1934-06-06

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury).
Second and third reports of the select standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government.-Mr. Chaplin.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 94, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition): Please explain.
Mr. GORDON:: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to effect an amendment to the Soldier Settlement Act by rendering the lands now vested as to the legal title in the director of soldier settlement, liable for municipal taxes. The lands are now vested in the soldier settlement director as a corporation sole holding the lands as agent of the crown in the right of the dominion. The bill proposes that these lands, in so far as making them liable for municipal taxes is concerned, be held by the director as a corporation sole but not as agent for the dominion. The bill further contemplates that where proceedings are taken in the usual course by the municipality concerned and a sale is made for taxes the soldier shall have the right to redeem. That is the substance of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 95, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The object of this bill is to place the constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force on the same status as commissioned officers of the force in regard to pensions and injuries. It is a bill that will not involve the treasury of Canada in any expense, the pensions fund will be selfsupporting.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Post Office Department, between the years 1930 and 1934, rent a building in Windsor, Ontario, the property of one B. J. Fox, as a postal station or sub-station?
2.	If so, for how long and what was the total amount paid in rental for this building?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DORION:: What was the total sum expended by the Department of Public Works in each of the parishes of the county of Quebec-Montmorency, during each of the following years: 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933?


QUEBEC-MONTMORENCY COUNTY-UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURES
Charles Napoléon Dorion: What was the total sum expended to relieve unemployment in each of the various municipalities of the county of Quebec-Montmorency, during the years 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933?

Motions for Papers


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. McINTOSH:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and other documents exchanged between any person in Beacon Hill, Beacon Hill district or elsewhere, and the Department of the Postmaster General, regarding the management of the post office at Beacon Hill, Saskatchewan, during the past year; also a copy of any report made by an inspector of the Post Office Department who made a special investigation in connection with the management of said post office any time between June 1, 1933, and June 1, 1934.
Mr. BENNETT; Mr. Speaker, as I intimated the other day when the hon. gentleman was not in his place, it may be difficult to comply with the first part of the order, covering all the correspondence between any persons, but there is no reason the order should not pass because of its indefinite character or inability to meet it. As to the last part of the question, motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 contemplate making public the reports made to the Post Office Department by its own confidential agents. The extent to which such reports may be produced depends entirely upon their character; the government reserves the right to produce such as may be thought to be in the public interest, and not otherwise.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With the reservation as
stated shall the resolution carry?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That will be quite satisfactory, and I thank the Prime Minister.-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Cameron Ross McIntosh: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams exchanged between any person in Spiritwood, the Spiritwood district or elsewhere, and' the Department of the Postmaster General, regarding the management of the post office at Spiritwood, Saskatchewan, since September, 1930, to April 1, 1934; also a copy of the report of the inspector of the department who made a special investigation in connection with the management of the said post office during the month of February or March or any other month during the year from June 1, 1933, and June 1, 1934.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the motion carry,
with the same reservation?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Cameron Ross McIntosh: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams exchanged between any person in Medstead, Medstead district or elsewhere, and the department of the Postmaster General, regarding the management of the post office
[Mr. Dorion.l
at Medstead, Saskatchewan, during the past year; also a copy of any report made by an inspector of the department who made a special investigation in connection with the management of said post office any time between June 1, 1933, and June 1, 1934.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the resolution carry, with the reservation already made?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the
Prime Minister if it might not be arranged to proceed rather soon in committee of the whole with the resolution dealing with the government's program of public works construction? I think it would be advisable to have that program before members of the house in order that we might have some opportunity to consider it before being obliged to discuss it in detail. I should like to make a' similar inquiry with regard to the franchise bill, as to whether we might not expect shortly to have that measure before the house for consideration. I suggest this because I feel we are drawing near to the end of the session, and if we could have these measures before us for some little time before we come to discuss them I believe in the end time will be saved.
There is just one further question I might ask. I assume that all the legislation, other than that arising out of the reports of committees, is on the order paper at the present time. If further legislation is contemplated would the Prime Minister kindly indicate it?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: With respect to the last question asked by the right hon. gentleman, he will recall that in the statement I made as to prospective legislation I indicated that we would have to reserve from that statement any enactments founded upon the reports that might be made by committees. One was the radio committee, another was the civil service committee and a third the banking and commerce committee. Both the heavier bills, the one dealing with banks and the other with the central bank, now are before the house, but arising out of the enactment of the legislation with respect to the central bank there will be the legislation I mentioned at that time, concerning the Currency Act and the Dominion Notes Act.

Business of the House


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Also the criminal code I think.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The various members make representations to the Minister of Justice as t'o the amendments they think reasonably might be made, and that is usually delayed until as late as possible in the session. There will be only those amendments to the criminal code that experience has taught to be desirable. I do not believe there is anything exceptional in those, so far as I know.
With respect to the second question asked by the right hon. gentleman, I think the franchise bill might be brought down almost at any date. A rough draft that had not been considered by the cabinet was prepared covering all the points that might be thought to be desirable, and it was suggested that the draftsman, Mr. O'Connor, might have points in his mind arising out of the consideration of the act. He prepared a manuscript which was printed, but which has not been considered by the cabinet, a copy of which I tried to make available to the right hon. gentleman. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), who has charge of the bill, has gone over the printed copy for the purpose of trying to prepare a bill, which I think it will be possible to submit to the house within the next few days at any rate; I would not say this week positively. The Elections Act amendment will be merely putting into proper form the sections of that act that are left after taking out those sections dealing with the franchise, and enacting them as a separate measure. There will be no essential structural change so far as the conduct of elections is concerned; that will be left entirely as it is now, but when the franchise bill is adopted it will be a separate act so there may be no confusion between the two.
The first question of the right hon. gentleman is one that is not as free from difficulty as the asking of it would indicate. It has been represented to us that much criticism would follow the submission of legislation of that kind especially at this time, under present electoral conditions in two of the provinces; it has been suggested that this should not be done, because someone has said that it is an endeavour to bribe the people with their own money. The schedule has been prepared and we have been considering, without arriving at any definite conclusion, the best time to submit it to the house without making it the subject matter of too adverse criticism.
74726-235*


Mr. LAPOINTE:: There is some wisdom in the delay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is always more suspicious than the office he once held would warrant him in being. If he holds the same attitude of mind on all problems that he has adopted on this I hardly think he will arrive at a fair measure of understanding of the legislation, because there is no such intention on the part of the government. The difficulty lies in endeavouring to escape such unfair criticism and to enable the chamber to consider the proposals fairly and upon their merits. They are made for the sole purpose and intention of providing employment for as large a number of people as possible in the construction industry. If, after further consideration on Saturday, it is possible to do so I assure the right hon. gentleman that we shall endeavour to meet his views in that regard.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I do not desire to add to the difficulties of which the Prime Minister speaks, but I should like to ask him or the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) whether we are likely to have any legislation as a result of the work of the price spreads committee.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: It is impossible for me to answer that question at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would say that in connection with the Elections Act my colleague informs me that discussions are taking place between the draftsmen of the bill and the chief electoral officer, and there might be some changes in the bill which would modify the present provisions of the statute. I correct the statement I made, because I stated previously that I did not think there would be any, and it is just possible that there may be some as a result of the discussions which have taken place. I do not wish to leave a false impression with respect to the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I noticed that when the Prime Minister was speaking he mentioned the possibility of reenacting the Elections Act. Did he mean that a new measure would be introduced, or simply that the old measure would remain with such clauses altered as might be necessitated by the Franchise Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I endeavoured to indicate was that rather than have a patchwork statute with one section operative and another that dealt with the franchise not
Australian Wheat

operative, if the Franchise Act is settled then the sections of the Elections Act would be consolidated into a separate act which would mean the reenactment of the sections. And there might be-and that is the reason I am now rising-some changes with respect to some of them which might be of a substantial character, arising out of the discussions with the chief electoral officer. My first statement might leave the impression that it would be a reenactment of the sections as they stood, and I desire to correct that.



AUSTRALIAN WHEAT AND FLOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) a question with regard to the Australian wheat and flour that have been imported into Canada recently. Are the wheat and flour subsidized by the Australian government and, if so, to what extent?
Hon. FI. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I wonder if my hon. friend would permit me to make an observation in that regard?


Frederick George Sanderson: Certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The way in which he has asked his question makes it somewhat difficult to answer. I think there have been no recent importations; I believe one comparatively small shipment is en route. I think it would be a most unhappy thing if this became a subject of controversy between the two countries. I can assure my hon. friend that the matter is very satisfactorily in hand, and I do not think there will be any hardship, difficulty or injustice of any kind done to those in eastern Canada whose welfare no doubt the hon. member has in mind. I should deprecate, however, erecting it into a subject for discussion in the house which could do no good to anyone, and at the same time I can give him the assurance that the matter is being attended to very, very satisfactorily.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister did not
answer my question. Are these importations subsidized by the Australian government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not to my knowledge. Without looking into the matter I cannot answer that question, because the Australian system in regard to many products is very complicated, and I cannot answer it offhand. So far as I know, however, the answer would be in the negative.



SALES OF WHEAT IN THE ORIENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to the attention of the government, and particularly to that of the Prime Minister, by way of a question of privilege rather than by a simple inquiry, the very long time which has elapsed since an order was passed asking for all the correspondence and reports which might have passed between the Hon. Mr. Marler, our Canadian representative in Tokyo, and any member of this government. I have privately spoken to other ministers and I do not wish to harry them too much during these times of stress. I have spoken to the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) who always desires to accommodate, but obviously he cannot table a report if such report is not put into his hands. That fact is quite apparent.
His last reply would seem to indicate that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might have it lingering around his department. I got such decent treatment over there that two of his officers went to see if they could not get the return reduced. We came to an agreement. There were two reports in existence from Mr. Marler with regard to this important question of marketing grain and selling flour in China. Certainly that would seem to be a very important question at this time. I repeat that I got nothing but kindness; but I did not get the blooming report.
Not quite a year ago I had occasion to appeal to Caesar, and Caesar on his own behalf or on behalf of someone else replied very promptly. I am going to appeal to Caesar again to-day and see if he cannot put a tracer on this return. I have been waiting four months, and hon. members will realize that that is a long time for one who sometimes feels a little bit impatient about the way things are going on. I have waited four months, and I may need it any time. What would be the use of it next year? There may be no next session, so far as this parliament is concerned, and I want it this session. In my most pleading tone which I can use in addressing the Prime Minister I would ask: Will Caesar come to my relief again?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Et tu, Brute! Mr. Speaker, I suspect that what the hon. gentleman intended to say was, "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." At any rate, leaving that for the moment, I desire to point

Unemployment Relief
out to the hon. member that he has raised a question of very great difficulty. Reports which are sent by ministers abroad to the Department of External Affairs have not, as a matter of course, been brought down to parliament. But those which were made to the Minister of Trade and Commerce touching commercial matters have been made available, and the minister has indicated that that report would be brought down by the Secretary of State. I am of the opinion that there is nothing in the reports made by the minister to Japan to the Department of External Affairs which should be included in the return. That is my present view, and the return will be tabled with the copies only of the documents to which the hon. gentleman has referred. I thank him for his kindly reference to one who has long since departed this life.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). Yesterday the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) inquired from the Minister of Labour as to whether he could confirm a news dispatch appearing in the press concerning the discontinuance of direct relief by the federal government after June 15. The minister confirmed the report, but stated that special consideration might be given under exceptional circumstances. I should like to ask the minister to-day if special representations have been made on behalf of the city of Montreal concerning the continuance of relief after June 15, and if so would he be in a position to make a declaration, if not to-day at least as soon as possible, to alleviate the great disquietude of mind of the population of Montreal in regard to this matter.
Hon. \V. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the situation in which the city of Montreal finds itself is not unknown to me. It is a question of financing, and perhaps one of the most serious difficulties confronting the city is its apparent inability to convince the provincial auditors of the province of Quebec that they have disbursed funds and created obligations in the manner and within the scope of the agreement which was entered into between the province of Quebec and the federal government. Beginning in last year, the situation has become acute, and has reached the point where at times-and
even at the present time-accounts coming through for the dominion's share payable to the province for relief in the city of Montreal have been from six to eight months behind. That situation is I believe being given very serious attention by the city officials. If the situation can be cleared up, and the accounts received by the dominion from the province of Quebec for the moneys which the dominion has agreed to contribute to the province of Quebec in order to assist the city of Montreal with regard to direct relief, then it will at least place the financial position of the city in a very much more favourable state. The city of Montreal have made many representations to the dominion government with respect to their position. I think they realize that the difficulty that confronts them is as I have stated. Their accounts for last year are not in order. The provincial auditors are apparently having great difficulty in completing an audit that will make it possible for the officials of the Quebec government to render an account to the dominion that we can entertain and pay. I expect that the whole situation concerning the city of Montreal will come under review very shortly as to whether or not it is necessary for the dominion with respect to that city to contribute towards the province to assist it in discharging its constitutional responsibilities. At the present time no representations have been made that are sufficient to found any judgment upon with respect to the dominion government, but as I say I expect that the matter will be under review in the course of a very short time. I do not think I can add anything further to my answer.



CONTRIBUTION TO QUEBEC ROAD FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a question that was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau), which will be found at page 3661 of Hansard regarding a statement that is alleged to have been made by Mr. Arcand, Minister of Labour for the province of Quebec and reported in Le Canada in its edition of May 21st test. The statement alleged to have been made by Mr. Arcand is as follows:
Our government-
Meaning the government of the province of Quebec:
-floes not receive from the central government-
Unemployment Relief
[Stage Direction]
Apparently referring to the dominion government:
-that to which it is entitled. Thus Ottawa has given $10,000,000 to the province of Ontario for the construction of highways whilst the province of Quebec has received only $350,000. If it is so just to help the neighbouring province-
Mr. Arcand does not deny that:
-Ottawa should also give at the same time $8,000,000 to the province of Quebec.
The question asked was: Is the above statement made by Mr. Arcand in accordance with the facts?
I am not at all sure that Mr. Arcand made this statement. In fact, from some reports that have come to me, I am inclined to the view that he did not. At any rate the matter should be cleared up, and I think I can do it in a moment. The statement as it appears would be substantially correct if the amount said to have been paid to the province of Ontario were reduced substantially by fifty per cent, and if the amount said to have been paid to the province of Quebec were increased substantially by fifty per cent.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Even then may I ask the minister what the figures would be according to his own admission?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I will come to that very shortly. The figures, this is for roads alone, would be for Ontario for the four years commencing 1930 down to date approximately $6,500,000; and for the province of Quebec approximately $750,000, or perhaps slightly under that.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: So the figures are not much better 1


Wesley Ashton Gordon: When I get finished perhaps the hon. member will be more content than he is at the moment.
The province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, with respect to contributions from the dominion government to highways and roads, are operating under exactly similar agreements, the dominion contributing sixty cents per man-day to work upon what is known as the trans-Canada highway, and fifty cents per mam-day to work upon other provincial roads. The province of Quebec with respect to roads apparently did not think it wise or necessary, and I have no reason to quarrel with their judgment, to project roads under the agreement to the same extent that the province of Ontario thought it wise and necessary. Had the province of Quebec held a different opinion and considered that the better way to relieve unemployment and to

furnish work for its citizens was to spend more upon highways, then under the terms of the agreement the dominion government would not have hesitated to make the advances that would have been necessary to cover any additional work. Ontario, on the other hand, did believe that that was the proper and businesslike way to create work and take care of unemployment. Quebec in other directions has gone further than Ontario, using their judgment and having regard to the particular circumstances of the situation that they as a province have to meet.
It is utter folly in my view to try to compare what one province got in a particular direction for a particular purpose with what another province got for the same purpose, and then come to the conclusion that one province is being discriminated against having regard to what another province may have got. That is no test whatever. The principle, if a principle be said to underlie this whole problem, is one of need and necessity, and the inability of the province or the municipality, or both, to discharge their constitutional functions, and it is not a proper adjudication of the position of a province or of this government with respect to contributions to say that one province got a lot of money and the other did not, and that therefore this government or the provincial government concerned should be condemned on that account.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of tiiS day:
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: I would ask the Minister of Labour if it is the intention of the government to introduce any legislation this session amending the Old Age Pensions Act?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act have been under consideration by the officers of the Department of Labour with the various officials of the provinces who administer the act, but there is not a unanimity of opinion amongst the provinces as to the amendments that might properly be made. It is my hope that something may be done this session that will permit of legislation at least being advanced to the stage where it can be introduced at the next session of the house, but I am not hopeful that it can be prepared in time for enactment at this session of parliament having regard to the views of the various provinces.

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King



FRUIT AND HONEY ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). Under the amendment to the Fruit and Honey Act passed this session certain regulations have been put into effect. These regulations do not appear to meet with the views of dealers in general and I should like to inquire of the minister if he has received a request that these regulations be held up until they are looked into further. I should like to know also if it is correct that a licence fee of $50 will be charged each dealer and that dealers will be compelled to put up a government or provincial bond before they can operate to the extent of $5,000 or over.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I would ask the hon. member to allow his question to stand until I have looked into the matter.



SWEEPSTAKES INFORMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) if it is the intention of the government to introduce an amendment to the criminal code to delete or modify the section concerning informers of sweepstakes winnings.


Hugh Guthrie: I expect that a bill to amend a number of the sections of the criminal code will be introduced probably next week, and this is one of the sections being considered.


Edward Joseph Garland: I hope that amendment will be brought down.



PASSAMAQUODDY AND COBSCOOK BAYS REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER J. YENIOT (Gloucester): I should like to know the cause of the delay in the delivery of the report of the Passama-quoddy bay international commission report?
Richard Bedford Bennett: This report was sent to the printing bureau to be printed. As a consequence of what the hon. gentleman said the other day,
I inquired whether it had been translated and I was informed .that it had not. I instructed that it should be translated. There is a great deal of translation necessary to be done in connection with parliament and there have been many delays. It is possible the English copy is available now and I shall see that the hon. member gets one.
marketing act



ORGANIZATION TO IMPROVE METHODS AND PRACTICES IN MARKETING NATURAL PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Weir (Melfort) for the third reading of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, m my remarks of last night I pointed out that the long discussion of this marketing bill in committee of the whole had made apparent, first, that the bill was greatly in need of amendment; second, that there were many provisions in it with respect to which there was little if any difference of opinion between the members of the house and, third, that there were certain provisions with respect to which hon. members of the two sides of the house differed very materially, and possibly to an irreconcilable degree. I stated that my purpose in rising was to move, before I concluded what I had to say, that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole in order that, in the light of what might be said on the third reading, those few sections upon which there was a difference of opinion might be reconsidered with a view to seeing whether under the application of that principle which has met with favour with respect to the other provisions which have been amended they could not be brought into comformity with the general procedure and practice of this house in matters of legislation, and thereby made acceptable to the house as a whole. Before the conclusion of my remarks I shall move the amendment but, I wish to say immediately that the exception which we are taking to the provisions to which I have referred is an exception

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
which we would take to any legislation which might be presented to this house and which proceeded along similar lines. It is not exception to the introduction of a marketing bill, it is not exception to regulations with respect to marketing, nor to regulations that may be proposed, it is essentially exception to delegating the powers of parliament with respect to legislation and with respect to judicial and quasi-judicial decisions to the governor in council, on the one hand, and to local boards, on the other, thereby subordinating parliament to inferior bodies instead of maintaining, as this House of Commons always should, the subordination of inferior bodies to parliament itself, whether they be local boards or the governor in council. In other words, our sole aim is to maintain the sovereignty of parliament in all things. That is a great fundamental constitutional principle and we feel that to depart from that principle is to open the door to the invasion of the rights of all classes in this country, consumers and producers alike, in a manner which in the long run is certain to prove injurious to their interests and liberties. The little good which the bill if enacted in its present form might serve will be more than offset by the evil which may conceivably and which I believe will inevitably take place as a consequence of the powers which are being given to these local boards and to the governor in council to legislate and to perform judicial and quasijudicial functions without any supervision on the part of parliament and without any restraint on the part of the courts. These are farreaching objections as they go to the root of liberty itself and I believe this parliament cannot consider too carefully all provisions which are as subversive of its authority and of the authority of the courts in protecting the rights and liberties of the people as ire the provisions which I have indicated.
I drew attention to the fact that this bill omitted all reference to the consumer, that it contains no provisions intended for the protection of the consumer, notwithstanding the fact that it is a measure which is intended to affect prices and the supply of commodities, both of which matters are of vital concern to the consumer. There is nothing in this legislation which protects the rights of the consumer. Parliament represents all classes of the community, and I maintain that this House of Commons should not permit the enactment of any measure, whether it relates 
to the regulation of the marketing of produce or any other subject, which is going to affect the rights of the. consumer without having the measure contain some provision which will effectively safeguard the consumer in his rights. That is an illustration of the attitude which I am taking in criticizing this bill. As I say, it is criticism which would be directed against any other measure which would go the length which this one does either in failing to secure the rights of citizens generally, or in failing to maintain the adequate control which parliament should have over all legislation.
I pointed out that the bill as presented is in two parts. So far as the second part, which relates to investigations, is concerned, there was after its amendment practically no difference of opinion between the members of the house. I pointed out, and perhaps I should have emphasized this more than I did, that, so far as the second part is concerned, if it is going to be of any value at all, it will be of value in consequence of the amendments which were introduced as the result of suggestions and emphasis from this side of the house. The bill as originally drafted confined all investigation to investigation of such natural products as might be classed as regulated products which might mean few or none. The amendment expanded the provisions of the section so as to permit of investigation into any natural product or the derivatives of natural products. May I say that in that particular I think the measure would be of even greater advantage to producers if we further extended the classes of subjects which may be investigated, and of the matters which may be investigated. As the bill now stands it relates solely to natural products. Now, if it is desirable to investigate primary industries having to do with natural products, in order to discover the cause of price spreads, excessive profits and the like, I see no reason why it should not be equally advantageous to have power to investigate manufacturing industries to see what in the case of these industries also accounts for the spread of prices, excessive profits and particularly for the difference between the prices which manufacturers receive for their products and the prices which the great producing classes of the Country receive for their commodities. Unless before this session is over there is introduced legislation, which will serve to broaden the scope

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
of investigation into manufacturing as well as all other branches of industry, we shall certainly be left under the impression that, so far at least as investigation is concerned, the producers are getting the small end of it; I should add that unless power is given to enable the investigation of all industrial concerns where there is reason to believe that the price spread is too considerable that profits are excessive, or that the tariff, for example, is enabling monopolies to be formed and too much in the way of profits to be secured at the expense of the consumer on the one hand, in the prices he has to pay, and at the expense of labour on the other hand, in the wages which labour is receiving, then later on, should a Liberal administration come into office any existing legislation of the kind will certainly be expanded so as to ensure that the manufacturing branches of industry are also made a subject with respect to which the provisions relating to investigation will apply.
Now, not only is the bill divided into two parts, but the first part of the bill, which is the part to which I shall refer exclusively from now on, appears to be in reality two bills compressed into one. As I read the legislation, it seems to me that one bill has been superimposed as it were upon the other; that there has been drafted an original bill which would make palatable to producers the idea of registration,, of licensing, of restricting sales, of limiting production, and of compulsion. These features have been made palatable to producers by having it appear that these particular powers are being given to occupational groups who, as has so often been said in the course of this debate, will themselves control the question as to when they are to be put into operation and the extent to which they are to apply. Having once given that power in that way to local boards of producers, ostensibly solely to serve their own immediate ends, and having to that extent and in that way got the producers committed to the principle, then the bill goes on to indicate that similar powers shall be given to the governor in council with respect not only to those classes of commodities in which particular groups of producers may be interested, but with respect to virtually the whole production and trade of the country, so as to enable the governor in council, by a similar system of registration, of licensing, and of restrictions as well as by total prohibitions, to regulate by order in council the trade and commerce and production of the country.
It is not going to be possible to get over the fact that that power is there by doing what the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre)
sought yesterday to do, and in fact did do, namely, by telling the house and through the house leading producers to believe that the governor in council will be governed by what the producers themselves tell him. There is nothing in the bill which compels the governor in council to seek the advice or to abide by the will of the producers in this matter. Power is there given to the governor in council and given for a very specific purpose, on which I shall enlarge in the course of my remarks.
I wish now to quote the sections of the bill'-and they are very few-which contain the features to which I have referred, and which I think are the sections that should be specially considered if this bill is referred back to the committee. They cover the sections referred to in what I shall say in the amendment with regard to reference back to the committee. They are sections which in my opinion in the light of what is now being said, if for no other reason should 'be referred back for the purpose of being further considered. The first section to which I refer is section 4, subsection (1), paragraphs (a) and (f), which deal with the power of the board in relation to local boards:
4. (1) The hoard shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power
(a)	to regulate the time and place at which, and to designate the agency through which the regulated product shall be marketed, to determine the manner of distribution, the quantity and' quality, grade or class of the regulated product that shall be marketed by any person at any time, and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade, quality or class; -
(f) to require any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses, and occupations with the board, or to obtain a licence from the board, and such licence shall be subject to cancellation by the board for violation of any provision of this act or regulation made thereunder;
When we take these provisions along with what hon. members of the government have said in reference to them, it is easy to understand why they might appeal strongly to producers. They allow the producers in particular localities, with respect to commodities which they themselves are producing, to create a local board which will draw up a scheme, which scheme is submitted to the governor in council and, if approved by the governor in council, becomes the law of the land. The scheme may go the length of requiring every producer to register and to have a licence, creating new sets of offences for the violation of regulations which may be made-and any regulations may be made-and bringing all producers in the particular indus-
3718	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
try under the control of such regulations, which will be made not 'by parliament as representative of all classes in the community but by an interested occupational group. Seemingly, all that may make this very palatable to the interested producers; but as we go further along in the measure we shall find that quite apart from this, there is another part of the bill which gives all these powers to the governor in council, altogether independently of what any producer or group of producers may do or say, and apart entirely from what may be the interest of any class of producers. It gives to the governor in council, in relation to practically all production and all trade, power to make compulsory regulations of this very kind.
That is the point which I hope will be clear not only to members of this house but also to those to whom the bill is being presented as being greatly in their interest. The next clause-and this is an interesting one-is section 6, subsection (2)-perhaps I had better read the whole section:
6. (1) When a scheme has been approved by the governor in council, the minister shall give public notice thereof in the Canada Gazette.
(2) The provisions of the scheme as approved shall have the force of law, and the local board shall, from the date of the publication of the said notice of approval, be a body corporate.
I stop here to make it perfectly clear that this section, combined with the others, gives all power of legislating with respect to the regulations that are to govern, all the power of legislating with respect to such matters as licensing, sale, or offering for sale and the conditions that shall control the granting or the revocation of licences, to local boards and to the governor in council exclusively, bodies that are inferior to and ought to be subordinate to parliament. It reverses the whole constitutional procedure and practice of parliament in making as respects the legislation which is to govern parliament subordinate to these bodies instead of keeping these bodies subordinate to parliament. Should it become necessary to compel producers to register, to take out licences to produce this or that commodity,, and trade and the like, I see no reason why that should not be done. But if it is to be done it should be done by this House of Commons which will represent the interests of all producers and all consumers. This measure is not even fair to all producers. May I point out-and this is essential-that there is no clause in this act which requires all producers to be a party to or consulted in reference to its enactment, or even to have a voice in selecting the group that is

to lay the scheme before the governor in council. There is nothing corresponding to what there is in our Elections Act, whereby all persons having a certain qualification may vote for the representative who is to have a say in the making of the laws. This measure leaves it open to any particular group to prepare a scheme, to put it before the governor in council, and for the governor in council, behind closed doors, and without the approval of parliament, to make the scheme thus presented the law of the land. I submit that that is going entirely too far, and is also depriving producers themselves of rights and liberties which they now enjoy and should be permitted to continue to enjoy.
May I go a step further? While there are in the British act some provisions with respect to allowing under certain conditions the licensing of producers, the granting of licences on certain conditions and the like, there are also in the British act many clauses which safeguard the interests of all producers and require that they shall have at least some redress if any one of the number feels that he is injured and is found to have suffered loss. In this legislation there is nothing which guarantees redress to an individual producer who feels that he has not been dealt with rightly and fairly. We were told by a member of the ministry that there would always be the right of appeal to the privy council. What chance has a farmer in western Canada or in any other part of this dominion, who feels that a right of producing certain commodities has been taken away from him, to appeal to the governor in council for redress? What guarantee is there that he will be heard? What guarantee is there that the decision will be fair? The law to be enacted simply prevents his getting his case before any court for fair adjudication. The British act provides for arbitrators to whom appeal may be made by producers who think they are not fairly dealt with. It has other provisions which specifically set forth the form of redress. I submit that in delegating these judicial and quasi-judicial functions to these local boards the governor in council is taking away from the individual the rights of redress in the courts of the land, which he should have for anything that affects his liberty and his property.
I referred yesterday to The New Despotism, a book by the Right Hon. Lord Hewart, Lord Chief Justice of England. Lord Hewart points out that this matter of licensing, where it is not accompanied by express provisions which will give to producers who may be affected thereby a right of appeal to some arbitrator or court for justice, is taking away

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
the right of the subject to have at all times the protection of the courts with respect to his liberties. He says that the determination of licensing, where left by parliament to a minister or a board is the delegation of a quasi-judicial function. And the Lord Chief Justice of England says that where the courts are closed to redress, it is an indefensible delegation. Such is the case here. I am not going to take time to quote from this book, I shall just refer hon. members to its pages, The New Despotism, pages 66, 67 and 68, where they will find instances of the delegation of certain judicial or quasi-judicial functions in a manner very similar to those in this bill, and which the Lord Chief Justice himself declares to be wholly indefensible. Oddly enough Lord Hewart concludes one chapter with reference to a provision found in some British statutes which is similar to the provision I read a moment ago from the bill before this house, the one which says that the provisions of the scheme as approved shall have the force of law, and that the local board shall from the date of publication of such notice of approval to be a body corporate. A section similar to this is known in Great Britain as "the conclusive evidence" section of acts which deal with such matters. With respect to conclusive evidence sections, sections that are put in to make it perfectly clear that parliament has to all appearances made anything that these local boards may do part of the law of the land and therefore no longer subject to appeal or redress in the courts, Lord Chief Justice Hewart says:
Another provision, which is frequently inserted, presumably because it is intended to deprive the court of jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of a rule or order after it is once made, is that the rule or order shall take effect "as if enacted in this act."
This provision is apparently thought to give the rule or order the status of an act of parliament. the validity of which cannot, in any circumstances, be questioned.
I submit that it is going pretty far for this parliament hastily to enact legislation which may deprive producers themselves of any redress with respect to what may be effected under the licensing provisions except such redress as they may be able to secure at the will of the governor in council. And may I point out that this provision appears, as I have already said, in the early sections of the act which deal with the powers of these local boards. The producer in reading this will undoubtedly say to himself: This relates only to some matter that I am vitally concerned in myself, and which it is going to be to my self-interest to control, therefore I will leave that section in the act. But a little
further on the same power is given to the governor in council in reference to or apart altogether from the thing the producer may be specially interested in. Power is given to the governor in council to act in a purely arbitrary manner in the granting of licences and imposing obligations with respect to registration and the like.
The British marketing act in seeking to protect producers against arbitrary action goes even further than I have thus far indicated. It contains provisions whereby if a producer is deprived of a licence under the provisions of the act he may be compensated for loss that he has sustained because of not being granted a licence. In this bill there is no provision for compensation of producers in that way. The government may one day have a policy to restrict the production of wheat, or the sale of wheat, which soon comes to mean its production, another day a policy of restricting the production of fruit, or the sale of fruit, which will restrict production. Under the British act, if the government attempted to carry out a policy of that kind the man who did not get a licence, or who found he was as a consequence obliged to reduce his production, would at least have the opportunity of getting some compensation on making out a case for it. But under this bill there is no such power given to the producers in our country. Let me read the sections of the British Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, which relate to the matters to which I have just referred:
Every development scheme shall provide for the following matters, that is to say:-
(a)	for securing that, in such class of cases as may be specified in the scheme or determined by the development board, compensation shall be payable by the board to any applicant for a producers' licence who is aggrieved by the refusal of the board to grant the licence or by any conditions attached thereto, as the case may be;
(b)	for securing that where any person producing, or desirous of producing, the secondary product in the area to which a related marketing scheme for regulating the marketing of that product applies, is aggrieved by any act or omission of the development board, he may refer the matter to one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the development scheme, and for the manner in which any such reference is to be heard and determined;
(d) for exempting from all or any of the provisions of the scheme producers of such classes or descriptions as may be specified in the scheme or determined by the development board, or the production of any such description of the secondary product as may be so specified or determined.
Those are only sample provisions, there are others which still further protect the rights of producers. This bill, which is being put
3720	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
forth ostensibly in the interests of producers, may become a weapon to be used against producers to such a degree that their interests will suffer beyond anything which at the amount they can conceive. Unless this act is amended before it finally passes, so as to include some provision which will safeguard the rights of producers with respect to licences and so forth in the manner I have indicated, then I think that in the interest of the producers themselves it would be infinitely better that the measure should not be permitted to carry at all.
So much for what I would call the first act, the act introduced in the interests of producers, which makes a very strong appeal to producers and is embodied pretty largely in the first few provisions of this bill. But now comes what I would call the second act, which is superimposed as it were on the first, its sections interlarded with the other provisions, and which I think should be read quite separately from these provisions, because it does not relalte to anything a local board of producers may do, or to anything that any committee of producers may ask, but wholly and solely to what the government of the day may wish to do with respect to the trade and commerce and production of the country. There are just two sections dealing with that, and I should like now to read those sections. The first is section 9:
9. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act the minister may, if he is satisfied that the trade and commerce in a natural product is injuriously affected by marketing conditions through the lack of a local board, at any time propose a scheme for the marketing or the regulation of the marketing pursuant to section four of this act of such product in interprovincial and/or export trade, and the governor in council may approve of such scheme and authorize the board' to administer such scheme directly or in cooperation with local boards, or through any agency which it may establish. Such scheme shall continue in force until terminated by the governor in council.
There parliament is giving a perfectly free hand to the governor in council to draw up any scheme it pleases and make that scheme the law of the land. That is planning by the executive of the day not by parliament or with the approval of parliament. When hon. gentlemen in the far comer talk about planning they think of planning by the C.C.F.; they do not think of planning ,by the Tory party of Canada, but this section combined with the other

I shall read gives the Tory party power to make whatever plans they please with respect to the production and trade of this country, not only the local trade but interprovincial and export trade as well. It is true this section is so worded in its reference to injurious conditions as to pave the way for the next, but are hon. members going to be indifferent in the matter of allowing that section to remain? I propose to move an amendment asking that the bill be referred back in order to have that and the other section further considered, and I hope the motion will receive the support of those who see their significance. Once producers become alive to this situation, the tone of some will be very different from what it is at the moment.
Now I come to the other section to which I have referred; these are the sections to which I am taking such strong exception. I refer now to section 12, which relates to the restriction of imports and exports. I ask hon. members to listen to this section, which might very well be read as a separate act. I ask this house whether, if this particular provision were introduced in the form of a separate bill, this House of Commons would countenance it for a moment. I venture to say that for very good and sufficient reasons the house would not do so. Let me read this section which, as I say, constitutes an act of parliament in itself:
12. The governor in council may by order or regulation, notice whereof shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette,-
(a)	regulate or restrict the importation into Canada of any natural product which enters Canada in competition with a -regulated product;
(b)	regulate or restrict the exportation from Canada of any natural product;
(c)	provide for the licensing of persons by whom any such natural product may be imported or exported;
(d)	prescribe the forms of such licences and the terms and conditions upon which the same may be issued, renewed, suspended or revoked by the governor in council.
I wonder if those who are supporting this measure will appear on the public platform and read that section to the producers of this country. I wonder if they will come forward and say they supported a section of this kind, which gives the governor in council exclusive power to compel the taking out of licences with respect to the importation or exportation of any commodity coming within the

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
definitions of this act, for which the governor in council may wish to require that a licence be taken out. The reference to a regulated product in subsection (a) is in no way restricting as the governor in council may have any product regulated if he so desire. And may I direct the attention of the house to this further fact? With respect to this power which will be used by the governor in council there is no redress on the part of the producers who may feel themselves aggrieved. There is no provision for appeal of any kind, to any source. I wish to repeat that the government cannot get over the force of what I am saying by seeking to do what the Solicitor General, who is a member of the administration, did yesterday; that is, to have it appear that this clause is not to be read in any way other than that it will be exercised only at the instance of interested producers. The Solicitor General spoke as a member of the ministry, and indeed the Minister of Agriculture in speaking at different times in committee, said much the same thing. I have no doubt that both these lion, gentlemen mean that if they continue-


Robert Weir: I do not wish to
interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but I do wish he would be more definite in statements with reference to myself. He said, "much the same thing." That is much too vague an expression. I certainly did not give the committee the impression he is trying to suggest.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very sorry; I thought I was doing the minister a kindness when I said that. I was saying that the Minister of Agriculture had conveyed the impression that he would be a minister of the government, that he would be the Minister of Agriculture and that he would have a say as to how this particular section should be put into operation, and being in that position he would see that it would be exercised only in the interests of the producers. What is there to take exception to in that? I was about to say that I thought the minister was thoroughly sincere in making that statement.


Robert Weir: The statement of the right hon. gentleman, as I understood it, was that this action would be taken only at the request of local boards.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I was not discussing local boards at all; in fact if my hon. friend had been following me he would have seen that my point was that this section had nothing to do with local boards. This is the power given to the governor in council alone to do as he pleases, and I was
saying that the only excuse or defence put up by the ministry for taking to themselves a power of the kind is that they are going to see . to it that it is only exercised at the instance of the producers themselves. I say they cannot give that guarantee. The express terms of the legislation is there. There are no qualifications or limitations. What guarantee have we that any member of the present ministry is going to continue in office indefinitely? What guarantee have we that the government itself is going to continue in office? This legislation is here for all time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For all time, until parliament repeals it. In the meantime the governor in council may do as it pleases with respect to the powers given to it in this section, and there is nothing in this act which restricts those powers.


Mr. ERNST:: It is nice of you to concede that the present governor in council is there for all time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to
make perfectly clear that should occasions arise such as the minister himself has pointed out, when it might be desirable to prevent certain shipments of inferior stock being made, power to deal with diseased animals or anything of the kind, that such power should be given to the ministry. But if that power is to be given it should be given by this parliament in language expressed in the statute itself, and it should be exercised in virtue of the statute and subject to the limitations imposed by parliament. There should not be given a broad, blanket authority, such as we have here, to legislate as the governor in council pleases with respect to exports and imports.
I come now to what I was about to say a moment ago: The only excuse or explanation which the ministry has been able to give is the one to which I have referred. The words of the Solicitor General appear at page 3681 of yesterday's Hansard as follows:
The bill gives the power, further, to restrict the export of products from Canada when it is in the interests of producers to impose such restrictions. But the producers themselves are the people who will say whether they want restrictions of imports or exports.
Remember it is a minister of the crown who is speaking. Then the report continues:
Mr. Mackenzie King: Where do you see that?
Mr. Dupre: The second part of the bill provides for the determination of investigations, and so on.
3722	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
The Solicitor General did not answer my question, but went on to discuss another matter. Then I brought the subject to his attention again in the following manner:
Mr. Mackenzie King: Would the minister allow a question? I did not wish to interrupt him in the course of his remarks. A moment ago he said it would be for the producers themselves to say when there were to be restrictions of imports or exports. Where does he find that in the bill?
Mr. Dupre:	That will be done by local
boards and the federal board. The local boards and the federal board are controlled by the people who take part in these activities, and those people are the producers or the farmers. That is my contention. They will speak for themselves, and decide what attitude they should take, namely as to whether^ they would be in favour of or against restriction.
There follows another paragraph, which does not relate to this matter. Then I addressed the Solicitor General in these words:
Mr. Mackenzie King: Before the minister concludes, may I say that he did' not answer my question? I asked him where he found in the act a provision which allows the producer to say when imports or exports are to be restricted.
Mr. Dupre: My right hon. friend remembers perfectly well the discussion that we had of that point in committee and the statements that were made by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture. I have not the act before me at the moment, but my right hon. friend knows that the boards will decide what policies they are going to follow, and if they decide in favour of restriction they will make regulations accordingly. That is the procedure that will be followed, and it is for the board, not for the government or any party, to decide.
Just a moment ago when the Minister of Agriculture interrupted me that was what he said. He stated in his interruption that the matter related to the board. I went on to say to him that it had nothing to do with the board. The section I was discussing was the one which gave absolute and complete authority to the governor in council. I continued my remarks yesterday as follows:
_ Mr. Mackenzie King: I am afraid the minister has forgotten a part of the bill, because what he says applies only to its early provisions. The part relating to restriction of exports and imports appears by itself under a distinctive heading. It is a paragraph by itself, section 12. It says the governor in council may restrict, and it is only the governor in council. There is no clause anywhere in the act which gives the producers the power to tell the governor in council what to do.
Mr. Dupre: The governor in council will pass orders in council after having received suggestions from the local board, and regulations will be made accordingly.
That is all the ministry can say with respect to that section, and I say to the Solicitor General, and to members of the government

generally they know perfectly well that while each one individually and all collectively may make certain professions and have certain intentions, the language in that section goes beyond anything which up to the present time they have either professed or expressed the intention of carrying out.
The section is not there by chance; it is there to give the ministry absolute authority, when it wishes to exercise it. If what the government states is true, namely that they do not intend that it shall be exercised in the way I have indicated, then I say to them let them take the bill back into committee of the whole and amend it by adding a clause which in precise language will state on what occasions, under what conditions and subject to what limitations this power may be exercised by the governor in council. If that is done satisfactorily, then our opposition to the measure in that regard ends. But if that is not done, and if the government refuses to recommit the bill with a view to stating precisely what the limitations are under which the power shall be exercised, and what the conditions may be which will govern in the matter, I think there can be only one explanation of its attitude, and that is that the government wants such power ready to use with respect to policies which it may have in mind, but which do not appear on the face of the bill.
That brings me to what I wish to say with regard to the power for which the govemoT in council is asking with respect to restrictions. I am going to be very outspoken and frank in this matter. I say that the purpose for which the government wishes that particular section is to enable it to work out its policies of economic nationalism and economic imperialism as circumstances of the moment may render possible and advisable. I do not think that the Prime Minister will deny, can deny or would wish to deny that the policy of this government since coming into office has been one of economic nationalism. He has deplored it; different members of the ministry have deplored the fact that such a policy has . been necessary. They have all said, "Other countries are doing it. Every nation is going in for a policy of economic nationalism, and we have got to go in for the same thing." In other words, there must be economic warfare, and as the Prime Minister said in bis campaign speech, we must make tariffs fight. This is part of the policy of making tariffs fight. It is to give the Prime Minister power which he wishes to have in order to make tariffs fight, when he wants to prohibit the importation of certain com-

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
modities or goods into this country or to prohibit the exportation of certain commodities or goods out of the country to work his will. He wants to be able to do that without having to ask parliament for authority. That is why the provision is in the bill. I say to the Prime Minister that I do not think he will deny the power is there. He may say he does not wish to exercise it. He may say that I am seeking to alarm others as to what may take place. I say that following his public utterances-and not only his public utterances but his actions in this parliament -it is fair to say there is every reason not merely to believe but to feel perfectly certain that this section of the bill is going to be used for the purposes I have indicated.
For the moment I shall not speak further on the policy of economic nationalism, but shall say a word or two with respect to the policy of economic imperialism. Here may I say to the Prime Minister and to those hon. members who think as he thinks in these matters-or as I believe he thinks-that I believe a policy of economic imperialism from certain points of view is capable of being defended. I do not see why he should not come out in the open and avow that such is his policy, and that he, along with certain other public men in different parts of the empire, is doing what he can, in his own way, and in his sphere of action, to further imperial policies all along the line. He made his appeal to the people on a Canada-first policy, and there was a great deal of talk about a national policy. I felt at the time, I believe I so stated, and subsequent events have proved it to be true, that this talk about economic nationalism was simply a first step into the wider field of economic imperialism. I said that it was merely an effort to get the public mind accustomed to regulating trade by tariffs, and to power being given to regulate trade and make tariffs by order of the governor in council, so that this wider scheme of economic imperialism might be developed.
There is nothing new in the scheme of economic imperialism. I have here in my hand a volume entitled, "The Empire In The New Era" by the Right Hon. L. S. Amery. This book contains a series of addresses that the Right Hon. Mr. Amery made in different parts of the empire as he went around the world delivering addresses on imiperial policies, among the number an address which he delivered in these parliament buildings while a guest of the Canadian Branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association. Mr. Amery has never concealed the fact that he believes in a
policy of economic imperialism. He says that it is the policy which should be adopted for the British empire, and as an Englishman and a great public man at the heart of empire he feels that such a policy is the one which would be most congenial to Englishmen, and the one which from their point of view would best serve the interests of the empire.
Recently we were honoured by a visit from another great public man of the British Empire, the Right Hon. Stanley Bruce who, for some time, was Prime Minister of Australia and is now High Commissioner for Australia in Great Britain. Mr. Bruce does not seek to conceal the fact that he believes in economic imperialism as a right policy for the British Empire. Coming from Australia, and speaking assumedly as an Australian he believes that a policy of economic imperialism is the one which to his mind would best serve the interests of Australia on the one hand and those of Great Britain on the other. He believes it will best serve the interests of the empire as a whole. He frankly makes his statement as to what should be done with a view to giving effect to these policies. When Mr. Bruce was here recently, he gave two addresses, one at the Canadian Club, and one as the guest of the Prime Minister in these houses of parliament. I had the pleasure of listening to both addresses which I thought were admirable. I found nothing to take exception to in what Mr. Bruce said. In his survey of world conditions, he led up to, but he very carefully avoided going beyond the point where controversy begins. He brought to the attention of his hearers certain facts as he sees them in the world to-day, and if he had been speaking his own mind and been free to do so with respect to how that situation might best be met, as an imperialist of the latter day school of Joseph Chamberlain imperialists, he would have gone on to say, not here but elsewhere where it would have been quite proper for him to do so, that he believed the logical way to work out a solution of the situation was by a system of imperial tariffs, by an imperial tariff policy or imperial trade policy, with licences, greater trade restrictions, prohibitions, and all the rest of it. He would have said further, as he has said elsewhere, that to work out that imperial trade policy he believed it necessary to have a plan which would ensure that trade and production were made complementary in different parts of the empire, that the trade of the empire and the production of the empire should be so arranged that one part of the empire would devote its time to certain classes of produc-
3724	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
tion and trade, and other parts to other classes of production and trade. In other words the whole idea being to arrange for complementary production and trade. That is a reasonable position for anyone to take. It is, however, a debatable position. It is the position, I believe, which the Prime Minister of this country holds to-day. I will say this for the Prime Minister. While he has never come out openly and said that he himself is an advocate of a policy of economic imperialism he has never denied the fact, and he will not deny it now. I say if you study the acts of some of the other self-governing parts of the British Empire and some of the recent measures that have been introduced in Great Britain, you will find sections of enactments very similar to the one we are discussing have been placed there in the last few years, and placed there as a part of this very imperial trade policy.
May I say that after Mr. Bruce had been in Australia he visited New Zealand and spoke there. While in Australia he spoke quite frankly and openly. He was a former Prime Minister going back to confer with the Prime Minister of the day, and he had a conference with the Prime Minister of the day and with the premiers of the different provinces of Australia in which he suggested if correctly reported that it might be desirable for Australia to limit production in certain directions with a view to raising the prices of these commodities in order that Britain might be placed in a more favourable relationship to Australia as a consequence of the changed price level in Australia, and that if this were done, then a year or two hence probably Australia would gain by some further concession on Britain's part.
That was the point of view which was put forward by Mr. Bruce in Australia. But did that point of view appeal even to the Australians? I will give the words of another which set out Mr. Bruce's point of view in order that it may not be said I was putting my own construction upon what he said:
He was a propagandist for certain views of his own which are also the views of a group in Great Britain which can best be identified by associating it with the name of its leading member, Mr. Amery. These views favour the consolidation of the commonwealth into some kind of a closed economic unit, trade between the various nations being forced into interimperial channels with a progressive insulation of the British countries from the outside world.
That is the imperial trade policy in a nutshell-economic imperialism.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whose statement was
that, might I inquire?
IMi Mackenzie King.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am reading
this from the Winnipeg Free Press of May 31, 1934.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But whose statement is
it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a statement I presume of the paper itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the editor?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I do not think the Prime Minister will say that the statement is not accurate. I ask him if he thinks it is an inaccurate statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was trying to make it
clear that it was not Mr. Bruce's statement. That is all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was trying
to make it perfectly clear that I was not putting my own interpretation on Mr. Bruce's words but was taking the interpretation of a leading journal the authenticity of whose views has not been denied in any way. I say I believe that it accurately expresses Mr. Bruce's views, and I believe our Prime Minister thinks it correctly expresses Mr. Bruce's views. But so far as Australia is concerned the present Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Lyons, in an address delivered at Adelaide on May 8 took occasion to say that Australia would not take the initiative in restricting and controlling exports as Mr. Bruce had recommended. Australia must now, he said, aim at expansion of foreign trade, and the state premiers took exactly the same stand. Australians now realize that they must seek foreign markets for the increased production which is still in sight. And that I say should be the attitude also of Canadians. World markets, including British markets, and with a British preference, should be our objective; not British markets at the expense of world markets.
But may I come a step nearer home and refer to my right ban. friend opposite? I would ask hon. members to consider for a moment the course of his legislation since he took office. He came into office ostensibly on the assurance that he was going to end unemployment, and he called a special session of parliament for that purpose. But that special session of parliament was devoted not to finding ways and means of solving the unemployment problem beyond getting an appropriation from parliament of $20,000,000. The session was taken up with increasing tariffs against other countries, including tariffs against Great Britain.
What was the next step? In the fall of 1930, the Prime Minister went to Great

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
Britain and at the imperial economic conference, when there was a chance for Canada to have secured that market for our wheat and possibly other products to a very considerable extent if he had gone the right way about it, he told the British government that if they wanted to get preferences, so far as Canada was concerned, they would have to change their fiscal policy and cease to be a free trade country and become a protectionist country. That was another step in this policy of economic imperialism, asking that the home government should also become protectionist because our Prime Minister took the view, and it was the view some others have taken in the past, that hereafter if preferences were to be given in the empire they would not be given by means of reducing tariffs within the empire but rather by raising tariffs against other countries. I need not go into what was said at that time because it is all on record and is well known.
What took place after that? At the next session of parliament we had the Prime Minister again raising the tariffs of this country very considerably, always getting Canada into the position where, so far as the outside world was concerned, it was more and more being cut off from Canada in the matter of trade, and so arranging matters that by a reduction of the tariff, if he wished to make any, it would be a reduction largely within the British Empire itself but not to a point that would very materially affect the privileged position of any industry that the government might wish to see was adequately protected so far as this country was concerned.
Let me go a step further. What took place at the imperial conference which met in Ottawa 1932? The former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, and others who were with him, speaking in this very chamber, said that they hoped that those who were gathered together would see their way clear to the lowering of tariffs and of making trade within the empire a greater certainty by that method rather than that of raising tariffs still higher against foreign countries. The head of the British delegation sought to cement the bonds of empire in a way which was initiated by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he was Prime Minister of this country, and which up to 1930 had been followed by all his successors. That was the position the British ministers took, but what was the position at the end of the conference? At the end of the conference tariffs were higher than ever against foreign countries and there had been very little in the way of increased preference within the empire 74726-236
itself. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was very insistent upon one thing at that conference, although he did not get his way to the extent he desired. He was very insistent that any agreements arrived at should be for a term of years. He wanted ten years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just look at the record
and see.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know the
Prime Minister spoke of a ten year period.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I said was a five or ten year period.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Five or ten year period. In his own heart the Prime Minister wished to get a ten year period, but he did not get it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry, that is not right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I remember this -I think the Prime Minister will say I am right-that he said he believed a longer term agreement would be more likely to serve the end he had in view. I think he has made it perfectly clear that he is in favour of these rigid agreements which will run for a series of years. In addition, the agreements which were made at the imperial economic conference of 1932 were so drafted as to make more difficult than ever, if not altogether impossible, the negotiation of agreements with other countries.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes. Look at the terms of the agreements and you will see that they have removed the opportunity for bargaining formerly afforded by the difference between the general and the intermediate tariffs. The best answer to my hon. friends opposite and their government is the fact that they have not been able to make any agreements worthy of the name with any country since they have been in office.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about France and Germany?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those are all
evidences,-and I have not referred to the embargo on Russian goods and other enactments-of the efforts being made under one guise or another to gain for the governor in council the power to restrict importations into this country, if he so desires. All that was

3726	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
done with respect to placing an embargo on Russian commodities and goods could be done with respect to the goods of any other country in the world under this clause which this parliament is being asked to enact at the present time and much more, through the power to restrict exports and, therefore, production as well. Are we going to turn over to this administration that power in the interests of the producers of this country in whose name this legislation is ostensibly being brought forward?
This brings me back to what I have said as to the possibility of evil, and the possibilities of harm and injury, which may occur because of the provisions of this measure. The powers given to the governor in council under this section are so comprehensive that I for one, unless the government can see its way clear to amend this legislation in the particulars suggested, will feel obliged to vote against the bill itself.
As I have said, these are all indications of the Prime Minister's desire to further imperial trade policies. I do not think that he will deny that such is the view he holds. Why then does the ministry not come out frankly and openly say that such is their policy? Why do they not debate its merits on the floor of this house, or let the country pronounce upon it? They should not try to put in force a policy of economic imperialism under the guise of a marketing bill. They should not tell the farmers of this country that they are going to help them to market their products when what in reality they are seeking to do is to get the power to restrict trade and limit production, both as regards imports and exports in furtherance of a policy of economic imperialism. At the very time this legislation was being discussed in committee in this house, the right hon. the Prime Minister delivered an address in Montreal. This address was delivered upon an interesting occasion, the annual banquet of the Royal Empire Society. I quote from a Canadian Press dispatch, dated Montreal, May 23, which appeared in all the papers, as follows:
Speaking of the loyalty of empire peoples to the crown and the ties that bind the family of nations within the commonwealth, Mr. Bennett urged the necessity of evolving a common foreign trade policy which would seal and perpetuate the unity.
There is a straight declaration of imperial policy in the matter of trade. If that is the government's policy, let them come out and say so, but do not let us settle it under the heading of a marketing bill. Let us discuss it under the broad question of the rights of
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
this parliament, not the governor in council, to control all matters of trade, and what the policies of this country are to be with respect to trade. The question of empire trade policy is debatable. Whether you can further the unity of the empire by any such means as tariff measures framed and enacted as ours have been in the last four years, and by powers given to the governor in council to license producers and to license the export and import trade of this country is questionable indeed. I am perfectly sure that if this country realized that this was the real issue we were discussing here, and was given a chance to pronounce upon it, the government would wish they had never so much as suggested anything of the kind.
This is not a new question. It dates from the days of the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, over thirty years ago. In one way or another the tariff reformers of Great Britain and other parts of the empire have been seeking ever since to bring about this very thing. I will give the Prime Minister credit for one thing, he has gone, I believe, in the last four years, further than anyone else in any part of the empire towards so shaping matters as to please the hearts of those who believe that the empire can be held together by tariff bonds and trade restrictions. But I will say to him that I believe that when you try to unite the empire by an imperial trade policy, an imperial fiscal policy, by an imperial finance policy, by an imperial shipping policy, an imperial defence policy, and other classes of imperial policies, you are only helping to create conditions which will inevitably disunite and disrupt the empire. You are taking the very steps which will destroy the whole unity of the British Empire.
As I see it, the difference between those who hold to the view which I do and those who hold an opposite view might well be made the subject of debate as to the most effective means of furthering economic cooperation within the empire; economic cooperation secured through imperial policies, or through autonomous fiscal policies of the several parts of the empire. Mention was made the other day of the empire marketing board, that board was regarded as a possible means of economic planning which would give expression to imperial trade policies. At the last conference, however, the empire marketing board did not receive the reception which many hoped it would. There remains the Imperial Economic Committee. Possibly it is a very good thing, and possibly it is not. Much will depend upon what it attempts and how it goes about it. The present chair-

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
man of the Imperial Economic Committee is Canada's High Commissioner in London, a gentleman who is of the same mind as the Prime Minister with regard to imperial trade policy. I could go on and mention other ways in which this idea of furthering imperial trade policies is being worked out. They are mostly only too obvious. What I want at the moment to make clear is the difference of method in effecting economic cooperation under the opposing policies within the British Empire. Economic cooperation to the mind of the tory imperialist is best effected by imperial policies in trade and finance, the one policy for the empire as a whole; the imperial policy advocates hope to work out their policies through control exercised by the executives as contrasted with the parliaments of the empire, except in so far as delegated powers give to governors in council, to restrict trade and regulate tariffs may be said to be at the instance of parliament.
Speaking for the Liberal party, as being opposed to that method, I wish to say that while we believe in economic cooperation within the empire, we believe in that cooperation being based on autonomous fiscal policies, national policies for each self governing part of the empire which will leave all free to deal with their own tariffs and make their own fiscal policies in their own way, and in the making of such arrangements as in the opinion of their respective parliaments will best serve for each to advance the trade and commerce of the country. It is cooperation brought about, not at the instance of governors in council who have been given power to legislate behind the doors and beyond the walls of parliament; it is cooperation effected by the parliament of Canada and other parliaments of the empire legislating in the open with regard to what so far as their respective countries are concerned in the case of each is regarded as most in the interests of the people. Whatever best serves to build up the respective parts of the empire, we believe, will make for the greater strength and unit of the whole.
I will now submit the amendment and ask for it the careful consideration of the house. It is moved by Mr. Mackenzie King and seconded by Mr. Casgrain:
That the bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend it by
1.	Adding to it provisions which will ensure consideration of the interests of consumers;
2.	Eliminating from it such provisions as give to any board or to the governor in council arbitrary power to provide for the registering or licensing of persons engaged in the producing or marketing of natural products; and
3.	Eliminating from it such provisions as give to the governor in council arbitrary power to prohibit or restrict trade as regards both imports and exports, save in so far as parliament may have made express provision, for the circumstances and conditions under which, and the limits within which any such power may be exercised.
I hope that hon. members will consider this amendment very carefully. If it is carried and the bill is recommitted, and if the government is prepared to make such changes as will insure the sovereignty of parliament in-the matters to which I have referred, then I think we can all agree on the bill. But if the government refuses to accept the amendment and to recommit the bill, then I submit that the reasons I have given to this house as to why the measure should not be permitted to pass in its present form are all-sufficient, and should cause those who have at heart the true interests of Canada's production and trade to oppose the third reading.
Where will the producers of this country be if, after this measure in its present form goes through, they find that every one of them is thereafter subject to registration in the carrying on of his production; that everyone may be subject to licensing in order to be permitted to carry on trade; that their production as a consequence may be limited by law that not one will have appeal in any direction against what he may believe to be an injustice with respect to the granting or the withholding of a licence; that there is to be no compensation for those denied a licence or for those whose production is curtailed? There are possibilities of all these under the provisions of this measure, and I say that without many safeguards, such provision should not be enacted by this parliament.
In conclusion, may I refer to one matter that from time to time has been touched upon by hon. gentlemen opposite and to some extent by hon. members in the far corner. Throughout the discussion of this measure, hon. members on the other side have said that some of us on this side, and more particularly myself, did not seem to realize that conditions to-day are different from those that have existed at any time in the past, that we are not prepared to recognize the changed world in which we live-that we are not prepared to recognize that conditions being very different, different classes of remedies are needed at the present time from anything that may have been applicable in the past. Yesterday the house was told by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that my colleague the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. 3728	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
Lapointe) and I myself belonged to the school of mid-Victorian constitutionalists; and that was held out as a reproach. To those who so assert, may I say that I for one am very proud of being classed of the school of midVictorian constitutionalists. To those who throw taunts, I would say that it was the school of mid-Victorian constitutionalists who, standing by the rights of parliament and the powers of parliament, adopted the policies with respect to trade and interimperial and foreign relations that brought Britain to the position of greatness and supremacy which she attained by and after the middle of the last century.
When hon. gentlemen opposite talk about our not understanding conditions as they exist to-day, I venture to say to them that they are the ones who do not appreciate conditions, who fail to see conditions in their true perspective. What they do not understand, when they talk to us about new conditions, is that, metaphorically speaking, there is nothing new under the sun. If their knowledge of history were a little wider than it is, they would find that there is not a single aspect of the world situation to-day which has not had its parallel time and again in the history of the world. There is nothing new under the sun in that sense. With regard to the very policies which the government is introducing, may I point out that there is nothing essentially new in what they propose. Talk about the mid-Victorian attitude! Why, this whole business of the restriction of trade is only the old mercantilist theory and the policies based upon it. It is the policy not of the mid-Victorian era but of the middle ages, the policy that was put into force as Europe was emerging from that dark period of its history. The old idea was that trade must be restricted; that if any one country prospered some other country must suffer; that there must always be a favourable balance of trade; that gold was the source of all wealth. What was Adam Smith seeking to do when he wrote the Wealth of Nations? To those who were thinking precisely in the way that hon. gentlemen think now, he said that the wealth of a nation did not consist in the quantity of gold it had stored up, but that it lay in what Providence had given man in a country's resources and in the labour that might be applied thereto, in the production and trade that might result therefrom. He preached the doctrine of greater freedom in the matter of trade, not the restriction of trade. His whole idea was to get away from the business of restriction, the principle which this government seeks to
(Mr. Mackenzie King.]
impose in this measure. Hon. members know quite well that it was not until the medieval restrictions, in their innumerable forms, were broken down that Britain began to secure that prosperity which she subsequently enjoyed.
Let me come more closely to the parallel.
I venture to say that if hon. members will turn to the period which began with the accession of George IV to the throne of England and compare that period, a hundred years ago, with the present day they will find, in every essential feature, a parallel with present conditions. I have not time to run over the various points of comparison, but I wish to touch upon the important aspects.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is my hon. friend interrupting me for?


Mr. MYERS:: The farmers of Canada are more interested in finding markets for their products than in listening to the right hon. gentleman talking about George IV.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am trying to point out that the farmers of Canada will obtain markets and the country an opportunity to prosper when they get an opportunity to trade, but they will get no markets under a policy of high tariffs, and by restricting imports and exports by order of the governor in council. Now, if my hon. friend will be good enough to listen to me for a moment I will show him that what I am saying has an important direct bearing on the position of the farmers to-day.
Speaking broadly and generally, what was the position of Britain a century ago? The difference I see, as compared with the present time, is this. The situation that exists to-day exists on a world scale; the situation as it existed a century ago was on a continental scale, though it had its world aspects as well. England had been involved in a great war with France and with America, a war that extended over a number of years, and after the war exactly the same phenomena developed as we find in different parts of the world to-day, and particularly within the British Empire. While the war was in progress, production was speeded up very greatly, there was stimulation of industry for the time being, there was a great increase in production, prices rose to phenomenal heights, a false prosperity prevailed generally with inflation of prices of farm products: et cetera, et cetera. When the war was over there was a vast increase of public debt, followed soon thereafter by a period of depression, increased

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
taxation, and soon also stagnation of trade, exactly as we have had it at the present time. What also occurred? You had at that same period just what you have happening at this moment, a series of new inventions greatly increasing production. The industrial revolution in England was then well under way. Industrial innovation began on a large scale, due to the application of power to industry. Everywhere new inventions were being applied to industry, harnessing the forces of nature to take .the place of the limited energy of the human frame in the production of goods. With what result? Overproduction. There came soon to be a surplus, a glut of manufactured and other goods in the factories throughout Great Britain. The development of industry ran ahead of the world's demands. Men in large numbers were then thrown out of employment. There was exactly what you have to-day, privation and starvation in the midst of plenty. An era of scarcity and poverty, side by side with more possibilities for the increase of wealth. The masses of the people were starving although the factories and warehouses were filled as they never had been before. In addition you had the specially favoured classes, the land-owning classes who had profited so much by the war, doing what they could, by means of legislation, to retain their special privileges, exactly as is being done at the present time; the situation being different only in this respect that where in Britain one hundred years ago it was the British agriculturists, to-day in Canada it is the specially favoured manufacturing interests and others who are seeking to preserve monopolies. You had your agriculturists controlling parliament in large part and seeing to it that duties were imposed to prevent the importation of corn and grain into Great Britain. You had the adoption of the corn laws, corresponding to our high tariffs in other directions, with consequent agitation a little later against this imposition of high tariffs for the protection of special interests and also against the introduction of these new inventions. Reading the history of that period what do we find as far as the industrial classes are concerned? The Luddite riots were essentially an exemplification of hatred of the machine, which was looked upon as the enemy of man instead of his friend. All over England an effort was made to destroy these new inventions which at the moment appeared to be taking away the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of men and women, but which when subjected to proper control and regulation helped to bring about an increase of production which has made possible the diminution of the hours of labour
and increase in wages, and improved conditions and indeed should lead to further diminution of the hours of labour and increase of comfort, not for the few only but for the whole mass of the people.
Then what was the nature of the agitation to which these changed conditions gave rise? You find that at that very period, one hundred years ago, you had exactly what we have been having in this parliament this session, a demand for the regulation of industry, and a controversy over the merits of laissez faire and the merits of state control, and attempts to raise prices by prohibitions of imports. There were those who maintained that the laissez faire attitude should perhaps be still further maintained in the interest of production. There were those who took the view-and they were the Liberals of the day-that regulation of industries was what was needed; and you find as a consequence the factory acts and laws introduced in the form of regulation by Ashley and Huskisson and others whose names are familiar. With more in the way of regulation in industry, and of the abolition of restrictions in trade, conditions soon began to improve and an era of prosperity followed an era of depression. It will be the same here, when to similar ends like means are applied.
There were radical movements too, but the reformers and radicals of that day did not find it necessary to create soviets, they did not find it necessary to adopt the Fascist method of dealing with the problems of the day. They looked to .more adequate representation in parliament to improve conditions, and to parliament itself to meet their demands. What was the Chartist movement other than a demand for more in the way of opportunity to be given to the working classes to enjoy all the power and authority which they believed parliament could give them? Were they right, or were they wrong, in that attitude of looking to, not away from parliament? Take the charter and look at its various provisions. What did its promoters ask for? They asked for the secret ballot. What for? As protection to labour and the common people in the matter of *securing their rights and proper representation in parliament. Was that a good or a bad thing? If it was good, why should we throw away that particular method in securing freedom and rights when we come to deal with legislation? In this marketing bill there is no secret ballot provided for in the choice of those who are to have the making of the regulations and the laws. That power is to be given to special groups I might
3730	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
run on down the list and refer to the other clauses of the charter, every one of which illustrates how the working men of that day looked to constitutional methods of procedure to get the redress which they needed.
Now may I say that I welcome, with all my heart, this unrest of the present time, which I believe is bred of a well-founded sense of injustice and wrong. But I believe that the place to seek redress is in this parliament, in accordance with constitutional principles of British parliamentary practice and procedure. I do not think it is to be found in following the methods that have been adopted either in Russia, or in Italy, Germany or Austria at the present time. These countries have never known what freedom is in the true sense of the word. We have gone a long way to enlarge our liberties and secure greater freedom. Let us hold what in those particulars we have. Do not let us be quick to part with these great securities to life and property, but let us use them in a way which will help to bring to a larger number of mankind that "greatest good for the greatest number" which was the aim of political action as defined by Bentham and which also was a part of the intellectual outcome of discussion, and the foremost movement in politics, in the period of unrest one hundred years ago.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): On the second reading of this bill on May 1, at page 2704 of Hansard I put on record some figures from the annual reports of the Department of National Revenue for the years from 1930 to 1933 inclusive. They show beyond any doubt, first that in 1933 the total external trade of Canada was about one-third of what it was in 1930; second, that in 1933 our imports were $841,889,838 less than in 1930, and our exports $664,216,273 less than in 1930; third, that in 1933 our trade with the United States was one-quarter and with Germany, Japan and Italy one-third of what it was in 1930, and with France $4,000,000 less, with Belgium $7,000,000 less, with China $9,000,000 less; and with the Argentine our trade was less than one-seventh of what it was in 1930; fourth, that in the year ended March 31, 1934, for each month there has been a terrific and formidable decrease in exports and imports as well, as compared with the same months in the fiscal year 1929-30. From August 31, 1930, to April 30, 1934, the decrease in Canadian exports is as follows: In the first year, from August 31, 1930, to .March 31, 1931, thanks to the repeal of the

Dunning budget, the abolition of the tariff board, the special session high tariff and the fiasco of the first London conference, there was a decrease in exports of $189,000,000. In the second year, from April 1, 1931, to March 31,1932, thanks to the 1931 session with its neiw, inconsiderate and uncalled for increase in the tariff, there was a decrease of $412,373,365. In the third year, from April 1, 1932, to March 31, 1933, thanks to the fiasco of the Ottawa agreements, there was another decrease of $514,917,712. In the fourth year, from April 1, 1933, to April 30, 1934, thanks to the fiasco of the London world conference, there was another export decrease of $481,804,363. The total decrease in exports from August 31, 1930, to April 30, 1934, was $1,598,095,440.
It has been said that last April was better with regard to imports and exports. I should like to give the exports and imports for the month of April for the last four years:
Imports Exports
1930	
$71,401,839	$50,744,1591931	
51.189.376	33,935,0751932	
29.794.296	26.975.7561933	
20.457,294	20.011.6521934	
34.814,998	31,581,881
I should like to compare these months with April of 1930, and I make that comparison because during the last campaign the leader of the Conservative party said that things were bad in this country because of the bad management of the business of the country by the King government. That must be a good comparison, therefore, to see if matters have improved since this government took office. In April of 1931, as compared with April of 1930, our exports were $16,809,064 less. In April of 1932 as compared with April of 1930, they were $23,768,383 less. In April of 1933 as compared with April of 1930, they were $30,732,487 less, and in April of 1934, the good month, as compared with April of 1930 they were $19,162,258 less. So there has been a loss in exports during April, from 1931 to 1934, of $90,472,192. I must express my thanks to the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) who has supplied me with complete copies of the trade summaries of the Department of National Revenue since August, 1930.
Now I should like to say a word about the Ottawa agreements, which we heard so much about during the debate on the address and during the whole session. It has been said that the Ottawa agreements have been a great boon to Canada. In 1933, the year following the Ottawa agreements, Canada's exports to the United Kingdom were nearly

398,000,000 less and to the British empire $158,000,000 less than in 1930. The figures are as follows:
United Kingdom	
Australia	
New Zealand	
South Africa	
Irish Free State	
Rhodesia	
British India	
Newfoundland	
Other British countries.. ..
Decrease $ 97,965,127 9,015,770 15,576,607 6,913,338 463,174 1,297,820 6,699.641 6,798,689 13,896,218

This is the wonderful result accomplished by the Ottawa agreements, which have been praised so much during this session. Those figures appear in Hansard for May 1, 1934, at page 2702. During the campaign in South Oxford the London Advertiser said the Ottawa agreements were the issues in that by-election. The Liberal candidate in that riding won the election on those issues by the greatest majority ever given any candidate in that constituency. What is the use of the Ottawa agreements if our trade with Great Britain has decreased by 398,000,000 and our trade with the whole British empire by $158,000,000? It is absurd to say that the agreements are worth anything, and the reason they are still mentioned is the fiasco of the world conference in London last year. While we were discussing this bill the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) said, in reply to some questions I put to him:
I am sure every hon. member realizes that the Prime Minister has too much work to do to be concerned about such matters as that.
That was not an answer; that was an explanation as to why I did not receive an answer. Those words appear in Hansard for May 21, 1934, at page 3271. Now I should like to put on Hansard the exports of twelve farm products in 1933, as compared with 1930:
Decrease
Dressed beef	 $	672,534
Concentrated milk	 851,039
Cheese	 5,130,401
Potatoes	 5,504,758
Peas	 3,819
Wheat	 63,373,340
Wheat flour	 18,523,737

There was a slight increase on the other five items in 1933 as compared with 1930, as follows:
Apples Honey. Eggs.. Oats.. Barley
Increase

Marketing Act-Mr. Pouliot
So we had a decrease of $94,259,628 and an increase of 33,375,404, or a total net decrease of $90,884,224. These figures appear in Hansard for May 8, 1934, at page 2892.
Now let us come to our internal trade, and see the effect on that trade of the formidable decrease in external trade. Let us see first the decrease in home consumption of the same twelve farm products. The quantities can be found in Hansard for March 26 of this year, at pages 1811 and 1812; the values appear in Hansard for May 8, 1934, at page 2889. That was the day on which I put three questions to the Minister of Agriculture. The twelve farm products which are mentioned are apples, honey, eggs, dressed beef, concentrated milk, cheese, potatoes, peas, oats, barley, wheat and wheat flour. The figured value of the decrease in home consumption in 1933 as compared with 1930 is to be found at page 2889 of Hansard and is as follows:
Apples	
Honey	
Eggs	
Dressed beef.. . . Concentrated milk
Cheese	
Potatoes	
Peas	
Oats	
Barley	
Wheat	
Wheat flour. . . .

After I had quoted those figures I put the following three questions to the Minister of Agriculture: First, can we still say that we have our local market so far as those commodities are concerned in view of the enormous decrease in their consumption? Secondly, for what reason was there such a decrease, in one year, 1932-33, and third, what is the proper remedy to' be applied to such a situation? Those questions were put first at page 2889 of Hansard. Then on the same day the Minister of Agriculture answered me in the following words:
Mr. Weir (Melfort) : My understanding was that with these statistics on record in Hansard an answer would be submitted to the hou. member for Temiscouata.
Mr. Pouliot: I thank you.
Then, the same question was put on May 9, the following day, and I received no answer. It was put a third time on May 16, upon which occasion the minister answered as follows:
Mr. Weir (Melfort): The officials of the department have been working since May 8 to gather the information requested by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I have inquired as to the matter on a number of occasions, the



$3,375,404 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Marketing Act-Mr. Pouliot
last time this morning, but the work is not yet completed. We hope to have the information in the very near future. There has been a very great deal of work in this connection.
Mr. Pouliot: Would the minister be kind enough to tell me if it will be completed before the bill is reported by the committee?
Mr. Weir (Melfort): I believe it will be completed this week.
On May 17 the same question was put a fourth time, and the minister's answer appears at page 3121 of Hansard:
Mr. Weir (Melfort):	I regret that the
information asked for has not yet been completed. I am sure the hon. member will realize when the answer is brought down, that there was perhaps more work entailed in getting the information than he had in mind when he asked for it, but I hope it will be in shape to be brought down at the beginning of next week, if not to-morrow.
Mr. Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman, and if I can be of any assistance to the officers of his department in cooperating with them I shall be very glad to do so.
That was on May 17, and to-day is June 6. Then, the point arises again for the fifth time on May 18, and at page 3174 of Hansard we find the following:
Mr. Weir (Melfort): Although a great deal of this is out of order, I assure the hon. gentleman that there has been no intentional delay. Every effort has been made to prepare for him the most accurate statement possible. I have thought it would be ready for to-day, but as soon as it is it will be submitted at once.
Mr. Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman and take his word for that.
I said in plain English that I took his word for it; yet it is now June 6, and I have received nothing. Is it because as the Minister of Agriculture said-
I am sure every hon. member realizes that the Prime Minister has too much work to do to be concerned about such matters as that.
The farmers are losing $86,197,598 on account of the decrease in the home consumption of the twelve primary products I have named. But the Prime Minister does not pay any attention to that, according to the Minister of Agriculture who is at the right hand of the Prime Minister. I was not discouraged, and on May 21, I asked the minister for an answer. His answer is reported at page 3271 of Hansard as follows:
I am sure, if he appreciates the amount of work entailed by the questions he has put on Hansard and' also the work the staff has to do apart from that, he will believe we have made every effort to bring down this information. By the middle of last week I thought we should have had it by last Friday but there were still some points it was difficult to clear up.
[Mr. Pouliot.1
Our whole desire has been to submit to him the best statement in answer to the questions he has put. So far as withholding the information until this bill is passed, is concerned, the information has, so far as I can see, no bearing on the bill because this legislation has to deal with the regulation of marketing. It is not necessary for me to refer to his suggestion, which I think was almost entirely out of order, that the Prime Minister had suggested we should withhold the information from him.
And then the minister said, as I have already indicated:
I am sure every hon. member realizes that the Prime Minister has too much work to do to be concerned about such matters as that.
On May 28, a few days later, the answer of the minister is reported at page 3433 as follows:
I regret that this report is not yet completed.
I asked seven times for that report. What was the answer made by the minister? It was:
I am sure every hon. member realizes that the Prime Minister has too much work to do to be concerned about such matters as that.
The farmers are losing over $86,000,000 on account of the fact that there has been a terrific decrease in the home consumption of farm products. I quoted the questions and answers to an English and French speaking audience in Russell county in the province of Ontario, and I said to those good farmers, " Either the minister is telling the truth, or he is not. If he is telling the truth and if he is not paying any attention to the loss suffered by farmers in that connection it is-"
Robert Weir: The hon. member
is giving the wrong interpretation. What I said was that the Prime Minister had too much work to do to check up the submitting of these answers or reports. Every effort has been made to get the information. As a matter of fact, I thought it had been sent forward. It is out of order in this discussion, but I want to clear the hon. member's mind in that one connection, namely that my reference to the Prime Minister was that he was too busy to prepare answers to questions like that.


Mr. POULIOT:: What is he busy about?
He is busy checking the typewritten copy of speeches made by Jean-Frangois Pouliot. He is busy converting Trebisch Lincoln, a Hungarian Jew who has been banned from England. He could spend a whole afternoon with him. He has time enough to waste his

time with him. He has time enough to waste his time looking at the typewritten copy of Hansard showing the speeches of a back bencher, but he has not time enough to see to it that the figures asked for by members of this house which indicate the great misery suffered by the farmers of this country are given out.
I am not discussing what the minister says, or the interpretation he places upon the words appearing in Hansard. But to the farmers in Russell county, in the good old province of Ontario, I said, " The minister is either right or wrong. If he is telling the truth he must force the Prime Minister to resign and if he is not telling the truth *the Prime Minister must force him to resign at once." That is what I said.
Let us now continue with our discussion of internal trade. We have heard a great deal about price spreads and the profits made by the middleman. What about it? What about the price spreads between the years 1933 and 1930? During the election campaign of 1930 the cry of the Conservative party throughout the country was that things were bad, that the farmers were not prosperous and that they were suffering. Let us draw a comparison between the bad year of 1930 and those good years which have followed since this government came into power. What has been the price spread between the value of the following farm products in 1932-33 as compared with 1930? We have heard ministers from the province of Quebec and others saying that the government were working under a handicap, that all the pacts had been cancelled when the former government was in power. Therefore trade must have improved since we have had a change of government in this country. Let us see what has happened.
At page 2888 of Hansard of this year the total production of several commodities is given by years, and that total production should be multiplied by the price prevailing that year in order to find the actual price spread between 1933 and 1930. According to that, I find that the loss to the farmer in the sale of pork meats in 1932-33 was $68,030,000.
We heard during the last campaign that butter was to be changed into gold. We heard that everywhere. We were told that the price of butter was to be raised to fifty and sixty and seventy cents a pound, but actually what has been the loss to the farmer on butter during 1932-33 as compared with 1930? That loss has been $30,200,000. In
Marketing Act-Mr. Pouliot
the following commodities the loss to the farmer in 1932-33 as compared with 1930 has been as follows:
Apples	
Honey	
Eggs	
Beef	
Concentrated milk.
Cheese	
Potatoes	
Peas	
Oats	
Barley

What was the loss in wheat? I hope hon. gentlemen will listen to this. The loss to the farmer in the sale of his wheat during 1932-33 as compared with 1930 was $70,880,000, and on wheat flour there was a loss of $27,797,140. The total loss on those fourteen items I have just given was $440,599,225, and the decrease in exports amounted to $90,884,278, or a total loss to the farmer in these few primary products of $531,483,503.
I am sure every hon. member realizes that the Prime Minister has too much work to do to be concerned about such matters as that. It is surprising, and again it is not. It is so hot, although I must admit that the temperature in the house is rather cool just now, just as cool as my speech.
But that is not all. The yearly decrease in the value of primary products sold in 1932 as compared with 1930 was as follows:
Yearly Decrease in Value of Primary Products (1932 compared with 1930)
Products of the land:
(14 farm products)	$ 440,599,225
Products of the forest:
(Unmanufactured wood, pulp
and paper)*	 290,694,000
Products of the mines:
(Minerals, mineral products and
chemicals)*	 584,795,205
Products of the sea:
(Fish products)*	 21,847,107

*	Hansard, February 13 and 15, 1934, pp. 560 and 634.
*	Hansard, March 5. 1934, p. 1186.
*	Hansard, March 13, 1934, p. 1431.
That shows a total loss in the value of the production of these primary products of the farm, of the forests, of the mines and of the sea, in the year 1932 as compared with 1930, of $1,337,935,537. I am sure every hon. member realizes that the Prime Minister has too much work to do to be concerned about such matters as that.
As the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) has not thought fit to answer my very

Marketing Act-Mr. Pouliot
relevant questions which I put on Hansard on May 8 of this year for the first time, and have repeated frequently since, I shall answer them myself for the benefit of the house. My first question was this:
First, can we still say that we have our local market so far as those commodities are concerned in view of the enormous decrease in their consumption ?
The answer to that is no, and if as the Prime Minister said last year and has repeated very often since, we still have our local market, that was simply one more proof that he is not well informed and that he should not waste his time in gossip but should rather take every opportunity to make himself familiar with the bluebooks and other official publications of the various departments of which he is the leader.
My next question was this:
Secondly, for what reason was there such a decrease in one year, 1932-33?
The answer is very simple. It was because of the enormous number of people engaged in trade and business and who suffered a loss of their purchasing power by reason of the decrease in our external trade of one and a half billion dollars and over. They had lost their purchasing power and that was the main reason why the farmers were unable to sell to them the same quantity of farm products, and that in spite of the fact that the number of people in Canada is greater now than it was in 1930, and the prices of those commodities are even cheaper.
The farmers are suffering now because of the high barriers to trade which the Prime Minister has erected around this country and which have cut off our trade with the other countries of the world. That is the reason why our farmers have no money. They cannot sell their products because their customers have lost their purchasing power.
My third question was:
What is the proper remedy to be applied to such a situation?
I might ask that question in a different way. I might ask: What remedy has been applied by this government to that situation? The answer is very simple. It is that the government has not applied a single remedy to that situation that has not made the situation worse, because every time the government's remedy was to raise the tariff and thereby cut off our trade with the other countries of the world. The government were probably acting in good faith when they entered into the empire agreements, but they forgot that purely British trade is only nine one-hundredths of the total world trade, and

they were sacrificing ninety-one one-hundredths of our opportunities for world trade in order to secure nine one-hundredths with Great Britain and the empire. The bluebooks published by the Department of National Revenue show that our trade, not only with England but with the other dominions, has decreased. The representatives of those dominions came to Ottawa to sign these pacts and agreements. We heard a lot of drumbeating and it was very noisy at the Chateau Laurier when Mr. Baldwin was asked to stay one day longer to sign these agreements. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) had shed tears and said that he would not like to see him go away like that without giving him a scrap of paper of some kind. Mr. Baldwin and the other delegates put their names to these agreements which have proved to be so futile and against the best interests of this country. If we had got all of the British trade and Australia and New Zealand had got nothing, the Prime Minister might be able to boast about his accomplishments, but the trade of Australia and New Zealand with Great Britain is much better than ours while we have lost our trade with the United States and other foreign countries. This is the result of the whole thing.
'I do not believe in expedients; I believe in a sane and sound policy. As the policy of this government is insane and unsound I am strongly against it. I am also strongly against the expedients they have brought to us. This marketing bill is just an anaesthetic to make the farmers sleep during the next election. This is absurd legislation; it is soviet legislation which has the support of hon. gentlemen in the far corner. The ministers of Quebec gave the cold shoulder to those hon. gentlemen last summer, and they blame the Liberals. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have taken over some of the principles of the Liberal party, but we cannot complain as we have no copyright. However, they have given them a wrong interpretation. We have nothing in common with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Liberals have nothing in common with socialism.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay):: I wonder if the hon. member is having a spasm of insanity?


Jean-François Pouliot: Get up and I will answer you. I hear the hon. member for Chateau-guay-Huntingdon (Mr. Moore) speaking. I am sure that he does not know that our trade with England and with the other British countries has decreased since the last imperial conference. If he does not know that, he

Marketing Act-Mr. Motherwell
should look up the bluebooks and get instruction on these questions. He has never spoken so he must have time to read. He should get familiar with these things so that he can give information to his electors. If he gives them full information, then there is only one thing he can do. The next time he meets the electors of Chateauguay he will have to say to them: My dear electors, I have tried to be faithful to you during the four years I have been a member in Ottawa, but I have learned nothing, I hope that I shall never represent you in Ottawa and that you will have a better man to represent you in the House of Commons when you elect a Liberal.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, I feel almost like apologizing for continuing the debate on this somewhat threadbare although important subject. However, there were a number of loose threads left lying around yesterday and I want to tidy up before I cast a vote either on the amendment or the main motion. I listened to the stirring appeal of my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), an appeal which would move a heart of stone. Apparently my own heart has turned to stone because I did not feel any palpitating response to that appeal except admiration. Then I brightened up with the thought that perhaps my judgment is yet ruling instead of my sympathies.
I am not going to go into this matter very fully as there are a number of hon. members yet to speak, but I think I should state at this stage that all day yesterday and far into the night I sought every available means of information which would justify my voting with my leader on this amendment, but I found it not.
I was brought up in a school of polities in the west which taught me that a vote like this meant a vote to kill the government. While that might be very desirable if it could be done, I am afraid that a vote to kill the government would be a vote to kill the bill. I may have been brought up in the wrong school of politics and that may not be the right interpretation which should be put upon such a vote, but I am going to take no chances because I do not want to kill the bill. Therefore, I am going to do just what I intended to do on the amendment to the motion for second reading had it not been declared out of order; I am not going to vote at all, I am going to exercise my right to refrain from voting on the amendment but I am going to vote for the third reading of this bill. I can do nothing else.
I should have liked to have seen a few more of the blemishes taken out of it, but can one get a perfect bill even on and by his own side? I have had to put through bills which were badly mutilated in the process, but I have been glad to have them put through at all. If I could not get my bills the way I wanted them on my own side of the house and when I was sponsoring them, how can I expect to have a bill according to my conception of things when my opponents are sponsoring the bills?
I did not deal yesterday with the methods of reformers. This is a reform bill and the foundations of it are Liberal. We in turn built upon the foundations of my predecessor, the Hon. Doctor Tolmie. He just nibbled at grading and standardization, but he started the thing and I give him credit for laying some of the foundation. He worked hard at the embargo on cattle and had just started on the hog regulations, but we the Liberal government put them into effect. We went on with the standardization until the time we went out of office. We had practically every exportable article standardized and ready for the next government when through the will of the people and by the turn of political fortune hon. meiribers opposite came into power. They started where we left off. We started on Doctor Tolmie's tiny bit of foundation while hon. friends opposite started on the complete Liberal foundation of standardization. And now this government is building up the superstructure in the form of a marketing act.
I went all over this yesterday and the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) must have been out of the chamber or he would not have made the astonishing remarks he did in connection with this matter. However, that is my point of view. I am always in too much of a hurry when I am dealing with my hon. friend and I generally let him off. But the clock is going; we will have to break into another day and possibly I shall be able to pay a little attention to him to-morrow.
What is the right way to seek and promote reforms? This reform has been erected on the foundations we laid as Liberals and we should give it a boost forward. That is the way we make progress in this world. For fear that I might be getting mulish and stubborn in this matter, I looked up the history written by Trevelyan, the historian. Anyone who has read Trevelyan is delighted with the style of his writing and the accuracy of his information. I will not quote from him to-night; I merely refer to him as my authority. During the time of Peel and Disraeli,

Marketing Act-Mr. Motherwell
Lord John Russell and Cobden and Bright, in all those wonderful days of reform, reform did not all come from one side of the house; for we see men like Peel, a Tory of the Tories, swinging towards the reform bills and free trade, and later on Disraeli, who had hammered the life out of Peel for swinging first on free trade, finally swung himself. What did Bright and Cobden do? They welcomed every advance from, every source, consolidated it and then pressed on until the final consummation was attained.
I would not for a moment mention these names at all except to show that the very highest among the reformers took that stand, and I, a humble member of this house, cannot be very far wrong if I follow the same course-here a little and there a little. It will be our privilege to come into power in time, because no government remains in power forever, and then we can possibly in some capacity make such further reforms as may be necessary to make a complete Liberal bill of it. In the meantime, do members of this government think they will be there long enough to do very much harm, even if there are some bad Tory features in the bill? Now that is the practical way in which I look at it. There are many parts of this bill which I do not like, just as there were lesser parts in my own bills that I did not like when we were in power; I abominate some of these in this bill just as strongly as my right hon. leader does. But you have to have two sides. The Tory side has been Tory and the Liberal side has been Liberal for hundreds of years and no doubt will continue so. Of course, we have an additional side over here, if you call it a full side; it is a party anyhow, and even if there were only two there it would be an important party were the house evenly balanced, as it has been sometimes and was in 1925-26.
I am persuaded that the right way to bring about reforms is to take them when you get them, and from whatever source they come and then press on to higher heights. Hang on to them until the next opportunity presents itself, and then seize the next and press on again. And I have given you my authority in the past, Cobden and Bright, for that attitude. I think I am absolutely on solid ground when I take that attitude, and I take it with a great deal of regret because I feel it leaves a quite unnecessary seeming difference between myself and other members of my party, including my right hon. leader. 
But I think we make too much fuss altogether over this. Looking to the same source of authority, I find that all through the years the only thing that made the party system workable at all was the fact that always there was one here and there who would stand out and say, "I cannot follow that party any further in that direction." If every body were tied up to his party, which he loved best, and had reason to love best, and had a right to love best, tied up irrevocably for all time and eternity, would not that be a system of tyranny? Would not that be a system you could not entertain for a moment? The very salvation of the party system is the fact that there is sufficient independence within each party for men to stand out for -their own convictions when circumstances seem to warrant, and that is why I am a party man. And I take pride in being a party man, but not of the irrevocable kind that altereth not on any occasion, especially when we are in opposition. Surely when we have the liberty of being to some extent free lances we can exercise it for a while. I have been twenty-one years in government, twenty-one long years swallowing sufficient sometimes to take down an ox. My larynx extended so that I could swallow almost anything. Why not give that distended organ an opportunity to relax a little, when we are in opposition, and assume its normal tone?-because, peradventure, we shall come into power some day and then the swallowing will again be resumed for some. I do not know whether my electors want me back here again or not; but that is another matter.
I am growing with the years-


Mr. MANION:: This will probably elect you.


William Richard Motherwell: -and I may not even be back here. As I say, that will depend on the electors. I might be on the other side of Jordan, though I don't feel a blamed bit like it; make no mistake about that. But I was nearly there once in 1929, and I always feel, with further years, that that great adventure of the beyond is getting nearer and nearer, and this may be my last chance to promote the cause of cooperative marketing. Little as I have done, I have done my best; and my best in this instance would be not to allow this chance to slip and not to turn my fellow farmers back home empty-handed. Whatever I may do I will not do

Questions
that, though it were my last vote in this world.
With these few observations, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you allow me to call it six o'clock and I will adjourn the debate.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


William Richard Motherwell: I am appealing to Mr. Speaker, but I can keep on the other two or three minutes.


Robert James Manion: Six o'clock.


William Richard Motherwell: I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 7, 1934