amendment of that kind. As I understand the matter, arrangements in regard to the division of any losses will have to be made by the Minister of Finance who will have the administration of this legislation, and the proportion will of course depend somewhat upon the circumstances. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the property is worth only seventy per cent when eighty per cent has been loaned. According to my hon. friend's suggestion, as I understand it, the government would bear one-quarter of the loss. I am not at all sure that any fixed proportion ought to be mentioned in this bill because I think the proportions that the government and the company ought to bear will depend a good deal on how big the loss is; in other words, all that has to be taken into consideration in making the agreement. The hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) and the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) tell us that we cannot get any money at all under this bill; that no loans will be made. What we are anxious to do is to show that they are mistaken; that we shall be able to get some.


William Daum Euler: I wish the government luck.


George Halsey Perley: The suggestion
of the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens) would tie the matter up in such a way as to make it more difficult for the Minister of Finance to make arrangements with the insurance and loan companies. I sdbmit for his consideration that it would be better to leave this in the hands of the Minister of Finance as provided for in the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to say just
this. According to my interpretation of the bill, it is quite possible that the government will be called upon to bear all the loss. I am simply registering a protest against the indefiniteness of the allocation of loss, which I think is a grave mistake, and inasmuch as

it is a joint arrangement between the government and the loaning company, the loss should be defined whatever the definition of loss is.


William Daum Euler: I entirely agree with that.
My criticism that no money would be lent by the loaning companies was on the assumption that if there were any loss, that loss would be proportionate to the amounts lent by the government and by the companies. If this clause gives to the government the right to assume the entire loss and to relieve the lending company of any loss that might occur, I have no doubt loans will be forthcoming, but nobody in his right mind would assume that the government is going to lend twenty per cent, share in a first mortgage and then assume the whole loss.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It amounts to a guarantee
of the whole thing.


William Daum Euler: Of course if the government
is willing to do that sort of thing some loans might be available, but it never occurred to me that the government would consider the idea of insuring the loaning company against loss.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The government can do
that under this bill.


George Halsey Perley: That is rather
an extreme view.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister can clear up the whole matter if he will state whether the government is taking a first mortgage or second mortgage security or whether it is a joint arrangement by both in the first mortgage.


George Halsey Perley: I have already
explained that it is a joint mortgage covering the two items.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The question is on the
amendment, of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill).


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry, but
as I have explained to the committee I do not think this is a feasible amendment so far as this bill is concerned and I find myself unable to accept it.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 15; nays, 23.


Edward Joseph Garland: Now that this bill is definitely not one for the low wage earner, might I be permitted to suggest to the minister another amendment to paragraph (d) of subsection 2 of section 4? It reads:
The rate of interest to be charged the borrower in respect of any loan shall be subject to approval by the minister.

Housing Act
That is all to the good, but I also think in keeping with the speeches made by hon. members here to-day, there should be inserted after the word "interest" the words "and other charges." The hon. member for East Kootenay and the hon. member for Macleod pointed out what I know to be a fact-


George Halsey Perley: If the hon. member will permit me, I think that is covered in paragraph (g).


Edward Joseph Garland: No, it is not.
Paragraph (g) reads:
Such other conditions as are stipulated in the contract between the minister and the lending institution.
I am quite sure that a moment's consideration by the minister will convince him that this in no way is included in the bill.


George Halsey Perley: I have no objection to that insertion. I consider it is covered by paragraph (g), but if it is going to make the matter any plainer by stating:
The rate of interest and other charges to be charged the borrower-
I have no objection to that.
Amendment (Mr. Garland, Bow River) agreed to.


George Halsey Perley: There is another amendment I have at the end of paragraph Oc) where it is suggested that these words be added:
Provided that the governor in council may in any class of cases fix the percentage at less than the sixty per cent aforesaid.
That is to say, we feel there may be some cases in which it may not be necessary to get the sixty per cent and the government should have the power to take a less amount in certain cases.


Maurice Dupré: I move accordingly. Amendment agreed to.


George Halsey Perley: My attention has been called to the fact that the word "mortgage" hardly covers the legal situation in Quebec, and that therefore paragraph (e) of subsection 2 of section 4 should be amended by inserting after the word "mortgage" in the fourth line the words "or hypothec."


Maurice Dupré: I move accordingly. Amendment agreed to.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the
minister prepared to state to the members of Ithe committee the names of the lending institutions that have been approved?


George Halsey Perley: No lending institutions have yet been approved. No action has been taken under this bill. It would hardly be fair to parliament to set to work to approve of lending institutions before the bill passed. That has not been done.


Edward Joseph Garland: Have any of the lending institutions that might be approved subsequently been consulted; if so what are their names?


George Halsey Perley: Several of these gentlemen appeared before the committee and gave their opinions very fully, as set forth in the report. I explained that there have been some private conversations between some representatives of the companies and officials of the department in regard to this bill since it has been brought in to the house.
I read telegrams from two of them this afternoon, which the hon. gentleman will find in Hansard, also an extract from a memorandum given by Mr. T. D'Arcy Leonard, solicitor for the Dominion Mortgage and Investment Association.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Loans by lending institutions.


William Daum Euler: This section carries what seems to me a rather peculiar provision, I would like to ask the minister whether I clearly understand it. It says:
5. Notwithstanding any restriction on its power to lend money, contained^ in any other statute or law, any lending institution subject to the jurisdiction of parliament, may lend on the security of a first mortgage given in favour of the minister and the lending institution jointly pursuant to the provisions of this act, an amount equal to eighty per cent of the cost of construction ...
But also in the same, clause it says it may lend jointly with the government, I presume eighty per cent. Does that mean that- the lending institution may lend eighty per cent, and is it then the presumption that the government lends the other twenty per cent?


George Halsey Perley: No. I have an amendment here, changing the words "equal to" to "up to." I think that makes it plainer. The idea is that as the company holds a share of the first mortgage up to eighty per cent, as far as corporations subject to tihe jurisdiction of parliament are concerned we are giving them authority to do that although their charter may limit them to sixty per cent.

Mortgage Credits for Fishermen


William Daum Euler: I am afraid1 I have not
made myself clear. Can the lending company lend the eighty per cent and the government the other twenty per cent, is that the intention?


George Halsey Perley: Not at all.


William Daum Euler: Or is the eighty per cent
intended to be sixty per cent by the lending institution and twenty per cent by the government?


George Halsey Perley: Certainly, sixty
per cent by the lending institution and1 twenty per cent by the government.


William Daum Euler: The clause distinctly states that the lending institution may lend up to eighty per cent. If it does, then the government must lend the other twenty per cent, because they are joined in the mortgage.


George Halsey Perley: If the hon.
gentleman can suggest any better wording I am prepared to consider it, but the fact is that if the company takes a part of an eighty per cent mortgage they have got to be given authority to lend up to eighty per cent, or else they cannot join in at all, because they only get a share of an eighty per cent mortgage.


William Daum Euler: Then, it does as a matter
of fact empower the company to lend up to eighty per cent if it is foolish enough or desires to do so.


George Halsey Perley: Legally I suppose that is correct.


William Daum Euler: The intention is not that
they shall lend eighty per cent and the government twenty per cent?


George Halsey Perley: The intention is to regularize this provision, that they lend sixty per cent and the government twenty per cent.
In this clause also, after the word "mortgage" in the fourth line should be inserted the words "or hypothec" the same as in the other.


Maurice Dupré: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: I also move:
That section 5 be amended by striking out the words "equal to" in the sixth line and substituting the words "up to."
Amendment agreed1 to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8 inclusive agreed1 to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SECOND NARROWS BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. SIR GEORGE PERLEY (for the Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 118, respecting the bridge across the Second Narrows of Burrard inlet in the province of British Columbia.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Bridge declared to be a lawful work not interfering with navigation.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
ask the right hon. gentleman if the substance of this bill has been communicated to the parties interested in North Vancouver and Vancouver city?


George Halsey Perley: As I understand it this bill has been brought in at the suggestion and request of the people out there who are interested, but if my hon. friend has any doubt about it I will let it stand. I am sorry I am unable to answer the question definitely, but from the discussion yesterday I understood that this bill was suggested or asked for by the people interested.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
.MORTGAGE CREDITS' FOR FISHERMEN
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved1 that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure for the purpose of establishing a system of long term mortgage credit for fishermen, under the administration of the Canadian Farm Loan Board, and to authorize the government of Canada to provide initial capital in an amount not exceeding three hundred thousand dollars, and to subscribe an amount of five per cent of the capital stock as loans are made; to purchase fishermen's long term loan bonds in an amount not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars; and to guarantee the principal and interest of such bonds to an amount not exceeding one million dollars.
Mr. DUFF:: Explain.


Mr. STIRLING:: Mr. Speaker, the question of providing facilities for granting loans

Weights and Measures Act
to fishermen is one which has given the government a considerable amount of concern for some time, not only because of the representations which have been made to it by fishermen's associations, by members of this house and1 by the public which is interested, but also because the majority report of the royal commission on price spreads draws it to the attention of the government and asks that it should receive early and favourable consideration.
At this stage I suggest that we consider the purpose of the resolution; the details as to how the loans are to be granted may be dealt with when we have the bill before us. The resolution suggests that it is expedient to bring in .a measure for the purpose of establishing a system of long term mortgage credits for fishermen, and1 the government considers that the best way to administer this measure is that it be put into the hands of the Canadian Farm Loan Board for that purpose. At one time it was thought that it might- be well merely to pass an amende ment to the Canadian Farm Loan Act, but on consideration it was found that the wording of the clauses so frequently tied' that measure up entirely to farmers and agricultural land that it was decided to introduce a separate bill and in that bill to provide that these mortgage credits should be placed under the administration of the Canadian Farm Loan Board.
Financial provision would necessarily have to be made for the funds from which the loans could1 be made, and the government suggests starting that fund by a contribution of $300,000 in very much the same way that the Canadian Farm Loan Board was started. Further it undertakes to subscribe to the long term bonds which will be issued to an amount not exceeding $500,000 and to accept contingent liability besides that in the form of a guarantee for $1,000,000 of bonds.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we can proceed to the committee stage it will be easier for hon. members to follow the terms of the bill when we have it before us.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Moran,d in the chair.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the rates and other conditions as to the term of the loan and so on be practically the same as under the Canadian Farm Loan Board1 Act?


Grote Stirling: Yes, it is along the line
of the Canadian Farm Loan Board Act. When we have the bill before us I think the hon. member will see that it is similar in its terms.


William Duff: May I ask if the bill is to
be introduced this evening?


Grote Stirling: That is the intention.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stirling thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 120, for the purpose of establishing in Canada a system of long term mortgage credits for fishermen.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil) moved the seoond reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 70, to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, subclause 5 of the Senate amendment was sent back to the Senate. The Senate had proposed an amendment to subolause 5 in which this house did not concur and the Senate was so notified. Now they have suggested- a substitute amendment which is really a compromise and will be satisfactory to the officials of the department. It will be found on page 608 of the votes and proceedings of Friday last.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read
the amendment, please.


George Halsey Perley: all prepackaged articles of the same kind as that sold or delivered which are found in the possession of the defendant within forty-eight hours after the sale_ or delivery shall be deemed to have been in the possession of the defendant on the same occasion as that of the sale or delivery, and to have been then and so in his possession for the purpose of sale or delivery, unless he proves the contrary to the satisfaction of the court.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 117, to amend the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the first amendment is for the purpose of extending the scope of the definition "natural product" to include such articles as are wholly or partly manufactured or derived from a product of the forest. The second amendment is to make provision for the dominion marketing board to lend money to organizations after they have been set up to finance them until the means to raise funds provided in their scheme has become effective.
Mr. YOUNG:: Does that mean financing for the purpose of paying for the commodity?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: No. The next section of the bill, section 4, is new. It provides: (9) Notwithstanding any provision of this act, any scheme of regulation may provide solely for equalization to any extent, as between the producers, of the returns received from the sale of the regulated product.


Edward James Young: Does that refer to pooling?


Robert Weir: No. It has reference to a scheme upon which a good deal of work has been done. I have the dairy industry in mind. To a certain extent it could refer to pooling, but that is taken care of in another way. If for any cause one product of the dairy industry-for instance, butter, whole milk, evaporated products, or cheese- got out of line with the world market price and the producers in another branch of the industry switched their product to the branch receiving the higher market price, the result would be that the quantities would be so increased that the price would be reduced to the world market basis. Under such circumstances the fund set up for these purposes would be used to equalize the price on the product of the other branch of the industry to prevent such development.
[Sir George Perley.l
The last amendment states that:
(1) Every person who fails to comply with any order or determination of the board or of a local board or any regulation of the governor in council shall be guilty of an offence and punishable on summary conviction-
And so on. The amendment puts the onus on the person who has the product for sale or is disposing of such product within the regulated area. The responsibility is placed upon him to show proof as to whether or not the product originated in or outside of the regulated area.


Alan Webster Neill: Could the minister explain the term "determination"?


Ernest Lapointe: Possibly it would be better to do so in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Payments authorized.
Edward James Young: I should like an explanation
of this section.


Robert Weir: In connection with a scheme placed before the dominion marketing board and passed by the governor in council one of the features would be a small levy charged for operating expenses of the board. However until the scheme had been in operation for some time no such fund would be set up, so this is to provide money to finance the board's expenses.


Edward James Young: The local board?


Robert Weir: Yes, operation of
local boards. This section has been put in .to eliminate any doubt which may have existed in the act. It is not a fund established for purchasing or selling any product.


Edward James Young: What expenses are local
boards likely to incur?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Will these loans be returned?


Robert Weir: It is the intention
that the loans shall be returned. In an initial operation it may be that there would be office and travelling expenses.


Edward James Young: Organization expenses?


Robert Weir: No.


Edward James Young: Propaganda?


Robert Weir: No.

Marketing Act Amendment


William Richard Motherwell: Just setting up
shop, as it were.


Robert Weir: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Equalization of returns.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is meant by the expression "equalization to any extent as between the producers"?


Robert Weir: I believe the explanation I gave before covered the point. I discussed a possible condition in the dairy industry. If the price of a dairy product, due to any cause, became out of line with the world market price and the producers in another branch of dairying transferred their product to that part receiving the greater price, the quantities would be increased and the world market price would be reduced. The fund set up would equalize returns for the product going into the other branch of the industry.


Edward James Young: In the event of the price of butter declining does the minister contemplate the board having power to order certain farmers to stop making butter and to turn their milk into cheese?


Robert Weir: No; it does not mean that at all. If the dairy industry decided that it was in their interests as a whole, a fund could be set up through a levy on the producers themselves to be used to assist the whole milk producers, if that product were lower in price than other commodities in the industry, so that it would be to their advantage to continue producing the product rather than switching to the manufacture of another article which would force it on the world market and lower the price. A great deal of work has been done in this connection and agreement reached so far as the dairy industry is concerned, but there is still considerable work to be done.


Edward James Young: That would mean the regulation of production.


Robert Weir: No; it has nothing to do with the regulation or restriction of production.


Edward James Young: If the farmers producing butter found that the price was not satisfactory and determined of their own volition to turn their milk into cheese, this provides that they shall be bonused not to do so.


Robert Weir: Yes, but they are not interfered with. They could go ahead and send their product to be manufactured into cheese.


Edward James Young: But this contemplates putting a levy on all dairy farmers-


Robert Weir: Equalizing.


Edward James Young: -and using the money to bonus one class of dairy farmers to turn their milk into a certain product.


Robert Weir: If they themselves so desire.


Alan Webster Neill: This is somewhat after the Patterson scheme in Australia.


Robert Weir: Somewhat.


Edward James Young: They can put their milk into that product or not., as they choose, but they have no choice in regard to paying the levy.


Robert Weir: Not if they agree that it is to their advantage.


Edward James Young: Will no one have to pay if he decides not to?
Mr. WEIR (Melfort)': They will, if the majority decide that it is to their advantage.


Mr. BERTRAND:: This would mean that a certain levy would be made on milk producers and this levy would be set aside as a fund to be returned to the producers of cheese, supposing that to be the product affected. The minister says that this will be done provided the producers ask for it. This levy will be made and will be returned in some way to the producers of cheese or butter-let us say cheese for the moment. Take a certain district where a number of producers are in favour of such a scheme, others	being opposed	to	it.	Suppose the
farmers were shipping milk to the dairies in the cities; would they be compelled to pay the levy, and how would they be made to do so? Would the levy ibe paid through the dairies, who would reduce their rates to the farmers, or would the dairies pay the money into the fund, or how would it be managed?


Robert Weir: That would depend entirely on the provision of the scheme.
Mr.	BERTRAND:	Is	any	such	scheme
under way?
Mr.	WEIR (Melfort):	No	such	schemehas been approved,	but	a good	deal of
work has been done by the milk federation organization and also by the national dairy council. This scheme was also put before the dairy industry in Ontario, and during the past few months they have been bringing it before their cheese patrons, with the assistance of the provincial government.
Marketing Act Amendment


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Would the stabilization fund be returned to all producers of a certain commodity, or would it aiptply only to exports of that commodity?


Robert Weir: That would depend entirely on the scheme, whether it was decided to assist all producers or only the product- for export. If it were decided to take the product off the market, all producers would benefit equally, just as if they were paid individually.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I have asked these questions for this reason. Certain propaganda is going around in our district at the present time-I refer to the Ottawa valley. The farmers are saying that they are going to be bonused so much through a levy that will be made on their products and so much on the cheese they will exipont, and I am at a loss to know how it will be controlled. How will it be known that a certain quantity coming from a particular district is for export or local consumption?


Robert Weir: The export shipments would determine that, but I do not get the point of the question. Before any such scheme would be considered by the marketing board its purpose would have to be set out very definitely, and every opportunity would have to be given the producers themselves to declare on it. Moreover, the details would have to be made clear. I am not in a position, however, to say what will be done until a specific scheme is put before the board or myself.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Suppose this scheme were put into force, would it affect all the producers of cheese, for example, and all producers in one province?


Robert Weir: It would depend entirely on the scheme.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: That is not quite satisfactory. The producers of cheese practically all operate under the same conditions. Take the manufacture of cheddar cheese, for instance; the producers practically all have the same conditions to contend with in any one province. Would the scheme affect the whole of one province or only a certain area? If the scheme is to apply only to a certain area we can readily see how the others will be affected.


Robert Weir: I can only say that until the scheme is submitted no definite information can be given. There might be a

dozen different schemes which hon. gentlemen *here might have in mind, and until a specific scheme is submitted I do not see how I can give any further answer. I regret that I cannot.


Edward James Young: Perhaps we can understand this better by taking a concrete case. Suppose the farmers supplying fluid milk to Ottawa are not satisfied with the returns; then, if I understand this scheme, they can come together and agree that if ten per cent of their number cease shipping fluid milk into Ottawa and turn their milk into cheese they can get that scheme approved and make a levy on all the farmers supplying fluid milk to Ottawa, on all those making butter and cheese, in order to bonus that ten per cent to make cheese instead of selling milk in fluid form.


Robert Weir: That would be a very limited application of the scheme. Personally, I do not see how a scheme of that kind would ever be submitted, because it would have a tendency to increase the number of farmers who would be shipping whole milk to Ottawa, so that they would affect the market in the hope that they likewise would be subsidized if they went into cheese. My own impression is that such a scheme could not be carried out unless it took in the whole of the dominion. The basis of the scheme is that the whole dairy industry in Canada outside the local farmers themselves would have to be taken into this before it could be made effective.


Edward James Young: Let us carry the case one step further and say that all the farmers in Canada who are selling fluid milk in the cities are not satisfied with the price they are getting; then they shall be permitted to levy a tax on all the dairy farmers, those who sell fluid milk, those who make butter and those who make cheese, in order to bonus a portion of those who now sell fluid milk so that they will make cheese instead.


Robert Weir: The whole milk producers themselves would not submit such a scheme because they would have no authority -that is the basis of the marketing act-to make a. levy on any person outside themselves.


Edward James Young: If the scheme is approved, they can.


Robert Weir: The scheme could not be approved because they could make a levy only on those agreeing to it or those that are taken into the scheme a majority of whom vote for it.

Marketing Act Amendment


Edward James Young: Will the minister take a concrete case and show what would happen and how they would bring it about?


Robert Weir: The hon. member for Weyburn is asking a very far-reaching question.


Edward James Young: It is a far-reaching bill.


Robert Weir: Yes, it is far-reaching, but the hon. member will be fair enough to admit that I could not be expected here to outline in detail a scheme for the whole dairy industry of the dominion. That would be done by the producers themselves, and in fact they are working on it through their organizations. But what I endeavoured to tell the hon. gentleman was this, that if all those engaged in the distribution and sale of fluid milk to the cities throughout the whole dominion agreed amongst themselves that, because they were not getting a sufficient price for their milk, they would make a levy on all those sending it to the cities and would use that fund to subsidize a certain number of those supplying whole milk to the cities to go into the manufacture of cheese or butter, that would induce others to send whole milk to the cities as well, and any such scheme to be effective should have the support of practically the whole dairy industry of Canada.


Mr. BROWN:: Does the minister not think it would be time enough to introduce a bill of this kind when he can give us some definite scheme showing how this would be brought about?


Robert Weir: The scheme that is being considered at the present time- and perhaps that is what the hon. member has in mind-is of this nature: the fact that the creameries or those who are engaged in the production of butter get a price for their product that is above the world price and very considerably above it throughout the year because we are on an export basis for only a short period, has the effect that those farmers who have been sending their milk to the cheese factories have had a tendency to turn from sending their milk there to sending it to the creameries. Coincident with that the whole milk farmers who send their whole or fluid milk to the cities have also been getting a price out of line with that which the farmers get who send their milk to the cheese factories. The result was that many farmers who had not before considered sending their milk to the cities commenced doing so, the effect being
that the price of the whole milk going into the cities was very much broken. The government of Ontario found it necessary to set up a milk board to see if in some way they could not regulate the fluid milk that was going into the city markets, and similarly the government of Quebec carried on a very extensive investigation into the sale of fluid milk in the large cities of that province because many more people were wanting to avail themselves of that market owing to the comparatively low price of cheese in comparison with that of fluid milk. Those engaged in the dairy industry realized that if that condition of affairs were to continue, it would be impossible for any provincial board to enforce legislation that would prevent a. farmer across the line fence from taking advantage of the same market that his neighbour was taking advantage of.
Similarly, in connection with butter, if great numbers of farmers were to send large quantities of whole milk to the creameries instead of to the cheese factories, the result would be that the increase in the production of butter would be such that we would be on the export market for 'butter. The effect would be, that the price of butter would come to the world level. Cheese would then have a premium over butter, and the result would be that the farmers would switch back to sending their milk to the cheese factories. The export of cheese would again commence with this obstacle facing it, however, that the market which they had established and enjoyed had been lost and perhaps their facilities disappeared because of what had been done. This is the problem which the whole dairy industry throughout the dominion has been grappling with for the past number of years. At one time, I think it was some three years ago, if we take the creamery industry alone, all but two of the large creameries agreed that they would make a. levy among themselves to take care of the surplus because it was a very small one.
The reason this bill is before us now and not waiting until a scheme has been submitted to the board or until it is felt a scheme should go into effect is, that the farmers themselves, those who send their milk to the creameries and those who sell their whole milk to the cities, have got together and have held a large number of meetings throughout the country. But the difficulty is this, not to regulate the market as to cheese, but to equalize the whole dairy industry. That is why this amendment is being introduced; it is to deal with such a scheme as that, and I am taking the dairy industry as an illustration.
Marketing Act Amendment


William Duff: Haw does it affect the consumer?


William Richard Motherwell: The minister has used dairying as an illustration. I would infer from that that any commodity, most of which is consumed in the domestic market and a very small part of which goes into export, could be brought under this legislation. I wonder whether the Justice department has had anything to do with the drafting of this bill, because for the life of .me I could not make anything out of it; and after hearing the minister's explanation I am not sure that I know very much more. The way this bill is drafted, it seems to be a fearful tangle. It may apply to many commodities but none are mentioned in this bill. From the reply which the minister gave to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), it appeal's to be equivalent to what was and I believe is still called the Patterson plan in Australia; that is a levy was put on all the butter made in that country for the .purpose of taking care of the loss on the export. They applied that to Canada and Canada did not like it, with the result that we imposed a dumping duty and kept Australian butter out of this country. Is my hon. friend not afraid that if he starts any monkeying like this with any other countries importing butter, they will object just as we did and put a dumping duty against ours? I do not believe the minister is satisfied with the way in which he is launching out on this new venture for Canada. It is a mighty uncertain sea that he is launching on; I do not see where he is going to land and I do not think he does himself. Surely further words can be used that will better express what he has in mind so that others besides himself and his staff will understand. For my part I did not and do not know yet as this section is drafted, what it means. If the Justice department understands what it means, if it is working out a Patterson plan to apply to anything of which we only have a small export surplus, it should say so rather than leave us to guess what it is to apply to. Could it be made a little plainer?


Robert Weir: This was drafted
by the Justice department. It was felt that any person could understand it. I do not see how we could make it any simpler.


William Richard Motherwell: It is too simple for me.


Robert Weir: One point the hon. member has made is that one of the conditions would be to remove something from the domestic market and thus get into difficulties
[Mr. R. Weir.)
in the export market. It might be that there would be no export, that it would be simply to encourage in the domestic market one of the allied products that could be consumed locally.


William Richard Motherwell: Is there any relation between this and the million dollar stabilization fund provided in the supplementary estimates for cheese, I think it is?


Robert Weir: A scheme could be brought in under that, but I think the hon. member will agree that it will be more satisfactory to leave the item in the estimates.


William Richard Motherwell: But is there any
relation between the two?


Robert Weir: There might be.
For example while a scheme was being contemplated the fund in the supplementary estimates could be used, not by the board, but to equalize the market while that was being done. No one realizes better than the hon. member what a large undertaking it is, but those engaged in it are hopeful of success and have met with very fine support from one end of the country to the other. They have been working on it for months.


William Richard Motherwell: Is this from Mr. Fraser of the national dairy council?


Robert Weir: No, the Justice
department and our own officials.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I am not a farmer but
perhaps I might clarify the situation. Was this principle not in effect in British Columbia for a short time, under the Fraser Valley Products Marketing Act, passed during 1928 or 1927, until it was declared ultra vires?


Robert Weir: They had a pooling plan but not a scheme such as this. As a matter of fact the Fraser Valley is operating under the marketing act at the present time.


Angus MacInnis: Was this principle accepted?


Robert Weir: It was accepted by them.


Angus MacInnis: I think this is what they wanted.


Edward James Young: I have the figures before
me of the prices paid certain farmers in certain districts. Those supplying milk to the city got $1.50 per one hundred pounds, while those who did not send it to the city but to the cheese factory got 61 cents. Will the minister tell us how he is to equalize that under the scheme?

Marketing Act Amendment


Robert Weir: Equalization to
any extent depends on the scheme submitted by the producers themselves. It is the producers who submit the scheme. It will be examined by the dominion marketing board; if they think any changes desirable they will recommend them to the producers for their consideration, and when the scheme meets with the approval of the dominion marketing board and the producers who submit it, it will be placed before all the producers and explained and they will vote on it.


Edward James Young: Is it contemplated that the farmers who sell their milk in fluid form, those who send it to a cheese factory, and those who send it to the creamery or to the drying plant shall be got together from all over the dominion and agree on how the market shall be apportioned between the various groups?


Robert Weir: No, theTe will be
no apportioning of the market. What has been done for the past six or eight months is getting in touch with farmers sending their cream to the creameries or their milk to the cheese factories or the cities, and this is one of the difficulties they have run into. There will be no apportionment so far as the number of farmers who will send their milk or cream to the different outlets is concerned, but they will themselves work out what assistance shall be given to one branch to equalize it with the others so that the market will not be slipping from one to the other and breaking the whole market.


Edward James Young: If it should appear that
farmers sending their milk to the cheese factories are more prosperous than the others, does this scheme contemplate taxing those farmers along with the others in order to induce more farmers to go into that particular branch?


Robert Weir: That would depend on whether or not the farmers who were more prosperous felt that their prosperity would be endangered if some steps were not taken. They themselves would be prepared to take steps to equalize in order to keep further products from coming in and competing with themselves.


Edward James Young: Those in the less profitable branch are going to be taxed to invite other people to come into their business, if I understand this scheme.


Mr. POULIOT:: I suggest to the minister
the initiation of propaganda to prevent any more hard cheese being manufactured-only 92582-252
soft cheese. It would be good for the farmers to cease producing butter if this legislation is passed, and having no butter to butter their bread they should have soft cheese to take its place, if this legislation is as good as the minister says it is. I have been listening to him very carefully since I came in Edbout fifteen minutes ago, and I understood nothing at all of what he said. Moreover the hon. gentleman did not seem to understand himself what he was explaining. What is the use of marketing schemes when there is no sale? The prices of butter and cheese are low because the farmers have no market; everyone knows that. Here we are changing a definition, a definition which is not a definition, because the laws are always well drafted in the Department of Agriculture as in other departments. It is a description; here it is: "Natural product" includes animals, "meats"-well, that is part of an animal-"eggs"-they are the product of an animal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: A bird.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well they are produced
by an animal with two legs, two wings and feathers. Then, "wool"-wool has to be clipped from an animal-"dairy products, grains, seeds, fruit and fruit products." That is not very clear. Wine is a fruit product. Then:
-vegetables and vegetable products, maple products, honey, tobacco, lumber and such other natural products of agriculture and of the forest, sea, lake or river and such article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product, and such article wholly or partly manufactured or derived from a product of the forest as may be designated by the governor in council.
That drafting is absurd. I have often complained about the wrong way legislation is drafted. It includes everything and includes nothing. You find in that the land and the sea, and the sky is the limit. It is a constellation of products. They try to include everything in a few words in order to be able to tell the farmer: We are the saviours of this country. If you are living now you owe it to us. We have control over hens, and their products-I mean eggs-and the sheep and their products-I mean wool-and everything on the land. We have control over all those things through the farm loan board. They loan the money and they have chattel mortgages on everything belonging to the farmers. It is state control of the farm industry by this government in that way; they have destroyed the credit of the farmers and now they have to loan them money.

Marketing Act Amendment

There is something else I want to say about this legislation, which I call cocasse, a word for which there is no English equivalent. How many marketing schemes are there throughout this country in connection with animals? According to what the minister has stated, there are very few if any. In connection with meats I think there is one scheme, no more. If the minister says there are more I will go upstairs and check Hansard of the other day, when he said there were very few schemes. In Ontario we have the tobacco and apple schemes. The minister said the fruit and jam schemes were in force throughout Canada. There must be something else to sustain the hard working consumer of farm products; even an unemployed man cannot exist on jam and fruit only. That is a hard diet. Sometimes it is prescribed by doctors, but that diet does not include the fruits grown in Canada; that diet contains oranges, which are not grown under the supervision of the Minister of Agriculture. Everyone is "jammed" by this legislation. Eggs are still mentioned in this definition, although the minister knows very well that the prairie provinces voted down a scheme in connection with eggs. But this act does not apply to eggs only; hens and roosters come under it as well.
There is no scheme for wool. What about dairy products? The minister is trying to do something to increase the production of cheese, which will have the effect of decreasing the production of butter, so he will go from Scylla to Charybdis. There is more than that, sir. I find it most absurd, and I take the liberty of telling you so. What will be the price of butter if a scheme is put into force in connection with that product? Is the minister able to tell the committee what will be the exact price of butter the day the scheme comes into force and what will be the prices one month and two months later? During the campaign the Prime Minister said, "You will sell your butter for sixty cents a pound as soon as I come into power." Is the minister bold enough to repeat what the Prime Minister said? No, sir; if he does he will be laughed at. This is an awful mess; that is all there is to it.
Now, sir, we come to grain, and I hope I will get some information in this regard. Then there is seed, in connection with which there is no marketing scheme. So far as grain is concerned we have only the mysterious wheat board, but that is entirely different. It is something Special; it is in a class by itself and no one knows much about it. The

minister has said that schemes in connection with fruit and fruit products are in force in all the provinces, and the other day the Minister of Agriculture said that in the good old province of Ontario there was a scheme in force with regard to apples. Then we come to vegetables and vegetable products. There is a scheme in operation in connection with potatoes. That is in eastern Canada; the western provinces do not care for a scheme for marketing potatoes. I wonder if that scheme has been successful in the east up to the present. I know the farmers complained that they were not able to sell their products for a very long time. There is no scheme in force in connection with maple products, or in connection with honey. In Ontario there is a scheme in operation in connection with flue cured tobacco, and here I have something special to say. While the Ottawa agreements were being discussed in this house the Prime Minister said "You must increase your production." One member from Essex county-it was not you, sir, thank God-said that with the Ottawa agrements the farmers would increase their production of tobacco. What happened? The farmers bought large areas of land for the cultivation of tobacco and they sold more tobacco to England. Then the market became jammed; there was enough tobacco in England to supply the demand for many years. That is why prices have fallen. That is why we have seen the advertisements inserted in all the newspapers by the Imperial Tobacco Company recommending a reduction in the tobacco acreage. When the Ottawa agreements were being discussed the password and motto of the government was "increase production." Now if the hon. gentleman is ready to give a subsidy to those who have cheese factories I will not object, because I cannot object to the government giving anything to the farmers who are in distress. If on the other hand he recommends that they increase their production when there is no sale it will be a great mistake on his part. The policy with regard to tobacco, as with regard to other farm and natural products, has been a complete failure.
Now we come to lumber. Everyone knows that after the tariff was increased by this government the United States government imposed a duty of S3 per thousand feet on sawn lumber. That was a measure of retaliation that killed the lumber trade in Canada. Now the government say they will market the lumber. The only way that can be done is by coming to an agreement with the United States in order to have the duty of $3 removed, which will help clear the yards which

Marketing Act Amendment
are still full of sawn lumber which has not been sold to the United States. Then the bill says:
-and such article wholly or partly manufactured or derived from a product of the forest-
Norw we are coming to the pulp industry. The arrangement which was .come to through the intervention of the federal government last winter was a failure. Then we come to the products of the sea. That includes whales and whale hot dogs. I can see the minister in charge of a lunch counter selling whale hot dogs.


Humphrey Mitchell: This bill does not control bologna.
;Mr. POULIOT:	I did not quite catch the
remark. If the hon. gentleman said bologna I never heard1 o<f it before.
Natural product also includes "the product of lake or river and such article of food1 or drink wholly or partly manufactured." What astounds me, Mr. Chairman, is the thidkness of the legislation which has been passed by this government. The trouble with it is that it is just as thick as fog; no one can see clearly through it. Not only that, but if you have read the morning paper, sir, you must have seen an interview given by a very distinguished New Zealander saying that the trouble in these times is too much legislation. The individuality of a man exists no more. Men are told through the legislation enacted by this government to lean on the government all the time. The government is too light a crutch to support the people of this country and they fall down. W'e have too much of this kind of legislation.
I wish to take this opportunity to make a formal protest against all the legislation which has been enacted by this government since 1930. I am against every bit of it. Even if my name does not appear in the votes and proceedings as voting against it, I am against it, and if I had1 been in the house the other day when the price spreads legislation was submitted I would have voted with my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) against it. I am against it through and through because it is insipid and stupid. It is just a bluff to deceive the people that the government are going to do this and that. But the government will not be judged by the future; they will be judged by their record. I am just back from my constituency where the farmers a.re in distress. They say: "We have never suffered as much as we are suffering now. What is the matter in Ottawa? Has the Prime Minister tender
feet? Is he unwilling to have the general election and give us a chance to express our views on the insanity of the legislation passed since 1930?" The farmers gave me that message to give to the house. I cannot give it to the house at the moment because the house is not sitting, but I take this first opportunity to rise and give the message to the committee of the whole house.


Robert Weir: Mr. Chairman, I
would gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) that he is slightly opposed at least to some of the legislation passed by the present government during the last four or five years. Practically everything that he has said1 has been aside from this section. I would however make just one remark, and it is this. The test of whether this legislation is sound and of whether there was a need felt for it is the action taken bv the producers themselves, and in criticizing the legislation my hon. friend can only be understood as criticizing those who have availed themselves of it as doing an unsound thing. The act will not have been in force for a year until next August, andl as everyone knows, when you set up new legislation such as this it takes some time to get it under way. Yet in spite of that, there have been producers from one end of Canada to the other who believed that there was in this legislation something that they needed, especially under conditions such as prevail at the present time. The result has been that without any inducement on the part of government officials or the government itself we already have in operation fourteen schemes throughout the dominion, and the annual value of the products handled ;by these schemes at a conservative estimate is over 143,000,000. I think perhaps that is the best answer that I can give, that the producers from one end of the dominion to the other have felt that under present conditions there is in this legislation an instrument which they can use to stabilize their products and get the most out of them at the present time.
The hon. member also spoke of the poultry scheme in western Canada. I repeat what I stated here some three or four weeks ago that so far as Alberta and Saskatchewan are concerned the scheme carried over 60 votes out of every 100. The big objection to it came in the neighbourhood of cities, particularly in Manitoba but also in Saskatchewan and Alberta. We felt that that did not mean that they were against the marketing act but that there was a considerable proportion of the producers, quite a long way from a
Marketing Act Amendment

majority of them, who were against some of the features of that particular scheme, and while they opposed it they are in favour of other schemes under the act. I did not intend to speak at this length, Mr. Chairman, because the observations of the hon. member were entirely aside from the section.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to say only one
thing in reply to the minister. I do not criticize those producers who have accepted marketing schemes, the eastern Canada marketing scheme for potatoes, for instance. The farmers there are in distress. They cannot receive anything even for the potatoes they have in their cellars. They told me that in Riviere du Loup, and very good farmers they were from the neighbouring parishes. It was a case of complete isolation for them. They could not sell their product, and of course if this helps them to get the potatoes out of their cellars they will be satisfied because the scheme cost them nothing. But the circumstances surrounding this legislation must always be considered. The potato trade has reached rock bottom. It could not be worse. The price received1 by the producers is not enough to pay even for the bags, and they have to insist that the bags be returned. Sometimes they make a loss on their shipments. Conditions were so bad that they accepted the potato marketing scheme, on the ground that conditions could not be any worse than they were. The minister suggests that the farmers who have accepted the eastern Canada potato marketing scheme are in the same position they occupied some years ago when they were receiving a reasonable price for their product. Then they were free to judge whether such legislation was worth anything or not, but now they are not free at all because they must get rid of their product. And, sir, it is most dangerous because if the farmers get nothing for their product they will have no incentive to continue to produce and we may come near to a famine.
The minister mentions meats. I want to say to him that on account of the policies of this government it costs a farmer several dollars to raise a young steer. The minister knows it. He knows personally about conditions in western Canada, but he does not know personally about conditions in eastern Quebec. A very industrious farmer in eastern Quebec, a man who was a medallist told me one day that the raising of young cattle meant a loss to him of $8. How can our farmers continue to feed the Canadian people at a loss like that? They get nothing for their potatoes; they get nothing for their butter. Cheese

is now being subsidized. We are going along in that way, waiting for better times. Every one is very much afraid of the future, and if the farmer stops producing we will face two dangers. Either he will stop producing because of the low prices he receives, or there will be an increase in production if the giving of bonuses is not well controlled. That procedure must be followed with tact.
Then there are other matters about which one could complain. In eastern Canada we have many farmers who take pride in their stock and who have tried to obtain all available information by reading the publications issued by the- department of which the minister is the head. They follow scrupulously the recommendations contained in those publications. What happened? As a matter of economy the number of inspectors and propagandists of the Department of Agriculture who were helping the farmers has been greatly reduced. Protests have been received by me from an association of farmers in my constituency. I forwarded their protest to the department, but the only answer I got was an acknowledgment from the minister's secretary. The number of propagandists is still infinitely smaller than it was in 1930 when the minister took charge of this department. These farmers in eastern Canada who are artists in their trade-and there are some in western' Canada as well-wanted to have the propagandists on the job to give advice in the event of someu thing going wrong with a growing animal. These men sent out by the department were in a position to give information about feeding and caring for stock. We find however that most of them have been taken from that work; the government have stated that this is an economy measure. The information I have from people who were taking advantage of the advice offered by these propagandists is that the money spent on their salaries was spent in a most useful way. To-day money is wasted om marketing schemes, but when only a few days ago I asked the minister to make a comparison between months when this act has been in force and corresponding months of the previous year, he said he had not the information at hand. If he did not have it at hand he did not have it at all, anid if he has not that information certainly he cannot tell us that the act has been beneficial. That is a very easy thing to understand, sir. He has not the information. Here is the cure; no one has tried it; it may poison you or it may cure you. It is like Le baume dee montagnes vertes: Si 5a ne vous fait pas de bien, ?a ne vous fait pas de mal. Experiments-experi-

Marketing Act Amendment
merits on a very large scale; experiments with the Canadian people; experiments with the unemployed; experiments with the farmers; experiments with farm products-they are experimenting all the time. I am surprised to find the Canadian people alive after all these experiments with an axe- the "axe" of wrong legislation. I hope the minister will be careful and that he will no longer suggest I am criticizing my constituents. I have never done so, because I am proud of them. I have no lesson to receive from the minister. I couldl meet him on any .platform in eastern or western Canada and defend any stand I have taken in this chamber. Each stand I have taken has been logical and has not been as a result of prejudice'. I have not made decisions after hasty consideration. My position has been taken thoughtfully first because I have considered all the facts and secondly because I was expressing the thought of my own constituents who know as much as the minister does about farming, if not more.


Edward James Young: The minister has said something about making a levy to create a fund. Will he tell us how the levy is to be collected?


Robert Weir: That is set out in [DOT] the scheme; it might be collected in different ways.


Edward James Young: It appears to me that a levy on every person engaged in a given industry would require a considerable staff for purposes of collections. Has the minister any idea how many people would be required or wihat machinery would be necessary to make collections?


Robert Weir: In any scheme in which a levy has been collected I do not think any staff has been required. Collections are made through centres.


Edward James Young: In connection with schemes now in effect levies are made on the goods as they are sold. But this is a scheme to levy on all branches of an industry, no matter how the products are disposed of. A special tax collecting system will be set up.


Robert Weir: The method of making the levy would be indicated in the scheme and the necessary staff will be set up, if any is required. But collecting a levy even in the dairy industry would not require a very great staff because it could be collected through the centres where milk is marketed or processed.


Edward James Young: Once a levy is made and the fund set up I do not think the minister said it was to be kept in reserve to be used when required. Is it contemplated that this levy shall go on forever?


Robert Weir: That depends upon the scheme submitted by the producers. All these points are dependent upon the scheme submitted by the producers.


Edward James Young: Is it contemplated that a scheme may be imposed, as was done in connection with the potato scheme, without first having a vote of the producers?


Robert Weir: In the questions he asks the hon. member works from the supposition that the marketing board has contemplated the setting up of schemes. All the schemes in effect up to the present time have been contemplated not in the minds of the marketing board but in the minds of the producers themselves. I would not be in a position to say what was contemplated until a scheme had been submitted to the board.


Edward James Young: Some schemes now in operation originated in- the minds of some of the producers, and were put into effect before all the producers had had an opportunity to express their wishes. Could the same thing happen in the present instance?


Robert Weir: Provision is made for all of them to express their wishes. Unless the dominion marketing board feels in view of all the circumstances the number requesting the scheme is sufficiently representative, a poll would be held or provision made for holding a poll1 later on. Where & poll was not held the dominion marketing board was satisfied that the wish had been expressed by a sufficiently representative number of persons. In some of these schemes, however, due to the harvesting of crops or because crops were about to be harvested, the urge was such that exception was made. That was done only after the board was satisfied that the desire of the majority of producers had been expressed.


Edward James Young: I am afraid that those who would urge such a scheme as this would persuade the marketing board that the urgency is great enough to put a scheme into effect -without taking a vote of those concerned. In that event the actual producers would wake up some morning to find themselves involved in a scheme in connection with which they had had no say.
Marketing Act Amendment


Robert Weir: I think the hon.
member is unfair in his statements. I have one scheme in mind, the tree fruit scheme of British Columbia, which had been in operation for a season before a vote was taken. After that season of operation at least ninety-four per cent of the producers voted in favour of it. The last time we were discussing the Natural Products Marketing Act, when the estimates were before the committee, I indicated that in Nova Scotia the scheme was supported by a very great majority. The board is particularly careful, in connection with schemes such as this, to satisfy itself that they have the support of a sufficiently representative number of producers practically to voice the unanimous feeling of the producers themselves. If there is any doubt a poll will be held before any scheme is put into effect.


Edward James Young: What power will the board
have to enforce the collection of a levy it makes, supposing some producer does not want to pay?


Robert Weir: There is power in
the act; it is a collectable debt due the crown.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: The minister said a
moment ago that the producers would have a chance to express their wishes. What opportunity will be given them, and how will they express their wishes?


Robert Weir: In certain schemes
it might be through organizations where there is a complete sign-up of those in the organization. In other schemes, because of the limited number, a register is taken of all producers and they are asked to sign the petition. In other instances, like the poultry scheme in western Canada, a vote has been taken. There, although a large majority were in favour of it, the board, because of its feeling that in connection with such a scheme, and to have it work out satisfactorily, there should be a very large majority-and as I say a majority was polled in two provinces *-turned down the scheme,


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I am very much interested in the minister's declaration that in some instances they will sign up. Will the minister satisfy himself with respect to a certain list of producers who have signed up, having that list transmitted to his department, indicating that these people want to have the scheme?


Mr WEIR (Melfort):: The board will
satisfy itself as to whether or not the list is representative. In some instances men have

been sent out to make a thorough check-up where there has been any doubt. The board is convinced that a scheme such as this should not be put into effect unless it is thoroughly satisfied that the scheme is in accordance with the wishes of the producers.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: At present there is a
certain move in our district and recently I have met several directors of cheese factories. I was not aware that this scheme was under way but I am now finding ou't exactly what the situation is. I was told that the patrons of cheese factories were asked to sign a petition to the government requesting a bonus, and when I inquired as to what they had done they replied, "Oh, we all voted for the bonus." If this is to be the request to the department, if these farmers are under the impression that they are asking for a bonus when as a matter of fact what they will get is a levy, then I can assure the minister that this is not expressing the wishes of the farmers. This statement is the result of a personal contact I have had with the producers themselves, who so informed me.


Robert Weir: What the hon. member has in mind, I think, is this. In Ontario the patrons of cheese factories held a number of meetings at which a scheme was put forward, not by any of the officials of the department nor by any officials of the dominion marketing board, but a scheme in which the provincial Department of Agriculture was particularly interested to the extent of advancing $10,000 to some of their officials to put the matter before the cheese patrons in that province; and the information received by the dominion marketing board after investigation would lead them to believe that this scheme was very substantially supported. We are informed that they thoroughly understood it. So far as the dominion department or the dominion marketing board is concerned, however, no part whatever was taken in the presentation of that scheme.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I do not mean to say
that the Minister of Agriculture, through his department or through any of his officials, has been spreading any such propaganda, but I did say that propaganda of the kind has been carried on. I am not prepared to say who is responsible for it, but I will find out over the week-end. At any rate, I will ask the minister to make sure that he does not inaugurate any scheme on petitions signed under conditions such as I have mentioned.


Albert Joseph Brown: May I ask the minister to
be a little more definite in his statements as to the genesis of this bill. Did it have its

Marketing Act Amendment
origin in his mind or does it come from the officers of the department, or has it come forward from the representatives of producers' organizations? If that is so, what organizations have made representations in favour of the move? Let us have more information regarding the origin of it.


William Richard Motherwell: Or did it come over the ether waves?


Robert Weir: It would be impossible to give an absolute answer to the hon. member. These amendments for the most part are the result of representations made by the producer organizations themselves. Some of them wished to have a scheme accepted and found that there was a difficulty under the act as it stood, and so they wished to have certain amendments. Others who had acts in operation desired to have certain matters clarified, and one of the sections was introduced for that purpose. Another had reference to schemes that had been under way in the hope that they could be financed until sufficient funds could be raised, but they got into difficulties which handicapped their successful operation. That is why the submissions were made to the dominion marketing board that loans should be provided, as the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) so tersely put it, to set the house in order until funds came in to assist them.


Albert Joseph Brown: What organizations have made representations in this connection?


Robert Weir: Some of the fourteen boards already set up, the national dairy council, the federation of milk producers and the whole milk association in Ontario and Quebec, who have been working on the dairy scheme, and also the tree fruit scheme in British Columbia. In addition to the fourteen schemes already in operation there are applications from twenty-six other organizations to take advantage of the provisions of the act, and in some of their schemes, when submitted to the board, it was found that certain changes had to be made.


Mr. MILLS:: In western Ontario we have in operation what is known as the bean scheme. It has been considered to be operating to the detriment of the bean producers and I would ask the minister whether those producers will be consulted before being forced to market the 1935 crop under the marketing act.


Robert Weir: There is provision for a vote by the bean producers.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to make a correction. Possibly I made a slip and used the word "useful" instead of "useless," but my humble view is that this legislation is useless, and the general opinion will be in accordance with this statement. We hear about the wish of the farmers with regard to these schemes. The universal and unanimous wish of the Canadian people is not to vote for this or that scheme but to have a general election as soon as possible.


Wilson Henry Mills: I want to know whether these bean producers are going to be or want to be consulted under the marketing act. When these men came back and announced that they were going to sell the farmers' beans, beans were selling at the elevators at $1.58 for three-pound pickers. The marketing board set their price at $1.50 for one-pound pickers. It would not have been so bad if they could have sold ,their beans, but this curtailed the sales. Bean sales went down immediately and the bean producers in my county are in my opinion not satisfied with the bean scheme. What I want to know is whether the bean producers are going to be asked whether they want the 1935 crop sold under the marketing act.


Robert Weir: I feel I answered the hon. gentleman's question before when I stated that there was provision for a vote if a vote was desired. The hon. member said that beans were bringing $150 a bushel. At what time was that? Was it at the time this scheme was set up or some years before?


Wilson Henry Mills: They were paying $1.58 at the elevators at Rodney when this scheme came into force, and the price was set at $1.50 for one-pound pickers at that time. The bean marketing board continued for about a month and failed to make sales. They threw up their hand's and allowed the elevators to sell 'their own- beans. All the marketing board is doing to-day is collecting a royalty of two cents on every bushel of beans sold by the farmers.


William Richard Motherwell: That is spilling the beans.


Wilson Henry Mills: I would like to know whether these bean growers are going to be consulted as to whether this has to continue.
Mr. 'CAlSGRAIN: There will have to be a change of government.


Robert Weir: The hon. gentleman is mistaken in thinking the bean producers are selling their beans under the control of the marketing act. They are not; they never have been.
Marketing Act Amendment


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: 
Robert Weir: I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that we are not discussing the Natural Products Marketing Act as a -whole; we are now discussing the amendment in section- 4 of this bill.


William Alexander Fraser: I thank the minister for his explanation. The fact is that it is just as clear as mud. We are discussing section 4 of Bill 117. Let us read the section:
Section 4 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:-
"(9) Notwithstanding any provision of this act, any scheme of regulation may provide solely for equalization to any extent, as between the producers, of the returns received from the sale of the regulated product."
I am very sorry that the minister did not reply to my question, which gave him far more scope than it is my intention to give him at the present time. Will he kindly explain to the committee if this bill empowers the levying -of, what shall I call it?-a tax upon the producers of a regulated product in order that the proceeds from that tax or levy may be distributed to equalize the price over all that branch of the productive industry, if it is cheese or whatever it may be? That is my direct question now.


Robert Weir: It is the purpose of this amendment to give power to the producers themselves to do so, but not to levy on one producer to give to a producer who has not paid a levy.


William Alexander Fraser: We
have had this question over and -over again.

The minister states that it is to give power to a local board-and if I am wrong perhaps he will correct me-to levy a tax on all the producers in a certain industry. Am I right?


Robert Weir: It depends on the scheme they submit.


William Alexander Fraser: It gives power to levy a tax on the producers under a scheme in -order that the proceeds from the levy should be distributed among the members coming under the scheme to equalize the price. Is that correct?


Robert Weir: "To any extent," yes. There is no thought in this of fixing a price for the whole industry; there is no price fixing in it, but it is to stabilize the different branches of the industry if the producers themselves so desire.


William Alexander Fraser: It seems to me that the minister confounds the issue. If there is no intention of setting a price, there certainly is an intention of equalizing the price.


Robert Weir: That is correct.


William Alexander Fraser: Therefore the producing members of an industry are going to be taxed so much per pound or bushel or yard or whatever it may be in -order to distribute the amount collected under that tax to equalize the price over the industry. Is that correct?


Robert Weir: The producers have that power in this clause.


William Alexander Fraser: The
minister says that the producers have that power. Let me make this statement again. When it comes down to the producers having the power, it is not a question of the producers; it will at any time in any industry, except those confined to an isolated territory, be a fact that only a small proportion of the actual producers in that industry will set the price because only a small proportion will vote. Those behind these plots-I like that word because it conveys more than anything else- and- to use a phrase that the minister is quite familiar with, the supermen behind1 these plots, are the ones who first formulate the plot and, second, through ill-advised or inconclusive voting, carry an industry into it. Now it is impossible, whether it be in regard to cheese, milk, butter, apples, or vegetables, in any part of this country outside of definite areas devoted to isolated production such as tobacco, to get a majority of an industry in a position where they can vote. I should like that to be understood, because at the present

Marketing Act Amendment
time under the Natural Products Marketing Act a vote is being taken to elect a member to the export board for 1935, to take the place of a previously appointed member who was an official in a department of the provincial government. The growers or distributors or those engaged in the apple industry had no vote as to whether or not they would accept an export scheme, but after a board has set up this scheme they say: "Now, gentlemen, we want to be good to you; we want you to see the ponies run, give you a chance for your money; so we are giving you a ballot." And they tell them on nicely printed paper what they are to do, sending three sheets with this ballot so that they will not make any mistake. They have the democratic privilege of voting to elect a member of a board in the formation of which they had no voice. Are we to continue taking away from the peopje of Canada the right to conduct their own business? That is what this bill is-a further restriction, of the right of the producers of Canada to conduct their own business. I am desperately in earnest about this thing, from the standpoint of the producer as well as from the standpoint of the Canadian citizen. I plead with the minister to realize what he is doing, because I do not think he does. He is placing in the hands of appointed boards under his department, without the approval of the industry-because it cannot be got-the right to administer, to direct, to control the activities of the Canadian people in regard to over fifty-five per cent of their total production. I am pleading here and I will plead on the hustings when I get a chance:	the minister
is divorcing from parliament and the responsible government of this country the control of over fifty-five per cent of our natural products. By section 5 he is placing in the hands of a selected board, not an elected' board, the right to fine and imprison people if they do not comply with the regulations made by the board. My plea at this time is not a criticism of a piece of legislation, but the announcement of a principle. That is what we are fighting for, and I ask the committee to consider these things before they put through such legislation as this. I repeat that it cannot be done.


An hon. MEMBER:: It will be done.


William Alexander Fraser: If it
is, it can be done only by force, by fine and imprisonment.


Mr. JACOBS:: The big stick.


William Alexander Fraser: You can do it only in that way, by taking from the Canadian people the rights our fathers fought
for and which we intend to cherish, and placing them in the hands of selected boards not subject to the control of parliament. So far as we are concerned in this country a fascist state is being not only thought of but created by the present government. In the dire necessity in which they find themselves they are willing to sacrifice the Canadian people to remain in office if they can. It is going too far. I say to the minister, consider this:	Never mind whether you are elected or
not, or whether I am; that is not the question. The question is what policy we are going to follow. This amendment is another stab in the back for democracy among the Canadian people. And the minister goes a step further. In the supplementary estimates he asks this house to vote a million dollars; what for? To continue the methods used in attempting to put over the poultry scheme in the west, to continue paying everyone directly or indirectly, from members of parliament to street corner orators, to try to convince people that they should do things that the minister or people he picks up politically or otherwise think they should do. I say it is an insult to this House of Commons and this committee to ask for a vote of a million dollars to have people tell me how to run my business who do not know as much about it as I know myself. The Minister of Agriculture asks for another million dollars to be spent in the asinine wTay he spent $50,000 in the western provinces, in a wild endeavour by ill-advised people to get more eggs out of hens. What a demonstration in the last dying gasp of this government! We are asked to vote a million dollars under an extension and expansion of the marketing act to destroy democracy and individual and collective liberalism in Canada. I say it is the duty of members of this committee, whether they sit to the right or the left of Mr. Speaker, to stand in their places and vote against the expenditure of money in that way. It is wrong in principle, it is wrong under our constitution, it is wrong in practice and impossible of enforcement. I plead with the minister to consider where he and his ill-advised advisers are carrying the people of this dominion.


Robert Weir: What the hon.
member has said is far from being a denunciation of the government; he has equally condemned hon. members on the other side. His rhetorical references to the power to impose a penalty through the courts applies just as much to legislation concerning agriculture passed in this house during the time hon.
Marketing Act Amendment

members opposite were in power as to that passed by the present government. The same clauses, practically word for word, were in other bills introduced and in force when hon. members opposite were in power. His statements as to the asinine way in which certain things are being done I think are best answered by himself in his use of words such as these. It is in keeping with his statements in the house two or three weeks ago when he worked himself up to quite a heat and said that he did not think the gentleman who is chairman of the marketing board, and on whom we had to use some persuasion to get to take the job, had ever earned $10,000 in one year in his life. I did not wish to comment on this at that time; I thought the hon. member was speaking with more enthusiasm than he realized, but I think he will be fair enough to-night to apologize to that gentleman whom he was attacking in his absence, trying to give the impression throughout the country that he was getting something beyond what he had ever received before. Practically all the hon. member has said is about taking away the rights of democracy and Liberalism and so forth, but as far as the clauses to which the hon. gentleman referred are concerned, similar clauses are found in similar legislation passed during the time hon. gentlemen opposite were in office. No power is taken from parliament, any more than power was taken away in the past.


William Alexander Fraser: Just to enlarge on the remarks of the minister, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that he has endeavoured to draw a parallel between two things that are entirely different. I do not think any hon. member of this house fails to recognize the necessity of rules and regulations in connection with weights and measures, grades, qualities and so on. I am quite sure that rniy colleagues on this side of the house agree that you must sell a pound for a pound, a barrel for a barrel and a bushel for a bushel. As I have said on previous occasions, I do not think any one will argiue that you should be allowed to sell a cull apple for a good apple or that you should be permitted to put good apples on the face of 1a barrel and culls in the middle. I think every hon. member of this house is in favour of cooperation and assistance in every practical and possible way in the proper regulation and distribution of natural products. But, sir, that is not what is being done in this case. Under the weights and measures act, the fruit and honey act, and so on, regulations are framed stating that a standard is a standard, that a dollar is one 
hundred cents, that a barrel of apples is three bushels, that a case of apples is either 176 pounds or a bushel, or whatever it may he, that a No. 1 apple is a No. 1 apple, and that No. 1 butter means No. 1 butter. If I try to give you a counterfeit dollar bill of course there are laws in this country which will land me in the police court and eventually the penitentiary. .
That is not what is being done in this case, however. We are not regulating; we are not setting standards at all. We are trying to coerce the producers of this country, by persuasion and with the expenditure of public funds, to do what is in ithe minds of .men who may think they are supermen or who may think they know more than the others know. I say again, as I said before, that ,we tried to stop bootlegging in liquor in Ontario, and we failed. If yio.u .cannot stop bootlegging in liquor ho.w are you going to stop bootlegging in cheese or potatoes? I plead with the government to consider what they are trying to do. I think they are being badly advised by gentlemen from one end of this dominion to the other. But the parallel drawn by the minister was by no means correct when he compared what is being done now to what is done under the criminal code or the other acts I have mentioned. There is no parallel. By this bill you are attempting to -bring the natural producers under schemes that cannot be enforced, a.nd let me say to the .minister that if he could enforce them it would be the worst thing in the world for the basic producers of Canada. This idea has been tried out from Brazil to the Malay straits, and it has been' found that y.ou cannot force the buyer to pay a -price that is higher than the market justifies. You cannot do that by all the agreements and plots and bills that any minister or any government -can bring in. I think it is a wrong principle to ask this house to vote public funds to turn over to selected representatives on various boards to spend as they see fit, without having them under the jurisdiction of this house. That is what is being done, and that is what I am trying to point out. The minister's explanation was wide of the .mark and his parallel wa-s not correct.
Now I want to refer to another statement made by the minister in asking me to apologize. I have no apology to make to anybody.


Robert Weir: I must correct the
hon. gentleman. I did not ask him to apologize; I felt that it would be of no use to do so. I suggested that 'he should, but he has given his answer.

Marketing Act Amendment


William Alexander Fraser: I am
glad the minister was able to see that it would be of no use to ask me to apologize, because I have no apologies to offer to anyone. What I said the other night I will repeat, because I believe it and the operation of certain schemes proves it. So do not think you are getting any apology out of me.


Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to Hansard of
May 31, in which a list of marketing schemes appears, I should like to take this opportunity of putting those schemes in order by parts of the country in order to show how many schemes are in force throughout Canada and in each part of it. That will be most useful for anyone who wants to study the accomplishments of the Department of Agriculture in the last five years and especially in the last few months. *
According to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on May 31, in the Dominion of Canada there are only two dominion marketing schemes, the one in connection with fruit exports, dated September 8, 1934, and the other in connection with jam exports, dated April 10, 1935. Those are the only schemes which have dominion application; if I am wrong in that statement I will ask the hon. gentleman to correct me in due course. In British Columbia there are apparently six schemes, but if you analyze them you find that there really are not as many as six. First there is the red cedar shingle export marketing scheme dated October 16, 1934. Next is the tree fruit marketing scheme dated August 28, 1934. Next is the dried salt herring and dried salt salmon marketing scheme, dated October 22, 1934. Then there is the lower mainland milk marketing scheme dated January 1, 1935, which apparently is in force in only a portion of British Columbia. In addition there are two vegetable marketing schemes; first there is the interior vegetable marketing scheme dated March 4, 1935, and then there is the coast vegetable marketing scheme of the same date.	The minister takes that one
scheme and cuts it into two.
There are no schemes in the other western provinces, while in Ontario there are apparently four. First there is the flue cured tobacco marketing scheme dated October 26, 1934. Then there is the western Ontario bean marketing scheme dated February 1, 1935. Then, in addition to the dominion fruit export scheme, there is also a scheme known as the dominion apple marketing scheme, which apparently applies only to Ontario. Since the apple is a good Canadian fruit, I do not see the necessity for a dominion apple
marketing scheme, especially for the province of Ontario when there is a fruit marketing scheme for the whole of Canada. In Ontario there are only two marketing schemes, for tobacco and beans. Eastern Canada has a potato marketing scheme, and that is all there is to it. There is very little in it, but what I am afraid of is that matters might get worse through more schemes coming into force.
May I point out one other thing. This kind of legislation is nefarious. Why? For several reasons, but especially for this reason: The federal Department of Agriculture was created in order to improve trade between the provinces. In every province there is a department of agriculture to look after the interests of the farmers of the province.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Will the hon. gentleman please discuss section 4?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I will discuss it right away and to the point. May I tell you, sir, that the principle of the bill may be discussed on every section of it? The section of a bill does not make it a different bill; it is the saime bill.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The hon. gentleman
has already been quoting from a debate which took place this session, which under the rules is not permitted.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will take the trouble '
to read the whole section and explain my point, Mr. Chairman. I am sure you will understand it and fully agree with me that I am in order. Section 4 reads:
Failure to comply with orders-


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The hon. member
must be quoting from another bill. We are on section 4 of Bill No. 117.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh yes, dealing with the
equalization of returns, but my error is of no importance because the bill itself is all wrong. I will read section 4 to show you how relevant my remarks were, and whether we are discussing section 4 or section 5 is immaterial because the whole bill relates to natural products. Section 4 reads:
4. Section four of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(9) Notwithstanding any provision of this act, any scheme of regulation may provide solely for equalization to any extent, as between the producers, of the returns received from the sale of the regulated product."
You see, Mr. Chairman, that it refers to other provisions of this act, and therefore I can complain of any exceptions. It is provided by this section that any scheme of
Marketing Act Amendment

regulation may provide for equalization as between the producers of the returns received from the sale of the regulated product.
What is the regulated product? It is the product mentioned in section 1 of this bill. Therefore it is perfectly in order and perfectly pertinent for me to discuss that matter, sir, and you are fair enough not to deny that right to me. What I complain of in this section relating to equalization is that it is worded in such a way that no one can understand it. The whole bill is wrong from beginning to end; it is wrong with .regard to all the natural products mentioned in section 1 of the bill. I submit that I am in order in discussing the sale of the regulated product on this or any other section of the bill, because they all refer to natural products; it cannot be anything else. I might complain of section 4 because instead of there being an equalization of returns there will be under this legislation a decrease of returns to the farmer who raises any one of the products mentioned in section 1 of this bill. I am strongly opposed to that. The minister is interfering with trade between the provinces. The government has killed the farmer's external trade, and now it proposes to kill his internal trade. I am strongly opposed to that, and particularly because it is done in a misleading way. It is done under the guise of helping the . farmer, leading him to think that he will get some benefits from this legislation when he will get none at all.


Mr. MU  LOCK@: Nothing but taxes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Coming back to the point I was making a moment ago, trade between all the provinces was the main and only reason why the fathers of confederation decided that there should be a federal department of agriculture, in spite of the fact that there was to be a provincial department of agriculture in every one of the provinces then existing or to be created. Every province has now a department of agriculture to look after the interests of the farmers of the province in a parochial way, but the federal Department of Agriculture has in its charge the interests of the farmers of the whole country. The farmers of Nova Scotia have to look to the Minister of Agriculture for the possibility of marketing their products in the other provinces, and the same with the farmers of every other province of Canada. But as my hon. friend from North York (Mr. Mulock) interjects, all the farmers get out of this is taxes. The government is showing them the way. It is leading them to ruin in their domestic trade in natural products.

Last year when I asked the minister for information respecting the decrease in the home consumption of farm products I got no satisfactory reply except this one, which I have already repeated in this house and which I shall repeat again if the session lasts much longer. It was that the Prime Minister was too busy listening to Russia and to Litvinoff to look after such things as our trade. That was the answer given, by the Minister of Agriculture when I was speaking of this very same thing last year. If the Prime Minister is too busy to look after the home consumption of farm products because he is too much occupied in drawing inspiration from the communists of Russia and other parts of Europe-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: You may stop me from speaking, Mr. Chairman, but I have told the truth and I shall not further insist upon it.


William Alexander Fraser: May I ask if it is the intention under section 4 and the preceding section to use part of the amount of money that is being voted for this equalization scheme or is the money for equalization to come solely out of the tolls collected from the producer?


Robert Weir: The provision of this section is that if the producers submit a scheme on the basis of equalization of a regulated product, the whole fund shall be obtained under the Natural Products Marketing Act from the tolls that they collect; or it might be introduced under clause 9 of the act, and in that connection money would be supplied by the government.


William Alexander Fraser: I would like to have this clear: Under clause 4 and preceding clauses is it not possible to use the money asked in this vote?


Robert Weir: Which vote does the hon. .member mean?


William Alexander Fraser: Any
vote. Is it not possible to use public moneys *-I will refer to "public moneys" because I do not want to have any misunderstanding- to ibe distributed under the sections of the Natural Products Marketing Act and Bill No. 117-two different schemes-not only to assist the schemes, as has been set out in the bill and as has been done, but to hold for equalization purposes? Is that possible; is it provided for?

Marketing Act Amendment


Robert Weir: Money that is collected. The only way public money could be used would be through a combination with section 9.
Mr. FRAlSER (Northumberland): I should like to have a definite reply on the point because it seems vital in principle. I will see if I can put the question in clear language so that there can be no misunderstanding. Under sections 3 and 4 of Bil No. 117, amending the Natural Products Marketing Act, we find first that section 3 refers to the use to which public moneys may be put, and section 4 seems to cover-


Robert Weir: I believe I can set the hon. member's mind at rest. I think he has been under a misapprehension. The money referred to in section 3 is not money for purchase or sale of goods but is simply a loan or advance to a local board to carry on until funds are collected, and it is to be repaid by the board. It is just for the operation of the machinery of the local board.


William Alexander Fraser: I should like to repeat miy question because I want to be clear on the point. I understand from what the minister has said that the only power given under section 3 is that of lending public funds to a board until1 such time as they collect from their members or producers the tolls for repayment. Is that correct?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Alexander Fraser: Is it proposed that they re-collect the moneys that were advanced to promote schemes such as the poultry scheme of the western provinces?


Robert Weir: No, that is a different thing altogether.


William Alexander Fraser: 
Robert Weir: No; no money will be advanced under section 3 for the promotion or organization of schemes. That is already provided for. But there has been no provision by which money could be obtained by a board until it got under way.


William Alexander Fraser: I am back to my original point. For the sake of argument, after a tomato board gets under way and before the producers under the scheme have begun to reap the benefits of the scheme-in other words until they have begun to receive funds from the sale of their product which, under the scheme, would of course according to the minister be greatly increased-the government is going to aot as a banker to advance money to the local board until such time as their own revenues come in. Is that right?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Alexander Fraser: My next question is this: It is clearly set out 'that the government undertakes to became banker for these local boards set up under the Natural Products Marketing Act, until such time as they collect from their own producers the toll per bushel or per acre or whatever it is set by the local board under the authority of the federal board. Until the funds come in the government is the banker. That is, they anticipate that they are going to receive a price or be able to sell the product and that the funds will come in. If they do not come in it will be the old story. The next question I wish to have answered is this: Is the government taking power under this bill to use public moneys for the equalization of the price of a natural product under any scheme, local or otherwise?


Robert Weir: It might be so used, yes-by using section 9.


William Alexander Fraser: This committee is to understand that we are taking one .more step towards national socialism, or fascism, whichever you call it; we are going to take public moneys received from a sugar tax or some other tax and use it to equalize the price of cheese, hags or something else. That is the way I understand the minister's answer. That, I believe, is the answer he intended to give and the answer justified by the bill. It brings us to this point: In Ontario, for instance, we are under a tomato scheme. We are going to can tomatoes under a local board. Canners will pay the price of the local board and if it is sanctioned by the federal board w,e will use public moneys or
Marketing Act Amendment

public taxes to equalize ithe price of tomatoes in a certain area. But, sir, what happens in British Columbia or Quebec? They say, "We have no local scheme or local board, and we are going to sell our tomatoes to 'the canning factories at twenty-five cents a bushel." The price is stabilized at thirty cents in Northumberland county, or some other point in Ontario, and the government has power to use the taxpayers' money to equalize the price of tomatoes under a local marketing scheme in Ontario. Our far-seeing brothers across the Quebec border-I have seen it more than once; I have been .through it, and it has cost me plenty of money-say, "Let these bright fellows in Ontario set up a local board; let them establish a price; let them go to the Minister of Agriculture and let him go to his federal .marketing board. He will undoubtedly get the advice developed in an aoademic mind that the proper thing to do is to use public funds and equalize the price in Ontario." What happens to our bright boys in Quebec? They say, "No, w.e will sell our tomatoes to the canning factories at twenty-five cents, on the open market. We will do as we like on the open market." The canner can get tomatoes in the province of Quebec for less money than he can under a controlled scheme in Ontario, and the result is that the Ontario farmer loses the Montreal and Quebec markets. His Frenich-Canadian brother is wise enough to keep his head out, of these asinine schemes. That is what happens. This is all new to the Minister .of Railways and Canals, who is smiling at me. If it had cost him as much as it has cost me he would be weeping, not smiling.
I am telling you what happens. Let me repeat that if we attempt to do this we will disorganize production in Canada; we will not assist the producers, and we will complicate not only external but internal trade. I give the minister ample credit for having taken his advice from other than intimate officials of the department, but I must say to him that if he continues with these schemes he will disorganize not only internal production but internal distribution and will set up ultraprovincialism within the country. He is making a mistake, and I am pleading with him for that reason.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell him about
potatoes.


William Alexander Fraser: The
minister knows all about potatoes; I told him two weeks ago that we dumped our potatoes because no one could force anyone else to buy something that he did not want. And that is

what has happened in connection with more than one industry I am associated with. You cannot do certain things and you should not attempt to do them, and this committee should not be asked to vote the money of the Canadian taxpayers to do the impossible. That is my point. They should not be asked to do it because it is wrong. We should not be asked to vote public money in order to dislocate internal production and distribution and to set up ultra-nationalism in this country. If you attempt to do anything of the kind you will find someone a- leap ahead of you. You cannot defy the law of supply and demand-and it is not laissez-faire. You must remember that this is not England where consumption predominates; we are in Canada where production predominates and we must have markets following the natural trend of trade, where individual brains are. pitted against the brains of others. I repeat, it is not a policy of laissez-faire but the unswerving law of supply and demand, the survival of the fittest in business, if you like. We must follow that law in order to get rid of our production internally and externally. Once more I plead with the minister not to take public funds to do something that is impossible.


Wilson Henry Mills: In our country the only way the producers of beans have of marketing their product is through the elevator. Can the elevator do business as it has always done, disregarding the bean board at Chatham, which is doing nothing to sell beans? Must the people continue to send two cents per bushel of the producers' money for nothing? Can they ignore the bean board?


Robert Weir: The producers are as free to sell individually as they have always been in the past.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 5-Failure to comply with orders or determinations or regulations.


Ernest Lapointe: I must register a protest against this section. I said last year, when the Natural Products Marketing Act was under discussion, all that I had to say as to the objections I have against the principle of the legislation, but section 5 of this bill makes still stronger the compulsory features of the legislation to which we object. What I object to more especially is section 14, which is being amended by section 5 of this bill, which is a departure from the ordinary principle that a man is presumed innocent of any offence until he is proved guilty. This is

Marketing Act Amendment
a new feature altogether. Let me quote the provision:
(2) In any prosecution under this act or under any regulation it shall not be necessary for the prosecuting authority to prove that the product in respect of which the prosecution is instituted was produced within that part of Canada to which the scheme relates, and if the accused person pleads or alleges that the product was not produced within that part of Canada to which the scheme relates, the burden of proof thereof shall be upon the accused person.
What have we come to in this country under this legislation? First of all, farmers may be compulsorily brought under a scheme. The minister says that is only if they want it, but he explains that by saying that it is if the majority wants it, or if the dominion marketing board comes to the conclusion, without a vote, that there is a sufficient majority in favour of the scheme. In that event all the others who are not in favour of the scheme are compulsorily brought under it. Secondly, those who have not voted for it and who are brought under it by compulsion must obey the orders or even the determinations of the dominion board or of the local board or any regulation of the governor in council, and if they do not they will be fined $25 or $500 or go to gaol for three months, or they may be both fined and gaoled. And they are presumed guilty under this bill unless they prove that they are not.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: As in Russia.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend says, as in Russia, and he is right. These schemes of regimentation can be successful only under a dictatorship. That is the experience. Russia would never have been able to achieve even the small degree of success which she has with her quinquennial plan if she had not the Ogpu, that famous military police. And the same in Germany and Italy. It is the military arm that makes possible the regimentation of the German and Italian farmers under a bureaucratic system of control. But I claim that the Canadian farmers will not submit to it. It is against our mentality. An hon. member says, not in Quebec. Yes; I defy the government to force the Quebec farmers to come under such compulsion. It is against our traditions; it is against the mentality of our people and it cannot be forced. And why pass such bills, which are permanent? In the United States where they have enacted all sorts of laws during the last two years they have had at least the saving clause in ail the preambles to the NRA legislation that it was only for the period of emergency that
then existed, so much so that the NRA was enacted only for two years. It had to be extended this year for a few months, and
everyone knows that President Roosevelt had difficulty in getting that extension. But these acts which this parliament has enacted have not the saving clause that they are to remain in force only during the depression, to meet an emergency; they are permanent. We are putting on the statutes of this country laws which are repugnant to the mentality of the Canadian people, and I agree with one hon. gentleman who spoke to-night, that we have had too many such laws during the last two or three years. I think the main work of the next parliament will be to repeal most of the legislation which has been enacted this year and last. I pray that my hon. friend will not insist on this subsection 2 which will force a man. because he is accused of having disobeyed an order of a local board, mind you, to bring witnesses and incur expense for the purpose of proving that he is not guilty. This should not happen in any civilized country; we should not have such legislation in Canada. I still believe those schemes of bureaucratic regimentation will not be successful in this country. Canadians will remain personalities, individuals; they will not become tools in a machine organized and controlled by some bureaucrat in Ottawa. So far as I am concerned I am going to vote against this section of this bill, and if it remains there, I will vote against this whole bill on third reading.


Robert Weir: I have listened with great interest to the eloquent and heated remarks of the hon. member for Quebec East, his whole argument being based on one thing, and that is that the onus of proof rests on the individual accused. I take it that that is a fair summing up of the argument of the hon. member.


Ernest Lapointe: Part of it.


Robert Weir: But perhaps the
hon. member's memory is not just as good as it might be when he states that the introduction of such a section as this is the introduction of legislation such as they have in Russia, introducing sovietism into the dominion; and he particularly made an appeal to the people of his own province of Quebec in saying that they would not for an instant stand for such legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: I did not appeal; I
made a statement.	[DOT]
Marketing Act Amendment

Mr. W'ETR (MeJtfort):	I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman while he was speaking. He said that this legislation is altogether out of line with the mentality of the people of this country. Yet I have before me a number of acts, one of them passed in 1928 when I believe the hon. member for Quebec East was Minister of Justice in the former government. Surely at that time he would not have been responsible for voting for and perhaps responsible for his department sanctioning clauses that are practically exactly similar to this one.


An hon. MEMBER:: Practically exactly
similar!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Read them.


Robert Weir: I appreciate very
much the courtesy hon. members are extend>-ing to me in return' for the courtesy I showed to the hon. member for Quebec East. They seem to be afraid something is going to be said that they do not wish to be said, but it is going to be said.


William Duff: Say it.


Robert Weir: That is what I am endeavouring to do. The hon. member for Quebec East was Minister of Justice in 1928 when there was passed in this house a number of acts placing the responsibility or onus of proof upon the person' who was accused of breaking the law. I read from the Fertilizers Act, amendments and regulations published by the instructions of the Minister of Agriculture in 1928. I will read in detail both the offences and penalties and also the particular section as it is parallel with the one which we have in this bill', and the one to which the hon. member for Quebec East has taken such very eloquent exception. This is from page 9, section 15 of the Fertilizers Act:
Offences and Penalties
15.	Subject to the provisions of the next
following section, any person who violates any of the provisions of this act, or of any regulation for which no other penalty is prescribed by this act, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $100 for the first offence, and, for a second offence, to a fine of not less than $100 and not exceeding $200, and for every subsequent offence to a fine of not less than $200 and not exceeding $500, and in default of payment of any such fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding thirty days.	,	.
16.	Any person accused of selling, offering, exposing or holding in his possession for sale any fertilizer which does not comply with the requirements of this act or of any regulation hereunder, who proves that the fertilizer respecting which action is taken was bought by him directly within one year from a manu-

facturer or merchant domiciled in Canada, that if contained in a package said package was not opened, and whether contained in a package or not that the state of the fertilizer was not altered while it was in his possession, and that he had no reason to believe that the said fertilizer did not comply with the provisions of this act, shall, upon disclosing the name and address of the person from whom the fertilizer was purchased, the place where it was purchased and the date of the sale, be liable upon conviction for the costs of the prosecution only, and a prosecution may be brought against such last named person for violating the provisions of this act or any regulation within six months from the date of such disclosure and not later.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The minister will have to
read a better act than that.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It does not say that
the burden of proof is on the individual.


Mr. EHLIOTT:: I utterly fail to see any parallel between the act the minister has just read and the bill now before the committee. In the first place may I just point out what has been alluded to by the exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), that this is part of an act that imposes penalties for offences that were not known or heard of at the time the act was passed. The minister and every other member of this committee will remember very well the protest that was made by members on this side of the house against placing in the hands of a board power to make a ne-w criminal code. That is what was done. The government did not make the code quite strong enough, and they now propose to tack on to one of the most vicious portions of the act a clause which states that everybody accused is presumed to be guilty until he proves himself innocent.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: No, it does not.
Mr.	ELLIOTT:	What else	does it say?Mr.	GUTHRIE:	Read it.


John Campbell Elliott: I have read it; it is
before the committee, and it is one of the most	iniquitous clauses that	was	ever	put
into any act.
Mr.	GUTHRIE:	It does	not	say	that
anyone is presumed to be guilty.


John Campbell Elliott: What does it say? It
says:
If the accused person pleads or alleges that the product was not produced within that part of Canada to which the scheme relates, the burden of proof thereof shall be upon the accused person.


Hugh Guthrie: That does not say that
he is guilty.

Marketing Act Amendment


William Alexander Fraser: Does
the Minister of Justice agree with that himself?


Hugh Guthrie: There are many precedents for it in legislation passed by this house and some of it passed within the last two weeks.


William Alexander Fraser: The
minister agrees with it?


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is a reasonable clause.


William Alexander Fraser: He endorses it?


Hugh Guthrie: How many times do I
have to say so?


John Campbell Elliott: I will say to the hon.
member for Northumberland that he should not ask anyone, let alone the Minister of Justice, to say more than once that he is in favour of a measure like this. When a man charged with the administration of justice to the extent the Minister of Justice is, says even once that he is in favour of a measure of this kind being imposed upon the farming community, the producers of this country, that should be enough. He argues that when I suggest that the man is presumed to be guilty until he proves his innocence, that is not a fair statement. I say that it is the only fair interpretation of this section, and I think I can convince the committee that it is. The first part of this subsection 2 reads:
In any prosecution under this act or under any regulation it shall not be necessary for the prosecuting authority to prove that the product in respect of which the prosecution is instituted was produced within that part of 'Canada to which the scheme relates.
That is part of the charge. It deals with things produced within that part of Canada to which the scheme relates. To prove that should be the beginning of the crown's case. What is going to become of respect for law in this country if this kind of legislation becomes common? Under the marketing act there is power in these boards to create criminal offences, not offences for which the penalty is a fine of $10 for the first offence and $20 for the second, but a fine of $25 and not more than $500, or imprisonment for three months, or both fine and imprisonment.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Is this in Russia?
when it is called to the attention of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture and hon. gentlemen sitting behind them representing farmers who are going to be charged under this act-


An hon. MEMBER:: Crucified!


John Campbell Elliott: -this section will be withdrawn. If a man is charged under this section he has to go into the box and prove that the product was not produced within that part of Canada to which the scheme relates. If he were charged with murder he would not have to go into the box until a case had been made out against him, and if there was any fair and reasonable doubt, the judge would dismiss the charge or withdraw it from the jury. Nobody knows that better than the Minister of Justice. But here .s a charge of having done something with regard to one of the natural products of Canada, food, that is in his hands, and the onus is cast upon him to disprove the charge, not upon the crown to make out its case. It really is one of the most heinous pieces of tyrannical legislation I ever heard of. If the minister will not withdraw it, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Antigonish^Guysborough (Mr. Duff):
That all the words in section 5 after line 15 be struck out.


Hugh Guthrie: This section as I read it is drawn upon the principle found in many statutes of this parliament. It is idle for the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) or the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) to speak of it .as something monstrous. It merely places on the man who has certain goods in his possession the burden of proving where they came from.


William Duff: Does he not own the goods
if he has them in his possession?


Hugh Guthrie: Possession of stolen goods is sufficient to convict a thief.


William Duff: That is different. That is cheap.


Hugh Guthrie: Mere possession of stolen goods is sufficient.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I am not going to argue if I cannot be heard.


John Campbell Elliott: No; to be fair to Russia Mr. ELLIOTT: When a man is accused of I do not think you could get anyone to put	having stolen goods in his possession does
through such legislation as that in Russia the minister suggest that the onus is on him now. That is proposed here. I know that to prove that they are not stolen goods? 92582-253

Marketing Act Amendment


Hugh Guthrie: The onus is on him to give an explanation, or he can be convicted on evidence that he is in possession of stolen goods.


John Campbell Elliott: It has to ibe proved first
that they aire stolen.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, but the possession
is enough. In this case possession without explanation is what has to be established. H the man cannot explain where the goods came from he may be liable under this section.


An hon. MEMBER:: He grew them.


Hugh Guthrie: How do we do in cases
under the excise and customs acts-


Mr. MULOCK:: Or the Ontario Temperance Act.


Hugh Guthrie: -in which the burden of proof is on the individual every time? That is legislation by this parliament. What did we do the other day in connection with the Juvenile Delinquents Act? We put the burden on the person charged with immorality, and made it an irrebuttable presumption that they could not disprove. You will find it in the criminal code and other statutes. It is only a reasonable method for the enforcement of the act. H in the opinion of the house this act should be passed this is a most reasonable provision for its enforcement, not an iniquity or monstrosity at all. You will find similar provisions in statute after statute in this country.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot believe that
the Minister of Justice would1 compare the provision of the criminal code which he has quoted with this legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: Look at the liquor act,
then.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, or the stolen goods or the immorality that my hon. friend has spoken about. Since when has production, work, become a mortal sin or a crime? Because a man has in his possession an article which he has produced with his own hands, by the sweat of his hrow, he has to prove that that article has not been produced within the district where that scheme is in force or he is guilty of a crime. It is absurd. First, he may not know that he has committed any offence. We are adding this to the legislation:
Every person who fails to comply with any order or determination of the board or of the local board ...

-is guilty of ,an offence which may lead to his being sent to gaol for three months. How does he know, even if this has been published in the Canada Gazette or by public notice or in any other way, which is not being done under the act? But this man who does not know, because he has produced something in contravention of an order of a local board under whose authority he comes by compulsion, will have to prove that he is not guilty he is presumed to be guilty, and if he does not bring witnesses to prove that he is not he may be landed in gaol for three months. If the Minister of Justice thinks that is good legislation I cannot agree with him.


Hugh Guthrie: It is just as good as the section in the Fertilizers Act which provided that anyone who had in his possession fertilizer which did not come up to the standard laid down by the act should be penalized. Possession was enough. But the provision was made that he could excuse himself by showing that he had bought it from a reputable firm and had it in an unopened package.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That was to prevent
fraud.


Hugh Guthrie: So is this.


William Alexander Fraser: We have the spectacle to-night in this House of Commons of the Minister of Justice placing the farmers of this country in exactly the same class with some of the criminals-


Hugh Guthrie: No.


William Alexander Fraser: Wait a moment.


Hugh Guthrie: I am going to interrupt, because I never said anything of the kind. I am not going to be continually interrupted and having language I did not use placed in my mouth. I resent that.


William Alexander Fraser: Very
well; I will use other language.


Mr. STANLEY:: Tell the truth.


William Alexander Fraser: If you listen for a moment you will hear it. The minister is going to class the honest producers of foodstuffs of this country with those who break the laws, such as the criminal code to which he referred to a few moments ago. These people are not criminals, but you are going to make them criminals.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not say they were criminals.

Marketing Act Amendment


William Alexander Fraser: I am saying they are not.


Hugh Guthrie: I say so too.


William Alexander Fraser: The act is drafted to provide for criminals and criminal offences. Under this bill, not for breaking the criminal code, not for breaking a moral law, not even for breaking a civil law but for going contrary to some regulation of a local board, which may be unknown to the producers, a producer of a food product will have the onus placed on him of defending himself against a charge. Let me say to the Minister of Justice that if he thinks the farmers of the Dominion of Canada-not only the farmers of the province of Quebec-will like this legislation, within the next six weeks or two months he will find out most emphatically, by their ballots, that they are sick of the whole thing.


Edward James Young: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it every person who fails to comply with any order or determination of the local board is subject to fine and imprisonment.


Robert Weir: No, that is not correct of subsection 2.


Edward James Young: The section reads:
Every person who fails to comply with any order or determination of the board or of a local board or any regulation of the governor in council shall be guilty of an offence and punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars and not more than five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
Under the amendments we are considering to-night one of the powers of the local board is that of levying a tax on the producers. If a man fails to pay that tax he can be sent to gaol. We give our city councils power to levy taxes on the people. If the people cannot or do not pay those taxes their property can be seized, but there is no power given the city councils to send them to gaol. Our provincial governments have power to levy taxes. If people fail to pay them or cannot pay them they cannot be sent to gaol. Here, however, we are giving a local board a power which we deny to our municipal or provincial governments, the power to send men to gaol if they do not pay levies.
Mr. W'EIR (Melfort): A levy is a collectable debt; my understanding is that there is no provision for sending a man to gaol in default of payment.


Edward James Young: This section distinctly says there is.
92582-253 i


Robert Weir: The specific case mentioned by the hon. member for Weybum was that of a levy, and I do not believe there is any .power here to place a .man in gaol if he does not pay a debt or a levy.


Ross Wilfred Gray: You can levy under the regulations.


Robert Weir: The levies are .made by the dominion marketing board only, so it would not be a regulation of the local board.


Edward James Young: The section says, "any order or determination of the board or of a local board."


Robert Weir: The levy is fixed by the dominion marketing board; it is not a regulation of the local board. Hon. members forget that these provisions are for the use of the producers themselves, so that the will of the majority may be enforced. Here is a very good example: Hon. members on both sides of the house have declared themselves in favour of orderly marketing. To have orderly or controlled marketing there must be some .means of enforcing control, and the purpose of this section is to give this power to the producers themselves if they desire to use it.


William Alexander Fraser: I should like to ask the minister a question arising out of the statement he has just made. The dominion export board came into being and received its authority under the Natural Products Marketing Act. I should like to ask the minister if within the last two months a telegram was sent from a certain office under the export board to a .certain man in a certain town in .the province of N-ova Scotia- and I will name the town if the minister desires-stating that if he did not pay the levy on his export apples he would be fined? And did that telegram include a threat as to what would follow after the fine? Would the minister mind answering that question?


Robert Weir: I have not that information.


William Alexander Fraser: Better look it up.


Edward James Young: Will tihe minister explain the meaning of the word b-o-a-r-d in the second line of section 14?


Robert Weir: That means the dominion board.


Edward James Young: Then what does "local board" mean?


Robert Weir: The producers' board.	.
Marketing Act Amendment


Edward James Young: Then according to this section any person who fails to comply with any regulation of the dominion board or of a local board is liable to fine or imprisonment, and one of those regulations or determinations might be -and will be the payment of a levy. In the light of -that fact and according to these words in this section, how does the minister say these people cannot be sent to gaol for failing to pay such a levy?


Robert Weir: The dominion board collects the levy through the local board.


Edward James Young: But what I want -to know is how the minister can claim that a man will not be sent to gaol for not paying the levy with this provision in the act.


Robert Weir: My information is
that the dominion board sets up a levy to be collected from the producers to carry out the provisions of their scheme; it is a debt, and a man may not be imprisoned for failure to pay that debt. In the statement he made the hon. member for Northumberland implied that this threat was contained in the latter part of a telegram that was sent to a certain individual in Nova Scotia. I have not that information at hand, but I doubt if that is a- correct statement.


William Duff: Will the minister produce the information?


Robert Weir: Yes, I shall be
glad to.
Amendment (Mr. Elliott) negatived: yeas, 15; nays, 24.
Section agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, June 26, 1935