1928-04-23

RESIGNATION OF SIR HENRY DRAYTON

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I have the
honour to inform the house that the Speaker has received the following communication: House of Commons.
Dominion of Canada.
To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
To wit:
I,	Henry Lumley Drayton, member of the House of Commons of Canada, for the electoral district of West York, do hereby resign my seat in the said House of Commons, for the constituency aforesaid.
Given under my hand and seal at the city of Ottawa, this twenty-third day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.
H. L. Drayton (L.S.)
Witness, S. Charters.
Witness, R. B. Bennett.
The Speaker also received the following letter:
The Honourable, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I enclose herewith my resignation as member of the house. This course, severing as it does many happy associations, I find necessary owing to my acceptance of the chairmanship of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.
May I thank you and the members of the house for the kindness and consideration always shown me, and for the lasting friendships I am proud to think I carry with me.
Yours sincerely,
H. L. Drayton.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with respect
to the communication which you have just read I should like to assure my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Bennett) that all of us on this side of the house join very sincerely with him in regretting the resignation of Sir Henry Drayton as a member of the house. While Sir Henry Drayton was opposed to us politically, and differed from us on many matters of political opinion, differences were usually so expressed as not to tend to lessen the ties of friendship existing between hon. members on both sides of the house. I might almost say that no member of the house had more personal friends among members of all political parties than the member for West York. Sir Henry some years ago in order to serve his country in parliament resigned the position of chairman of the railway commission, a very
fMr. Mackenzie King.]

Resignation of Sir Henry Drayton
important position in the public service of Canada. He did so, I believe, from the highest and most public spirited of motives, and since that time he has continuously served in parliament as a minister of the crown or an honourable member of this house. Sir Henry is now returning to duties somewhat similar in character to those he discharged on the railway commission. As chairman of another very important commission, I am sure he will bring to his new task that exceptional personal and professional equipment which marked his tenure of office as chairman of the railway commission. We all wish him every success in his new field of public service.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: On behalf of myself and those
associated with me who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, I desire to thank the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) very sincerely for the kind references he has made to Sir Henry Drayton, who until a few moments ago was the member for West York. With all that the Prime Minister has said with respect to Sir Henry Drayton, it is of course our delight to agree. To his public duties he brought a highly trained mind. He was an experienced lawyer and an able administrator, and his experience as chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners gave him an insight into Canadian business, and a knowledge of conditions throughout the country, unrivalled at the time he accepted the very onerous and responsible duties of Minister of Finance of Canada. At that time it was exceedingly difficult to induce any man of standing to undertake so large a responsibility, having regard to the then condition of our country. Sir Henry Drayton had, as the Prime Minister has said, a very high sense of his duty to Canada, and the discharge of that duty occasioned him .a great deal of worry and anxiety. Like most public men, now that his*services in this chamber have ceased they are more truly recognized at their real worth, alike by his friends and his opponents. I am sure we are very deeply grateful to the Prime Minister and those who sit with him for the kindly references they have made to our colleague, and their appreciation of what the house has lost. His departure, however regrettable it may be to members of the house generally, will be much more keenly felt by those of us who have been so intimately associated with him in parliament.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: We in this comer of the house desire to be associated with other members in expressing our regret at the resignation of the hon. member for West York, Sir Henry Drayton. It is quite true that Sir Henry has given very valuable service to his country, and while he is leaving this particular field, in which he had laboured so long and faithfully, he is nevertheless available for public service in another direction. When I first came to this house some years ago I think I received more encouragement from Sir Henry Drayton than from practically any other member of the house, and I shall always remember with great appreciation his kindly manner on all occasions. Once again I wish to say on behalf of those who sit with me how heartily we associate ourselves with other members in the house in this expression of appreciation of Sir Henry Drayton.



REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of select standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Kay.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 215, to incorporate the Canadian Commerce Insurance Company-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).

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

Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Who is the party that has the timber permit on sections 9, 16 and 17, township 56, range 12, west of the 5th meridian?
2.	Is the timber classed as:	(a) burnt;
(b) partly burnt; (c) green?
3.	What amount of timber has been cut on this permit up to December 31. 1927, and what amount of dues have been paid?


Mr. MOTHERWELL (for Mr. Stewart, Edmonton):: 1.	The north half of section 9, southwest quarter of section 16, and the southeast quarter of section 17, township 56, range 12, west of the 5th meridian, were included in fire-killed berth No. 3915, the timber thereon being sold to Mr. F. J. Hanson at public auction, by the agent of Dominion lands at Edmonton, on the 20th October, 1926.
Questions

2.	The timber was classed as including fully fifty per cent fire-killed or would die from the effects of fire. Sale was made in accordance with the regulations.
3.	456,528 feet b.m. manufactured and 1,601 unmanufactured logs on hand. Advance dues of $65, with original deposit intact, paid. Balance of dues on timber cult is payable on sales.


IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OP COAL
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What were the total imports of coal into Canada during the year 1927?
2.	What were the total exports of coal from Canada during that year?
3.	What was the aggregate value in each case?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.
Anthracite	tons	4.107,854

Bituminous	tons	14,065,142

Lignite	tons	10,829
$	44,254
Ex-warehoused for
ship's stores.. .. tons 503,529 $	1,018,069
Total	
2. Canadian produce. Lignite	
Coal, N.O.P.. ..
Foreign produce- Coal	
tons 18,687,354 $ 61,784,509
.tons 27,782 $	83.902
.tons 1,085,548 $ 5,806,357
.tons 6,522 $	48,148
3.	Answered in 1 and 2, above.


HISTORIC SITES AND PUBLIC PARKS
Mr. MacNUTT:: What amounts have been spent by the Dominion government in each province of the Dominion during each of the past ten years, respectively, for historic sites and public parks?


Mr. MOTHERWELL (for Mr. Stewart, Edmonton):: Canadian National Parks Expenditure
From April 1, 1918 to February 29, 1928
-	1918-19	1919-20	1920-21	1921-22	1922-23	1923-24	1924-25	1925-26	1926-27	1927-28British Columbia-	$ cts. 24,314 27	$ cts. 34,931 14	$ cts. 163,127 75	$ cts. 254,836 01	$ cts. 293,056 41	$ cts. 173,584 64 555 46	$ cts. 118,271 00 3,479 63	$ cts. 203,380 52 1,221 75	S cts. 327,880 21 1,348 35	$ cts. 238,121 38 978 28
24,314 27	34,931 14	163,127 75	254,836 01	293,056 41	174,140 10	121,750 63	204,602 27	329,228 56	239,099 66
Alberta-										
	258,690 07	462,637 66	548,541 65	605,442 13	601,378 27	793,990 97 169 60	772,092 28 186 99	745,234 77 541 67	704,168 13 1,311 98	682,721 62 831 92
										
										
	258,690 07	462,637 66	548,541 65	605,442 13	601,378 27	794,160 57	772,279 27	745,776 44	705,480 11	683,553 54
Saskatchewan-										
				50 00	1,719 08	514 51 1,399 98	974 45 1,542 04	286 21 172 85	420 38 530 35	26,746 47 56 39
										
										
				50 00	1,719 08	1,914 49	2,516 49	459 06	950 73	26,802 86
Manitoba-										
										
				52 53		350 00	451 64	254 49		382 88
										
				52 53		350 00	451 64	254 49		382 88
Ontario-										
	1,731 30	6,312 05	6,314 15	8,212 45 539 25	7,048 21 3,245 80	6,413 83 5,021 02	6,502 57 3,473 07	5,503 63 3,906 68	5,596 00 4,448 52	10,875 54 3,366 35
										
										
	1,731 30	6,312 05	6,314 15	8,751 70	10,294 01	11,434,85	9,975 64	9,410 31	9,844 52	14,241 89
Qdebec-										
										
				3,414 46	3,908 07	4,172 68	4,392 34	7,103 74	3,755 85	5,279 13
										
				3,414 46	3,908 07	4,172 68	4,392 34	7,103 74	3,755 85	5,279 13
										

Questions
Motherwell.]
Canadian National Parks Expenditure-Concluded
-	1918-19	1919-20	1920-21	1921-22	1922-23	1923-24	1924-25	1925-26	1926-27	1927-28New Brunswick-	$ ets.	$ cts*	$ cts.	$ cts.	S cts.	S cts.	$ cts. 5 98 966 81	$ cts. 55 98 1,313 95	$ cts. 325 30 1,186 34	$ cts. 1,977 97 945 59334 39	28 39	2,248 72	
334 39	28 39	2,248 72	972 79	1,369 93	1,511 64	2,923 56
Nova Scotia-										
	1,095 10	2,213 57	2,247 65	2,091 62	3,798 69 57 63	2,886 78 1,905 93	1,292 09 1,189 26	1,336 80 1,125 77	1,908 71 747 36	3,733 71 1,135 92
										
Total	 Prince Edward Island-										
	1,095 10	2,213 57	2,247 65	2,091 62	3,856 32	4,792 71	2,481 35	2,462 57	2,656 07	4,869 63
										
							195 25	5 50		
										
							195 25	5 50		
Head Office, ""Ottawa-										
	20,354 01	48,284 70 191 40	39,567 05 434 35	75,505 46 3,232 39	86,575 90 6,175 46	9,065 36 5,558 73	72,285 03 10,244 43	95,159 67 13,751 18	99,611 70 9,233 44	109,515 47 8,805 42
										
										
20,354 01	48,476 10	40,001 40	78,737 85	92,751 36	103,624 09	82,529 46	108,910 85	108,845 14	118,320 89300,184 75	554,570 52	760,232 60	953,710 69	1,006,991 91	1,096,838 21	997,546 86	1,080,355 16	1,162,272 62	1,095,474 04
*The amounts shown as head office expenditures cover salaries of staff at Ottawa, pamphlets for publicity, printing and stationery, travelling expenses, etc.
2260	COMMONS
Questions

Questions


Mr. VENIOT:: 


CAP ST. IGNACE POSTMASTER
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Was Joseph Bossinotte, late postmaster at Cap St. Ignaee, dismissed on account of political partisanship?
2. If so. who made the accusations of political partisanship?
3.	Were said accusations denied by said Bossinotte?
4.	If so, -was an investigation held?
5.	If not, was an investigation asked for?
6.	In the affirmative, by whom?
7.	Why was such investigation not held?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The member for the constituency.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.
6.	Former postmaster.
7.	Member for constituency stated that he had personal knowledge of the political activities of the postmaster.


SCHOONER ADMIRAL BEATTY
Mr. QUINN:: 1.	^Vas the schooner Admiral Beatty seized by the Department of Customs?
2.	If so. what was the date of seizure?
3.	Has the said vessel been released?
4.	If so. on what date?
5.	Was there a trial as the result of seizure?
6.	If so, what was the result of the trial and judgment of the court?
7.	Has the judgment of the court been carried into effect?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	31st July, 1926.
3.	Yes.
4.	16th October, 1927.
5.	Yes.
6.	Seizure of Admiral Beatty and her cargo declared not justified. Further declared vessel and cargo should be discharged from the custody of the crown and delivered to their owners free from charge or expense incident to the detention. Certified that there was probable cause for the seizure. No order as to costs.
7.	Yes, as respects vessel. Release of cargo has been offered but owner has not taken delivery.


AIR MAIL-MONTREAL AND TORONTO
Mr. HUBBS:: 1.	Has an air mail contract been given for carrying mail between Montreal and Toronto?
2.	If so, were tenders called for said contract?	.
3.	From whom were tenders received?
4.	What is the name of the contractor?
5.	At what date will said contract go into force?
1.	Yes.
2.	No. The Postmaster General has authority under statute' to make arrangements for conveyance of mails by air.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	Canadian Airways, Limited.
5.	About 2Sth April, 1928.


SIMCOE, ONT., POSTMASTER
Mr. CHARTERS:: 1.	Was 1. D. Lawson, postmaster at Simcoe, Ontario, dismissed in February, 1927?
2.	If so. for what reason?
3.	On what date was the present postmaster appointed?
4.	Upon whose recommendation was the appointment made?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On the ground of incompetency.
3.	Chas. E. Eaid is acting postmaster since 31st January, 1927.
4.	On recommendation of member for constituency-permanent appointment will be made by the Civil Service Commission.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. KENNEDY:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, reports and other documents passing between the Department of Railways and Cianals and the Alberta government, and betiveen the Canadian National 'Railways and the Alberta government with reference to the purchase of the railways of Alberta, by the Canadian National Railways, or by the Canadian Pacific Railway, or by the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railway jointly.


CAP ST. IGNACE POSTMASTER
Mr. CAHAN:: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, and orders in council relating to dismissal of Joseph Bossinotte, late postmaster at Cap St. Ignaee, county of Montmagny, Quebec, and to the appointment of his successor in said office.


OSHWEKEN, ONTARIO, POSTMASTER
Mr. SMOKE:: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, telegrams, orders in council, relating to the dismissal of Mr. J. S. Johnson, late postmaster at O'nsweken, Ontario, and to the appointment of his successor.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MR. JOHN MACKINNON
Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of the report of the investigation in the case of locomotive engineer John MacKinnon, of Riviere du Loup, and of all the correspondence relating thereto.
Railway Act Amendment

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I would point out that this motion evidently asks for something which has a bearing upon the relations between the management of the Canadian National Railways and one of their employees. It has not been the custom of this house to pass orders for returns of this character, in view of the fact that all matters of this kind are in the hands of the management.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I would ask the
minister if an investigation took place in this particular case?


Mr. DUNNING:: I have no personal knowledge of it. If my friend would drop his resolution, I will be glad to ascertain the facts and take the case up with him.


Jean-François Pouliot: Very well.
Dropped.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the provisions of the Railway Act in regard to the railway grade crossing fund be amended to provide for the application of the moneys by the board towards the cost of actual construction work in respect of crossings at rail level in existence on the first day of April, 1909, and in respect of existing crossings constructed after that date where in any ease an agreement, approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners, has been entered into between the railway company and a municipal or other corporation or person by which the municipal or other corporation or person agrees to bear a portion of the cost of the construction; and the total amount applied out of the fund in respect of any one crossing, where the cost of construction does not exceed $100,000 shall not exceed 40 per cent of such cost; and where the cost of construction exceeds $100,000 shall not exceed 40 per cent of such cost with a maximum of $100,000.
The grants or the unexpended portions thereof made under the statutes of 1909, c. 32, 1914, c. 50, 1919, c. 30, of $200,000 each year for twenty consecutive years from the first day of April, 1909, may be expended to aid construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of crossings in existence on the first day of April, 1909, and in respect of existing crossings constructed after that date where agreements have been entered into as aforesaid.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: In connection with the report of the superintendent of penitentiaries, I would direct the [DOT] attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that on page 15 a strong recommendation is made that prisoners be given employment in order that they may support their families, who are often in great want, and I ask if the government are giving serious consideration to this recommendation.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The question is under consideration, and I assure my hon. friend that it is receiving serious consideration.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN WINNIPEG
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Last Friday in the city of
Winnipeg some 1,500 unemployed persons, including a large number of recent immigrants, went to the provincial government buildings asking for help because they were destitute.
I understand that a telegram was sent to the federal government asking that some action be taken in this connection, and I would ask what action is being taken by the government. It seems very strange to me that immigrants should be brought in when this state of affairs exists.


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I had some
private information from Winnipeg to the effect that there was a tendency on the part of labour to concentrate in that city this spring because of the publicity which has been given to various developments likely to take place during this summer in Winnipeg and in the country to the north of that city. I had a wire in regard to the delegation referred to by my hon. friend, and immediately .1 wired the commissioner of immigration at Winnipeg for information. I have his reply here, which I will read to the house:
Your wire re unemployed. Plenty of work available, in fact not enough hands to fill applications. Men marching streets of Winnipeg mostly local people who will not go to farm work. No new arrivals amongst them. Possibly a few of last year's arrivals who refuse farm work have joined the crowd. Will report later.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask whether the request of the provincial government will be complied with, namely, that the immigration hall at Winnipeg be opened for the registration of immigrants out of work? That seems reasonable.

Quebec, Saguenay Railway


Robert Forke: That is a matter that will
require some consideration. On first thought I do not think it would be practicable to undertake any such thing; however, in the meantime I will give no definite answer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then do I understand that no action is to be taken in this matter, affecting as it does 1,500 people, especially in view of the fact that the provincial government are asking that something be done immediately? If that be the case, Mr. Speaker, I give notice of a motion to adjourn the house to discuss the matter. It is highly undesirable that there should be nothing but absolute silence in the face of a situation of that character.


QUEBEC, SAGUENAY, CHIBOUGAMOU RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) whether or not the government has made any commitments with respect to the Quebec, Saguenay & Chibougamou railway. I observe that in one of the leading financial journals it is stated that work has already begun on construction, that satisfactory financial arrangements have been completed; that the Canadian National has supervision over construction of the line and has a satisfactory operating agreement with that railway. It is also stated that Sir Henry Thornton is to be vice-president of the new road. I have followed the legislation as closely as possible this session and I have seen no indication that any bill with reference to the matter is to be introduced. I myself have no knowledge of it; possibly the minister can give the house some information.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	The Dominion
government has no financial relationship whatever with the Quebec, Saguenay & Chibougamou railway. My knowledge of that railway company is that it is a provincially incorporated company; it is not incorporated by federal charter. It is intended, I believe, to connect at a point which is at present served by the Canadian National, which would probably involve a traffic agreement. But there is no financial commitment; neither the government nor the Canadian National is in any way guaranteeing the securities of or is in any sense financially responsible for the Quebec, Saguenay & Chibougamou railway.
With respect to the report my hon. friend refers to-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Supervising the construction.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; I have seen the reports in that regard. I have no official knowledge as to the matter, but this much unofficial knowledge I have: that the Canadian National, for the protection of their own interests, will be entering into an agreement with this company with respect to traffic and also with respect to supervision of standards of construction. With reference to Sir Henry Thornton becoming the vice-president of the company, I have no information, but I shall be glad to make inquiry as to that.


RURAL POSTMASTERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
wish to ask the Postmaster General (Mr Veniot) whether we may expect legislation this session dealing with an increase of commissions paid to rural postmasters. I think he indicated earlier in the session that such legislation would be introduced.


Peter John Veniot: Should the government decide to grant the request, legislation wlil not be necessary. The matter is under consideration. When the supplementary estimates are being dealt with the decision will be given to the house, with Whatever details may be necessary.


TECHNICAL EDUCATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: 1
asked three questions the other day regarding technical education. The final question was:
Does the government contemplate the withdrawal of financial support now provided under the Technical Education Act of 1919?
To which the answer was:
The act does not terminate until March 31, 1929.
I know that the question is really a matter of policy, but in view of the fact that members are receiving from all over the country communications opposing any withdrawal of the aid to technical education, it occurred to me that if the government had not definitely decided to discontinue the assistance to technical education it would be of some satisfaction to those interested throughout the country if a statement to that effect were made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the time of the con-
Technical Education

ference between the members of the federal government and the provincial premiers and ministers the whole question of grants in aid of provincial undertakings was very fully discussed, It was the general view of the premiers and ministers of the provinces that they would like to receive in the form of a direct subsidy anything to which they were entitled in the way of aid from the federal treasury. They took the view that a grant from the federal government carrying with it an obligation on the part of the provincial governments to undertake part of the work was frequently embarrassing, and that on the whole it was not good policy that grants should be made conditional by the federal government. I must say that the representations of the provinces in that particular were pretty generally assented to; it was I believe the general consensus of view that the provinces should deal wholly with these matters, which come primarily within their jurisdiction, and that if the federal treasury were to assist them in any way the assistance should be by way of subsidy grant, thus allowing the provinces to dispose of the funds as they deem best.
With regard to the Technical Education Act, as my hon. friend knows, the intention as expressed at the time the act was introduced was to make from the federal treasury a contribution only over a period of years, primarily with the object of helping the provinces to inaugurate a system of technical education, and secondarily to insure in whatever they might undertake some degree of sjimmetry and uniformity among the provinces themselves. But it was never contemplated that the federal treasury should continue indefinitely to contribute to technical education. At the recent conference there was considerable discussion on the question of scientific and industrial research which, as my hon. friend knows, is closely allied to that of technical education, and in this connection it was felt that the establishment of scientific research laboratories should be undertaken by the federal government. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) has already intimated to this house that the government has decided to ask parliament to make a substantial grant towards establishing in the capital laboratories for scientific and industrial research, to serve the needs of the entire Dominion. We feel that if we undertake this obligation and establish scientific and industrial research laboratories on the scale which is intended-and the decision was reached after discussion with the provinces themselves-we are going as far as we should be expected to go in dealing 
in a combined way with scientific research and technical education.
The aid given under the Technical Education Act does not expire until 1929. It was two or three years ago that the first notification was sent to the provinces that on the expiry of the present act its provisions would not be renewed, and the provinces have had ample opportunity, and still have ample opportunity, to make provision themselves for satisfactorily carrying on the work which has been undertaken. We may consider continuing assistance, for a period of time to correspond with that which the act was originally intended to serve, to provinces that have not taken full advantage of the act, but those that have been receiving aid for the full period of time under the provisions of this act will at the expiration of the act be expected to carry on the work for which this assistance was given them in order to enable them to make a beginning in a satisfactory way.


Robert James Manion: May I say just another
word? I appreciate the statement of the Prime Minister, but would it be of any use under the circumstances for those interested to make representations to the government to reconsider the question, or to keep it open, since they have a year to deal with the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it
might as well be understood first as last that the matter is one of government policy. It is only part of the broader policy of seeking to have the provinces continue to deal with matters coming primarily within their own jurisdiction, a practice which came to be subject to some considerable variation only during the war period. At that time there were placed upon the federal treasury a number of obligations which had theretofore been provincial obligations. We feel it is going to be better for all concerned to have the Dominion parliament take care of those matters which are assigned to it under the British North America Act and have the provinces do the same with respect to theirs.


ILLICIT LIQUOR TRAFFIC
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
' Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): Has the attention of the government been called to a report in the Simcoe Reformer of April 12 to the effect that international rum runners are prepared to stage a oitter fight and have had a new bullet-proof speed boat built with modem armament? It is the only one of its kind, but five are ready

Exchequer Court Act
to leave Port Dover, and the United States officials are proclaiming their intention to meet these boats with armed boats carrying machine guns stationed at two-mile intervals along the shores of the United States. If the government has any knowledge of this, what do they propose doing to prevent unfriendly relations developing out of the situation?
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: I also saw in the newspapers the
report as read by my hon. friend, but I took from it that if any such action is proposed, it is proposed by United States people, not by Canadian citizens. I see in that no effort to violate Canadian law.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: In
the event of the boats just referred to being built in Canada, would the minister think that Canada was not involved in the matter?


PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 189, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Application of certain sections of part IX extended to Nova Scotia.
Ernest Lapointe: This is a very simple
bill. Part IX of the Prisons and Reformatories Act, section 148 states:
This part applies only to the provinces of Neiv Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
This is a mistake, because sections 155 to 160 inclusive, which are part of Part IX, apply specifically to the interprovincial home for young women at Cloverdale in New Brunswick and apply to Nova Scotia as well as Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. This bill is for the purpose of correcting what is an obvious error in section 148.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was this not in the
statute before and in the revision, dropped out?


Ernest Lapointe: Apparently section 148
was not amended in order to make it consonant with sections 155 and following.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 190, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Constitution of court.
Ernest Lapointe: This clause is made
necessary on account of the fact that there are now two judges of the exchequer court, the president and a puisne judge. It is to make it clear that when the words "judge of the exchequer court" are used in any statute, they apply equally to one or other of the two judges.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Official referees.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the Minister
of Justice must agree with me that it is very odd that the section should have been left in any revision of the statutes, after all the official arbitrators were dead, and especially in the new statutes that came into force on the. first of February of this year.


Ernest Lapointe: It is queer that this
particular section should have been retained in the statute when the men to whom it applies were dead long ago.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Jurisdiction in cases of patents, copyright and trade marks.
Ernest Lapointe: This is to give the exchequer court jurisdiction in passing-off actions as well as statutory actions for infringements of the Trade Marks and Designs Act. Those actions are common law actions while an infringement action is under a statute. The exchequer court has ruled that under the act as it stands, it has no jurisdiction in common law and has to apply the statute strictly and rigidly. Of course in relations between the crown and the subject when the crown is plaintiff or petitioner, it is specifically stated that the court has jurisdiction at common law or in equity, but in relations between subject and subject the cdurt has no such jurisdiction. This is to give the exchequer court the same jurisdiction as the other courts have in the matter.
Exchequer Court Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the term "common law" apply to the province of Quebec or exclusively to the English common law?


Ernest Lapointe: I think on trade marks and patents, it would apply to the province of Quebec as well.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Apply the English common law?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I apprehend that this does not take away the jurisdiction of the provincial courts?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is perfectly clear?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any doubt I had was that, because I recall actions with respect to violations of patents and seeking indemnities being brought in the provincial courts, and I cannot think that this would take away the jurisdiction which imiA be concurrent with the exchequer court.


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Inasmuch as two jurisdictions are created, one the exchequer court jurisdiction, and the other the jurisdiction of the superior court of the province of Quebec-


Ernest Lapointe: The high courts have already jurisdiction. Perhaps the point raised by my hoo. friend as to the province of Quebec may be well taken. I cannot tell my hon. friend if, under the law as it is, actions at common law with regard to "passing-off" would apply to the province of Quebec.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: At least it does not take away any jurisdiction which the courts of Quebec have at the present time?


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all. It is merely to give to the exchequer court something additional.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Practice and procedure, how regulated.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not quite consistent with the attitude generally taken by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, to make the practice of the high court of England as it existed on January 1, 1928, applicable to our courts. Would it not be better to let our courts frame their own regulations and have them approved by the governor in Council? It says:

The practice and procedure in suits, actions and matters in the exchequer court, shall, so far as they are applicable, and unless it is otherwise provided for by this act, or by eneral rules made in pursuance of this act, e regulated by the practice and procedure in similar suits, actions and matters in His Majesty's High Court of Justice in England on the first day of January, 1928.
I must say I rather dislike that form of statute. That is only my personal view. We had the same thing in the Northwest Territories, as the minister will recall. I think it would be much better to permit the court to formulate its own rules, regulations and practice, but it might be well, having regard to the desirability of maintaining some uniformity in patent practice throughout the Empire, to say that in no case shall larger powers be conferred upon the judge or court than would be conferred upon them by the rules and regulations in force in England on the 1st day of January, 1928, rather than to have it as it now is.


Ernest Lapointe: As my hon. friend says, it is merely a question of date. The section already exists in our statute, and we are simply making it January 1, 1928, instead of 1907, because since that date there have been changes in the practice and procedure in England. My hon. friend suggests that it might be better if we had our own rules and regulations, but I would point out that this amendment is suggested by the judges of the exchequer court themselves, in order to make their practice more modern. Probably they will see to it that they have their own rules and regulations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am afraid they are not
imbued with nationalist sentiment.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is wrong.
We are making this change because we want to do it. That is autonomy. We are not being forced to do it; we are doing it of our own free will.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The real effect is merely to say that the exchequer court practice shall be governed by the English practice as of the 1st day of January, 1928?


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly, instead of 1907.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The practice of 1907 is,
of course, somewhat antiquated having regard to modern rules that have been made to meet the changed conditions of business, but it does occur to me that it would be easier and simpler to amend our own rules. There is no court in England that is exactly the counterpart of our exchequer court. The high court of justice is divided into the chancery division,

Fertilizer Act
the court of King's Bench, probate, admiralty and divorce, and the chancery division takes these patent oases, and the rules and regulations of the chancery division apply, except in cases otherwise expressly provided for, to all divisions, and would govern this practice. It all comes down to the courts determining whether or not a particular rule in England to meet conditions in England is applicable to conditions in Canada, which personally as a practitioner, now no longer actively engaged,
I used to dislike very much, I think it much better to have our own rules sanctioned by our own court. We had the rules of the English court in the Northwest Territories in the early days, and we found it very inconvenient after a time, and passed our own rules and regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-General rules and orders.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would suggest to the minister that in paragraph (a) the words "practice and" be inserted before the word "procedure."
I think practice differs in some respect from procedure, and I think the whole matter of practice and procedure should be subject to the general rules, made by the judges in the court.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend suggests
using the words used in the previous section. Personally I do not see any strong objection, except that we are here simply using the language which is already in the statute, the only amendment being to say "judges" instead of "judge". We are not changing any other part of the section.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Inasmuch as we are withdrawing the exchequer court so far as possible from the practice and procedure which prevails in His Majesty's high court of justice in England, I think it would be wise to use the words "practice and procedure".


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection, and
I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the words
"practice and procedure" are the words in general use. The word practice was used by some of the English judges because a practice had grown up that was not governed by their rules and practice, and so they say "practice and procedure" universally in the English rules.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 72, to amend the Fertilizer Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Information to be set forth on brand, etc.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, as I explained to the committee on a previous occasion with respect of some other bills introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, I have grave doubts as to their constitutionality. For instance, this bill prohibits sale and possession, and unless it can be said that these powers are ancillary to the general powers over agriculture given to this parliament by the British North America Act, I think the bill would share the fate of the government grading act, in some sections at any rate. I suppose, as the minister said on a former occasion, it might be all right to pass it;-


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Take a shot at it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That it might be all
right to take a shot at it; but I suggest to him that the "shot" might come from another quarter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I do think
the house should hesitate to pass bills of this character where there is grave doubt as to their being within the legislative competence of this parliament. We are really passing a criminal statute, and it places upon those who are conducting a perfectly legitimate business the burden of carrying to the highest courts of the land the issue of constitutionality, a burden that is almost intolerable. I regret very much that I was not in the house last week when another bill of this description was passed, for I believe it went far beyond our jurisdiction. If I were advising a client I should regard it as perfectly moral as well as legal to counsel him to defy such a statute from the very start. I see no reason why parliament itself should undertake an illegal act; it brings the whole of our statutory law into disrepute and forms an incentive to disregard law generally.


Mr. COOTE:: Mr. Chairman, I think the
same point occurred to some members of the committee; but as I understand this bill, it is simply amending an act, and if this measure is beyond the powers of parliament, I think

Fertilizer Act

the act itself is in precisely the same position, and I do not see that we can make things worse by passing the bill.


William Richard Motherwell: I think, Mr. Chairman, that on two other occasions I pointed out that several of these bills dealing with
various branches of the Department of Agriculture have this question of constitutionality bound up with them. The original law has been on the statute books a good many years, and we have amended it once or twice, but its constitutionality has never been challenged. Consequently we proceed on the assumption that it is constitutional. The Live Stock Act was challenged on this ground. I immediately got in touch with all the provincial departments of agriculture and with one or two exceptions they passed concurring legislation. Should we meet a similar difficulty with regard to the fertilizer or any other act, then we shall take the same course, and if the provinces want the legislation they will pass the necessary concurring bills. I do not think it is advisable to cross the bridge until we come to it. We have not yet come to the bridge with respect to any of these pieces of legislation with the exception of the Live Stock Act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The "bridge" to which the
hon. minister refers is well nigh an intolerable bui'de|n for the ordinary 'agriculturist or merchant dealing in fertilizers. Why should you place the burden upon an individual of carrying litigation to the supreme court at a cost of thousands of dollars in order to ascertain whether the law is ultra vires of parliament or not? It seems to me that in respect of agriculture there is a good deal of joint and several jurisdiction, and that it would be wise in all these matters to bring the proposed legislation before the provincial governments and have them, if possible, pass concurrent legislation to dispose of all doubt. But I suggest that the minister, in introducing legislation of this kind, is not assuming a conciliatory attitude in respect of the provincial departments of agriculture, whose co-operation is necessary in order to give validity to his enactment.


William Richard Motherwell: That position is well taken, only I happen to have done what is suggested; and I am under promise to do it with respect to the Live Stock Act. The committee on agriculture reported to-day regarding that act. The matter was taken up with the provincial ministers before we even drafted that legislation, and all other similar acts have gone before the Justice department. We have received the best advice they could 
give and in many instances they have even helped to draft the legislation. Why, therefore, should I anticipate that the Justice department is wrong by going to the provincial departments and asking them to delegate to us powers which we may already have, and which, according to the Department of Justice, we have? It is only when these powers are challenged that we should consult the provinces. Suppose I went to the Minister of Agriculture of either Quebec or Ontario and said, "I should like you to pass concurring legislation with respect to this matter". That minister would immediately ask, "Has it been challenged?" If I said, no, he would then ask why I wanted to anticipate difficulty.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We are challenging it now.


William Richard Motherwell: The provinces are
jealous of their powers and do not like to delegate them to us unless they want legislation badly enough, and it is only when legislation of this kind is challenged that it becomes necessary to have the powers delegated to us. I have found them agreeable.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed, on division.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee on bill No. 51, to regulate the sale and inspection of root vegetables.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Edward Joseph Garland: This bill was amended in the committee, and I do not find on my files a copy of the printed amendment. Unless that is available we cannot discuss the matter intelligently.


William Richard Motherwell: I have not a copy of the amendment myself; I did not expect that we should take it up so soon. There ought to be some understanding in regard to the reprinting of these bills wherever they are substantially changed, and the leaders in the house, as well as the member in charge of the bill, should be supplied with copies.


Edward Joseph Garland: My recollection is that in committee this bill was materially changed. There were several amendments, one of which was particularly important. We should have a copy of the reprint before proceeding.

Root Vegetables Act


John Frederick Johnston: There are no lengthy
amendments and I will undertake to read each amended clause fully, as we come to it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Vegetables sold, etc., must comply with this act and regulations.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What I said in connection with the other bill, with respect to the constitutional right of parliament to enact legislation of this character, I now repeat. I do not think we should content ourselves with merely expressing our views privately, but we should publicly point out that there is a grave doubt regarding the constitutional power of this parliament to pass the bill in its present form. Such a statement is necesary in order that it might not be said that there was no one in parliament who apprehended the difficulties in connection with prosecutions that might be brought under such legislation.


William Richard Motherwell: This bill also was
submitted to the Justice department, and while there may be some constitutional doubt, as my hon. friend has said, the legislation has never been challenged.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 3 is entirely
new.


William Richard Motherwell: Why should we not continue the legislation until it is challenged? We have had the best advice from the department, not only under the present but under preceding governments, indicating that we are on sound lines.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 3, I say, is entirely new, and it prohibits the sale of vegetables by any person except under special conditions. This I consider an interference with the exclusive powers of the provincial legislatures.


William Richard Motherwell: As a rule there are exemptions under all these bills.


Mr.   CALIAN@: Will the minister explain
this bill? It seems to me to impose upon the ordinary agriculturist such intolerable conditions that it would be almost impossible for anyone to carry on the business of diversified farming as it is engaged in in the older provinces. You are making almost every farmer a criminal at the start if he carries on his business in the ordinary way to which he has been accustomed.


William Richard Motherwell: There were on the committee a number of practical farmers who did not seem to be alarmed, especially in 56103-144*
view of the exemptions provided in section 21. I was not in the committee at the time, but the suggestion was made, I am informed, that we might provide further exemptions if we found any hardship existing such as my hon. friend fears. Very often when you make an exemption people take advantage of it, so we have taken power to remove some of the exemptions, and if we find in practice that more are desirable we can increase the number. The reason we have extended our power in this respect is that these vegetables change from year to year, just as the commercial grades of western wheat change. In the west we have what is called the western grain standards board, which is given authority to specify grades from year to year according the peculiarities of the grain in that particular year. We find that this works very satisfactorily, and since vegetables also vary we have given the government power to establish grades on the advice of an advisory board according to the peculiarities of the vegetables for the particular year. More than half the grain in the west is dealt with in that way, and it is found to be quite workable. There are certain exemptions here, with which we can deal when we reach them. I do not think this is an occasion for alarm, although looking at this act superficially it does seem arbitrary. However, it is hedged about with enough provisoes that no one will get hurt, so far as I can see.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Will the minister be
good enough to tell us who requested all these regulations?


William Richard Motherwell: We found that
when we had a case in court the Department of Justice would invariably show us where the law was weak. This act has not been before the house for five or six years, and the evasions of the law have accumulated during that time. We have been shown how to stop these evasions, and we are doing so by these new sections.


Mr McGIBBON:: I can assure the minister that this will not be a way to avoid trouble for his government.


James Dew Chaplin: As an example let us
consider section 4. Under this section potatoes, onions, turnips, artichokes, beets, carrots and parsnips must be sold by weight. We all know that in markets all over this country, and especially in the older provinces, during one season of the year these articles are all sold in bunches, and later when the roots have matured they are sold by measurement and not by weight. These vegetables are never sold by weight; they are sold by
Root Vegetables Act

the basket, by the peck or by the bushel, but now that is to be changed. I am afraid we will have our standards of weights changed one of these days, if we are not careful; we may find ourselves using the metric system without knowing it.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend had taken the time to read the act through he would have found the exemptions under section 21.


James Dew Chaplin: There are not enough exemptions.


William Richard Motherwell: We can open it as wide as a barn door if we consider it necessary. My hon. friend should give the committee on agriculture some credit for knowing what they are doing; we thought this was a pretty good bill. There is a constitutional exception which may be taken to it, but this has been in practice from time immemorial.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These sections are new.


William Richard Motherwell: Why should we expect that someone is going to gabble us up in this respect?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why should you pass such a law which will include every market in the city of Montreal? If market gardeners cany on their business in their usual way, under this law our gaols will be filled with these men.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or we will make a joke of the law.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is so. The only exceptions made under section 21 deal with new potatoes, seed potatoes, green onions and pickled onions. We who live in apartments are accustomed to go to the market, either personally or by sending someone from the house, to purchase fresh vegetables beginning early in June. The persons who sell those fresh vegetables to us cannot carry on their ordinary business without being subject to these penalties for the commission of criminal offences. If the minister undertakes to enforce that law in the city of Montreal we will have a small revolution on our hands.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, well-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister may say, "Oh well", but why should he introduce a measure of this vexatious character which serves no useful end at all? If he is dealing with the export trade of the country and wishes certain grading with respect to that trade, we are prepared to take such a measure into most favourable consideration, but when you say that a person who has a little country place cannot sell a bushel of beets or turnips to his
[Mr. Chaplin.!
neighbour without weighing them, unless he commits a criminal offence, you are proposing ridiculous and preposterous legislation which this house should not favourably consider. The fact is that under the grading system proposed it will be absolutely impossible for the ordinary city market gardener to carry on business.


William Richard Motherwell: I admit that that is quite a natural position to be taken by one who has not studied the question; the whole thing looks ridiculous. I will admit that freely, but this law has been applied to potatoes and onions for at least six years, and I have not heard of any Montreal market gardeners being gaoled because of it. We are now extending the principle to other vegetables; that is all we propose to do.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Has the law been enforced during that time?


William Richard Motherwell: Of course. Some of these market gardeners have been fined, but I 'do not remember that any of them have gone to gaol, and I have seen no deputations protesting against the law.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I wish to enter my protest against this legislation also.


William Richard Motherwell: To which section is my hon. friend referring?


John Wesley Edwards: I am referring to sections 3 and 4, and to section 21; perhaps as I go on I may take in a few more. The minister says there are certain provisoes under section 21 which remove from the bill its ridiculous character; he admits that it is ridiculous up to the last section, but states that section 21 removes the ridiculous features. That is one way to legislate. Let us look at that section for a moment, in conjunction with sections 3 and 4. Section 4 provides that potatoes, onions and other vegetables must be sold by weight, and if this is not done the market gardeners are liable to a fine or imprisonment. If a man wants to sell old potatoes they must be sold by weight, but if he is selling new potatoes he can sell them by the dozen or in any other way he may desire, because there is a proviso which protects potatoes coming on the market between July 1 and September 30. Suppose a man has seed potatoes for sale; if he can show that they are certified seed potatoes he may sell them, I suppose, in bulk or by measure, by the dozen or any way he likes.


Charles Avery Dunning: By the bunch.


John Wesley Edwards: Or by the bunch. Why the exception in this particular

Root Vegetables Act
case as compared with old potatoes? As the hon. member (Mr. Cahan) has pointed out, the market gardeners who come into nearly all our cities and towns are accustomed to selling their produce by the dozen or by the bunch; why should they not be allowed to do that? If a man has a cretain quantity of potatoes in bags why should he not be free to enter into a bargain with a buyer who wishes to take them as they are; why must he have them weighed? It seems to me the minister is assuming in this legislation that the people who go to market to buy potatoes, onions, beets and that sort of thing have not brains enough to protect themselves in making bargains with the farmers. All this restrictive legislation is most inconvenient to the farmer. The minister may say that the gaols are not full of farmers who have violated this act, but I venture to say that the government has made no attempt to enforce this part of it which the minister says has been operative for the last six years, otherwise the gaols would foe full, because the people simply cannot conform to an act of this kind. The minister has not told us yet why this provision is necessary; at least if he has I have not heard it. Why does he propose to compel everybody to sell everything by weight? If it were a matter of export then I could understand the weight regulation, but I cannot understand applying such a provision to a little deal between two persons in a market town. Give them credit for a little common sense; do not hedge their operations about with restrictions which make them liable to fine or imprisonment. Will the minister tell us whence came the demand for this legislation?


William Richard Motherwell: We had these questions all thoroughly discussed five years ago, but I have no objection to going all over them again. I judge from my hon. friend's remarks that he disapproves of selling by weight. Why is selling by weight necessary? Because we have no standardized bag in this country that I know of in connection with the sale of potatoes or any other vegetables. In some parts of Canada a bag of potatoes means 100 pounds, in others it is 90, 80, or even less. If I order so many bags of potatoes how am I to know what I am getting unless I know how much the bag contains? We have at least four different sizes of potato bags, and we are trying to get down to our recognized standard of weights.


John Wesley Edwards: A man is
coming to market with a load of potatoes. He finds when he comes to make up his load that he is short of what you call standard
bags. He has some old sacks and things of that kind, so he fills them up with his potatoes and takes them into the market. Some of the sacks may contain two bushels, some two and a half bushels. Now, if I come along and want to buy those potatoes, and if I am willing to bulk the lot, using my own judgment as to how many potatoes are there, why should I not be permitted to do so? In any case, if I have any doubt about it I always have the right to demand that they be weighed, and if he is anxious to sell he is going to conform to my wishes and let them be weighed. Why tell him, therefore, that he must sell only by weight? An inspector, nosing around to find some justification for his job, sees me enter into that bargain with this farmer. I am satisfied, the farmer is satisfied, but the inspector reports that the farmer sold these potatoes without having weighed them, and he is liable to fine and imprisonment. That is the kind of legislation the government is asking this house to put through. I repeat that it is not only unnecessary, it is ridiculous; and the ridiculous feature of it is not eliminated by section 21.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, there is
nothing in the law to prevent a farmer from taking his potatoes to market in two-bushel bags, three-bushel or four-bushel bags, so long as he marks the number of pounds on the bag. We want to encourage selling by weight, which is the only sure way by which the customer may know what he is getting. I cannot imagine that a buyer would take a whole lot of potatoes, say, for 810; that is a hypothetical case-I do not think it would ever actually occur, because a buyer would want to know how many bushels there were in that lot. However, there is nothing in the act that I know of to prevent him from doing that. If it is a practice which may develop -farmers bringing in a load of potatoes and buyers taking them without knowing the size or weight of the load-well then, we will have to make an exemption to permit farmers to do that if they want to. I cannot imagine, however, that they will want to do it. So far as the bag is concerned, one reads the market reports in the newspapers and sees that potatoes were sold at so much a bag, but the size of the bag is seldom given and nobody knows what the exact quantity is. That is why I think weight is the only safe standard.


John Wesley Edwards: Everybody
knows the weight of a bag of potatoes.


William Richard Motherwell: No, it runs from
70 pounds to 100-many of them more.
Root Vegetables Act


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenae):: There is a
bushel and a half in a bag, isn't there?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Section 21, which in the
opinion of the minister saves the whole act, sets out that the provisions of the act shall not apply to what are commonly termed "green onions" or other vegetables with top leaves attached. Now if the ordinary market gardener who comes to the village where I am staying for part of the summer sells me carrots with the green leaves attached he is not committing a criminal offence, but if he sells me carrots which have no green leaves on them he is liable to fine and imprisonment unless he carries about with him a scale and weighs them, which is not the ordinary practice of the market gardener. So it would be with parsnips. I see the market gardener going through the country village with his cart, and I wish to buy a peck of parsnips. He may sell me a peck of parsnips if they have the leaves attached, as is very often the case, but if they have not the leaves attached he is liable to fine and imprisonment if he does not comply with this act. It seems ridiculous to make a provision so detailed apply to the market gardener. I am not looking for a political issue on the island of Montreal, but I venture to say that if the government take the responsibility of enacting these provisions into law I can raise a hue and cry throughout the island of Montreal. It would be one of the best political issues I could possibly raise-going to each market gardener throughout that island and telling him how this ridiculous legislation is made to apply to his special business.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend is
apparently not familiar with the method of marketing these vegetables. For instance, there is only one way to sell green onions and that is with their tops on. They are little green onions pulled when the onions are immature, tied in bunches and sold at so much a package. I do not know whether that is the way they are sold in Ottawa or not, but that is the authorized practice. When the spring onions mature and the tops come oS in the maturing, they go into storage and later they are sold on the market by weight.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But the carrot leaves do not come off?


William Richard Motherwell: They do not come off when the carrots are pulled up first. When they are young carrots, they are sold in the same way as green onions.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You have not exempted
green carrots.


William Richard Motherwell: Anything that is
green is sold with the tops on.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Do pickling onions go to market with the tops on?


William Richard Motherwell: What are commonly known as pickling onions, silver-skin onions, are exempted.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Why favour them?


William Richard Motherwell: Because there is a
small, special variety for pickling onions.


Alexander McKay Edwards: They can
sell them by the dozen. They will not have any green tops on them.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon.
friend not want us to exempt them? Because if he does not, we do not need to. If we find later on that the exemption is being abused, we can remove it.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Am I to
understand from that that the minister will accept my suggestion in regard to other clauses of the bill? If so, I feel highly honoured and I will make several suggestions.


William Richard Motherwell: What is his suggestion? Is it with regard to what the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said?


Alexander McKay Edwards: I am suggesting that the minister explain why he puts *pickling onions in the exempted class so that they need not be sold by weight, while other onions have to be sold by weight. Why should pickling onions not be sold by weight?


William Richard Motherwell: As my hon. friend
knows, if you put larger onions into a small quart measure you could not get a true weight of them by measure. I mean to say a measure full of big onions would not weigh as much as if it were full of small ones. In regard to these things used regularly by the household, it is permissible to sell small onions by measure just as it is permissible to sell young green onions with the tops on and without having to weigh them. We can have these small onions sold by weight if my hon. friend wants it, but we want to try this out.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: When this bill was
before the agriculture committee we were led to believe that in certain portions of the Dominion, more particularly the maritimes, and some of the eastern provinces, where they grew considerable quantities of potatoes, they

Root Vegetables Act
desired this legislation. But the view that was expressed in the committee by a number of members was that clause 3, which we are now considering, was altogether too drastic and far-reaching to suit conditions in many parts of Canada. It is true that in the committee the minister proposed an additional amendment to section 21 by which he might take care of a situation that was explained to him, but that amendment was very vague. It is true that it left in the hands of the minister power to meet a situation that might arise, but nothing definite was done to assure the committfee that that situation would be met. The situation will arise because clause 3 reads:
No person shall sell, offer, expose or have in possession for sale potatoes-
And then further on:
-unless such vegetables comply with all provisions of this' act and regulations made thereunder.
In our western country there are very few farmers who have not a few bushels of potatoes, twenty-five or fifty bushels, more or less, to dispose of in the spring of the year. They usually take them in to their local retail merchant and dispose of them there, or they may sell them to a neighbouring farmer. Under this legislation they would not dare to have such potatoes for sale unless they complied with all the provisions of this legislation. Just how far-reaching those provisions are going to be, remains to be seen, but some of them are outlined in clause 15 which states:
The governor in council may make regulations.
One of these is for the establishment of grades and another prescribes standard containers, and so on. Every farmer who has a few bushels of potatoes to sell must comply with all these regulations and everything that is laid down by the governor in council. If he does not comply with them, under clause 16 he is liable for the first offence to a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars, for the second offence to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, and for the third offence to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, and if he does not come through with the fine he is liable to a month's rest in gaol. I claim that this is altogether too drastic to apply in general to the whole of Canada. It may suit those districts where potatoes are grown in large quantities and where it would be worth while for the grower to comply with all these regulations, but it certainly is too drastic legislation to apply at least to that portion of the country in which I have the privilege of residing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would have the minister know that clause 3 is a new clause and not the reproduction of an old section. In addition to that he says that the unit of weight shall be a pound. The Weights and Measures Act, chapter 212, of the revised statutes of Canada, provides:
The unit or standard measure of capacity, from which all other measures of capacity, as well for liquids as for dry goods, shall be derived, shall be the gallon containing ten Dominion standard pounds weight of distilled water weighed in air against brass weights with the water and the air at the temperature of sixty-two degrees of Fahrenheit's thermometer, and with the barometer at thirty inches.
2.	The quart shall be one-fourth part of the
gallon.
3.	The pint shall be one-eighth part of the gallon.
4.	Two gallons shall be a peck.
5.	Eight gallons shall be a bushel.
That is the standard established by the Weights and Measures Act, but not only does the minister change the Weights and Measures Act, but clause 3 is a new clause despite what the minister has said three times in the committee. Clause 3 is not a reproduction of an old section. If the committee will turn to clause 12, it will find there the most serious clause of all. It reads:
Any inspector may detain for the time necessary to complete his inspection any shipment of vegetables in respect of which he has reasonable grounds for believing there is a violation of the act; such vegetables shall at all times be at the risk and charges of the owner thereof: and any inspector detaining vegetables shall give the owner, where ascertained, notice by prepaid telegram or letter that such vegetables are being detained in storage or otherwise, as the case may be.
I submit to the minister that he cannot hope that small market gardeners who have their vegetables gathered up by train, under the co-operative system in some cases, and brought into town, can comply with these regulations. If anybody is found in possession of one of these vegetables under clause 3, he is liable, and under clause 12 the inspector may take them and detain them until they are destroyed. He sends a telegram to the farmer who may be ten or twelve miles out in the country to tell him what he has done. Then the minister provides that the unit shall be, according to clause 4:
The standard pound avoirdupois shall be the unit of weight used.
We are now substituting a unit of weight, whereas heretofore under the Weights and Measures Act, chapter 212 of the revised statutes, the bushel was used. Now that measure as defined by the statute is no longer to be used with respect to dry goods and it
Root Vegetables Act

becomes an offence to sell by what, under the provisions of the statute, was heretofore the standard unit. Surely the minister does not mean that a small market gardener bringing his vegetables into town for sale is to be made a criminal by the law of parliament. It is an interference with the rights of the provinces under section 92 of the British North America Act. This parliament has the right to legislate with respect to exports, grading and things of that kind, and so far as that is concerned, the bill would be all right, but apart from all that, section 3 makes an entirely new offence, and section 12 gives one of the nine hundred inspectors which this Dominion is paying the right to seize these vegetables and deal with the offenders in the manner indicated by my hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael). Surely my hon. friend the minister does not intend to deal with the matter in this way, and to ask this parliament to pass this form of legislation.	.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend
would take the bill section by section-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am.


William Richard Motherwell: Of course, it is
necessary to refer to section 21 to know what the exemptions are, but if we are to start in the middle as well as at both ends, the matter will get tangled up in the minds of hon. gentlemen who have not studied this question. I would rather not deal with the question my hon. friend raises until we come to that particular section. I might say, however, that there is nothing in the world to hinder people from selling by the gallon, so long as there are seven and one-half pounds to the gallon, and as a matter of fact, they are selling by the gallon. So long as the weight is in the gallon, that is all right.


George Halsey Perley: Would the minister say that the Prime Minister would have to have a special order in council passed to enable him to buy vegetables and fruits from his neighbours to keep his house going at Kingsmere?


William Richard Motherwell: I expect he will
have to comply with the law the same as other people.


Mr. STEVENS:: We are on section 3, Mr. Chairman?


John Frederick Johnston: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to emphasize what has already been very well said by the hon. member for Kindersley regarding section

3, and I think the colleagues of my hon. friend the minister ought to take serious note of this. Section 3 says:
No person shall sell, offer, expose, or have in possession for sale potatoes, onions, turnips, artichokes, beets, carrots, parsnips or such other vegetables as may be named in this act or by the governor in council under the provisions of this act unless such vegetables comply with all provisions of this act and regulations made thereunder.
I appeal to the Prime Minister for a moment. Here we have a section that says that a small farmer in any section of Canada- I will bring it right home to mf own district in a moment-must be thoroughly versed in this act and in any regulations that may be made under this act by the governor in council. Some of us have had years of experience in this house, and yet I venture to say that there is not a member of this house to-day, be he agriculturist, farmer, or following any other occupation, who has the faintest idea, or anything but the remotest idea, of the regulations now in existence under this act.


Edward Joseph Garland: We have
all violated the act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I venture to say that the regulations are to-day being violated, not maliciously, but simply because they are not known.
I turn now, if the minister will pardon me. to the explanatory note on section. 15, which provides that proceedings to recover penalties for violation of any of the regulations passed under this act may be taken under Part XV of the criminal code. Let us be sensible and ask ourselves this question: Are we going to expose all the small farmers of this country, as well as the big producers of potatoes and vegetables, to prosecution under the criminal code if they fail to observe the intricate provisions of this act?
Let me analyse the section now, and apply it to a business that I know, that of the small farmer in British Columbia. We have there hundreds of farmers, who raise from five to ten acres of potatoes, and possibly have half an acre of onions, a few carrots and beets, and so on, and they sell them in the locality to a sawmill and small industries of that kind I have in mind a farm of about sixty acres, where they raise about ten acres of potatoes, a few hogs, some apples, and general farm produce, most of which is sold to a little village close beside the farm, where there is a sawmill and other very small industrial works. The employees buy this farmer's produce, and let me say to the minister that that is the finest customer a small farmer can have, the very best. In many instances these people, know-

Root Vegetables Act
ing what the various farmers in the neighbourhood produce, drive out to the farm in a Ford car or some other vehicle and buy a substantial portion of his produce. Now section 3 provides:
No person shall sell, offer, expose, or have in possession for sale potatoes, onions, turnips, artichokes, beets, carrots, parsnips or such other vegetables as may be named in this act or by the governor in council under the provisions of this act unless such vegetables comply with all provisions of this act and regulations made thereunder.
That is, these vegetables must be sorted, graded to size, weighed out in bags which must contain a certain amount, and all such stuff as that, and another section provides that the weight must be marked on the face of the container. Now in British Columbia these potatoes are put in gunny sacks; that is the jute sack, the usual standard sack. The sack is used for grain in the first place, and after it has been used once or twice for that purpose, it is sold second-hand to farmers such as I have mentioned, who buy it cheaply, and use it for sacking their potatoes, carrots, turnips and such like. These sacks when well filled and properly sewn will hold about one hundred pounds, and generally speaking these potatoes are sold by weight. If a carload is being sold, the potatoes are sacked, and the sacks are weighed on scales, and they try to put one hundred pounds in a sack, and the carload is sold by weight, and usually the transaction is very satisfactorily arranged between buyer and seller.


William Richard Motherwell: That is what we are aiming at. Mark the weight on the bag.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me continue my point for a moment. We have large growers, as well as these small farmers to whom I have referred. We have large growers in the Ashcroft district, around Ashcroft and Kamloops, who are raising potatoes by the hundreds of acres and who sell them by the carload, put up in sacks. They are sold to the wholesaler in the city by the carload, in sacks, and he puts them in his warehouse, and then sells them to the grocer in the city, in sacks, and the grocer dumps them in his cellar or puts them into his bins and sells them either by the sack, the half sack, or by the pound. Now, I submit that by this section you are imposing on the small producer an obligation that is absolutely beyond his capacity to perform, that is the point. I say it is beyond his capacity to observe this regulation.
As my hon. leader said a moment ago, if it is a question of the form in which potatoes shall be exported from this country, that is a different matter. It may be desirable to
say that when potatoes are exported to the European market or some other foreign market, they shall be crated, graded, and so on.
I am willing to say that that is open to reasonable discussion, but in that case they are sold not by the carload, not by the ton, but by the cargo. I appeal to the Prime Minister that this section 3 should not become a statute law of this country. I again draw attention to it. It says:
No person shall sell, offer, expose, or have in possession for sale potatoes, onions, turnips, artichokes, beets, carrots, parsnips or _ such other vegetables as may be named in this act or by the governor in council under the provisions of this act unless such _ vegetables comply with all provisions of this act and regulations made thereunder.
I say it is not fair for us to pass this legislation; it is not wise for us to do so, apart altogether from the constitutional point of' view. It is not fair to lay this burden on the ordinary producer of this country. It is a burden that is absolutely beyond the capacity of the small producer, who is trying to make a living by raising small quantities of vegetables. The average small farmer in British Columbia gets his returns from potatoes, apples and pears, small fruits, such as strawberries, raspberries, loganberries and plums, honey, eggs and butter and milk. That is the most desirable type of farmer you could have for British Columbia. You cannot ask a man like that to be an expert on the intricacies of regulations governing every branch of his business; the poor fellow would be literally driven mad.


William Richard Motherwell: Does the hon.
member appeal for the removal of all sorts of regulations regarding grading of vegetables for the local market?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would certainly argue
for the minimizing to the lowest possible point of the regulations that interfere with the activities of this class of farmers.


William Richard Motherwell: We have power to
do that under the act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is just the point.
It seems to me that what the minister does is this, he starts in with the maximum weight of regulations and interference and then grades it down. I want to see our statutes imposing the minimum interference in business and trade. Section 14 reads:
An inspection certificate signed by an inspector or any person charged with the enforcement of this act or regulations made thereunder, shall be prima facie evidence of the truth of the statements contained therein.
Root Vegetables Act

In other words, the farmer must be at the whim of any inspector. I submit that we are putting altogether too much power in the hands of inspectors, and that we have too many inspectors. I know how anxious officials are to get everything under proper control. But we have too many of these inspectors coming along one after the other; we have vegetable inspectors, milk inspectors, cheese inspectors, butter inspectors-


An hon. MEMBER:: And customs inspectors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has nine hundred in his department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I appeal to the Prime
Minister on this larger and broader question, that every inspection increases the cost of production of the article inspected. You cannot escape it, for it is an economic truth. It is obvious that someone must pay the cost. Every time you appoint an inspector at a thousand or two thousand dollars a year, give him a car and buy his gasoline, and all the rest of it, someone is paying for that expense. Who? You can apply it at any stage you like, but it must come on the cost of production somewhere.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And the cost of living generally.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Undoubtedly. This is a
serious matter. This morning a young gentleman who has made a study of politico-economic questions intimated to me that one out of every five of the male adults of Canada is employed in some form of government position-federal, provincial, municipal. If that is true, and he assured me it was, then it shows the burden that is being placed upon the shoulders of the people, because you cannot call those officials producers. Indirectly they may classify themselves as such, but they are a part of the cost of administration. This is an overhead charge on everything that goes on in the country. So I say we ought to be very careful about increasing the cost of this class of business to the farmers of Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister withdraw section 3, not because I think there is any harm in it, but because it does not mean anything. It is a superfluity. It is only a reiteration of the general law which says, you must comply with this act. Section 16 provides a penalty for those who violate any section of the act. You cannot get any other meaning out

of section 3 than that, and if it is obnoxious to hon. members I suggest that it be withdrawn. I do not know why all this opposition is raised to section 4, because the principle has been in effect for several years at least.


James Dew Chaplin: It has not been enforced.


Alan Webster Neill: No, they pass these drastic
laws and often do not enforce them. What was the law?
All potatoes, onions, artichokes, beets, carrots, parsnips and turnips offered for sale shall be sold by weight, and the standard pound avoirdupois shall be the unit of weight used.
So after all we are not doing anything worse than we did last time this act was revised, and I do not remember any objection raised to the section at that time. I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in regard to section 14, that it makes the certificate of the inspector superior to the law of evidence. I also agree with what he said as to section 12, that an inspector may practically ruin a small man against whom he has a grudge, by holding up his stuff while he deliberates upon it; which is quite unnecessary because the stuff is either right or wrong, and this is easily ascertained.
After all, the main principle of the act is that we should sell potatoes by the pound, and I am quite sure that that is acceptable to the average farmer in British Columbia. How else would he sell them? We put up our potatoes, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre knows, in 100-pound sacks, and the sale being by weight, fraud is prevented. If she buys by the sack, how is the housekeeper to know whether she is getting ninety pounds or a hundred pounds? I remember once trying to sell some potatoes to a storekeeper. I asked for a certain price in 100-pound bags, twenty to the ton. On my declining his offer of a lower price, he said, "I will give you so much more if you will put them up in 95-pound sacks, and then I can sell them for 100-pound sacks." I do not think there is any harm in carrying out this principle of selling by weight. We are doing it already.


William Richard Motherwell: I might point out that it is the practice of the draftsman of the Justice department whenever they make a change in a section to repeat the whole section in order to simplify matters. Previously the law applied only to potatoes and onions, and it worked out so admirably that we decided to make it apply to all vegetables.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Section 3 is entirely new.

Root Vegetables Act


William Richard Motherwell: Therefore the principle of this legislation has been in force for five years and has been found to be sound. There has never been any occasion for alarm
or confusion in applying that principle.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not the principle embodied in section 3.


William Richard Motherwell: The same principle is involved. I think my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre enunciated a very sound principle, that when enacting such legislation it is well to start with the minimum of restrictions and regulations. That is exactly ' what we did five years ago. We started with a small specific number of vegetables which were recognized on almost every market. There was no doubt that those vegetables- potatoes and onions and so forth-should be sold by weight, and that was done. That having worked out satisfactorily we extended the principle to others. I cannot understand what the difficulty is about. I remember when we enacted the egg regulations we took the opposite attitude; that is to say, we made a very wide exemption in favour of poultry-men and farmers generally. These regulations did not apply to farmers marketing fifteen dozen or under in one day. This provision has worked out satisfactorily in a sense, but gradually it has come to be grossly abused. You may sell fifteen dozen as many times in one day as you like, and if only you are persistent enough you may defy the law. This exemption in the case of eggs was provided with the best intentions, but it has grown into a decided abuse. Nevertheless exemptions are necessary at the beginning, and that is one reason why we have taken the power either to reduce the exemptions, under section 21, or to increase them to meet the requirements as they arise, thus obviating the necessity of coming to parliament so frequently. That is the purpose, but there is no new principle involved.


Alan Webster Neill: What new principle is involved in section 3 which is not covered by section 16?


William Richard Motherwell: We are including
a lot of new vegetables.


Alan Webster Neill: Section 16 provides that
every person who by himself or through the agency of another person violates any of the provisions of the act shall be liable. Is not that all-inclusive? What is there in section 3 which is not covered under that section?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
the Justice department, to make it perfectly airtight, advised this section.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Isn't that my point? You are providing the maximum to start with in order to make it airtight.


William Richard Motherwell: We have been operating for five years under the minimum, and some people have been able to get past us in the courts.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: How many thousand inspectors will the minister require under this act, and by whom will they be paid?


William Richard Motherwell: We shall have a few less than we ought to have, but if my hon. friend will look up the estimates of the department the year before this government came into power he will find that we are exceeding the number for the first time this year.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not interested in that;
I desire to know how many inspectors there will be.


William Richard Motherwell: If we are extravagant in the number of inspectors we have we must be very economical in our management, or the aggregate estimates would be larger than they are.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: How many inspectors will
be needed?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know how many. Some of the inspectors perform duties under as many as five acts.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: How many do you require
in Montreal, for example?


William Richard Motherwell: When we are on
the estimates I shall be delighted to give that information; I am not prepared to say offhand. My deputy informs me that in the city of Montreal we have three.


George Halsey Perley: A few minutes
ago the minister made a statement which I think is entirely inaccurate. I do not suppose he meant it so, but he gave the house to understand that he initiated this legislation five years ago with two or three items, and that he is now increasing the number. Section 4 refers to potatoes, onions, turnips, artichokes, beets, carrots and parsnips. All of these are included in the legislation already in existence. On the opposite page of the bill, giving the corresponding section in the present law, these vegetables are all enumerated, and no vege-
Root Vegetables Act

table has been added. The minister stated definitely, however, that he had increased the number of vegetables, and that was his reason for coming to parliament with this bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: "Or such other vegetables as may be named by the governor in council".


George Halsey Perley: Yes; in other
words, he is not changing the act. The minister is asking us to give the governor in council power to make any changes that may be thought necessary, and I object to that most decidedly. Later on I shall have something to say in that regard, because if orders in council are to be passed under this act it will only make it worse for the poor unfortunate farmer. It has been well pointed out that it would be impossible for the small farmer to keep this law. Certainly it will be very difficult indeed for him to know what the law is if orders in council are to be passed including other vegetables. The ordinary farmer in my county does not take the Canada Gazette, and even if the orders in council were published therein, I do not think he would know about them. I have looked over this bill rather carefully and it seems to be the new sections which the minister wants to get through. Every one of these new sections is objectionable, and I can see no argument whatever for section 3. As has been pointed out, there is no use in passing legislation which cannot possibly be complied with, and it is utterly impossible to imagine that the small farmers and dealers in this country could comply with section 3. So that the minister is beginning by making criminals out of these farmers right away. Other sections have been commented upon, and it seems to me that the minister wants to get more inspectors in his department, and that this is the main reason for his bringing his bill before us. Now, there is a feeling in the country'


William Richard Motherwell: Why should I want more inspectors?


George Halsey Perley: Section 10 gives the minister power to appoint an advisory board which may at his request prepare and recommend standards and grades, and so forth. Then he may appoint "such inspectors and other officers as are deemed necessary." This is a new section. There is a feeling in the country, I say, that the minister has too many inspectors already. He wishes to appoint them for everything in connection with aigriculture. Why does he ask for this new section, 10?"


William Richard Motherwell: I have asked my hon. friends many times to name one or two or any number of inspectors that are unnecessary, and I shall be delighted to dispense with their services.


George Halsey Perley: Why does the minister want to have section 10 enacted empowering him to appoint more inspectors?


William Richard Motherwell: They are already appointed; we want to give them the authority to act. They are already in the department.


George Halsey Perley: Does the minister mean that he has already appointed inspectors without authority? Is that what he means?


William Richard Motherwell: This law has been tested on several occasions and proven to be weak, and we want to be sure that our inspectors have specific authority to operate under this act as well as under the others.


George Halsey Perley: In other words, this act does not apply to vegetables other than those covered by the old act, but by passing this new act we will place many of our small dealers and farmers under a law which they cannot possibly understand. Power is given under section 10 to appoint an advisory board and such other officers as are deemed necessary, and under sections 12 and 14 the inspectors are given more and more power over these people. The smaller dealers in this country will be afraid bo carry on their ordinary business as they have been carrying it on in the past. Apparently these are the sections which the minister desires most, because there are no vegetables mentioned other than those which are already included in the present act.


William Richard Motherwell: I would point out again what was freely discussed in the agricultural committee, that there might be some injustice to farmers selling in small lots. I have recognized that possibility, and I think I referred to it before the amendment was made in committee. It was my suggestion that, we should have power to step in and make regulations exempting farmers from these provisions if we found any injustice being done. We do not think it advisable to make the exemptions too general because of the abuses which may arise. These sections were inserted to meet just such cases of farmers selling in small lots.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Would that be done in individual cases?

Root Vegetables Act


William Richard Motherwell: No, you could not do it in individual cases; it would have to apply to everyone, but it would be applied if a great many individual cases of injustice arose.


William Garland McQuarrie: Why not do it now?


William Richard Motherwell: We do not want to anticipate trouble. We have given these wide exemptions in connection with the sale of eggs, and I am sure no one in British Columbia wants that exemption of 15 dozen freed from the regulations, as it is now. British Columbia poultry men never liked that regulation, so in this case we would rather have power to either reduce or increase the exemptions as may be indicated by the way the act works out from time to time. We do not anticipate any abuse, but if such does arise we will make a change.


William Garland McQuarrie: How will this work out in the New Westminster market, for example? I understand the minister has been there and has seen the farmers bring in their goods, which they sell to the citizens of the town and district. In that market so far as I know there is very little selling by weight; vegetables are mostly sold in packages, in boxes, in sacks and so on. It seems to me there would be great consternation in New Westminster and other markets if this law were put into effect; it would be a great inconvenience to the farmers and to the purchasers, who are accustomed to buy their goods in boxes or parcels. More than that, it seems to me that the minister is badly twisted with regard to potatoes. As I read the proposed act, it will be lawful to sell new potatoes otherwise than by weight, but old potatoes must' be sold by weight. That is directly opposite to the custom which now prevails at least in British Columbia, ordinary potatoes are sold in sacks or by the bushel, while new potatoes are always sold by weight. I doubt very much whether under section 21 new potatoes can be sold otherwise than by weight except when they are shipped, because the minister will notice that section 21 says:
(a) to new potatoes when shipped between the 1st day of July and the 30th day of September	
What about new potatoes which are sold on the market but which have not been shipped? How will this affect potatoes which are sold direct by the producer to the consumer? They are brought in to the market by the farmer, and unless you have some extraordinary interpretation of the word " shipped," I do not see that they can be sold except by weight.


William Richard Motherwell: My non. friend has asked me how these regulations will apply to New Westminster and other small markets. Most of these regulations will apply just as they are being applied at present. These vegetables are sold now by weight, so there will be no great change there. With regard to subsection (a) of section 21, only one word is underlined, which shows that that' subsection was in the act previously, and we managed to survive under it. I would ask the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), as a practical vegetable grower, coming from a district where this business is carried on extensively, if he would like to make these exemptions wider. I remember we discussed this in the committee and it was thought that if we exempted all farmers it would allow persons who were both traders and farmers to come under the exemptions, so it was thought better to assume the authority to widen these exemptions, and if injustices were caused we could meet the situation by the necessary changes. As a matter of fact, in the Seeds Act we have specifically exempted farmers dealing with one another, and we have done the same in connection with artificial fertilizer. We could make these exemptions so wide that all farmers would not come under the provisions of the act in their dealings with each other, but if we did that it was thought that men who were both dealers and traders as well as growers would be exempt from the provisions of this law, which would not be wise. We have taken the, power to meet conditions as they arise, and since most of these troubles have not arisen during the last five years I do not think we should anticipate them and legislate for them in advance.


George Halsey Perley: Under what section do you receive power to increase the exemptions?


William Richard Motherwell: Under the new
subsection (f), which I do not believe is in the bill before my hon. friend. That gives us power to make regulations dealing with such special trade practices as the advisory board may specify, with the approval of the minister. If the advisory board find that there are abuses in the working out of the act they will make recommendations to the minister, who will have the necessary regulations changed to meet the situation.


George Halsey Perley: Of course that
means legislation by the advisory board and not by parliament.


William Richard Motherwell: I have an answer to that which I made before, if my hon. friend
Root Vegetables Act

remembers. I do not want to be told later that two wrongs do not make a right, but for at least a quarter of a century we have had the western grain standards board to deal with the commercial grades of western grain. That board is appointed from time to time from the trade, the milling industry and the farmers, and they set the grades year by year; this year in particular the work of that board covered more than half the wheat produced in the entire west. So you may say that parliament is removed not once but several times from these individuals.


George Halsey Perley: The minister does not claim that is at all analogous to this case?


William Richard Motherwell: No, but it comes
very near it.


George Halsey Perley: So far as grain
is concerned, the people who own it, who grow it and deal in it, are the ones that make the standard, but in this case it is to be another body which has no interest in the farmers.


William Richard Motherwell: The personnel of
the western grain standards board is recommended by the board of grain commissioners and appointed by the government.


George Halsey Perley: Quite so, but
they are all men who are familiar with the trade.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend think we may select men who do not know anything about it?


George Halsey Perley: The men who are to determine these standards will be officials of the department.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, we have
other advisory boards and I cannot recall any instance in which members of the department have been put on them.


William Garland McQuarrie: Will this board be
patterned after the tariff advisory board? If so, how are we going, to get recommendations from it?


George Halsey Perley: If a farmer in
my county, for instance, who sells to his neighbours or goes into the market at the mill in the county town and sells vegetables as he has been in the habit of doing, what protection has he got if he sells in some other way than that prescribed in this bill? Is he not liable to criminal prosecution without any further question?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


George Halsey Perley: Is he not liable
to criminal prosecution if he sells his potatoes, carrots, turnips or anything else, in any other way than by weight?


William Richard Motherwell: He will have to
comply with the weight requirement. But in order to avoid cluttering up these pieces of legislation with all kinds of provisions it is usual to provide for the making of regulations, and so long as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the act these regulations will cover such detailed features of the working out of the act as my hon. friend refers to.


Mr. EVANS:: I suggest to the minister
that that word "person" in the first line of section 3 be changed to "dealer", otherwise I think the legislation is altogether superfluous and objectionable to most of the people of this country; it interferes with the free exchange of goods between the grower and the consumer. The minister's reference to grain is not to the point, because the board of standards know that all the grain has to pass a certain point and will be inspected by one set of inspectors. But these vegetables come in by the wagon load to certain towns or cities, and a man is liable at once to prosecution if these vegetables do not come up to the standards fixed by the standards board. It seems to me that the act will have the effect-perhaps not intentionally-of concentrating the trade in all these things into the hands of the big dealers or wholesalers or cold storage proprietors. If we make the change I have suggested I think it will meet with the approval of the house and of the whole country.


James Dew Chaplin: I wish to point out to
the minister what is happening along the main highways in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Take for example my section of the country: hundreds of farmers have stands out in front of their farms on the highway on which they displajr for sale baskets of fruit and vegetables of all kinds. Under this law they must have scales there in order that everything may be weighed before it is sold. But those who buy these things know the value of them just as well as those who sell them do. The buyers are perfectly satisfied with the trade they make, yet the minister intervenes with a law of this kind which is absolutely illogical and against the business of this country as people want to carry it on.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend
were buying a thing wouldn't he want to know its weight?

Root Vegetables Act


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: In regard to
the application of this act, we have had it in force in the maritime provinces for some years in respect to the shipment of potatoes. I refer more particularly to the old act, which I now have under my hand. By this measure the existing act is changed to give the governor in council or the minister power to make the regulations that were formerly covered by statute. Now, the standard or grade of potatoes and onions were defined in chapter 181 of the revised statutes of Canada along certain lines which I need not go into. It was found in the operation of the act that it was advisable to have the power, as the minister explained at the beginning of the discussion, to vary the different grades according to the standards required by the crop production of different years. In order to do that, it is necessary to give the minister, under advice from the advisory board, the power to make regulations regarding these matters. The details with respect to that will be found in section 15 of the present bill. I quote subsection (f):
To prescribe the time when any regulation shall_ come into operation, the particular kind or kinds of vegetables to which it shall apply, and the part or parts of Canada within which it shall be in force;
So that I think hon. members will readily see that there is no intention on the part of the department or of the minister to apply this act to the small dealings of neighbours among themselves, or between persons within the same community.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It says so, though.


John Ewen Sinclair: It gives general power, and the minister has explained that this section was drafted by the Justice department to make the act strong and to give the necessary power where it was decided by regulation to enforce it. Now I want to explain to the committee some of the benefits that have accrued from this act to our growers and to our dealers in the maritime provinces in regard to the shipment of potatoes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is export business.


John Ewen Sinclair: It is interprovincial trade.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


John Ewen Sinclair: And also trade
within the provinces themselves. So far as it has been applied it has not been compulsory except where requested by the shippers or growers. Many of our wholesale dealers two years ago asked that the act be put into force
so that inspectors would be supplied by the department for the grading of carloads of potatoes when a request to that effect was made. That action was taken by the department a year ago last September and many inspectors were specially appointed for the enforcement of this act in Prince Edward Island. A per carload fee of $5 a car was placed upon inspection, and those who got the benefit of the inspection paid the cost of it. When the dealers buy potatoes from the farmers they buy Canada A stock, and if on inspection at the car door they prove to be below standard the farmer has to regrade his stock. These potatoes are sold to dealers in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and other of the large markets in central Canada, according to the grade, the greater proportion of them being sold as Canada A grade. When they arrive at destination the bill of lading is accompanied by a certificate signed by the inspector stating that he inspected those potatoes and that they are up to the grade specified in the certificate. If the man who buys the potatoes feels that they do not turn out right, he immediately telegraphs to the man he buys from, who arranges with the department to have an inspector sent to inspect the car at point of destination before it is unloaded. If the potatoes are found to come up to the grade specified in the certificate, then the man who sold the potatoes can collect his price for the shipment. If the potatoes were sold without the inspector's certificate and objection was taken at point of destination to the quality, the grower or seller, would have no recourse except to accept the word of the man who bought the potatoes. If the deal took place on a falling market, nine times out of ten the man who shipped the potatoes would lose very heavily on account of not being in a position to protect himself against any complaint that might be made regarding his shipment. The act has worked out very well in this regard and has given great benefit to our people in the maritime provinces. It can be seen from the market reports covering the last two years that the price of potatoes of Canada A grade from the maritimes has advanced. Inspected stock from the east sells at from ten to fifteen cents a bag more in the central markets of Canada than potatoes that come in without inspection from other points.
The request that has come forward from our people for changes in the grades has helped to bring about the changes in the act. The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice can explain better than those of us who are engaged in the actual
Root Vegetables Act

working out of the act, why certain clauses of the act are necessary, but in connection with changing the grades as previously defined in the statute, our people who are engaged in growing and shipping potatoes have asked that certain restrictions be put upon the number of small potatoes. I might read particularly from chapter 181, the old act. The definition of Canada A quality reads:
In this grade the diameter of potatoes of the round varieties shall not be less than one and seven-eighths inches, and of potatoes of the long variety one and three-fourths inches.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is that covered in this legislation?


John Ewen Sinclair: That will be covered in this legislation by regulation.


James Dew Chaplin: How are the general public going to know?


John Ewen Sinclair: The reason our people request the change is this. They say that you can have a shipment conforming to the highest standard of merchantable or table stock potatoes, classed as Canada A, with the tags on, and still there need not be one potato in that shipment more than two inches in diameter. If a carload of potatoes went forward less than two inches but not less than one and seven-eighths inches in diameter they would be looked upon as a very poor grade of potatoes. Our growers and dealers, in order to protect themselves against unscrupulous people selling seconds instead of Canada A grade, are asking that not more than twenty per cent of the shipment should be under two and one-half inches.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where will the hon. member find, in regard to the very point that he is now mentioning, safeguards for the grower in this legislation which is being substituted for the old act?


John Ewen Sinclair: First I might explain another change that is being asked for by our people, namely to establish a grade for turnips as well as for potatoes. A considerable business has been developed within the last two years with United States points for the shipment of turnips in the fall and winter seasons and our people have asked that a grade be established. As regards the question of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, he will find that by section 15 of the bill power is given to the governor in council to make regulations such as are necessary for the enforcement of the legislation and the standards of grades required for the different vegetables. This is to be done on the strength of the advice of the advisory board as outlined in clause 10. The matter is not altogether left to the minister and his department to handle

by order in council. Before the minister acts, the question is submitted to the advisory board which, as is the case in connection with several other acts, represents the growers, the shippers, the purchasers, the consumers and the trade generally as affected by the particular vegetable to which the regulations may refer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is that defined in the bill?


John Ewen Sinclair: Clause 10 refers to the advisory board.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But that does not describe the matter in the way the hon. gentleman puts it.


John Ewen Sinclair: My description may be taken from one or two of the other acts such as the Seeds Act or the Fertilizer Act, which the Agriculture department has had put through. The same advisory board is used in connection with this.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have been interested in what the hon. member has said. His reference to large shipments of potatoes is very pertinent, but may I ask him this question: suppose that in his own fair province of Prince Edward Island a farmeT in any of the small communities is not loading his potatoes into a car and shipping them off to the big markets, but is selling them locally; does my hon. friend think that farmer should be compelled to observe regulations such as would be applicable to the class of shipment to which he refers?


John Ewen Sinclair: If a farmer at
one end of the province buys from a farmer in the other end, he does not go and look at the potatoes but he says: I want Canada A potatoes. Then the man who sells Canada A potatoes and tags them as such should be responsible for delivering what he sells. In that regard the act is a benefit and to that extent it is enforced.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. gentleman did
not catch my question, which is after all largely the quarrel with this legislation as it is drafted. Let us leave out of account the man who ships from one end of the province to the other or to any point a long distance away. Let us take the case of the farmer- and there are tens of thousands of them in Canada-who sells his products in his little village or town to a sawmill or pulp mill close by, which by the way is his best customer. Does the hon. gentleman think it is fair to apply to such dealings the same regulations that he would apply to the larger transactions to which he has referred?

Root Vegetables Act


John Ewen Sinclair: I do not see
my ton. friend's point in asking whether it is fair. If a man wants to sell to his neighbour Canada A potatoes, his neighbour has a right to expect that he will deliver Canada A potatoes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I agree, but that is not
the point.


John Ewen Sinclair: To that extent the act is enforced.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who is to determine when the act is to be enforced and when it is not to be enforced? Surely if we pass an act at all it ought to be enforced.


John Ewen Sinclair: The regulations will determine that. The objection may be raised that we are doing by regulation and order in council what should be done by legislation, but it has been found necessary to define grades by regulations rather than by the statute.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the legislation, if we
accept it, states:
No person-
That is, no farmer, no dealer, no grower.
-shall sell, offer, expose, or have in possession for sale potatoes .... unless such vegetables comply with all provisions of this act and regulations made thereunder.


John Ewen Sinclair: It says, "all
provisions of this act and regulations made thereunder." If my hon. friend follows that out, he will find that it is within the right and power of the minister and the department, upon the advice of the advisory board, to make reasonable regulations to protect both the seller and the buyer from dishonest and disreputable dealings in the trade, and it has had that effect, particularly in regard to potatoes, I do not see why it should not be extended to other vegetables where practicable.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member
for Comox-Alberni has suggested that one of these sections could be dispensed with. I would like to have an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Justice department, to see what can be done without weakening the bill. We have had a full discussion, and I suggest that these two sections stand in the meantime, so that we may see what amendments can be made that will not sacrifice the intent of the bill. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni made a similar suggestion in regard to the Seed Grain Act; we brought down an amendment accordingly, and it went through immediately.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I suggest
another matter that might be referred to the Justice department? In the act there are very clear definitions of "minister" "inspectors", "vegetables", "grade" and "container", but in section 3 there appears the word "person", and there is no definition of that word. It seems to me it ought to be made very clear whether the word applies to women as well as to men.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Interpretation Act
covers that. There is another difficulty that I would like to mention to the minister. This statute in terms repeals an act that came into force in Canada on the first of February last, being chapter 181 of the revised statutes of Canada. That statute defined in terms the grades of potatoes, onions, and so forth. The new statute does not define them in terms, but it creates an advisory board. It does not say how many there shall be on that board, and there is no indication as to how they shall be selected, or where they shall come from.


William Richard Motherwell: We can insert that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am pointing out what
it means. It also provides that they may report to the minister, but it is the governor in council that passes the regulations. Now the whole question of grading, which heretofore in Canada was dealt with by the statute which is now to be repealed, is to be left to regulations about which the average man can know little, and his opportunities for getting knowledge of them will be less. He must depend largely upon the Canada Gazette, whereas heretofore he had chapter 181 of the revised statutes of Canada from which he could obtain all the information that he required with respect to potatoes, onions, and other vegetables. I go a step further, and this is a question which I wduld ask the minister to consider very carefully apart from what has been said by others. Section 15 says that the governor in council may make regulations:
To prescribe the time when any regulation shall come into operation, the particular kind or kinds of vegetables to which it shall apply, and the part or parts of Canada within which it shall be in force.
That means different grades for different parts of Canada, depending upon the political pressure that may be put on the minister or the government. That is what that means, and that is why it should not be placed upon the statute book. Heretofore we have had a standard grade, one grade throughout the country fixed by statute. We are now leaving it in the hands of the governor in council to make regulations with respect to many

Root Vegetables Act

things, including among other grades-one for one part of Canada, another for another-the very thing that should not be if the statute is to be constitutional, for it is quite clear that if the statute is to have any validity as a statute, it must deal with either foreign trade or interprovincial trade. If it deals with purely local matters within the province, the province has the power, and not the Dominion. It is only because the Dominion's legislation operates throughout the country as a whole, dealing either with interprovincial or export trade, that this parliament can deal with the matter. Here we are asked to give the governor in council power to make different grades applicable to different parts of the country. Surely the minister does not intend that. That is the very thing that chapter 181 says should not be done, because the desire is to have some sort of uniform legislation throughout the country.
In addition, this means an increase in the number of inspectors, and it clothes them with enormous power. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, in answer to a question that I directed to him, pointed out, it allows the certificate of an inspector to be prim a facie evidence of the commission of an offence. Just imagine itl The certificate of an inspector, with the regulations in his hands, not published, is to be prima facie evidence of guilt before a justice of the peace. I ask the minister if he thinks that can be tolerated in Canada. I leave it to the minister, does he think that sort of legislation, in this country at any rate, should be given support and approval, and especially in view of the fact that there is the statute already defining grades and providing for sales by weight, without the necessity of making any new provision? There you have chapter 181 of the revised statutes of Canada, and now we are going to take all that power out of the hands of parliament and put it into the hands of an advisory board, not knowing how it is to be selected or appointed. The governor in council may make regulations applicable to Alberta, perhaps, and not to Saskatchewan, applicable to British Columbia, and not to Ontario, and the certificate of the inspector is to be prime facia evidence of violation of the provisions of this act. Surely the minister does not want to do that.


William Richard Motherwell: Most of the hon.
gentleman's remarks have been based on the assumption that the law provides for only one grade of any article to be applicable throughout Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
surely knows that we have two grain inspection districts in Canada, and have had for forty years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The old act, the Manitoba Grain Act, was changed to the Canada Grain Act.


William Richard Motherwell: The western standards do not apply to eastern Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The act is an act for
the whole of Canada, but with respect to certain standards, of course, they do not grow the same kind of grain in the east as in the west.


William Richard Motherwell: But the western
standards do not apply to eastern Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They cannot.


William Richard Motherwell: So there is no
precedent being created here at all. As a matter of fact, in the Fruit Act as it was, the apples of British Columbia were compulsorily graded for export, and to-day they are not compulsorily graded for the maritimes, and that has been approved by the Justice department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not speaking of
apples. Chapter 181 is an act to regulate the sale and inspection of root vegetables, and this bill seeks to repeal that statute. Section 3 of chapter 181 defines the following grades of potatoes: (a) Canada A quality; (b) Canada B quality; (c) Canada C ungraded quality. That is what I am pointing out, the variations.


William Richard Motherwell: What is the use of grading two varieties of vegetables by statute, and leaving all the rest to be done by order in council? We are simply treating them all alike; that is all. My hon. friend laughs at that. We have graded potatoes and onions before. Why from now on should we have potatoes and onions graded by statute, and all the other vegetables graded by order in council ?


James Dew Chaplin: The minister from Prince Edward Island told us that the grading of potatoes has worked out well. Now the Minister of Agriculture proposes to change it.


William Richard Motherwell: We are not changing it. Every now and then my hon. friend starts off on a new tack and under a wrong assumption as to facts. He has made two or three statements about grading contrary to the statute, when half of our grain this year was graded by the grain standard board.

Root Vegetables Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are not talking about grain; we are dealing with roots and vegetables.


William Richard Motherwell: This is a precedent' -something that is very dear to the lawyer's mind. I think we might let sections 3 and 4 stand, and go ahead with the rest of the bill.


Peter McGibbon: Withdraw the whole bill.


William Richard Motherwell: I see no reason
why we cannot get some relaxation of this section as suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) without sacrificing its strength.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: We are stressing
potatoes and grain.


William Richard Motherwell: The same principle is involved. Grading is grading, whether it be wheat or anything else.


William Anderson Black: What is in the
minister's mind with regard to inspection of these smaller vegetables? We go to the market here in Ottawa and see displayed for sale bunches of carrots and other vegetables. How are they to be inspected? How is the purchaser to know that they have been inspected?


William Richard Motherwell: Our inspectors go
on the various markets of Canada, where there is a substantial business, including Toronto and Ottawa, and draw attention to any violation of the law, and if that violation is persisted in we prosecute.


William Anderson Black: You will need all
the adult population in Canada to enforce this section. For instance, are you going to have an inspector in Aylmer to inspect the farmer's
little truck load of vegetables?


William Richard Motherwell: We have graded for home consumption a changeable article like eggs, ten times as difficult to administer as the grading of vegetables, and yet the public have accepted that as a good law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it has been held
[DOT] ultra vires by the courts.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall section 3 and section 4 stand?
Sections stand.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose at six it had been agreed to let sections 3 and 4 stand. Sections 1 and 2 had passed. The committee is now considering section 5. Shall the section carry?


Peter McGibbon: So far as export conditions are concerned the minister is on pretty safe ground. Personally I think it would be a good thing for everyone on this side of the house if this bill went through as introduced to-day. I am rather inclined to think that the minister has not very well read the lessons of history regarding restrictive legislation. I remember some time ago, when the party which I have the honour and pleasure to support was in power, we imposed restrictions on the carrying of arms; we made everyone having in his possession a rifle or shotgun take out a permit. It affected about 99 persons out of every 100 in my riding and created a particular hell for everyone who had supported that legislation. As regards restrictive legislation of this nature, dealing with the domestic business of our farmers, I think the minister is on dangerous ground if he is looking to the peace, comfort and welfare of his government. This legislation will be obnoxious to the people, and the result will be only one of two things: either the spirit of the law will not be observed at all, or the act will create a lot of trouble for the minister and his government. That would of course be reflected more or less on every man who is in parliament to-day, because the people would be coming to us with all their grievances, as they have done in the past, using rather harsh language towards the government and those in authority as well as towards everyone else associated with the act.
I have on a great many occasions in this house objected to all these restrictions that are being put on the liberties of the people. It seems to me that it is becoming a fad; we are almost going crazy in this regard. And this is just another piece of such legislation which the minister is bringing in. The act will never be enforced in the smaller places; I think I am quite safe in saying that. You could not enforce it. It will only create intense dissatisfaction; it will provide more positions to be filled and will incur more expense. It will indirectly run up the cost of living and the cost of doing business. I think the minister would be well advised to abandon it so far as the domestic field is concerned As regards the interprovincial trade, the min-
56103-145i
Root Vegetables Act

ister this afternoon had, I thought, some regard to this phase of the question. But if you are going to apply this legislation to all the little trading transactions that take place on the country roads, in the villages and towns, and render the farmers liable to the penalties -peeified in the act, you will only create 'rouble. The act will be a farce and will *'.ever be enforced; if you try to enforce it- well, God help the government and the people who try to carry it out.


William Richard Motherwell: I assume that my hon. friend's remarks apply to section 5, the one under discussion. I may say that every vegetable grower in Canada in every province has asked for this section. At least one representative from New Brunswick in this house has urged upon me the necessity for it, in order to provide for compulsory inspection if we deem it desirable to take that power, and the grading of vegetables for export. It is the same as in regard to cheese and butter; there is no new principle involved. The fact is, we are being urged to pass this legislation


Peter McGibbon: For export, yes.


Mr. SPENCER:: From what quarters has the minister been requested to bring in this legislation?


William Richard Motherwell: The representatives of the vegetable growers have requested it. If my hon. friend wishes me to mention names, I may say that one gentleman who has urged it upon me is the newest member from New Brunswick. One of the reasons why they want this legislation is the fact that their market in Cuba was nearly ruined by the export of defective potatoes to that country. The representative of Cuba-with whom I happen to be living-has told me that unless something is done to improve the New Brunswick potato situation his country will have to exclude those potatoes from the Cuban market; not that the potatoes are not good; but they are very carelessly handled. In order to satisfy myself I got a barrel of these potatoes shipped to the fruit commissioner's office and, accompanied by Mr. Caldwell, who was a member of this house, two years or so ago, I went and inspected this sample. I found from 30 to 40 per cent of the potatoes defective; they were cracked or wounded or bruised in some way. And they were all beautiful potatoes. But after travelling a considerable distance, broken and cracked, and passing through the warmer climate of the southern Atlantic, a great many of them were on the point of heating and it was just a question whether they should not be dumped into the sea. The result was that we were

given warning that, unless this condition stopped, the Cuban people would have to put an embargo on our potatoes. It was due, not to the farmers, but to the dealers in New Brunswick who were handling these potatoes. In compliance with an urgent request from every part of the Dominion, we are taking some power with regard to the export of potatoes, just as we do in regard to anything else that is shipped out. These powers may appear to be far-reaching and. to some, exasperating. But I may assure the committee that we are not beginning to take in respect of these matters anything like the power which is exercised in Australia and New Zealand. There the authorities go very much further than we do, and say to a man that.unless his goods are up to a certain standard they shall not be exported at all to any countiy, because Australian and New Zealand growers do not want their reputation injured abroad. We exclude no farm product from export which is at all edible, but we want it graded just as we do with butter,, cheese, eggs and many other articles to which I have referred. Then it must be remembered that we are only asking for authority to do it; it may be a year before we bring it into practice. We were grading fruit for export two years before we applied the law for home consumption. When the people become familiar with a law by using it voluntarily, we gradually make it compulsory when we are asked to do so.


Peter McGibbon: I hope the minister did not misunderstand me; I think he is absolutely right so far as export business is concerned, but I believe he is absolutely wrong when he tries to apply it to all the little domestic transactions which take place in the small towns. For my own sake politically I hope he goes through with it; this bill will give me a lot of votes. But I am trying to do a favour for the government by keeping the minister right, and at the same time I am trying to keep peace among the farmers in my riding.


William Richard Motherwell: I have agreed to let these two sections stand. This is not an arbitrary measure; I am told that this bill is the result of requests from growers, shippers, consumers, and the trade generally. If one of the Toronto members who is a prominent wholesale produce dealer were here, he would tell you that these provisions are necessary; in the committee he confirmed them all. I am sure the growers, as represented by the hon. member for Yale, are also unanimous in their support of these provisions. However, the two sections to which my hon. friend is

Root Vegetables Act
referring will stand, and probably we can find some less provocative language which at the same time will attain the desired end. I should like to consult the Department of Justice before changing the wording, because they have said that this is the correct form.


Peter McGibbon: I have a good deal of respect for the ability of the minister.


Robert James Manion: I do not rise as an authority on farming, but I would like to say a word or two in general on this bill. I apologize for speaking on it at all, because as I have already said I do not know very much about farming, although a large section of my constituency is composed of farming communities. At that, I am not worse than most of the other members who spoke this afternoon; I presume a good many of them in these days of the automobile are like myself, hardly able to tell a horse from a cow. However, coming as I do from a section of northern Ontario where farming is a very difficult pioneering occupation for a great many people, I do not like to see too many restrictions placed upon farmers. Perhaps one third of my constituency is composed of people w'ho are pioneer farmers, who have gone into bush country similar to that of northern Quebec and some parts of British Columbia, and who have had to hew their homes out of the bush. In many cases they have been confronted with many difficulties, and I do not like to see more restrictions placed upon those men who already have enough difficulty in making a living. It is very difficult to populate that section of Ontario extending west from North Bay to the Manitoba boundary, an area almost as large as Germany and France together. It will supply a large area of magnificent farming land once it is cleared, but it requires a long, hard life of pioneering in most cases before enough land is cleared to make good homes for the farmers. In view of that, and in view of the fact that these farmers sell practically all their vegetables in the towns and cities of the neighbourhood, I do not like to see their difficulties increased in any way. As a matter of fact, I have the impression that we are too prone to legislation in our country; perhaps it would be -a good thing if we had a closed season for legislation extending from about January 1 to July 1. That would pretty well cover the session of Parliament, and would result in a shorter and more profitable session while letting the country go along in better shape than is now the case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It would give US' a more
contented community.


Robert James Manion: As the hon. member (Mr. Cahan) has suggested, probably it would give us a more contented community. Unfortunately in our country there are a great many people who believe that because something is old it is of no use and that only the new is useful. They read of something which has been done in New Zealand or in some other country or state and think we must immediately copy it. I do not believe that is necessary in all cases. I think we might well leave these restrictive bills out of our legislation for a while and let our pioneering sections grow up and get further advanced before such measures are passed. Most of the people are not familiar with this sort of thing, and they will not take the trouble to read them.
I am speaking very generally now, because I quite understand that in regard to exports of fruit, wheat and many other agricultural products it is necessary for the good name of Canada that we have grades. I do not question that for a moment, but at the same time I am not one of those who believe that the ordinary buyer in the small town or city, or even in the large town or city, cannot look after himself or herself pretty well. We have in my city a market to which the farmers of the surrounding district come two or three times a week, and they get along very well with the people m the town. Unfortunately for the farmers in that pioneering section, during the war the government of which I was a supporter advocated greater production. I say unfortunately, because greater production meant that all kinds of people in the towns and cities produced fruits and vegetables in their back yards or in vacant lots. That became something of an obsession with many people, and as a result the farmers in that section of the country find it very difficult to make a living. We are finding it very hard to keep people on the land, and I believe restrictive legislation of this kind has something to do with driving the people off the farms because it makes things more difficult for them. I suggest to the minister, with the best intentions in the world, that in the future we might well drop some of this restrictive legislation, particularly as it affects truck farmers. I will admit readily that for export on a large scale, in order to compete in the markets of the world, it is necessary that we should have grades in order to give our products a good name, but I think we might easily go too far in other directions. I say this with no intended reflection upon the civil servants in the department of my hoc
Root Vegetables Act

friend, but I think unfortunately it is true that there are a number of civil servants in every branch of public life who look around for wavs in which to use their energies.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, no.


Robert James Manion: I have had something to do with inspectors of various kinds in various branches of governmental work, and I have found that with the best intentions in the world, and meaning nothing wrong, they are often looking for something to restrict. They desire an opportunity to put their names on legislation; they like to point out that they were the fathers of this or that measure. I believe we might check that tendency in all branches of the public service and leave our people in quiet and contentment for a while. That will give our pioneer sections an opportunity to fill up with farmers, who will have time to get established on the land without too many restrictions. The people in the towns and cities have things a great deal easier than these pioneer farmers, so I say they should be allowed to take a chance once in a while. It is the old story; if you put a support on a healthy child's back the back will never get strong, and the same thing applies to the people in our towns and citites. Let them take a chance; they are pretty good gamblers now, as anyone can see by watching the stock markets. Let them gamble with the farmers of their communities, and in that way the farmers will have a chance to get well established on the land, especially in those sections of northern Ontario to which I have referred.


William Richard Motherwell: I wonder if my
hon. friend would take his own prescription when applied to the many inspections which take place at Fort William and Port Arthur. Why harass the farmers, he might well say, with all this inspectional service, not letting them pass with a single grain of wheat, oats or barley without some monster inspector wanting to do something to make himself officious and to degrade his grain for him? Would that be good for Canada, or would it hurt Canada in the grain markets of the world?


Robert James Manion: The minister has taken
up a subject in regard to which I admitted he is correct. I was not referring to that. I admitted the need in exports of importance.


William Richard Motherwell: If it is good for
the goose it is good for the gander.


Robert James Manion: I am not so sure.
i Mr. Manion.]


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Which is the goose and
which is the gander?


William Richard Motherwell: We have made
exceptions. There are exceptions in connection with the grain trade. You can send forward mixed cargoes as long as you indicate on them that they are. mixed. So there are exceptions in this legislation and there is power to make dozens of exceptions if we find in the administration that exceptions are necessary. But why discuss that phase of it? I want to make some progress. The domestic side of the question is embodied in clauses 3 and 4, and nobody is objecting to clause 5. Even going as far as we are in clause 5 we are not within approaching distance of what the other overseas dominions are doing in protecting the quality of their goods in sending them overseas for export. We are miles behind them.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: I am
not going to discuss the bill in general, but I want -to point out to the minister again that the matter will be materially helped as regards the chief objections that have been taken by changing the word "person" in the different clauses. In clause 3, which was allowed to stand, the second word in the first line is "person" and the same word appears in clause 6, 7, 8, 9 and so on. The discussion for the last hour or so has been in regard to the export end of the vegetable business. That does not cover the thousands of farmers who wish to trade between themselves. Throughout western Canada and in some of the other provinces one farmer will call up his neighbour and want to know if he has a few potatoes or something else and that neighbour will throw three or four sacks in his car and take them over.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend object to grading vegetables for export?


William Russell Fansher: No.


William Richard Motherwell: That is what we
are dealing with.


William Russell Fansher: Why
apply it to the individual who is not exporting? That is my point and that is the point which was raised by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) and received favourably by the minister. The word "person" appears all through the clause. Why not substitute the word " dealer"?


William Richard Motherwell: The custom right
along has been to provide by regulation for grading for export. There may be a better way but I do not know what it is. If any-

Root Vegetables Act
body will evolve a better way I shall be delighted to accept it because we want nothing but the best. We cannot put all these details into the law. There is scarcely any law, especially affecting agriculture, which has not a provision for making regulations based upon the law so that changes can be made rapidly from time to time as the circumstances warrant, instead of our having to wait until parliament meets to get an obvious injustice corrected.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Either I am wrong on this subject or a number of the members of the committee are. In my opinion you do not have to grade any vegetables at all. You can sell any number of any kind of vegetables you wish without grading; but if you do sell vegetables and call them the grades according to this legislation, then they must come up to the standard.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Even if a person is a market gardener, under this legislation his vegetables must be graded and certified.


John Gordon Ross: I do not believe that is the case. If you put these vegetables in a container and mark them as being of a certain grade, then they must come up to that standard and weight, but if there are no grades there are no restrictions.


William Richard Motherwell: That depends upon what we have in our regulations.


William Russell Fansher: Any
vegetable that is going to be exported should be graded'. But supposing on ordinary farmer goes to a neighbour for two or three sacks of potatoes to carry him over until his new crop is ready for use, according to this legislation if it passes in its present phraseology, he will have to tag those bags of potatoes and weigh them, the sack will have to be a certain size and on it will have to be the name and address of the man who grew the potatoes. That is all nonsense.


John Gordon Ross: That is not necessary unless he grades them.


William Russell Fansher: The clause refers to "person" instead of "dealer" or "middleman". That is the point to which I wish to draw the attention of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Barrels to be well filled.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like to ask this question of the Minister of Justice who is now in his seat and who in his absence was made responsible for this legislation, because we have had it presented to the committee that this bill has been approved in all respects
by the Department of Justice. What does he think of this pernicious activity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture in providing all these grades, regulations and restrictions with respect to market gardeners, for instance, in Montreal? ?


William Richard Motherwell: I was dealing with his deputy minister.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What does the Minister of Justice say in regard to this? ? I think the minister is framing a political issue that will be very attractive to hundreds and even thousands of people in Montreal who are engaged m market gardening, who will now come under these restrictions and whose business will be entirely changed if these provisions are put into force. In fact as that business is now conducted in the markets of Montreal, you are going to fill your courts of sessions with petty criminal cases and your gaols with agricultural criminals.


Ernest Lapointe: I am a pretty busy man and it is impossible for me personally to study the legislation of all the departments. Apart from that I have such a good feeling for my friend the Minister of Agriculture that I might lack the necessary impartiality and I prefer 'that my deputy and the other officials of any department deal with his proposed legislation. I am told by those officials that the bill as drafted is perfectly legal and constitutional, and I do not think my hon. friend should worry about the political issue that can be raised with regard to it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does my hon. friend think the ordinary market gardener who comes into the city of Quebec or Montreal with his team of horses or with his Ford automobile to distribute throughout the city or the outskirts or through the markets the products of his farm, should be compelled, before he can sell his goods, to undergo all this grading and weighing and to put his products on the market in a certain kind of container with an inspection certificate on it, failing which he will be liable to all sorts of fines, forfeitures and penalties? Does my hon. friend think that is wise or expedient legidation?


Ernest Lapointe: Personally I am not enamoured of too many restrictions. I must admit I believe in freedom of trade. I think the functions of government are to keep the field open, and restrictions are rather hampering than helping. On the other hand, I am told that the people who are interested, the gardeners themselves, are asking for this legislation. I do not know why. If I were one of them I would not, but that is the information which is given to me.
Root Vegetables Act


Robert James Manion: The Minister of Justice has brought up a point that is interesting. He understands, as we all understand from the minister, that those interested are asking for this legislation. I understood the Minister of Agriculture to say that the dealers largely were asking for this legislation, and I can quite understand that they would like to have everything measured by the pound or by the bushel or by the bag, and so forth.


William Richard Motherwell: They are the very ones who do not want it. '


Robert James Manion: Has the minister received any representations asking for this legislation from the ordinary truck farmers?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, from the growers. I can give my hon. friend a list of those who helped to have passed the original act of 1922, upon which this bill is based.


Robert James Manion: I should like to have the names.


William Richard Motherwell: They are as follows:
Prince Edward Island Representing growers-[DOT]
W. N. McGregor.
Representing dealers-
Nelson Rattenbury.
Nova Scotia Representing growers-
F. W. Foster.
Representing dealers-
A. E. McMahon.
New Brunswick Representing growers-
A. A. H. Margison.
Representing dealers-
0. R. Estey.
Quebec
Representing growers-
Roger Gagnon, John McEvoy, Jos. E. Parent. Representing dealers-
Wm. Bell.
Ontario
Representing growers-
Henry Broughton, J. G. Fleming, J. M. McNaughton.
Representing dealers-
David Spence, M.P.
Manitoba
Representing growers-
R. P. Andrews.
Representing dealers-
J. G. Anderson.
Saskatchewan Representing growers-
E. W. Marvel.
Representing dealers-
J. M. McCrae.
Alberta
Representing growers-
R.	Noel Hammond.
Representing dealers-
S.	S. Savage.

British Columbia Representing growers-
C. E. Barnes, J. T. Mutrie, R. M. Winslow. Representing dealers-
E. L. Fraser.
My hon. friend will note in the list of dealers the name of David Spence, M.P. I wish he were in his seat.
Then, in addition to our own inspectors, the following were present in an advisory capacity, representing provincial departments:
Wilfrid Boulter, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Dr. M. Gumming, Truro, NS.
A. G. Turney, Fredericton, N.B.
J. H. Lavoie, Quebec, Que.
A. H. MacLennan, Toronto, Ont.
J. D. Smith, Edmonton, Alta.
R. C. Abbott, Vancouver, B.C.
I might mention that this organization is still in existence, and when we get the advisory board-


George Halsey Perley: What is the name of that organization?


William Richard Motherwell: It is the Vegetable Growers' Association in the different provinces.


John Evans: Regarding the inspection ol vegetables for export, I would like to give a hint to the Minister of Agriculture. While inspection is quite necessary, I do not think that this legislation is going to solve all the trouble. We found in western Canada that while we had to market our wheat collectively, and depend on the government to provide the machinery and facilities for the moving of our wheat from the farm to the markets of the world, we did not solve all our troubles until we formed ourselves into what is known as the wheat pool. I think if the government here would facilitate the means of co-operation and help the farmers to form themselves into societies, such as the New Brunswick potatoe growers' association, and get them to do this work for themselves, it would be of lasting benefit. Legislation such as this will not meet the bill for very long. Even in the grading of eggs, poultry, and so on, we found in western Canada that it did not meet our needs, and to-day the people in Saskatchewan are solving this problem for themselves simply by forming themselves into co-operative societies and marketing their products through the pool system. In fact, I might say that in some cities in the west it has been found necessary to form milk pools because the farmers were so badly robbed of their prices and earnings. Instead of attempting to pass legislation of this kind to meet the situation, I would rather see the government help the farmers to cooperate and do this work for themselves. I

Root Vegetables Act
think the time is coming when all our produce will have to be marketed co-operatively, and in western Canada to-day we are ready to take over the whole of the machinery for the marketing of our wheat. I think that in connection with an article like potatoes, which have to be collected in bulk to be moved to the markets of the world, no better scheme could be adopted by the government than to help the farmers do this work themselves.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: In reply to my
hon. friend from Rosetown, I would point out that in the province of Prince Edward Island, and I think in New Brunswick also, we are doing the very thing he suggests. In Prince Edward Island we have the Co-operative Potato Growers' Association handling millions of bushels of potatoes, amounting to millions of dollars worth, and it is all handled on the co-operative system.
The government has given to us the same assistance which they give to the western farmer in the matter of inspection. We have two classes of inspection, the seed potato inspection, and the table stock inspection, each under a different branch of the Department of Agriculture. The seed potato inspection is carried on by the Department of Agriculture without cost to the farmer, and every carload of potatoes is certified by a government inspector, and tagged for export. The inspection for seed potatoes is compulsory. No man can ship certified seed potatoes without having them government inspected and a certificate placed on the sack.
When it comes to shipping table stock, inspection and certificate is not compulsory, but unless the shipment is inspected and certified by the inspector, for which a fee of five dollars is charged, the car cannot go forward as Canada A table stock. This inspection was undertaken voluntarily in Prince Edward Island, and both growers and shippers have found it beneficial. I think I am safe in saying that last year fully 90 per cent of the table stock shipped out of the province was inspected, and that inspection was voluntarily accepted by both the grower and the shipper. The shipper paid the five dollar inspection fee to the inspector, who would then place his certificate on the car. This inspection protects both the grower and the shipper. When those potatoes reach their destination, if the consignee makes any complaint against them, the shipper can produce his certificate of inspection to show that the potatoes were of class A grade when shipped, and it is then up to the consignee to pay for them.
I think the agitation for this compulsory inspection came largely from New Brunswick. The New Brunswick growers have not gone in for voluntary inspection to the same extent as the growers of Prince Edward Island, and some of the growers and societies in New Brunswick have been asking for compulsory inspection. I think that is the reason for this bill. I do not think it will make any difference to Prince Edward Island, because fully 90 per cent of our potatoes is inspected. When it comes to small business transactions between farmers, and the sales of truck farmers who take their vegetables to town, if I thought for one moment that it would impose any hardship on them I would not support the bill; but I understand the minister intends to move an amendment which will pretty well cover regulations in connection with local traffic. I think this legislation is in the interests of all concerned. Perhaps the suggestion of the member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) that the word "dealer" should be substituted for the word "person" is worth while considering, but I think every eventuality has been pretty well taken care of.


William Richard Motherwell: In order that the
committee may know to what extent oUr vegetable growers have taken advantage of what we are seeking to enact by this section, let me quote some figures. They have been asking for this grading and have voluntarily offered to pay five dollars a car. For example, British Columbia has had 472 cars of potatoes graded for export at five dollars a car, and has also applied the system to domestic business. Although the growers did not need to take this course, they found it so advantageous for export that they have also had their potatoes graded for the home market. On the prairies 135 carloads have been inspected at a cost of five dollars per car; Ontario 103 cars; eastern Ontario and Quebec, 178 cars; Nova Scotia, 32 carsj^Tew Brunswick, 3,138 cars; Prince Edward Island, 2,545 cars. They have pressed their money upon us and asked us to take it. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we are tailenders in not moving more rapidly in this respect. Then in regard to onions, which are grown principally in Essex county in this province and in British Columbia, these are the carload figures, inspected at five dollars per car:	British Columbia 152
cars; the prairies, 37 cars; Ontario, 174; eastern Ontario and Quebec, 21 cars; Nova Scotia, 3 cars; New Brunswick, 1; Prince Edward Island, none-making a total of 388. We do not usually associate turnips with grading, nevertheless our turnip growers have made
Root Vegetables Act

strong requests for the application of this system to their crop, and these are the figures of carloads inspected at five dollars per car: British Columbia, none; the prairies, none; Ontario, 2; eastern Ontario and Quebec, 10; Nova Scotia, none; New Brunswick, 2; Prince Edward Island, 4-just 18 cars; not many, but it is a beginning. Why should we object to this system? We have been carrying it on on a voluntary basis, taking the money forced on us, and turning that money over to the Minister of Finance. This is the source of the $60,000 that I reported. Why should not the law recognize this extensive business just as it recognizes any other business? We are on section 5. Have we to start all over again and demonstrate the principle of grading? Surely not.


George Gibson Coote: Section 6 provides that "no
person shall sell or offer." Has the minister inquired of his colleague the Minister of Justice whether the word "person" includes a woman? We have been advised that it is very questionable whether a woman is a person. If the courts should uphold this view, a woman would be allowed "to sell or offer for sale" these vegetables without coming under this legislation.


William Richard Motherwell: This is consolidated and some of it is an exact copy of the old act. My hon. friend will notice that there are no underlined words in this section. It has been in force for six years, and as yet we have run up against no snags. Why borrow trouble?
No person shall sell or offer, expose or have in his possession any potatoes for sale by the closed barrel unless every such barrel is well and properly filled.
If the barrel is not properly filled the contents rattle around and are bruised. Probably that is what happened to the New Brunswick potatoes-they were all cracked up as if they had been under a roller.


George Gibson Coote: I am not asking any question in regard to the packing of potatoes in barrels. I wish to know if the Minister of Agriculture has secured an opinion from the Justice department as to whether the word " person " would include a woman.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a joke.


William Richard Motherwell: That point was
raised before; it is a little stale.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The /point at issue is not covered by the minister's figures regarding shipments of carload lots of potatoes. We are quite satisfied with the grading system in that respect. But take the case where a far-

mer goes across the road to his neighbour to buy a bag of potatoes, something that frequently happens. As drafted, such a transaction would come under this section and one or other of those farmers would be guilty of an infraction of the law. We think such a case Should be exempted. The suggestion made to the minister is to substitute " dealer " for " person ",


William Richard Motherwell: Under the old regulations they were exempt. I had to leave the agriculture committee to attend another meeting, but I asked the committee to consider the advisability of widening the exemption to make it apply to such cases. So we have two ways of protecting the farmers.


Milton Neil Campbell: In the agriculture committee I understood that an amendment was to be made to the bill to cover that specific case. I fail to find it in this bill.


William Richard Motherwell: Unfortunately the
agriculture committee, apparently thinking that the changes were small and relatively unimportant, did not recommend that the bill be reprinted as amended. The following is the amendment to section 21, providing that the provisions of the act and regulations thereunder shall not apply:
(f) To such other special trade practices as the advisory board with the approval of the minister shall specify.
That is not exactly what I suggested when I had to leave the committee. I proposed that something should be inserted to correspond to the provision in the Seed Act and the Fertilizer Act where farmers, as such, are exempted. That is done in many provincial and federal laws. The committee thought it wise not to apply it to any particular class but to take power to exempt such other special trade practices as the advisory board, with the approval of the minister, might specify. I suggested " trade or farm practices", which would exempt the farmers. I am ready to consider such a suggestion. The committee seemed to think however that this would make it so wide it might be open to abuse.


Milton Neil Campbell: I understood that the
matter was settled in the agriculture committee. I hardly believe that the committee were of the opinion that they were not exempting the class of farmers to whom I have referred in this instance. I rather think the majority of the committee understood that this was being done. Here the minister or the advisory board is given power to make certain exemptions, but sections 3 and 4 apply definitely to all persons whether farmers or dealers.

Root Vegetables Act


William Richard Motherwell: Those two are standing in the hope of their being modified to meet the wishes of the committee.


Milton Neil Campbell: I think the minister's own suggestion should be adopted. I can conceive of the case where some man might want to get his neighbour into trouble, where there happened to be ill feeling in the community. It would be the simplest thing to have a man brought before a justice of the peace and fined for what has always been the practice in the community, of one farmer selling a sack of potatoes to another, not in the capacity of a dealer, but simply because he wanted to help his neighbour out. I think the minister's own suggestion should be carried into the bill.


William Richard Motherwell: We will consider it when we come to that section.


George Gibson Coote: We had better stick to one section at a time. The minister is quite right. I believe that amendment we adopted in section 21 was understood to be the recommendation of the minister. If it is not we can amend the section when we come to it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Power to enter premises.
George Halsey Perley: This section is
going too far; it is altogether too stringent. Does the minister realize just how far he is going? He gives an inspector the power to enter any place, and house, and farmer's yard or any store, merely on suspicion. That is too much power to give any individual.


James Dew Chaplin: I would not give the minister that power.


William Richard Motherwell: Would the hon.
member suggest that he be kept out of the building?


George Halsey Perley: The minister may want to make a joke about it, but there are others who do not.


William Richard Motherwell: Not at all. But the inspector must have authority to enter or he must keep out. Which shall it be? He cannot be in the basement or on the roof. This authority is given in all our acts of this character. It has been in this one for about twenty-five years and if it has stood the strain for that time it will stand it for another twenty-five years, which is about as long as I expect to be interested in it.
Mr. MoGLBBON: We could not have better evidence than the minister himself has given that the act has never been enforced. The
people will not tolerate for a moment the exercise of the power given in this section. If the minister does not know this, he ought to. If he says the section has not been invoked it is only because it cannot be enforced.


George Halsey Perley: Is this the same section as in the old act?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Robert James Manion: This is changed from
"potatoes or onions" to "vegetables." A man might suspect onions.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Or bunions.


William Richard Motherwell: It is extending it to all vegetables.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Power to detain shipments of vegetables.
George Halsey Perley: This is a new
clause, about which I am doubtful. I am as suspicious of these new clauses as the inspector will be of premises which he will inspect.


William Richard Motherwell: This section has
been in the fruit act for many years, long enough to give it a good trial. Indeed, it has worked so well in the fruit act that we have incorporated it bodily here. I understand from my officer that it, too, has been in existence for twenty-five years. It has proved quite satisfactory.


George Halsey Perley: Has that section ever been enforced or taken advantage of by the department?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: How often?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
On section 15-Regulations.
George Halsey Perley: There are a good many changes in this section; perhaps the minister will explain the necessity for them.


William Richard Motherwell: Under subsection
(a) the grades will be established in the usual way on the advice of the advisory board, as under the fruit act. In 1924 we drafted a bill to amend the act in many respects and referred it to the agriculture committee. We endeavoured by statute to describe the grade, but the agriculture committee could not agree on a description of grades. I believe we stranded on the question of onions, and we let the bill die in the agriculture committee after having tried and
Root Vegetables Act

failed to describe these grades. In the same way, all attempts to describe commercial grades of wheat below No. 3 northern have failed, and we are now attempting to do what we have done with the commercial grades of wheat, which are fixed by a board each year. Here we are providing for the establishment of standard containers for vegetables, which is done at the request of the growers. If it is desired to sell these articles by the bag we will establish a standard bag; at present a bag may contain 70, 80, 90, 100 or 200 pounds, and we desire to make the weight uniform. If a gallon measure is used we will establish a standard of pounds for that measure, and so on. We will also prescribe the units of sale for vegetables as well as the brands or marks which may be used and the manner in which they shall be placed on the containers. A great many dealers have had private brands for a great many years which they desire to retain, and we make provision for that. We also provide for the inspection, for the issuing of certificates and for the imposition of fees; if you are going to grade you must issue certificates. Then subsection (f) prescribes the time when any regulation shall come into operation, and so on. The only time we can take advantage of this power is when parliament is in session; we may not wish to exercise it for six months, because nearly all the legislation under which we have been given authority to do some kind of grading has not been put into force until the people are ready to have it applied.


John Wesley Edwards: I would
like to refer the minister back to subsection (a), which provides for the establishment of grades for vegetables intended for sale. Is it the intention that potatoes or onions shall be graded as eggs are graded, into extra specials, fresh firsts, firsts, seconds, and so on? How are potatoes and onions to be graded, and who are to constitute the advisory board? Apparenty the farmer who takes his potatoes and onions to the market will be obliged to specify whether they are firsts, extra specials, or something of that kind, but he is not free then; he will have to put them in a certain kind of bag or container which bears a certain stamp. Even then he is not a free man; he will have to get a certificate from a government officer stating that the potatoes are of the size specified and that the bag bears the prescribed mark, and in order to get that certificate he will have to dig down in his pocket and pay the fee which will go towards the salary of this inspector who acts as an agent of the government-one
[Mr. Motherwell.1
of their election agents, I suppose, when the right time comes. Coming back to sub-section (a), how many grades has the minister in mind for potatoes and onions? Will they be graded according to size, according to colour, according to whether or not some of the tops are on, or in what way? Will they be graded according to age, according to the particular kind of potato, or what will be the standard? I would like to know what the farmers will be up against in this grading business


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend has raised a very important point, and it is to solve that difficulty that we have adopted this plan. Four years ago a number of members of the committee wanted to retain these names to which my hon. friend objects and to which I also object. That is the reason for this change. The grades of onions at present are fancy, choice, standard, and boilers.


John Wesley Edwards: What about pickling onions?


William Richard Motherwell: I thought the old
cardinal numerals were good enough, and I thought it would be more understandable to have the grades numbered one, two and three. At that time some members differed so strongly that there was no way of getting together; we received a shower of wires from the respective sides, so we simply dropped the whole thing like a hot potato, or a hot onion if you like, and let it go until to-day. Now we want to change the names of the grades, and remembering that we failed to agree before, we now propose to call them one, two and three under the regulations. Potatoes at present are graded into A. B. and C; I cannot say why that was done instead of using the numerals 1, 2 and 3, but I think I will try to get them to correspond with the grades of onions.


John Wesley Edwards: I think the
minister would be wise in so doing; the general public could more readily understand potatoes or onions graded according to number than those classified as fancies, extras, specials and so on. There -is a good deal of confusion at present in regard to the classification of eggs, and I am sure those grades would be more readily understood by the public if they were designated by numbers. At any rate, I suppose the inspector will come along to a man who has potatoes or onions on the market and will classify those vegetables as No. 1 or No. 2 and place a card on the bag or bags showing the public that the farmer is offering for sale No. 1

Root Vegetables Act
potatoes or No. 2 onions so certified by the inspector, and the seller will receive a certificate or card to that effect. That will be his guarantee against being brought up before a magistrate for selling No. 2 potatoes as No. 1; is that the idea?


William Richard Motherwell: Not quite that.
These parties grade their own goods; they get familiar with what the grades call for. They put a tag on their own wares, either potatoes or onions, indicating the grade. When the inspector comes around, if he finds their wares are not up to grade he will admonish them to be more careful in regard to the grades. He does not jump right at them and prosecute them, but he indicates what the grade is and possibly changes the tag, lowering it to what it really is, and ask them to comply more closely with the law. Well, if the man persists in misrepresenting his goods and offends repeatedly, we sometimes have to prosecute him, but ordinarily that would not be done for the first offence.


John Wesley Edwards: And yet the fanner would likely know much more about what was a first grade potato than would the inspector, who was probably picked up in some city and never saw a potato except on the table. His job is to get some convictions and show that he is a live inspector by making trouble for the farmer.


William Richard Motherwell: We do not select
them anyhow.


John Wesley Edwards: Supposing
he comes along and grades No. 1 potatoes, but the farmer has not got them in a properly marked bag or box, is the farmer liable to a fine? The potatoes are really No. 1 but are not in a box which is properly marked.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no use
grading unless people will look'and learn.


John Wesley Edwards: You can
judge whether they are No. 1 or No. 2 grade and whether they are in a bag or box which bears a mark, and the farmer is liable to a fine if he has them in a bag which has not a mark on it.


William Richard Motherwell: All the grades that I know of require a mark on them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Penalty for violation.
Mr. KELLNER:: Suppose a sample of
potatoes or onions which is given a proper certificate is later subjected to a hard frost and the quality is damaged, whereupon the
dealer then sells them; who is responsible? Against whom would the consumer have recourse-the man who grew the potatoes or the man who sold them?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, that would be a matter of adjustment between the two parties concerned. We cannot be responsible for that. The railways have broad shoulders, and if there was provision for heating and somebody neglected to fire up, there might be a case against them. But whoever issued the certificate cannot be responsible for that; it is usually a matter of adjustment. We try to get them together; they expect to deal with each other again, common sense prevails, and they settle.


John Wesley Edwards: I wish to
move an amendment to section 16. The penalty under that section for violation of the act is placed, for the first offence, at a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars and not less than ten dollars. I submit that that is pretty harsh in regard to the enforcement of a law which will be new to a great many people. The minimum fine should be very greatly reduced for the first offence, so that the man may be given a chance, and I think the maximum for the first offence might also be reduced.


William Richard Motherwell: We do not prosecute on the first offence.


John Wesley Edwards: You may
not prosecute, but you will not be the inspector all over creation. It will be somebody acting for you.


William Richard Motherwell: His reports will indicate how many times the man had offended.


John Wesley Edwards: Am I to understand-if I am it will alter my opinion at once-that when one of your inspectors finds a farmer violating this act, no action will be taken on the first offence until the inspector reports to the department?


William Richard Motherwell: That is the practice. I think it is a good practice to give a man a second chance; he may have offended innocently.


John Wesley Edwards: I am not quarrelling with the minister on that point at all, and that may be the practice; but it is possible that the inspector in the course of his duty need not wait to find out what the department thinks about it.
Root Vegetables Act


William Richard Motherwell: Oh yes, he cannot prosecute off his own bat; he has to refer it to the department.


John Wesley Edwards: In what section of the act is that?


William Richard Motherwell: It is not in the law, but it is in the instructions or in the regulations as to how to administer the act. You could not say in the act that an offender may violate the law a certain number of times before * somebody knocks him over the knuckles, but that is the way it works out.


John Wesley Edwards: You are giving instructions to your inspectors that a man who violates this law once is liable to a fine of not less than ten dollars and not more than twenty-five.


William Richard Motherwell: That is in the law.


John Wesley Edwards: I have no doubt that if the minister were acting as inspector he would give a farmer a warning and tell him not to do it again; but here is an act which is for the guidance of his inspectors and which tells the inspector that the proper thing for him to do is to pull a man before the magistrate and have him fined not more than twenty-five dollars and not less than ten dollars for the first offence, and for the second offence not less than twenty-five dollars and not more than fifty dollars. For the third offence I think it is two hundred dollars.


Mr. KAISER:: Two hundred dollars and fifty dollars-after the Ontario Temperance Act.


John Wesley Edwards: I suggest that the minister reduce that fine for the first offence to a minimum of one dollar and a maximum of five dollars.


William Richard Motherwell: That would not be very effective.


John Wesley Edwards: The minister himself says he is not going to prosecute for the first offence.


William Richard Motherwell: That would be less than the cost of inspection. They would all take the fine and save the cost of a trip.


John Wesley Edwards: In the
enforcement of a new law like this, give the farmer some little chance to get educated as to what the government wants him to do. Do not leave it in the power of an inspector, an injudicious inspector if you like, to impose a fine of ten dollars upon a man whose potatoes are No. 1 but who has them in a bag which is not properly marked.


William Richard Motherwell: This has been the law for five years. There are only three or four words inserted there; it is really a reprint of the old law. We cannot lay down any hard and fast rule to apply to all offenders, because offenders differ in degree; some will do it innocently not knowing the law, while others will do it deliberately and persistently, and certainly the innocent offender should be given a second chance. In regard to a maximum of five dollars and a minimum of one dollar, the one dollar is only what he would pay for inspecting the car, and if the offender is given a minimum fine, as magistrates have a habit of doing, the offender would pay one dollar as a fine and save the inspector's fee.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The minister said he would not prosecute at all for the first offence.


William Richard Motherwell: If he was an innocent offender, and it was his first offence.


James Arthurs: He could not be innocent if the law is on the statute book and he violates it.


Franklin Smoke: I understand that any one can set the criminal law in motion; any person in the neighbourhood may lay a first or a second or a third charge, as the government may do.


William Richard Motherwell: Certainly.


Franklin Smoke: He is not dependent at all
on the will of the inspector or of the department.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the best
argument advanced yet.


John Wesley Edwards: If that
argument is a good one-and I at once agree that it is-then it knocks the bottom out of everything the minister said a while ago, namely, that his instructions to the inspectors would be not to be harsh in the case of a first offence. He connot instruot Tom, Dick and Harry all over the country; he can only instruct his own officials to be lenient


William Richard Motherwell: Not at all.


John Wesley Edwards: Supposing
it is not an inspector but a neighbour of the farmer who lays the information; in that case the minister has no influence over the man. Let us suppose he lays an information through malice or for some other reason, and the man comes before the court. As I understand the matter, the magistrate who hears the case, if he finds that the man violated the law in

Boot Vegetables Act
having for sale potatoes under grade or not being in a market bag or box, has no option but must impose a fine of at least ten dollars or at most twenty-five dollars for the first offence.


William Richard Motherwell: That hypothetical
case may occur because any citizen can put the law in motion, but he would have twice as much difficulty in proving his case because he would have to prove that the potatoes were not properly graded or that they were underweight. The department would have the certificate that was issued in the first instance and that would be prima facie evidence of correctness; consequently the private prosecutor would have at least twice the difficulty of getting a conviction that the departmental officials would. My fruit commissioner informs me that he cannot recall a single instance in which a prosecution has been entered by a private citizen.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Omce you pass this legislation the enforcement of it is entirely out of your hands, and as an authority I will quiote the Minister of Justice who told us the other day that the government could not enforce these laws; that it was up to the provincial governments to do so. The minister therefore would not have any authority.


Milton Neil Campbell: I should like to point out to the minister something that -may easily arise in connection with this measure, and it is what I had in mind when I made some observations a short time ago. A farmer comes into town and sells a few 'bags of potatoes. A dealer there who has means of handling farm produce is not going to look with favour on farmers coming around and dealing directly with his customers. There you have an instance where a dealer may go to a magistrate, lay an information against a farmer and cause a great deal of trouble, although the farmer may have sold only a couple of sacks of potatoes. That is what I think we should guard against.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Ooote) suggested that we should take this section by section and that would seem to be the sensible course.


George Halsey Perley: With regard to these prosecutions, is the inspector given the right to prosecute without reference to the department?


William Richard Motherwell: Never.


George Halsey Perley: If an offence is committed and the inspector wishes to take action, what happens?


William Richard Motherwell: If he is an ordinary inspector he sends a report to the district inspector, that is the inspector of the particular province. The latter sends it in turn to the fruit commissioner who has charge of the administration of the law. Before reporting to the deputy minister the fruit commissioner requests the district inspector to make a thorough investigation into the case. If the circumstances warrant, the latter reports back to the fruit commissioner who takes the matter up with the deputy minister. If the case is a difficult one he sometimes takes it up with myself and more often he takes it to the Deputy Minister of Justice to see if there is ground for a case. We do not like to prosecute without being sure of getting a conviction, because otherwise the prosecution may not do much good and may do harm.


George Halsey Perley: That means that it is the deputy minister who in practice gives orders or instructions to bring about a prosecution, and nobody else in the department exercises that power. Is thlat correct?


William Richard Motherwell: The fruit branch sometimes exercise jurisdiction themselves if the man is an old offender who has been a repeater and there is no doubt about his persistence and determination to get past the law. In that case the fruit branch can act off their own bat.


James Arthurs: What is the definition of a "repeater"?


William Richard Motherwell: One who commits the offence the second time.


Mr. RYERSON:: Is it the intention of the government to make this legislation applicable to the small individual grower who markets his products either on. the market or to his own customers throughout the district, or is it intended to apply to those who are shipping throughout a province or for export?


William Richard Motherwell: That will be left to the committee when we come to clause 21 where there is a provision giving authority to the government to make the exemptions as wide as we like. We can make a further provision when we come to that. That seems to 'be the stumbling block in the bill and I thiink the exemptions should have been in the beginning of the bill so that we would know what they were. There were only two or three small amendments, although they were important ones, and it was not thought advisable to go to the expense of reprinting the bill. Clause 21 covers that point and I shall be glad to have my hon. friend's opinion on it.
Root Vegetables Act


Mr. MALONEY:: I think further consideration of this bill should be postponed. I have altogether too much respect for the minister's sagacity to believe he is fathering such a measure. The final paragraph of section 21, the most vital portion of the whole bill, nullifies the effect of the measure as I should like to see it go into law. If vegetables and fruits are to be graded or their sale protected in any way it should be those that are for export, and clause 21 exempts both fruits and vegetables for export. There is nothing in the world to prevent exporters from saying: This is interfering with our foreign trade, and the result will be that this bill will have absolutely no effeict in regard to fruits and vegetables for export. But it penalizes the small fruit growers and the small vegetable farmer; it penalizes the housewife who wishes to go to the market and openly buy by the bunch or by the dozen or in any other manner, what vegetables and fruit she may desire. For that reason I feel, in justice to the Minister of Agriculture, we should report progress and allow him to sleep on it and bring it up again another day.


William Richard Motherwell: We have not yet come to that clause. We intend to leave the bill in committee.


Mr. CANTLEY:: If the farmer who comes into town and sells vegetables from his wagon is to be brought within the scope of this bill, the Minister of Agriculture will be considered an infernal nuisance throughout the country. If the bill is passed as it now stands-and my understanding is that the minister wants that to be done-there will be very few Liberal farmers in the county of Picfcou.


William Richard Motherwell: The better that
should suit my hon. friend. He should support this bill.


Thomas Cantley: They will not support
your government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
On section 19-Penalty for careless handling, wilfully destroying, etc.
John Wesley Edwards: It is quite
clear to me what is meant by wilfully destroying or pilfering, but just what does the minister mean by "carelessly handles"?


William Richard Motherwell: Throwing around
recklessly.


Mr. ERNST:: Then why not say recklessly handled?


John Wesley Edwards: Then the
man goes to market with a load of potatoes and drops a bag off his wagon as he is unloading it will have the inspector tap him on the shoulder and say, "Twenty-five dollars for 'carelessly handling' ". He may get off the first time if he drops a bag, but if he drops the second one he will be soaked good and plenty. The inspector will say, "You have hurt the feelings of that bag of potatoes, or turnips. They are fairly crying out. You have bruised them. You have injured them. You have handled them carelessly. You are liable to a fine of twenty-five dollars." One man takes hold of one end of a bag of potatoes and another man the other, and they heave it into a car without any consideration for the feelings of the potatoes at all. They are bruised, wounded, hurt. Must a feather bed and springs be provided for the potatoes to land on? Must a man wrap them in wool to be sure he will not violate the law? If he drops a bag on the ground that is carelessly handling, and he is liable to a fine of twenty-five dollars.


William Richard Motherwell: If one is as clever
as my hon. friend he can ridicule almost anything. I do not think the hon. member was in during the earlier part of the evening when I explained that just through careless and indifferent handling of the potatoes of New Brunswick by the exporters to Cuba, they almost lost that market and had an embargo placed against them. In order to make sure that such an accusation was warranted I got the fruit commissioner to bring up one or two barrels of these potatoes from New Brunswick, and I saw with my own eyes that as a result of this rough handling forty per cent of the potatoes were bruised and cracked open and unfit for export. You would think a land roller had been run over them. Should not we do something to protect our export trade particularly? Should we not try to avoid having an embargo placed against us? An embargo is sometimes a difficult thing to get taken off. There is an embargo against our potatoes now in Great Britain, put on for what seems to be a very trifling reason, but we cannot get it taken off. If Cuba put an embargo on our maritime province potatoes, it would be a very serious matter. We want to avoid that.


John Wesley Edwards: Just see how the minister proposes to avoid it. He says to the farmer, "If you throw that bag of potatoes on the ground that is careless handling, and you are liable to a fine" but paragraph (e) of section 21 provides that this act

Root Vegetables Act
and the regulations made thereunder shall not apply to any vegetables for export if that would prevent the sale and export of such vegetables to any foreign market. So the potatoes intended for export are exempt; you may throw them around as much as you like, but if you throw around the potatoes that are to be sold for home consumption, you are liable to a fine. Section 21 says clearly:
The provisions of this act or regulations made thereunder shall not apply,-
(e) to any vegetables for export where compliance with the said provisions would prevent the sale or export of such vegetables to any foreign market.
No matter how roughly you handle the potatoes for export, even if that would prevent their sale and export, the provisions of this act do not apply, yet the minister says it is export trade he is legislating for.


William Richard Motherwell: We will deal with that section when we come to it.


James Arthurs: But the minister's whole argument was based on the export trade.


George Halsey Perley: In the case mentioned by the minister, where potatoes were bruised by careless handling, what person, would be prosecuted and fined under this section for that offence?


William Richard Motherwell: If we could discover who did the rough-house work on the potatoes we would prosecute him.


Mr. ROBINSON:: In case the carriers are the offenders, and in my experience they usually are, how would you get after them?


William Richard Motherwell: I know farmers'
organizations that have prosecuted the railways before this.
iSir GEORGE PERLEY: I am not a lawyer, but I want to appeal to the Minister of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: I am being appealed to a lot to-night.


George Halsey Perley: My reason for
appealing to him is this: I believe this provision in regard to careless handling cannot be enforced in practice. The Minister of Agriculture himself admitted that in the case he cited it would be impossible to tell who did the careless handling. With regard to wilfully destroying or pilfering, surely that is covered already in the Criminal Code. No one can wilfully destroy or steal anything belonging to another without being punished. So why put such a provision in here which is already dealt with in the Criminal Code? If
anybody should wilfully destroy or pilfer potatoes that were being shipped, you would not require a clause of this kind to prosecute him. Is not this something which could more properly be dealt with under the Criminal Code, rather than in an act concerning vegetables? I ask the Minister of Justice if that is not right.


James Arthurs: The Minister of Agriculture based his argument on the export trade and said that careless handling might damage potatoes intended for export. But section 21 provides:
The provisions of this act or regulations made thereunder, shall not apply,-
(a)	to new potatoes when shipped between the first day of July and the thirtieth day of September, both dates inclusive;
(b)	to certified seed potatoes as defined in the regulations under The Destructive Insect and Pest Act;
(c)	to what are commonly termed "green onions" or other vegetables with top leaves attached:
(d)	to what are commonly known as "pickling onions" or
(e)	to any vegetables for export where compliance with the said provisions would prevent the sale or export of such vegetables to any foreign market.
The minister has taken his stand on the export trade, whereas as a matter of fact these provisions apply only to potatoes for local consumption.


William Richard Motherwell: We can deal with that section when we come to it. I do not like mixing up the sections.


James Arthurs: We cannot carry section 19 without reference to section 21.


William Richard Motherwell: We will come to section 21, but do not let us discuss two or three other sections with this one.


George Halsey Perley: I would ask the Minister of Justice Whether a clause of this kind should properly be put in a bill regarding vegetables.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend want sections 19 and 20 to stand?


George Halsey Perley: I think section 19 is superfluous. The last two offences mentioned there are covered by the ordinary criminal law.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend wish to have section nineteen stand?


George Halsey Perley: Yes.
Section stands.
Section 20 agreed to.

Root Vegetables Act

On section 21-Vegetables excepted from operation of act.


John Frederick Johnston: There are two slight
amendments to this section. In subsection
(d)	the words " silver skin " have been inserted before the words, " pickling onions." As amended the subsection will read:
(d)	to what are commonly knorvn as silver skin pickling onions.
Another subsection is added:
(f) to such other practices as the advisory board with the approval of the minister may specify.


James Arthurs: That is simply legislation by order in council with a blank sheet.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Subsection
(e)	of section 21 reads:
The provisions of this act or regulations made thereunder shall not apply,-
(e)	to any vegetables for export where compliance with the said provisions would prevent the sale or export of such vegetables to any foreign market.
So far as the export, for instance, of potatoes or onions is concerned, those vegetables do not have to be graded, they do not have to be put in specially marked boxes or packages, they do not have to be sold by weight -in short, it does not make any difference whether they are bruised or how carelessly they are handled, if any of these things will have a tendency to prevent the sale of potatoes for export, then they are absolutely exempt under this siibsection. Does it strike the minister as logical to treat the export trade in that free and easy fashion as compared with the strict rules that he lays down for the home market? It does seem to me that it ought to be the other way around: In the local market the reputation of our potatoes and onions and other vegetables could very well depend on the opinion of the people there; but when competing against the world it is essential to keep up our reputation for the quality of the articles we export. By this subsection the restrictions of the act appear to be absolutely removed with respect to the export trade.


William Richard Motherwell: This subsection has been in all along, but I understand it has been used only once. If my hon. friend wants it removed there will be no objection on my part. This is the reason for its insertion. The orientals in British Columbia are very productive growers of vegetables. The law requires the name of the grower to be on the tag, and sometimes the oriental name spoils the sale by the dealer to his customer in other countries.


Alexander McKay Edwards: In that way it would injure the oriental.


William Richard Motherwell: No. The goods may have gone out of the hands of the oriental into the hands of the dealer, but when the latter wants to sell those goods the purchaser objects to the oriental name. The precaution is not on behalf of the oriental particularly, although he is resident in Canada, but on behalf of whoever holds the goods with the oriental name on the tag. If that hampers the sale of the goods it does do an injury to their marketing. As I said before, we discussed this very carefully, and although it has been called into requisition only once, we can remove it if my friend wishes.


James Arthurs: It is very easy to throw a little dust in the air and camouflage the whole situation. As a matter of fact all the provisions of this bill are nullified by this subsection of section 21. The minister brings up the case of the dealer, but the man who suffers in the end is the oriental grower.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


James Arthurs: Yes, because the exporter will not buy a second time from the oriental. Every other section of this bill is subject to section 21. It is not whether the tag bears an oriental or an occidental name; all the sections are subject to section 21.


William Richard Motherwell: If this applied to
the oriental I would not be ashamed to admit it, for I would not wish to do him any injustice; but the goods are not in his hands at all.


James Arthurs: I am against the oriental, I am for the occidental.


William Richard Motherwell: The goods have
passed from the oriental grower into the dealer's hands, and are probably paid for, with the result that if the goods are turned back the dealer suffers. I have no objection in the world to removing the clause, but I thought it showed an element of decency on the part of the people of Canada.


James Arthurs: Again the minister has
confined his remarks to the position between orientals and occidentals in British Columbia. But the section covers everything in this bill. Only half an hour ago the minister said there would be no charge made by his inspectors for a first offence. If a man has bought potatoes from an oriental in British Columbia,

Root Vegetables Act
and is found exporting them without having them properly tagged and marked, he is let off the first time by the ipse dixit of the minister himself. If he wants to protect the dealer who is a buyer from orientals, he is taking the proper course.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend
will make a motion and get a seconder we will delete this subsection.


James Arthurs: The minister has been
asking that every section be laid over until we reached this section. Now we are showing that section 21 is essential to the whole bill.


William Richard Motherwell: This was not the
crux of the situation until quite recently.


John Wesley Edwards: The minister has travelled from the maritime provinces over to the Pacific. At first he referred to a shipment of potatoes from the maritime provinces down to Cuba that were about 40 per cent off. I am not aware that there is any considerable oriental population in the maritime provinces engaged in raising potatoes. Now he has travelled by aeroplane, radio, or some other means, out to the Pacific coast and is dealing with orientals. While he would be very iproud to champion the cause of the oriental, it does seem to me that special consideration is being given by this subsection to the oriental that is not given to native-born Canadians-white people. That may suit him, but it does not suit me.


Mr. FRASER:: That is all very well, but
the point is that special consideration is being given here to orientals that is not being given to native born Canadians or white people. That does not appeal to me.


James Arthurs: With reference to the
oriental in British Columbia, if I understood the minister correctly, a dealer buying potatoes say from an oriental can remove the mark after getting them in his possession, if it is a mark that is objectionable to the trade. Is that the effect of that clause?


John Wesley Edwards: That is
what he said. There is no crime committed.


James Arthurs: Is that the effect of the clause? A Chinese grower puts a Chinese mark on the packages; they are delivered to the dealer, and after that the dealer can remove that mark if he likes and put on another?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
the tag follows the goods except in cases like this where the tag is objectionable because of its oriental name, then the tag is permitted to be taken off and the dealer puts on his own tag.


John Anderson Fraser: Then you are giving a
preference, nothing more or less, to the Chinese grower in British Columbia, which is the very thing British Columbia is complaining of all the time. You let the public buy these potatoes without knowing that they are Chinese grown. I would say that is very objectionable.


William Richard Motherwell: I was dealing with section 21. If my hon. friend will take the responsibility of moving that this subsection (e) be removed, I will not object if the committee agrees. We have had only one case under it since the law was enacted some six years ago.


John Anderson Fraser: I think the minister should take the responsibility for removing the objectionable clause.


George Halsey Perley: The minister has charge of this bill, and he need not attempt to put any responsibility upon the opposition. We have expressed our opinion about it. He is promoting the bill; it is for him to say as to that.


William Richard Motherwell: The agriculture
committee has made no change in it. I do not know how long or how fully they considered it, because I had to leave. In the absence of any expression of opinion from them, I do not know what they want. In nine cases out of ten it will strike at white dealers.


George Halsey Perley: If the minister
wants to abdicate his functions and let us on this side of the house prepare the bill, we will accept the responsibility.


John Wesley Edwards: The minister has consented to let section 19, I think it is, stand. Since section 21 has an effect upon the whole of the bill, I suggest that the whole of that section be allowed to stand.


William Richard Motherwell: - There is another subsection, first. We will let subsection (e) stand if my hon. friend suggests.


John Wesley Edwards: I would
recommend that it stand.


William Richard Motherwell: Very well.
Root Vegetables Act


John Anderson Fraser: I want to ask the minister about subsection (a) of section 21. Why do you confine the exemption on new potatoes to the first day of July? Suppose you have new potatoes ready for the market on the fifteenth day of June, why should you not be able to market them as quickly as on the first of July?


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon.
friend think it should apply sooner?


John Anderson Fraser: I think it should apply
earlier than that. I know we have new potatoes before the first of July in British Columbia.


John Wesley Edwards: I suppose
that is the patriotic clause; it is desired to have it come in on the first day of July.


George Halsey Perley: You had better let the whole of section 21 stand for the present.


William Richard Motherwell: I would like to have
(f)	read. We will let (e) stand. The others have passed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Gordon Ernst: With reference to section 21, I suggest to the minister that he let it stand and consider it carefully in the light of section 5 of the bill, which relates to export from Canada. Whoever drafted section 21 entirely forgot section 5. The minister has told the committee this evening that the chief object is to make a better and more uniform product for the export market, so that the potato growers in Prince Edward and New Brunswick will not be shut out of the market for Cuba. Section 5 gives the governor in council power to make export regulations. Section 21 says that the provisions of this act including export regulations shall not, for instance, apply to new potatoes; to certified seed potatoes; to what are commonly termed green onions or to other vegetables with top leaves attached; to silver skin onions and to other vegetables under clause (e). Has the minister considered the effect of section 21 in relation to section 5, and the release from the provisions of section 5 of any goods which are going into the export market? I suggest that the whole of section 21 be allowed to stand, and that consideration be given to the question of amending section 21 so as to include in it certain small producers, although I do not know how you could make any distinction between the large and the small producer.


William Richard Motherwell: Since my hon.
friends will not discuss the saving nature of subsection (f) of section 21 and will not move an amendment to eliminate subsection (e) of that section, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 191, to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Unlawful association; publishing seditious books, etc.
John Wesley Edwards: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice one or two questions in regard to this bill. In the explanatory notes I notice this section is to be repealed, and it seems to be rather lengthy. Apparently when that section was incorporated in our statutes it was considered advisable to put some restraint upon certain organizations, societies or individuals who were propagating certain doctrines or doing certain things in this country. The various matters are specified in the section which is to be struck out, and the severity of the penalties would seem to indicate that when the bill was passed these offences were considered to' be very serious indeed. This bill is very short; it simply states that section 98 is to be repealed, and all these offences and the penalties imposed are to be wiped out. My question is this:	Is there anything in any statute
to take the place of section 98 of the Criminal Code, imposing penalties for any of the offences mentioned under that section, or are we to suppose that the repeal of section 98 gives these persons a free hand in respect to the matters for which formerly they were severely penalized?


Ernest Lapointe: A bill similar to this has been adopted by this house five times, and in each case it has been rejected by the other chamber. Section 98, which this bill seeks to repeal, was placed in our statutes in 1919; at that time the sections affected were 97a and 97b, but the number of the section was changed in the revision which took place last year. At the time these two sections were inserted in the Criminal Code it was suggested that there was some unrest in the country; it was just after the war, and it was thought desirable to define certain kinds of what might

Criminal Code Amendment
be called sedition. Sedition is already subject to the disposition of the criminal code and more particularly of the common law. Ever since this amendment of 1919 was adopted the labour community of Canada have felt that it was aimed to prevent them from pursuing their ordinary activities. I do not say that that is the correct interpretation, but I know that since 1921, when I became a member of the government, every year that the Trades and Labour Congress sent delegates to interview the government this was one of the matters which they urged more particularly. They have received advice from the legal advisers of the labour unions to the effect that, by stressing the point the courts might even decide that a strike was an unlawful association under the provisions of that section. I repeat that I do not say they are right in that contention, but this has been a sore spot with them ever since 1919. This house has voted five times to eliminate this section, and we are doing so again this year.
We have already in the code all that is necessary to prosecute for the crimes of sedition, seditious libed, seditious words or unlawful meetings. Section 87 deals with unlawful assemblies; section 130 deals with seditious oaths; section 132 refers to seditious words, seditious li'bel and seditious conspiracy. Under section 135 of the code we have provision with regard to the libel of any foreign sovereign; and in section 136 we have provision against publishing false news. As I said, under the British law sedition is an offence under the common law, and always has been such. In the British parliament it was proposed to define sedition and make it a statutory offence; the commission which was appointed for that purpose reported accordingly, but after a long debate the British parliament came to the conclusion it was better to leave it under the common law as it then was. The same thing has happened in Canada; the commissioners who prepared the Criminal Code had an article defining sedition, but after a long and important debate this house decided to leave it under the common law. That condition continued until 1919, when this amendment was placed in our statutes. At the same time section 133 which existed at that time was repealed and I intend to move an amendment in order to reinsert section 133. This was done last year and in the years previously, and it is only due to a mistake that this bill did not contain that provision. I think the house will see that parliament obviously went too far in 1919 when the section which I am now going to read was repealed:
No one shall he deemed to have a seditious intention only because he intends in good faith,-
(a)	to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measures; or
(b)	to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution of the United Kingdom or of any part of it or of Canada or of any province thereof or in either house of parliament of the United Kingdom or of Canada or in any legislature or in the administration of justice; or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the state; or
(c)	to point out, in order to their removal, matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of hatred and illwill between different classes of His Majesty's subjects.
_ Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):	Is that
intended to modify acts already existing?
Mr. LAPOINTE; This was in the code until 1919, but it was repealed at that time, and I desire to reinsert it now. I read the section to show that parliament went too far in repealing it. Surely it is not seditious to criticize acts of a government. We may not like some of the criticism, but I would not go so far as to say that it constituted sedition to blame even the present government for its actions, public or otherwise. We have in the Criminal Code and in the law all that is necessary with respect to the crime of sedition.


Robert James Manion: Have we ever prosecuted or punished anyone under this section that was repealed?


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad my hon. friend has asked that Question. The officers of my department tell me that to their knowledge no prosecution was ever made.


Robert James Manion: Since 1919?


Ernest Lapointe: Since 1919.


Mr. CHURCH:: I think it would be a backward step for parliament to pass this bill. Coming from an industrial centre I wish to protest against the repeal of section 98 of the Criminal Code. Communism is rampant in this country to-day. Books are being brought in preaching revolution and European doctrines and economic principles-doctrines which the people here do not want. The Canadian people are opposed to these doctrines both from the standpoint of patriotism and loyalty and from the standpoint of labour itself. I do not believe that the labour organizations of the country approve of the repeal of this section, and this applies particularly to the trades union movement in Canada. The trades union movement has no greater enemy than the red flag of com-
Criminal Code Amendment

munism. In the larger centres of population the communists are preaching revolution; they are advocating the policy, when any strike takes place, of resort to force and other measures of violence. Just look at the sort of freedom that is enjoyed in the United States. Do we want communism in Canada? This country has the utmost freedom and there is no complaint from people who want to assemble lawfully. People can hold meetings in Hyde park whenever they wish to do so, and in the city I come from labour and capital have always got along amicably. The section which this bill seeks to repeal is in my opinion necessary in the interests of labour itself. Our laws are liberal enough as they are and there is no reason why this section should be repealed. Labour and capital in Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, are getting along well to-day. In my opinion this bill is a backward step.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I was not aware that it was the intention of the government to have this bill considered to-night. I am wholly opposed to the passing of it, amending the legislation as it stands at the present time. I think we have to be thankful that we have a senate in Canada, and I trust that the senate, if the bill passes, will again justify its existence by declining to approve it. The reason this law was introduced was, as I remember, that there was no precise categorical definition of sedition, and it was necessary when men undertook to overthrow law and authority by violence to have something definite and to show, when they did advocate the overthrow of government and constituted order by violence, that it was a crime. And it was on the statute books as a crime: they knew what they were doing and if they committed that particular crime they would suffer, and justly so. Let us read just the first clause of section 98:
Any association-
And anyone in this house who objects to this clause should, I think, declare himself, and his constituency should know that he does object to it.
Any association, organization, society or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada-
How?
-by use of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advises_ or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, in order to accomplish

such change, or for any other purpose, or which shall by any means prosecute or pursue such purpose or professed purpose, or shall so teach, advocate, advise or defend, shall be an unlawful association.
And such an association shall be subject to the law of -this land. The gist of this matter is the overthrow of authority by force and violence, and I believe there is no one member of this house who is prepared to advocate that in Canada it shall not be an offence to seek by force, violence and terrorism the overthrow of government. Take any other means you like which are perfectly lawful. I resent on behalf of the labour organizations the suggestion that they are a unit in support of this amendment. They are not. There are, of course, some who are anxious, in the interests of communism-rampant communism-to get around this law so that they may not be hampered by it.


Mr. HEAPS:: Will the hon. member tell me what labour organizations are in favour of retaining this legislation? He has made a definite statement. Will he prove it?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have made a definite statement and I will prove it. There are labour men in the city I come from, and in Hamilton, who -are just as strongly opposed as I am to the repeal of this law. I do not know the names of the labour organizations, but I am quite sure that a majority of the honest thinking labour m-en of this country are opposed to the repeal of the law as it stands. A short time ago in Port Arthur a case was tried by the Hon. Mr. Justice Kelly, with a result that was staggering to _ him. There was an institution set up which inculcated the destruction by force of government, law and order in Canada. It was taught in the schools on Sunday and they had a wide list of men who were pledged to that very thing. What is the benefit of the law as it stands on the statute books? ? It is simply ' this, that there is a distinct offence defined. Sedition is not defined in the British law so that it is clearly understood by the man on the street. It is a matter for lawyers, a matter wherein lawyers have disagreed and cases have gone from court to court. But here, as I say, is a plain offence, an offence which is clear in the mind of each one of us, and a distinct remedy for it. This house should not only pause but stop and decline to pass such a bill as this. For my part I am surprised-and surprise has been expressed before-tha-t. the Minister of Justice, in the face of offences such as the law as it stands now can deal with readily, seeks to put it into the hands of men to spread bolshevism throughout the country, men who will, if op-

Criminal Code Amendment
portunity is given, attack any government by force, men who seek to humiliate the country and to attack not only governments but any institution which traverses the course they think should obtain, and who instead of doing this in the way we are all proud to have men who hold views_ opposite to ours do, namely, by argument, persuasion or any other lawful means, do it by the dagger, the gun and the bomb. I believe the_ right-minded people of all classes, labour included, are against removing this law from the statute book, and I am unwilling that it should be removed without my protest, as forceful as I can make it. I am sorry it lacks more emphasis, but I will rely upon the sound judgment of the senate if this house, for any reason, is anxious to disturb the law as it exists to-day.


Ernest Lapointe: My bon. friend is certainly wrong when he says that the labour people are opposed to the repeal of the section. Year after year, as I have stated, the Trades and Labour Congress have asked for the repeal of this section. Mr. Tom Moore is the distinguished president of that congress and there is no higher-spirited citizen in Canada than Mr. Moore who has given a great deal of assistance in maintaining industrial peace in Canada. This is one of the sections which the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the brotherhoods of railway employees and all the other labour organizations are protesting against; they say that it creates unrest in their ranks and amongst all classes of labour in the Dominion, I may tell my hon. friend that I believe this was hasty legislation, which in a moment of stampede created by a strike in Winnipeg, passed its three readings on the same afternoon and did not receive the attention and consideration it should have received. Therefore it is the duty of parliament to remove it from the statute book, and I do not agree with my hon. friend that the senate is doing its duty in preventing the will of the people, as expressed in the House of Commons from prevailing in Canada.


George Halsey Perley: In the first place I certainly should like to comply with any reasonable request that the labour organizations may make, and no man in this country has a higher opinion of Mr. Tom Moore than I have. The minister is quite right in saying that he has been most helpful in keeping the labour organizations within legitimate lines in endeavouring in a reasonable way, to accomplish their purposes and to bring about what they desire, and I for one should like to see any of his wishes carried out if at all possible. The minister says that the labour people fear
that this section may affect them, although from his observations I judge that in his opinion the section does not affect labour organizations in the way they think it may. I certainly would feel very strongly that anything in the section that affects the proper and legitimate action of the labour unions or Mr. Tom Moore's own organization should be repealed or amended, and I cannot see why the minister cannot find some way of amending it to meet their wishes. Surely, however, no one in this country will object to the first subsection of the section, which reads:
Any association, organization, society or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada by use of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advises or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, in order to accomplish such change, or for any other purpose, or which shall by any means prosecute or pursue such purpose or professed purpose, or shall so teach, advocate, advise or defend, shall be an unlawful association.
Does any reasonable person think anyone in this country should have the right to attempt to bring about industrial, governmental or economic change by the use of force, violence, or physical injury?


Ernest Lapointe: That depends upon what "force" means. Some people claim that a sympathetic strike is force as defined in the section.


George Halsey Perley: I am not a lawyer, but it would not strike me that a sympathetic strike would come under the head of force for the purposes mentioned. If there is any doubt about the matter, and if the minister believes, as he states, that this legislation was passed in a hurry under pressure, why can he not amend it in such a way as to cover that?


Ernest Lapointe: That is what I am endeavouring to do.


George Halsey Perley: The minister is not amending it; he is repealing it.


Ernest Lapointe: I want to leave the
Criminal Code as it was prior to 1919.


George Halsey Perley: But the minister is not suggesting any amendment to this section. He wants to repeal it altogether.


Ernest Lapointe: I want to leave the code as it was.


George Halsey Perley: If the labour
organizations believe they are prejudiced by

Criminal Code Amendment
this section; if the other house has refused to agree to its repeal, and if the minister really wants to meet the wishes of the labour people, surely it is possible for him to amend the section in such a way as to show conclusively that it does not affect the labour organizations in the way they fear it does. I am not going to stand here and advocate that there should be on the statute book a law which may unreasonably prejudice a labour organization. As I said before, I should be inclined to meet sympathetically any wishes put forward by Mr. Tom Moore. But the minister has sought three times to repeal this section.


Ernest Lapointe: Four times.


George Halsey Perley: He does not think the labour organizations are affected by it, but if he wants to make sure they are not, why not adopt the other course and bring in an amendment which will meet with the approval of everybody and go on the statute book, rather than bring in this amendment to go forward to the senate in the hope that it will again be defeated there?


Ernest Lapointe: No. If it is defeated there again I will bring it in again next year, and I think next year there may be a different majority in the senate.


George Halsey Perley: But is there not some intermediate way of doing it instead of repealing the section?


Ernest Lapointe: I am doing my best.


George Halsey Perley: Is it not possible to amend the section in such a wray as to meet the ideas of the labour organizations and make sure that the amendment will become law, instead of repealing this section again and perhaps have it thrown' out by the other chamber? I submit that the minister is adopting a course that does not look as if he was really trying to meet the wishes of Tom Moore and the labour organizations.


Ernest Lapointe: The labour people are very much pleased at the course I am taking.


George Halsey Perley: If this section
were amended in such a way as to make it plain that it did not apply to the ordinary labour organizations, as they fear it does, would the minister not be a great deal surer of accomplishing what he is aiming at than by seeking to repeal this section in exactly the same way as he has already done three times? If he really wants to accomplish the purpose he says he has in mind, is there not some other way of doing it? I ask him if he will not consider amending this section.


Ernest Lapointe: I am amending it. I repeat, the English law on sedition, and it is our law, is quite sufficient to cover any case of sedition.
Mr. WOODSW'ORTH:	On several occasions we have had this amendment proposed in the house. I have Keen interested in this legislation since 1919, when it was enacted. I have no desire to recall in detail the trouble we had in Winnipeg at that time*. I myself arrived in Winnipeg in the middle of the strike, just about the time this legislation was enactbd, and so was able to see not only how adversely it affected labour at that period but how it might affect labour adversely in any crisis that might arise in the future. A great deal has been said with regard to the position which the communists hold in this country at the present time, and of the serious menace they are to the country. I think I am free to speak with regard to the communists, since I do not belong to the communist party, and since the Independent Labour party to which I belong, has been challenged at the polls by the communists and bitterly denounced. The wildest statements have been made in regard to them not very far from the chamber in which we are now sitting. It has been said that the communists and the One Big Union are one and the same thing. As a matter of fact, if there is any bitter fight being waged at the present time in Canada, it is between the communists and the One Big Union, and any man who confounds two distinct groups in the labour party shows either that he is absolutely ignorant of conditions or that he is wilfully trying to confuse the public mind. We have some dangers in this country, but not the least of these dangers arises from the lack of knowledge on the part of the great majority of the people as to the various labour organizations, and what their objectives really are.
Let me spend a few minutes in reviewing the points that ought to be discussed with regard to this legislation. One of the previous speakers has read the first clause of the section which is being repealed, and he says that no sane man can object to this clause as it stands on the statute book. I want to say that I object to it most decidedly, and in so speaking I am speaking on behalf of the great labour movement of this country, not merely on behalf of some O.B.U. or some Canadian brotherhood organization, or some communist organization, or some left wing organization, or some independent labour party or Canadian labour party, or the Trades and Labour Congress, but on behalf

Criminal Code Amendment
of every one of these organizations, because they all realize that this section is a distinct menace to trade unionists. It says:
Any association, organization, society or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose purposes is to bring about .... any industrial or economic change within Canada, by use of force-
"Any economic change by use of force." Surely a lot of us want economic and industrial changes. Even in this house we want tariff changes, economic changes. The whole point of that paragraph lies in the definition of the phrase, "by use of force." One of the Toronto members said that the Trades and Labour Congress had no worries in this regard. That is not true. I hold in my hand the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada report of their proceedings at the thirty-sixth annual convention, and I find that as far back as that, and every year since, this plea has been reiterated by the congress.


Mr. GEARY:: What date is that report?


James Shaver Woodsworth: September 13th to
18, 1920. This report contains a review of this new law which had only a short time before been placed on the statute book, and I find here the legal opinion of Mr. J. G. O'Donoghue, barrister of that city we hear so much about, Toronto, on certain stated questions submitted to him by the executive council of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. This report, I might say, was placed in my hands by Mr. Tom Moore personally several years ago, when we were discussing this matter, and Mr. Moore was urging that we take action along this line. Mr. O'Donoghue says:
The use of these words leaves the door wide open for the prosecution of every trade union in Canada. If "force" is intended to mean "physical force" it should be so stated. The pressure or influence exerted by trade unions is the exercise of "force". That can be interpreted to come within the above section. Read the following extract from Judge Metcalfe's charge to the jury in the Russell case:
That was one of the Winnipeg cases which was in the minds of everyone at the time. Mr. O'Donoghue continues with this extract from Judge Metcalfe's charge to the jury in the Russell case:
"Mr. Russell gave us his idea of a sympathetic strike. He said, 'When a dispute originates between an employer and his employees, and when the labour organizations see that organization being beat, they come to their assistance by calling a strike to force their employers to bring force to bear upon the original disputants to make settlement.' That
is Russell's definition given in the box....
Force, force, force."
Mr. O'Donoghue continues:
Any dictionary will show that "force" has a very wide meaning, covering "influence", "pressure", and the like. If the statute meant "physical force" it would not go on to enumerate "violence" and "physical injury".
A court would be quite justified in interpreting the word in its natural or dictionary sense.
As for the word "terrorism" some light can be thrown upon the interpretation of it, by that given it in the Winnipeg case of Rex v. Russell. There Judge Metcalfe says:
"To walk around about, for instance, to a place where people are employed in large numbers, and to 'boo', gentlemen of the jury, as much terror may be inspired through that as by two or three fighting chaps coming along with bludgeons. Take it from me,^ in strikes you can incite terror without hitting a man over the head. You can incite terror of starvation; you can incite terror of thirst. Is not that quite as effective as inciting by bodily violence? Your stomach will bring you quicker than a crack on the head sometimes. If it is possible that picketing can be done in this country, then the lawful method of picketing is so ineffective that it is a reasonable inference that in a strike of this class, unlawful means would be intended to be applied. Sometimes it has a deterring effect upon people's minds by exposing them to have their motions watched, and to encounter black looks."


John Wesley Edwards: May I ask
the hon. gentleman a question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Certainly.


John Wesley Edwards: Does he
think that any organization in Canada should be permitted to seek economic or industrial changes by violence or injury to persons?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Most decidedly no. But I fancy this section is misunderstood. I say that in time of crisis the word "force" is understood to be violence, whereas it may simply mean such force as is commonly used in a peaceful strike-pressure. That was the interpretation actually given to it in 1919 by the late Judge Metcalfe.


John Wesley Edwards: I can quite .appreciate that there might be a very honest misunderstanding in regard to the meaning of the word "force"; but will the hon. gentleman look that over and see if the section could not be changed by cutting out the word "force" so that it would read "violence and injury to persons"?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That would be a
great improvement, but the criminal code already covers it. I do not want to go back over old disputes but, remember this, that an attempt was made to send men out of this country without trial. That is what some of us have been trying to bring before the house again and again. It was in those hectic days that this kind of legislation was put upon the
Criminal Code Amendment

statute books. Now allow me to examine two or three other clauses of this statute. Subsection (2):
Any property, real or personal, belonging or suspected

I want hon. members to note that.
-or suspected to belong to an unlawful association, or held or suspected to be held by any person for or on behalf thereof may, without warrant, be seized or taken possession of by any person thereunto authorized by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
And so on. Let me emphasize that. Any property belonging to or suspected to belong to such an organization may be seized, and that without warrant. In that connection I quote a well-known statement made many years ago by Lord Camden:
Where is the written law,
He asks.
-that gives any magistrate such a power? I can safely answer there is none, and therefore it is too much for us without authority to pronounce a practice legal which would be subversive of all the comforts of society. If suspicion at large should be a ground of search, especially in the ease of libels (i.e. seditious publications), whose home would be safe?
I think hon. gentlemen will surely recognize the reasonableness of our objection to having suspicion as a ground for the seizure of goods.
I proceed to subsection (4):
In any prosecution under this section, if it be proved that the person charged has-
(a)	attended meetings of an unlawful association;
This might mean that if I stopped at a street meeiting 'or went into a hall where a meeting was being conducted by some society that advocated strikes aind similar means of action, and Judge Metcalfe's interpretation was applied, I would be liable to prosecution under this section. This clause (a) is very broad. I have often gone to meetings to find out what was going on or because I had a suspicion that it was of a nature that I did not wanft ito go on, but under those circumstances I might be charged with being a member of the association.
(b)	spoken publicly in advocacy of an unlawful association.
A trade union might be regarded as unlawful.
(c)	distributed literature of an unlawful association by circulation through the post office mails of Canada or otherwise, it shall be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that he is a member of such unlawful association.
I have always entertained the idea that British justice presumes a man innocent until he is proved guilty. In this case the presump-
tion is that he is guilty until he can prove himself innocent. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is not in harmony with British traditions.


An hon. MEMBER:: A postman delivering sulch literature would be liable.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. Then subsection (5):
Any owner, lessee, agent or superintendent of any building, room, premises or place, who knowingly permits therein any meeting of an unlawful association-
-becomes liable to a fine or to imprisonment, or to both fine and imprisonment. In practice, labour organizations have found it very difficult to rent buildings because the superintendent or agent was afraid he might get into trouble; and he might very well be afraid. Let me quote subsection (6):
If any judge of any superior or county court, police or stipendiary magistrate, or any justice of the peace, is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that any contravention of this section has been or is about to be committed, he may issue a search warrant under his hand, authorizing any peace officer, police officer, or constable with such assistance as he may require, to enter at any time any premises or place mentioned in the warrant, and to search such premises or place, and every person found therein, and to seize and carry away any books, periodicals, pamphlets, pictures, papers, circulars, cards, letters, writings, prints, handbills, posters, publications or documents which are found on or in such premises or place, or in the possession of any person therein at the time of such search, and the same, when so seized, may be carried away and may be forfeited to His Majesty.
I do not wish to say anything that would lower the dignity of our various officials, but I think some of us have met stipendiary magistrates and justices of the peace who were not particularly braacLmiindedi, and yet a man of that character may, because of his suspicion, order a man's home to be broken into and his goods seized. I say that is an intolerable situation, and I fancy this -act has remained on the statute book this long simply because no prosecution has ever been attempted under it. Let me go on a little further with subsection (8).
_ Any person who prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells or offers for sale or distribution any hook, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper, circular, card, letter, writing, print, publication or document of any kind, in which is taught, advocated, advised or defended, or who shall in any manner teach, advocate, or advise or defend the use, without authority of law, of force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, as a means of accomplishing any governmental, industrial or economic change, or otherwise, shall he guilty of an offence, and liable to imprisonment for not more than twenty years.

Criminal Code Amendment
That is a very broad clause under which it is very easy to convict a man. Further than that, anyone who imports such literature into Canada is liable. Mr. Chairman, I could go into the library of parliament and find fifty books at least on one shelf teaching anarchism, philosophically or otherwise, books which are liable to come under that ban. I know of some books of this character which have been seized in the mail. I know of some people who innocently ordered by mail from Great Britain books which they had seen advertised, and these people can be prosecuted under this section. Yes, my friend from Calgary (Mr. Adshead) suggests; what about the seizure in the public library at Calgary? That, of course, was at this particular period. Books were actually seized from the public library of Calgary which were thought to be seditious; and I know of the case of a man, now a member of the provincial house in Alberta, whose home was violently entered at night and a number of books taken, books which he had brought over from England, many of them books which he had treasured for the past twenty or thirty years. They were seized and he has never been able 'to get them back.
I want to call attention to the safeguards that were in the original Criminal Code. But first a few words as to the definition of sedition. I think I cannot do better than read from a recognized authority, Crankshaw, which every lawyer knows, where the author says:
In section 102 of the English draft code there is, in addition to what is above contained in article 123, a clause defining a seditious intention as,-
"An intention,-
"to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of Her Majesty, or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom or of any part of it as by law established, or either house of parliament, or the administration of justice; or to excite Her Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in church or state bv law established; or
to raise discontent or disaffection amongst Her Majesty's subjects; or
to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects."
And it goes on to say:
The Canadian code as originally drawn and introduced into parliament contained a clause defining a seditious intention in terms similar to those above quoted from section 102 of the English draft; but the clause ewked a long discussion and a great deal of criticism during the consideration of the bill in committee; and it was ultimately decided to strike out the clause, and leave the definition to common law.
In tracing, with his usual clearness a.nd ability, the history of this most interesting branch of the law, Sir James F. Stephen says,
that there are "two different views of the relation between rulers and their subjects. If the ruler is regarded as the superior of the subjects, as being by the nature of his position presumably wise and good-the rightful ruler and guide of the whole population-it must necessarily follow that it is wrong to censure him openly, that if he is mistaken his mistake should be pointed out with the utmost respect, and that whether mistaken or not no censure should be cast upon him likely or designed to diminish his authority. If, on the other hand, the ruler is regarded as the agent or servant and the subject as the wise and good master who is obliged to delegate his power to the so-called ruler because, being a multitude, he cannot use it himself, it is obvious that this sentiment must be reversed. Every member of the public who censures the ruler for the time being exercises in his own person the right which belongs to the whole of which he forms part. He is finding fault with his servant. If others think differently they can take the other side of the dispute, and the utmost that can happen is that the servant will be dismissed and another put in his place, or perhaps that the arrangement of the household will be modified. To those who hold this view fully, and carry it out to all its consequences there can be no such offence as sedition. There may indeed be breaches of the peace, which may destroy or endanger life, limb or property, and there may be incitements to such offences, but no imaginable censure of the government, short of censure which has an immediate tendency to produce such a breach of the peace ought to be regarded as criminal."
At the present day, when the right of forming political organizations, of holding political meetings, and of giving-through the press, or on the public platform-free expression to our thoughts upon and criticisms of public men and affairs, is so well recognized, a written or printed publication, a public speech, or an assembly, meeting, convention or combination would have to be of an extremely vicious, inflammatory, and dangerous character to form the basis of a successful prosecution for a seditious libel, a seditious speech, or a seditious conspiracy.
Now we removed in 1919 the safeguards which had hitherto existed, and which are intended by the amendment of the Minister of Justice to be replaced upon the statute book. I think no one will suggest that it is not a fair statement that we should have on our statute book a safeguard which provides that:
No one shall be deemed to have a seditious intention only because he intends in good faith,-
(a)	to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measure; or
(b)	to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution of the "United Kingdom, or of any part of it, or of Canada or any province thereof, or in either house of parliament of the United Kingdom or of Canada, or in any legislature, or in the administration of justice; or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in the state; or
(e) to point out, in order to their removal, matters which are producing or have a tendency
Criminal Code Amendment

to produce feelings of hatred and ill-will between different classes of His Majesty's subjects.
I am urging that that be replaced. It was cut out in 1919, and we ask that it be again inserted. Labour is asking that, and surely labour is not unreasonable in asking to have restored the safeguards that are in the British code.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Progress reported.


George Halsey Perley: May I ask the Minister of Justice if he is going to have this bill reprinted showing the proposed amendments? If not, will he not send a copy at any rate to the leader of the opposition? This is a bill which has been here for weeks and weeks.


Ernest Lapointe: I will give a copy of it. It is the bill as it was last year and the other years, to reinsert the section as it was before 1919.


George Halsey Perley: I should think that as a point of order it is not validly before the house at all. This is an entirely different piece of legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: No, it is simply to make the legislation exactly as it was.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 24, 1928