1934-05-16

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the special committee on the Civil Service.-Mr. Lawson.
First report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Harris.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to transmit to the house the following message from the deputy assistant secretary of the Governor General:
Ottawa, May 16, 1934.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the right hon. Sir Lyman P. Duff, chief justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 5 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira,
Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. EULER:: 1.	Has the radio commission leased station CKLW at Windsor, Ontario?
2.	If so, what are the terms of the lease as to time and rental payable?
3.	How much time daily will be allotted to the radio commission on this station?
4.	Has the radio commission issued, or does it intend to issue, an additional licence in the border cities to the owners of CKLW?
5.	If so, why is such additional licence issued?

6.	Will Columbia chain programs be broadcast over this new station, and does the commission receive any fee for the privilege, and for what amount?
7.	Who are the owners of CKLW, and of the new station which is to be established, and what is the proportion of stock owned by each, including the Columbia broadcasting chain's share, if any?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The following information has been furnished by the Canadian radio broadcasting commission:
1.	No arrangements have been made between the Canadian radio broadcasting commission and station CKLW.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	No additional licence in the border cities, to the owners of CKLW, has been recommended by the commission.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Verbal answer already given.
7.	No information.


lATJZON SHIPYARDS-TANKER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAiIN:
1.	Did' the government have a tanker constructed at the Lauzon shipyards?
2.	If so, what was the cost of such tanker?
3.	When was such tanker christened?
4.	By whom?
5.	What name was given to such tanker?
Mr. CAHAN:: I have inquired of each and every department of the government that might have knowledge sufficient to answer this question, and I am informed that no department has any knowledge of the construction of a tanker at the Lauzon shipyards.


DUNDURN, SASK., RELIEF CAMP SUPPLIES
Mr. TOTZKE:: 1.	In the calling of tenders for supplies for the unemployment relief camp at Dundurn, Saskatchewan, is it the practice to advertise publicly for tenders or are there lists of firms or individuals who are invited to tender?
2.	If there are lists of firms or individuals who are asked to tender, who recommends the names of those who appear on the list, or how is the list compiled?
3.	Is the submission of tenders confined to those whose names appear on the list?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	Firms and individuals are invited to tender.
2.	No recommendations from particular individuals are required. Any responsible individual or firm may be asked to tender.
3.	No.

Question as Order for Return


TARIFF ON DENTAL SUPPLIES
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the government received any request from the Canadian Dental Association or any other dental association in Canada in order to change certain items of the tariff affecting them since the Empire agreements came into force?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the said requests?
3.	When and by whom were they made?
4.	Has the government considered same?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


LES EBOULEMENTS, QUE., DISMISSAL OF LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the Department of Marine aware that Mr. Charles Tremblay (Georges), lighthouse keeper at the wharf of Les Eboulements, in the county of Charlevoix, has been dismissed by telegram?
2.	Were any complaints lodged against Mr. Charles Tremblay (Georges) ?
3.	If so, what was the nature of such complaints?
4.	Who lodged such complaints?
5.	Who recommended Mr. Hector Tremblay to replace Mr. Charles Tremblay (Georges) ?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	The agent of the Department of Marine at Quebec was instructed by letter 12th April, 1934, to notify Mr. Charles Tremblay that his services as lightkeeper would not be required this year.
2.	Yes.
3.	Partisan discussion of politics.
4.	Mr. C. N. Dorion, M.P.
5.	Mr. C. N. Dorion, M.P.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What was the amount of grain by variety and grade received into No. 2 elevator at Vancouver for the period, September 30, 1933, to February 15, 1934?
2.	What was the amount of grain by variety and grade shipped out of' No. 2 elevator at Vancouver during the same period?
3.	What was the total quantity of screenings taken from the said grain during the same period: (a) regular screenings; (b) recleaned screenings; (c) refuse screenings?
4.	To whom and at what price were these screenings sold?
5.	What is the quantity of grain by variety and grade at present in No. 2 elevator?


FARM INDEBTEDNESS
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to facilitate compromises and arrangements between farmers and their creditors, to provide for the appointment of official receivers, and for the establishment of provincial boards of review and their remuneration.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act (R.S.C., c. 66) to facilitate and increase the extension of credit to farmers, to authorize the Minister of Finance to purchase additional bonds issued by the board, and guaranteed by the government, and to provide for supplementary advances by the board.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the franchise of electors at elections of members of the House of Commons, and to provide for the appointment, salaries, fees and expenses of a dominion franchise commissioner, secretary, registrars, enumerators, and other employees, and to make provision for the printing of voters lists and other documents.
Public Works Program
[Stage Direction]
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the expenditure of certain sums of money for the construction of and repairs to public works and for dredging and improving harbours and rivers throughout Canada.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Mr. POULIOT:: On this motion-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion is not debatable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Before
the orders of the day are called I should like to direct two questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). Reports of the bureau of statistics for January and February, 1934, show that Canada is exporting fine nickel to the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands at prices approximating fifty cents per pound. The same reports indicate that during the same period Canada was exporting fine nickel to the United States at approximately twenty-five cents per pound. My questions are these:	First, why is fine nickel being exported to the United States at approximately half the price at which it is being sold to other countries? Second, how does the wholesale price of nickel in the United States compare with the wholesale price in Great Britain.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I would ask the hon. member to let this stand as notice of the question.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 9, consideration in committee of Bill No. 51,

to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith-Mr. Weir (Melfort)-Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
On section 1-short title.
Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to ask the
minister if he can give me some explanation with regard to the decrease in the consumption of apples, honey, eggs, fresh beef, concentrated milk, cheese, potatoes, wheat, oats, barley and wheat flour, as compared with the previous year. I take the liberty of asking this question 'because on May 8 the minister said that an answer would be given me in this connection.


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 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.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the minister be kind enough to tell me if it will be completed before the bill is reported by the committee?


Robert Weir: I believe it will be
completed this week.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: With
regard to the various provincial enactments that were filed by the minister last Friday, I think, I should like to ask whether the Department of Justice has examined these enactments from the point of view of their being sufficient to implement, so far as the purposes of the government are concerned, the specific terms of the legislation we are now considering.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Speaking generally we
have gone over them, but they are provincial enactments. We did not draw them, but we consider that they are fairly adequate for the purpose.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: From a
cursory examination of the enactments it strikes me that there is a tremendous disparity between the different measures. The bill passed in New Brunswick, for example, is very different from that passed in British Columbia. I am wondering if the Department of Justice has satisfied itself as to the

Marketing Act
sufficiency of these various enactments with regard to their conferring ancillary power under this legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: No doubt there is a
great deal of discrepancy between the various provincial bills, but we have no right whatever to interfere. Believing that these measures express the views of the various provinces as to the nature of the cooperation they desire, we think the schemes under them in connection with the dominion bill now before us will be workable.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In all
cases?


Hugh Guthrie: In all cases that we have seen as yet.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I should like to ask
one or two questions at this point. Last Friday, referring to the milling industry, the minister told the committee that if sixty per cent of that industry in the province of Ontario desired to come under this proposed legislation the remaining forty per cent could be compelled to come under it as well. I should like to ask the minister as to the basis upon which the percentage will be decided. I assume the capacity of the mills will have to be considered. Some flour mills have a capacity of three hundred barrels a day, and that runs up to five hundred and one thousand in other mills. Then when you take the big milling companies such as the Lake of the Woods, the Ogilvie company and others, they have a still larger capacity. On what basis will that percentage be decided? Will it be on the basis of capacity?
While I am on my feet I should like to ask another question, this time in regard to the produce sold on the markets of the larger towns and cities in the province of Ontario. Will the local board have the right to say whether the farmers can bring to the markets certain products such as chickens, eggs, butter and so on, and will the board have power to say that a farmer may come in to-day but that he may not come in next week, just because they say he cannot? I should like some information from the minister in that regard.


Robert Weir: My hon. friend's
questions are alike in this respect, that each matter will have to be dealt with on its own merits on the basis of the scheme submitted by the producers themselves. If they submit a certain scheme which is approved
by the provincial government then it will be a matter for the jurisdiction of that government.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to ask
the minister if the local board will have full jurisdiction in regard to the marketing of produce on the local markets. Will the local board have the right to say whether certain products should be marketed on a certain day?


Robert Weir: That depends entirely on the scheme put forward by the producers and the powers conferred on the local board by the province.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then going back to
the milling industry, from the answers given by the minister on Friday last I take it that the milling industry would be under the jurisdiction of three boards, the dominion board, the provincial board and the local board.


Robert Weir: I did not intend to leave the impression that such an industry would be under three boards. It depends entirely on the plan or policy they suggest. It might be provincial or interprovincial, or it might deal only with exports.


Frederick George Sanderson: That answer is all
right as far as it goes, but it is still vague to me. I should like to know how these boards are to be appointed. Coming first to the local board, who appoints that board?


Robert Weir: That is provided for in one of the clauses of the act. It depends upon the way in which the scheme is submitted. The business of the appointment of the board is so closely related to the scheme submitted by the producers that one could not state definitely in each case how a board would be appointed. In a general way I would say the answer would be this, that when the producers submit their scheme they have to state in that scheme how they wish the board to be appointed. It might be an election by the producers themselves. It might be that the board they would like to have set up would consist of a majority of producers, but also a certain number of people in the trade and, in connection with apples, shippers. Also they may ask for representation from a consumer body, or by one member of the government. But it depends entirely upon the plan they have evolved and wish to put into effect.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am not very much enlightened. Perhaps I did not put my
Marketing Act

question in a way capable of being understood by the minister. In order to make myself as clear as possible may I ask this question: Will the dominion board have control over the provincial board and the local board, or will the dominion board have control of the provincial board and the provincial board have control of the local board?


Robert Weir: It depends entirely on what scheme is suggested. A local board may be set up to deal purely with the matter of marketing, or the regulation of marketing within the province. That might be under the provincial government. The dominion board may, under certain conditions, use and name a provincial board to carry out the plan submitted for interprovincial and export trade, while for trade within the province the regulation might be under the jurisdiction of the province. My answer may not be as definite as the hon. member would wish-


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry to say it is not very definite.


Robert Weir: What I am trying to explain to the hon. member is that no person can decide until the case is placed before him. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry to say the minister's explanation is not very clear to me, although it may be clear to some other hon. members in the committee. Let me take the milling industry as an example. In connection with that industry there are three classes of customers, if I may so describe them. The industry has its local trade dealing in flour, it has customers in other provinces and it has a large export trade. Will the milling industry be under the control of three boards, namely, the local board, the provincial board and the dominion board? May I point out that in the flour industry orders are usually received by cable. The dealers cable price quotations, acceptances or non-acceptances. In the event of an acceptance of a shipment of flour to be sent to Great Britain, or to any other point outside of Canada, will the millers first have to consult the local board, the provincial board or the dominion board before they may close the order?


Mr. CANTLEY:: Or the celestial board?


Robert Weir: It depends on what plan they submit. They may submit a plan to regulate milling in connection with export trade, only. That would be under a local

board, set up with the approval of the dominion board by the milling industry itself. If the proposition were one affecting only marketing within the province it could be under provincial jurisdiction.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well then, will the provincial governments appoint the local boards?


Robert Weir: It depends on the
scheme submitted. In submitting the scheme they have to state how they wish the board selected, whether by election from their own people, the people submitting the proposition, or anly partially from those people to act along with other representatives to be selected by the province-if it is purely a provincial matter-or by the dominion if it is a matter of export.


Frederick George Sanderson: I shall put another
question to the minister concerning the jurisdiction of local boards. Let us consider the local butchers who buy their supply from nearby farmers. Will they have to obtain permission from a local board before they may buy beef on the hoof for killing purposes, and to offer for sale in a local butcher shop?


Robert Weir: That depends entirely under what scheme they may be working, and the scheme submitted.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well then, would the minister go just a little farther. Surely he can tell the committee a little more about the scheme, and the whole process. So far as I am concerned-and it may be my own fault-for the life of me I cannot obtain enlightenment in this matter.


Robert Weir: I am afraid the hon. member has not yet grasped what the bill in this particular, means.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Nobody else has.


Robert Weir: The bill sets out that the producers or the people interested in the formation of a local board to regulate the marketing of their products will submit a scheme which they think will work out in their own best interests, and towards the better regulation of that product. They submit a scheme, but no person now knows what the scheme may be.


Frederick George Sanderson: Not even the minister.


Robert Weir: No, not even the minister.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: So we are voting on something we do not know anything about-

Marketing Act


Robert Weir: No, we are not voting on something we do not know about. We are voting on something that I have endeavoured to make clear over and over again, namely that the producers themselves, by organization in so far as they may indicate should be given authority over the control and regulation of their own products. Under different circumstances different producers will submit different schemes. Those schemes will be laid before the dominion board, investigated and then laid before the governor in council or the lieutenant governor in council. But such scheme can operate only in so far as authority is given by this legislation.


Frederick George Sanderson: From the last answer the minister has given I take it that the dominion board will have jurisdiction and control over the provincial and local boards.


Robert Weir: No, not necessarily. For instance, the Fraser river valley milk producers may want to submit a scheme for the marketing of their products within the province of British Columbia. That need not necessarily be referred to the dominion board or the dominion government.


Frederick George Sanderson: One more question in regard to local creameries. Before a local creamery may make a sale of butter or cheese will it have to obtain the consent of the local and provincial boards?


Robert Weir: It depends entirely on what system they may want to follow.


Frederick George Sanderson: How many systems will there be?


Robert Weir: It depends on the producers themselves. The producers in each locality, each province or, as in the case of live stock, in the dominion, would submit what they think would be the best way to regulate the marketing of their own products.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well then someone has to work out those schemes.


Robert Weir: Yes, certainly; the producers submit their own schemes.


Frederick George Sanderson: And obtain the consent of the provincial and dominion boards.


Robert Weir: If they wish to operate only under provincial jurisdiction, yes.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I should like to ask a question pertaining to the appointments of these boards. Must the boards, either local or provincial, appointed to any scheme meet the point of view of the minister? I know the dominion board would.


Robert Weir: Not necessarily, so far as personnel is concerned. For instance, a body of producers would ask that a local board be elected to consist entirely of the producers, themselves. They elect their own board, and are responsible for the personnel of it. But the scheme must be approved by the minister, either provincial or federal, before the local board can be appointed and the scheme go into effect.


John Vallance: Suppose the producers submitting a scheme decide that they are going to have only producers on the board and that the minister disagrees. Has he the right to set aside such a decision and say that so far as the marketing of grain, for instance, is concerned, the trade must be represented? Suppose the producers do not want the trade represented on the board; has the minister then power to say to the producers that that is not right or fair, or to give them some reason why some other representative should sit on the board?


Robert Weir: That is all part of the scheme which has to be approved by the minister, but the hon. member I think will agree that if a body sufficiently representative of the producers and sufficiently representative also of the production submit a scheme that is approved, the personnel of the board would not be a major point of issue.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is there any safeguard there for the consumers?


Robert Weir: I would say that there are three safeguards: first, that the scheme has to be approved by the minister and by the governor in council; second, that there is no price fixing but a regulating of the rate at which the stuff goes on to the market; third, there is part II of the act which gives power to control undue charges.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The consumer
would not be represented on any of the boards contemplated?


Robert Weir: That depends entirely on the scheme submitted by the producers. In the first draft of the bill we had a provision for representation of producers, the trade, and consumers on the local board. It is a matter for the producers submitting the scheme to designate whether or not they wish consumers represented on the board, but I think producers have reached the stage where they fully realize that the good will of the public is essential in the marketing and regulating of their products. Personally I would say that the consumers would be more protected under this act than they are at present.
3098	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Moore (Ontario)


Mr. MOORE:: (Ontario): Speaking on May 8, the minister stated:
I am answering the statement which the hon. member for Ontario made decrying very strenuously the principle of compulsory cooperation. I could give numerous similar examples throughout the dominion where members of a community bind themselves together because the majority feel that it would be of advantage to have compulsory cooperation. For instance, I might cite the building of roads.
Then later on the minister, referring to the member for Ontario, says:
If we follow the argument advanced by the hon. member for Ontario, I suppose he would advocate that each farmer in a community should make his own trail and build his own road to town so that he might thereby retain his own individuality and initiative.
Now, Mr. Chairman, so far as the farmers of my county are concerned, the county which I represent with an honoured colleague on the other side of the house, that is precisely what many of the producers of my county do. They and their fathers have built trails, out of many years of hard work and honest service-trails to their own markets. I want to know from the minister if the vote of any group of men is to destroy what they have done. They have sold, and still sell direct to the consumers. Many of them sell to the merchants. Is it possible that we are passing legislation to enable any body of producers to wipe out what they have built? May I go a little bit further?
The producers of my county are business men. I think my colleague who sits on the other side of the house will say that some of them are very able business men. Are they to be deprived of the privilege of conducting their own business? Many of them have sold their products under farm names, and those farm names stand for quality of goods, for integrity of service. Many of them have registered brand names. Are those brands to be wiped out by the vote of other producers? To me the matter seems almost incomprehensible.
The minister has taken the parallel of the road. Are these producers to be forced, blindfolded, down the common road? The other day in this house the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to the wiping out of the services rendered by the captains of industry through the operation of finance, through the working of mergers. He said that we had lost the direction of five hundred men who knew industry and had been accustomed to direct it. I agree with the minister that was a very serious loss. But under this bill are we to wipe out the initiative of hundreds of thousands of farmers and central-

ize it in the hands and under the direction of any group of marketing boards?
In my county there are some people who will agree with the minister as to the road argument. It is a very old one. They say: the common road; then they go on and say: the common vehicle. We call them communists-the common vehicle to market. There are some men who have no horses. There are some men who carry their produce to town by carts, and others who carry it by truck. Is it proposed to have communism in our marketing vehicles? That principle has been advocated over and over again; it is now being advocated, but by men whom this government watches most carefully because they have believed and we have believed they are trying to upturn the economic life of this country.
I want to go just a little bit further. I was surprised that the minister made this statement in the paragraph which I have quoted. He said:
I think the whole principle of our democratic institutions is that the majority be given power to effect what they think is in the best interest of the community.
I want to know how far that is to go. Are we to decide these things by referendum? Are we to decide by referendum that this man may lose his trade mark, and just because he is a farmer leave it to the vote of other producers, while still preserving the trade mark of big industry? Are we to do it by elections and, if so, how are the elections to be conducted? Are we to have no say as to who is to have the franchise? I was very much surprised at the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), that we were turning over blindly, without any restriction as to franchise, the power to vote. I should like to back up what was said by the hon. member for South Perth. There are some very large poultry plants in my riding, some of them containing several thousand birds. There are men in my riding who have many, many thousands of dollars invested in farms. Are they to have just the same vote as a man who has only twenty or thirty hens and with whom poultry is simply a side issue? It may be said that this is a democratic principle and we ought to think of humanity. Shall this vote be based on the labour employed? There are men farming in my riding who employ thirty or forty men and women; are they to have just one vote, the same as the man who employs no labour? Perhaps it is unfair to ask the minister to answer right here, but it is just as unfair to pass this bill without an answer.

Marketing Act-Mr. Moore (Ontario)
The minister says:
If the principle works out in practice as it does, I feel that compulsory cooperation in that form has been acknowledged as a very valuable and necessary instrument for the furtherance of our present day civilization.
I felt very despondent when I read those words. I had taken the trouble to show *the minister where failure after failure had occurred throughout the world, and still he says that the principle works. I should like to know upon what grounds the miinster bases that statement. On May 4 the minister referred to Queensland as a state in which this principle had worked, and he gave a list of about fourteen agricultural commodities in connection with which it works. He then said:
But the suggestion that these cooperative methods have failed and been discarded for new methods is certainly refuted by experience and by the evidence given here.
I do not want the minister to feel that I am opposing this bill in any narrow party sense. The minister is a man of training and is at the head of a very responsible department. I should like him to go over the list he gave me and note the omissions. Wool is not mentioned, 'beef is not mentioned, nor is mutton. It begins with arrowroot, then there is Atherton maize, barley, broom millet and so on. Just by accident I happened to run across the figures for the production of wheat in Queensland in 1929-30. These figures show that they produced less than 3,000,000 bushels in that year. The list includes peanuts.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Henry Moore: My hon. friend
should not laugh because the peanut industry is a very important one. I should like to show the minister how it has worked out in this industry in Queensland. A duty was placed against peanuts and the consumers were very much offended. They went to the tariff board and asked for repeal of the duties. They said they did1 not like the Queensland peanut; they wanted the big jumbo peanut. The Queenslander produces a little red peanut, but when the hon. member for Toronto East Centre (Mr. Matthews) and myself used to go to football games and hockey matches we always liked the big jumbo peanut. I should like the minister to note the reply made by the producers to this request, because it is the reply always made by producers working under this sort of legislation. They said to the tariff board: If you keep the duty on peanuts high enough and have it 74726-196
sufficiently prohibitive, the consumers will soon forget -there ever was such a thing as a -better peanut than those we produce. That is the way it works out.
I should like to give another illustration, but I do not intend to follow the minister through the list of commodities in which he stated this compulsory marketing legislation works out in Queensland. I should like to refer to dairy products because I know the minister is particularly interested. I should like him to have his department work up the record of Queensland in dairy products. The following figures show the gallons of milk produced per cow in Victoria and Queensland over a series of years, beginning with 1920:
Victoria	Queensland
gallons	gallons
1920-22	
341	2651923-25	
359	2441926-28	
406	2671929	
443	2771930	
470	309
Queensland has lagged behind the other Australian states in dairy production; Australia has lagged behind New Zealand and New Zealand has lagged behind Denmark. This is what happens under compulsory legislation. When you introduce socialistic measures you introduce inefficiency.
The minister has referred to the compulsory marketing of cotton, but I should like him to tell us how that works out in Queensland. Bounty act after bounty act was passed granting subsidies of from one and a half cents to three cents per pound, but the cotton has been so inferior that the manufacturers have had to be paid to use it. That is the way it works out. The minister has submitted Queensland as an example of success in answer to the numerous failures which I cited. I stated the other day that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was one of my favourite publishers, but the minister is another one. The last issue of the Economic Annalist contains an editorial which refers to this legislation as a measure to afford relief from depression and as a means of stabilizing prices.
I wonder whether the minister would do me the honour to turn up and read a speech that was delivered by Mr. Bruce when the Dairy Produce Export Control Act was introduced in Australia, in which he referred in much the same terms as the minister has done, to the needs of the farmer and to the necessity for price stability. That was on September 17, 1924, nearly ten years ago. Have we had price stability as a result of ten years of operation of that act? I want

3100	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Moore (Ontario)
to insist that I am not opposing this bill on any narrow partisan grounds. Frankly, I believe the minister and the government have the best intentions in the world that this bill will help us out of depression, but the experience for Australia has been that similar legislation has prolonged the depression. Again I would like to give authorities and I quote now from Professor E. Ronald Walker, Professor of Economics in Sydney university. His book, which is entitled Australia in the World Depression, was published just this year, 1934; his word ought to be good; he refers specifically to this sort of legislation and this is what he says on page 80 of his work:
The "scattered agricultural producers" have attempted, in several cases, to remove some of their disabilities by joint action, both through cooperation to achieve "orderly marketing," and' through political pressure to obtain various forms of governmental assistance. The operation of such schemes has, since 1929, had unfavourable results. Price control has increased stocks and encouraged output, even during the period of falling prices, and protections and bounties have strengthened this tendency.
'I cannot imagine any stronger evidence that this bill cannot do what the minister or the farmers think it will in raising their prices and in restoring their prosperity. If it works out as similar legislation has done in Australia, it must make the depression even stronger. Continuing on page 83 of the same book, Professor Walker said:
Yet there are two obvious ways in which the suspension of borrowing has tended to reinforce the fall in agricultural prices. First, the latter had been sustained in some cases by pools financed more cheaply because overseas loans kept the local rate of interest down-
I wonder whether the minister will pay attention to this:
-and the collapse of the price-control schemes has been facilitated by the withdrawal of this credit.
That is not my statement; that is the statement of a professor of economics in Sydney university.


Robert Weir: Might I interrupt the hon. member just for a moment?


William Henry Moore: Certainly.


Robert Weir: I think the hon. member has not read what I put on record since he left. As to his quoting from Professor Walker, in the first place I think we are all pretty well agreed that the hon. member could quote from individual opinion after individual opinion in favour of individualism; we could quote expert opinion after expert

opinion in favour of cooperation and compulsory cooperation, but the basis in this case, for example, of Professor Walker's statement and deduction is on price fixing and there is no price fixing in this bill.


William Henry Moore: I doubt that very much. The statement was:
The "scattered agricultural producers" have attempted, in several cases, to remove some of their disabilities by joint action, both through cooperation to .achieve "orderly marketing," and through political pressure to obtain various forms of governmental assistance. The operation of such schemes has, since 1929, had unfavourable results.
That is a statement not in defence of individualism; it is a statement made by a professor of one of the leading universities of Australia writing in connection with Australia in the world depression. That man is not defending any principle. I will admit that I have defended and do defend individualism, but this man is a trained investigator, on the ground, seeking the causes of the depression in Australia and the way out of depression.
I doubt whether there is any need for panic. I am either right or wrong in thinking this bill, if made law, will bring about an economic revolution. It is very easy to shout "red;" it is very easy to make such statements as I have made, but will the minister tell me: What is the history of the bill? What is the history of legislation of this kind? He has made that very plain; he says:
Queensland was perhaps the pioneer state in this system of cooperative marketing.
What was the background in Queensland? The minister, who is a graduate of the university from which I graduated, is familiar with social questions. He will remember the name of William Lane, a man who conducted in Queensland an agitation and almost brought about a revolution for communism in the latter part of the last century, an eloquent, honest, misguided man. The minister will remember the uprising that followed in Queensland and the horrors which were perpetrated. He will remember that Lane carried a group of his followers to Paraguay and there founded a new Australia, and when the tide in Queensland subsided, it left this form of legislation. Founded on communism, Queensland was the pioneer state of socialism. Mr. A. St. Ledger, a senator in Queensland, writing on the subject of Australian Socialism, pointed that out very clearly. He said:
Socialism had its origin in Queensland. From Queensland it took its inspiration. The Worker was the press exponent of the spirit of that socialism.

Marketing Act-Mr. Moore (Ontario)
The Worker, by the way was the organ of Mr. Lane.
It undertook to explain to Australia what socialism meant, and what was its spirit.
That was the background of this legislation. How did it come about? It came about for this reason: the people decided that it was a government function to fix wages. Not marketing, mind you, not first. It was a government function to fix wages. The farmers in Australia had many employees. Having passed that legislation then the government was obliged to pass legislation fixing a wage fund. This government has the cart before the horse.
Now for the benefit of myhon. friends to my left and for the information of the minister may I say that Queensland was the pioneer cooperative commonwealth. I am not an authority; it may have had its genesis before this time, but in 1905 a labour convention met at Brisbane in Queensland. Mr. Reinhold, who was a member of the legislature, moved the following resolution:
That the objective of the labour movement is the establishment of a cooperative commonwealth by the furtherance in national, state, and municipal legislation of the following principles:-
(a)	In "politics," the principles of democracy. Complete self-government vested in the people, every adult standing on equality at the ballot box.
(b)	In economics, the principles of collectivism. The scientific organization of labour; the equitable distribution of the product of labour by the nation, state, and municipality owning and cooperating, in .the interests of all its citizens, the monopolies and large industries of the community.
That is the background of this sort of legislation. That is the birthplace. Well, there is another remarkable parallel. We have here a union of forces back of this bill. You will find the parallel in Queensland. May I again quote from Senator St. Ledger, and I think this under the circumstances is a remarkable quotation:
The public-except in	Queensland-were
deluded' into believing that socialism was not then at any rate the real issue. The antisocialists were divided on fiscal questions. The parties were returned again to parliament, each with its former numerical ineffectiveness. The high tariffists bid for socialism.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: History repeats itself.


William Henry Moore: The socialists exacted the promise of "the new protection." In this way they won the first large instalment of the machinery necessary to begin to lay the foundations of the nationalization of all industries.
74726-196^
I do not want to speak at length. The minister and some of the other hon. members on the other side of the house have referred to my abhorrence of coercion, and they have intimated that I believe in laissez-faire. Well, I do to a certain extent.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Only to a certain extent?


William Henry Moore: But when have we ever had laissez-faire? How do we know whether it will work or whether it will not? For years under all governments we have had farmers coerced-coerced, you can say, in grading; coerced in marketing. Hon. members on the other side of the house pointed out all the coercion we had had. Well, we have depression now, and we have had these coercions for years. Surely there is a difference in the object of coercion. I can see where a man should be coerced to the extent of being prevented from selling bad eggs, but it is a different thing from coercing him from selling eggs at all. I can see where I should be coerced not to take another man's property, but it is a different thing when I am coerced in the use of my own property. I can see->and I want to make it very strong -why people should be coerced into refraining from monopolies, but I do not see why a man should be coerced in the matter of the carrying the product of his own labour into the open market. These matters are, I suppose, of academic interest to us now in a way, but they are going to be very practical. I want the minister to remember that they have been very practical -for a very long time in Russia. There you had cooperation. We speak of compulsory cooperation. They are under no illusions as to what it means in Russia. A. E. Malakhoff was one of the apostles of cooperation in Russia. After the revolution he was driven out, and in an interview he gave in London he made a distinction which I would have the minister bear in mind. He said:
A noble aim requires also noble means. Cooperation cannot lean on bayonets,-
May I add, neither does it lean on the policeman's baton.
[DOT]-neither can it enforce its aim with the help of bayonets. It must act as an economic, cultural and organizing force.
When you introduce coercion, cooperation ceases. Something that is lovely becomes unlovely. Then when you create these producing units and give them their respective jurisdictions, you are faced with the difficulty that they had to face, and I presume they
3102	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Moore (Ontario)
faced it honestly in Russia, when it was announced officially:
We could not authorize small separate organizations to carry out the forthcoming exchange of goods, on which depends the welfare of the whole nation. The exchange of goods must be carried out by the state.
That is a natural consequence. The nature of this legislation is known throughout the world. It is a half way house. The cry of "control," the cry of "planned industry," retaining private property is a cry that appears to please everyone. But it will not work. I am not going to give an elaborate argument but in conclusion I should like to show in just a few words why it will not work.
What is the object of private property? We all want to own something, a farm, a factory, for production. Under our present system why do we want to produce? To make a profit. And profits depend upon prices and costs and the spread between the two. Now the planner comes in, of the state, or someone else, and controls prices or costs. A few moments ago the minister said there was no intention to control prices. I believe that is correct, is it not?


Robert Weir: No price fixing.


William Henry Moore: I wonder if I may just interrupt the thread of my argument to tell a story. Some little time ago on the train I met a friend of mine who is at the head of a very large monopoly. I charged him with being a monopolist, and I think I used the term "price fixer." He said, "We do not fix prices." I happen to know something about his organization, so I said, "I know you do not, but you do distribute territories." He replied, "Oh, yes, we distribute territories." I asked, "You parcel off the consumers?" to which he replied, "Yes." I asked, "What effect has that on prices?" "Oh," he said, "prices then fix themselves." When anyone intervenes in competition he does so with two results. Either there is no profit or there is profit. If there is profit his intervention is unnecessary. If there is no profit then eventually the producer becomes bankrupt. Then comes the cry for compensation, and in this bill you will find provision for compensation. That is general throughout the world in regard to these compulsory cooperative marketing boards. When you have compensation you must have taxation, and the higher grows the taxation on the farm or factory. Then the state takes possession. It takes a lag, and we may be deceived by the lag, but the inevitable end is state socialism.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rather thought we had discussed the principle of the bill on second reading, but if the discussion of the principle is to be carried on I think perhaps something should be said on the other side following what has been said by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). It is a decidedly interesting experience for me to hear the hon. member for Ontario denounce the Conservatives for having copied the Russian plan. It is rather worth living to find that queer twist in our political lineup.


Mr. GRAY:: That is just about as strange as seeing the hon. member support the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That may be, and for that reason I want to direct attention to the actual situation. In the past we have sometimes supported certain measures brought in by the Liberals, when we thought they were fighting for political liberty. It is curious that their idea of liberty has changed so that when we want some sort of liberty for people in the industrial field they cannot see that we are fighting for the same principle. The hon. gentleman who has just advanced these most extraordinary ideas is essentially an anarchist; I think probably he would admit that. The fact that he is a philosophical anarchist does not alter the case very much; essentially he does not believe in government. I do not know why he should have any place in the house or why he should bother about participating in public affairs.


William Henry Moore: May I protest, Mr. Chairman. I have just stated that I could see the difference between coercion in selling a bad egg and a good egg.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad the hon. member for Ontario has enough intelligence to admit that degree of compulsion, but I hope he will go a little further than that. Essentially he thinks that coercion is not compatible with any degree of cooperation. I cannot think that we should quite admit that. As a matter of fact all government is based more or less upon coercion. Sometimes the coercion takes the form of physical coercion, military coercion and so on; I suppose we must admit that. Some of us would like to see governments based upon some other principle, but in the past governments have been largely founded upon a large measure of coercion and, as my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) suggests, they have been sustained by coercion. I cannot think that if they

Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworth
consider this matter carefully most of the members of this house could subscribe to the anarchical expressions which have just fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Ontario. Whether or not we use physical coercion we do make use of some measure of coercion in almost every department of government.


Mr. ERNST:: I believe it was proposed in The Definite' National Purpose; we were to have compulsory retirement of individuals and dividends at sixty-five.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I believe so. Starting with the lowest unit in our government, that is the municipal government, we find coercion. We provide such ordinary municipal services as water works, sewers, fire protection, schools, police protection and so on. These all involve coercion because all the citizens of the town must pay taxes to secure these services and must do that whether they like it or not. In our ordinary municipal affairs there is no possibility of voting ourselves out of the community. I think I gave an illustration when this matter was under discussion on the second reading. I recall very well when it was proposed to establish a water works in my own city. A great many of the citizens did not like the idea because they had pumps in their back yards, but on the whole it was decided to introduce a water works system. We brought water from Shoal lake, a hundred miles away, which involved the expenditure of a large sum of money, and this meant that the ordinary citizen had to close up his pump and participate in the new scheme, for which he had to pay. That was a measure of coercion.
Someone else mentioned public schools, and undoubtedly we have compulsory education. It may be all very well to say that parents ought to be allowed to educate or not educate their children as they see fit, but we compel people to have their people educated. At the time Ryerson introduced the public school system in Ontario a great many people spoke precisely as the hon. member for Ontario has spoken this afternoon. They said it would be a horrible thing if bachelors and others should be forced to pay for the education of the children of other people, but we have gone ahead and forced bachelors and others to pay taxes to support the educational system. The same thing applies in connection with public health. If one of my family is taken ill with an infectious disease my house is quarantined immediately, though it is my private property. The public health officer comes and tells me what I have to do with my sick child. He may come along later and tell me that I must
burn the bedding; it is my bedding, but I have to burn it and I must disinfect the house in a certain way. There is coercion all along the line with regard to health services.


Mr. DUPUIS:: That is not coercion; it is education.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But if I do not obey I am haled before the courts.


Vincent Dupuis: You are likely to do it
anyway.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, you have to
do it; that is all coercion.


Vincent Dupuis: That is within liberty.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, these other
things are within liberty. We do not consider that we have curtailed liberty when we are all more or less compelled by our municipal regulations to do or not to do certain things. The same is true of our provincial affairs. I can recall, as a child, passing along roads which had been constructed, largely, by new settlers. When we had passed along a certain distance we had to stop at a toll gate and pay a toll. In fact, in the present provincial election campaign we are being reminded of that old practice; they are resurrecting the idea of the toll gate, but in a new sense. In those days because individuals had done service in building roads, they were allowed to charge tolls. To-day the provinces undertake to build roads over which anyone may travel, but we have to pay the taxes, and in that way we are forced to participate in the building of the roads. The same applies to other provincial services. The same is true in respect of matters which come under the jurisdiction of this house. We have built railroads across this country, and I think no one knows that any better than the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Who could stay out of schemes for railroad construction? The railways were given charters and enormous grants, and to-day the public is being forced to pay the interest on the enormous loans and grants then made. It is a question of coercion.
We give certain privileges in the form of tariffs-and again the hon. member for Ontario surely must recognize that no one can stay out of the tariff arrangements of this country. Whether we like it or not, private business must conform to the tariff policies laid down by the government in power. Again it is a question of coercion. As someone beside me suggests, we have to pay tariffs on our automobiles, and so on. We cannot get away from the system. The

Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworth
same is true in our elaborate system of public works of all kinds; everywhere there is more or less coercion. And when we come to war, we know that as individuals in the last war we were not allowed to say whether or not we would stay out of the war. The whole country was dragged into it, and that without even reference to parliament. In addition, individuals were not allowed to have their own lives exempted, because compulsory conscription was brought into operation. There was conscription, which undoubtedly meant coercion.
I believe we must recognize that throughout the length and breadth of our affairs we are more or less under coercive measures. It is quite true that certain minority rights are granted. In that way it is sought to protect the rights of minorities who do not agree, to the full extent, with what is being done. But, in a general way, and in regard to most matters, we are all forced to fall into line.
Now, what is the situation in which producers find themselves to-day? I go out to British Columbia and I find that in that province there are fruit growers who desire to make a living, who have invested their capital in properties and who through a number of years have planted trees and put work on them. Now they find they have a crop to market, but they also find that the market is so arranged that they cannot possibly sell their individual crops without having some sort of cooperative scheme. They have tried voluntary cooperation, but because of certain individuals who are anti-social in their outlook they have been prevented from carrying out their scheme of cooperation. Is it strange that they should come to parliament requesting that it be made possible for the majority to obtain their will? The fact is that the majority of citizens out there feel that they cannot carry on without some sort of coercive measures. It is merely an extension into a new sphere of the ordinary governmental arrangements which we now have.
I come to the wheat growers of the prairie provinces. We talk about the liberty of the individual. Let us consider the farmer who takes his grain to one of the great series of elevators extending across the prairies. He may be a thousand miles from Fort William, and four or five thousand miles from Liverpool. He cannot put his grain on his wagon, as he used to do, and drive to the local market. That is a situation which passed thirty or forty years ago. He has to take his load to the elevator and leave it there, taking whatever price he can get. If the elevator man does not want to take it in, the farmer takes it home, and that is all there is to it.


John Vallance: No, he does not. The
elevator man must take it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The farmer must
take it away.


John Vallance: He must take it to the elevator, if it is in storable condition.


James Shaver Woodsworth: He can take it to
the elevator; the only other possible procedure open to him is to take it back home.


John Vallance: He must take it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What possible freedom is there-


John Vallance: The elevator man must take it if it is in storable condition.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not saying
the elevator must take it.


John Vallance: But I am saying so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am afraid my
statement has been entirely misunderstood. My statement is that the individual farmer is helpless. He takes his grain to the elevator, and if there is room the elevator man will take it. But if the farmer is not satisfied with the price offered, or with any other condition, the only possible procedure open to him is to turn around and take his grain home again.


John Vallance: Will this bill change it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, this will
change it.


John Vallance: I should like you to
show me where it will do so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: For the moment I
am speaking about individual freedom now possessed. Anyone who knows the history of farming in the west-and the hon. member who has just spoken must know it-knows perfectly well how they have been trying through cooperative efforts to improve their situation. They have realized how difficult- impossible, in fact-it was for them to act as individuals, and to get what was coming to them: hence the formation of cooperatives. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that years ago a very large number of farmers in the prairie provinces realized it was impossible to carry out a purely voluntary scheme, and advocated a hundred per cent wheat pool. For the moment I am not discussing whether or not this bill is all that it should be, but I do say that the principle of coercion is one to which we are accustomed in other spheres.
Let me take, for example, the cattle business. I live in the city of Winnipeg and

Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworth
know some of the farmers in that district. They have told me about driving cattle to Winnipeg, or shipping them by truck or railway, and receiving only $5 or $10 for an animal which had cost $15 or $20 to raise. Under the circumstances what could they do other than accept the price offered by the cattle buyers? It is quite true that if they had driven the beast in they could have driven it home again, but their expenses would have been too high. Under present conditions the producer is almost helpless. A buyer came to see me last year and told me that he had attempted to secure poultry to ship to the British market. After receiving an order he made an effort to obtain a carload of poultry. He travelled from place to place, from farm to farm, finally from Winnipeg to Saskatoon, and after going through some rather shady transactions and splitting his order into three or four parts he managed to obtain a carload of poultry to send to the British market. Those were his difficulties, so strong was the monopoly, and so impossible was it for him to break the monopoly which existed at that time.
I do not think we need discuss the question of tobacco, which has been reviewed before the price spreads committee. I should like to know in view of the situation which has been found to exist in Ontario what possible freedom of action is possessed by the individual grower. The fact is that we are living under a set of conditions that make remarks such as those made by the hon. member for Ontario absolutely ridiculous, more than ridiculous, because he is talking of conditions that existed fifty years ago. His remarks do not apply to conditions as they exist to-day.
The same is true with regard to his suggestion about a man having a right to his own private property. I have said in this house before, and I should like to repeat, that it seems to me the time has come when we shall have to redefine what private property is. I take it from its derivation that private property should mean those things which I can use and enjoy for myself. It has to do essentially with personal matters. But the lawyers have stretched its meaning. They have created an artificial body which they have called a corporation, and they have endowed that corporation with nearly all the attributes of an individual. They have said that the corporation can hold private property. It is an altogether unwarrantable extension of the term, and so we have these great corporations and trusts to-day holding what they call "private property." The result is that it is an absolute impossibility for me to have any effective control over my
private property in the face of the strength which these big corporations exercise in the economic sphere.
We who have been accustomed to the straits in which the labour people find themselves have had this borne in upon us over and over again. In the old days a man had the opportunity to work with his own hands and sell the product of his labour, but unfortunately very few people have that opportunity to-day, for the vast number of people are working under the wages system. They are employees of someone else. They have not the right to sell the product of their own hands. The best they can do is to receive a wage, and somebody else takes the product off their hands and sells it for them, but actual producers having no voice in its sale and really having no right to say how much of what has been produced shall be kept by themselves. That is the situation that exists, and under these circumstances this idea that we axe losing something of our private initiative and sacrificing our private property is all nonsense.
The same is true of free trade. It was all very well a hundred years ago to have free trade when the indivdual was producing with his own equipment and in free competition with other individuals, but we know perfectly well to-day that we no longer produce as individuals. We produce in what is essentially forced cooperation in a great factory. I say forced cooperation because in order to earn a living a man must go into the factory where there may be one thousand or ten thousand employees all working together, cooperating if you like, but it is forced cooperation under the lash of economic necessity. Well, under those circumstances it is futile to talk about competition in the old sense or about free trade in the old sense. At best it is free competition only between big industries and free trade only between huge corporations. Superimposed upon that we must remember that we have arrangements existing with regard to prices, tariffs, gentlemen's agreements, and what not. Free trade under those circumstances becomes an almost meaningless term.
Competition is the life of trade-that is what we used to be taught and we wrote it in our copy books, if I remember right, but today Mr. Beatty of the Canadian Pacific Railway comes along and tells us that there must be some sort of unification of administration of our railroads, that competition means waste, and I think Mr. Beatty is right, that ultimately competition does mean waste. It is a question in each particular case to decide if

Marketing Act-Mr. Woodsworth
it is worth while to adopt a system that does mean waste. But when we have reduced our competition between the railways to competition between two systems only, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, and Mr. Beatty, a recognized authority, comes along and tells us that even that measure of competition is wrong and that we should have unification in order to eliminate waste and promote efficiency, then I say we may well ask whether we shall not have to reconstruct our ideas and bring our policies up to modern ways of conducting business.
The member for Ontario, as I said earlier, is essentially an anarchist in his thinking. He does not believe in the reign of law. He holds up the horrors of socialism. But what is socialism after all? It is simply the doctrine that the interests of society should be given precedence over the interests of predatory individuals. That is all. Surely we have reached that stage when the interests of the community at large or the interests of very large sections of the community ought to have the right of way over the selfish interests of comparatively small groups.


Mr. DIJPUIS:: Another camouflage for
democracy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Somebody suggests that that is incompatible with democracy.


Vincent Dupuis: I said that it is another camouflage for democracy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I take it that
democracy, according to its root meaning, means the rule of the people. We have had a certain amount, of the rule of the people when it comes to what we have termed purely political matters, freedom of speech, the right to vote, and so on, and I give all credit to the historic Liberal party for having won us a certain amount of constitutional freedom along that line. But there are other lines along which we have not yet attained democracy, the rule of the people. You go into any industry to-day, and industry managed by a great corporation, under a manager who is all-powerful, and will you tell me that there is any rule of the people in that industry? The rule of the people would mean that the employees are given some rights in that industry, that they have something to say about hours of labour, the wages they are paid, the profits gained, and have some share in the division of profits. That would be the rule of the people within that industry. But industry has remained outside of democracy. Industry to-day is an autocracy, and industry is suffering to-day because it is an autocracy.

It seems to me that in some way we shall have to introduce principles of democracy into industry.
The same thing is true of our commerce. This committee on price spreads is simply revealing in a public way what a good many of us knew before existed, that we had autocracy in our commerce, and that under the present conditions people were suffering. I do not think we can go back to the old idea that each tobacco producer, we will say, can himself see that his goods reach the final consumer. I think that is an impossibility. Under these circumstances we have to arrange *that the producers 'have some sort of protection, some sort of help in arranging their cooperative enterprises so as to gain the full results of their production and through the cutting out of the middle man be enabled to participate in the marketing of their products.


Mr. HANBURY:: What are you going to do with the middle men?


Edward Joseph Garland: Put them in the Senate, where some of them are.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As middle men I hope they will be eliminated.


Wilfred Hanbury: Are you going to have producers only?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. I would say that undoubtedly there is a function to be performed by the man who stands between the producer and the consumer. I would refer hon. gentlemen to the splendid work that has been done by the cooperative societies in Great Britain. They have recognized the necessity of cooperation over there, and they have employed managers to carry on their business in an efficient way. They have themselves engaged in production, setting decent minimum standards of living for those engaged in production. It is quite possible that they may show us the way to carry this out.
I am criticizing this bill because it does not safeguard the interests of the consumers. Theoretically I might approach this whole problem from the standpoint of the consumer rather than of the producer but I must deal with matters as they now stand. The producers axe in a very bad way and I think we are doing the logical thing by safeguarding their interests. It may be that ultimately we will have to approach this problem from the standpoint of the consumer rather than of the producer but in the meanwhile we axe providing for certain minimum standards which

Marketing Act-Mr. Mullins
the producer cannot obtain without some help from the state.
When I was interrupted a few minutes ago I was about to say that it seems to me that in the realm of finance we are still under an autocracy. I do not know of any better confirmation of this fact than the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) a few weeks ago when the central bank bill was under discussion. He said that if there was a difference of opinion or of policy between the government and the new central bank, the opinion and policy of the central bank would prevail over that of the Minister of Finance and the govenment. As I tried to point out at the time, that simply means that we are legalizing the autocracy which exists in the financial world. I take it that in the financial as well as the commercial 'world we shall have to introduce principles of real democracy. I think some of the principles which I have been trying to advocate show that I believe in democracy far more than the Liberals; that I believe in freedom far more than the Liberals, and I would urge upon them that the principles of Liberalism, the principles of freedom and the principles of democracy have to be worked out under twentieth century conditions and not under nineteenth century conditions. I give credit to the Conservatives that in this bill they are attempting to do more than the Liberals have done.


Mr. MULLINS:: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken up much of the time of the committee as I realize it costs $41 per minute to conduct the business of parliament, it is not my intention to take up very much time now. I have listened to the pros and cons of this discussion; I have listened to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore), but much as I would like to agree with him, I cannot. I realize the appalling situation facing agriculture in western Canada and I am prepared to support this bill if it will assist agriculture out of the morass and mess in which it is at the present time.
A lot has been said about cooperation. At one time I opposed cooperation more than any other hon. member, but later on I became converted. I mean cooperation without exploitation. It is not cooperation when a man exploits the public by getting a good position and obtaining his pound of flesh. I want the same kind of cooperation that we had in Glasgow. When the cooperative system was first proposed there, I opposed it most strongly. I refused to sell my cattle to the cooperative
but finally I found myself trading with them and I discovered it to be a really good system. The hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) knows the success which has been made with that system in Glasgow and I am sure he is familiar with the stores scattered all over the city.


John Vallance: But it is a voluntary system.


Henry Alfred Mullins: It is true cooperation. After I was defeated in 1926 I went to California. At that time I heard a great evangelist over the radio and this is what he said: Labour, you have a perfect right to be organized as long as the men at the head of your organization are not leading you to some place politically in order that they may obtain fat positions. Farmers, you have a perfect right to be organized, he said: I am one of you, but I think we are the biggest fools that ever went into organization. I had ten acres of walnuts near Los Angeles and every year my wife and I shook hands when we received $1,600 yearly for our walnuts. But a young man came around one day and wanted me to join a cooperative organization and since that time my wife and I have not shaken hands. I am now getting $400 per year for my walnuts while this young man draws $30,000 per year and he does not know walnuts from hickory nuts.
The same thing is what was wrong with western Canada. You had your Mr. Crerar, a gentleman who occupied a seat in this house. His company organized the farmers in the cattle business, but what was the result? The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) can tell the committee.


Mr. BROWN:: Yes, I can.


Henry Alfred Mullins: You can tell the results when you get up to speak. What was the result of organizing the farmers in the cattle business? They engaged incompetent men and could not carry on the marketing of their products. I am going to support the minister although I will admit that at first I was afraid of this bill. I did not like cooperation in Scotland when they brought it out, but I was converted. We are living in changed times. Last Sunday morning I listened to the minister of Yorkminster church in the city of Toronto. He said that in his time there would be no poverty, the change would come about by evolution and revolution. I spoke to him about using the word "revolution" but he said: I did not mean brickbats and rifles, I meant a revolution of the
Marketing Act-Mr. Mullins

heart. Things to-day are not the same as they were in the old days of fifty years ago, conditions have changed.
I can remember when I used to go into the field and ask a farmer what he wanted for his cattle. He wanted so much, I would make a bid and we arrived at a bargain. But some men have gone through the country to get the farmers to ship their products to the packer and let the packer set the price. The initiative has been taken away from the farmer. He now loads his cattle into a truck and they go to the packer's yard and the packer does the weighing, the grading and sets the price. All hon. members need to do is read the evidence given in the Stevens committee. I think the old system was the best. I admit that I liked it but I realize also that times have changed. While I am getting grey I think I have the right to measure up the situation as it is facing us to-day.
They say this is the young man's age, but I think the old days were the best. In the old days we had our pipes and were not spending $50,000,000 every year on cigarettes. We were not blowing up $50,000,000 a year in smoke. I think of the old family doctor and then I think of the specialist we have to-day who reaches into your pocket book and takes your last dollar before he operates on you. I think of the old storekeeper in my constituency of Marquette, which I am proud to represent, a purely agricultural constituency, not a single manufacture in it. I think of the little towns, smaller to-day than they were forty years ago, withering up through the new systems of buying and marketing. Those systems were wrong but I believe the system proposed will help the farmer particularly along two lines, and I want to mention them. Does the committee realize what is meant by the provision in the bill for the regulation of importation of products? I have not heard a word about this from the other side of the house. Why do hon. members opposite not speak of the way in which this measure will regulate the importation of products?
Do hon. members know that Canada is importing equal to 17,000 head of cattle from the Argentine? Do they know that there are being brought in all the old, decrepit cattle, all the rubbish of the Argentine ranges, in the way of canned meats that can be found on the shelves in our retail stores? I say: Heaven help the mothers of to-day who become can openers. I wonder whether in the ladies' college, when they were giving them their degree in domestic science, they presented them with gold-headed can openers. I think

of the old times when our mothers knew how to cook a roast of beef. I have in my hand a can of meat; I took the label off it; I did not intend to bring it into the house but I may say that I bought it in Ottawa. It represents part of the product of many thousands of cattle in the Argentine. I ask those who have used this canned meat: Do you know what it is composed of? It is made of the worst class of animals on the range. I dare not mention on the floor of the house some of the animals that are inside these cans of meat, yet some mothers will open them and use the contents. I would like to go further along this line but I say to the minister that if he will put into effect that part of the bill providing for the regulation of the importation of those meats and also vegetable oils that are coming into Canada millions will be saved to the farmers of the dominion as a result.
We are bringing in cottonseed oil, with the odour taken out of it by the Wesson process, letting it go into our packing plants and be sold to the people to replace lard. Every time you eat fried potatoes, just think you are eating cottonseed oil, the product of the southern states, deodorized by a system called the Wesson system. I have before me a list of the other products that are being imported and it is appalling.
I am in favour of real cooperation and I wonder why my hon. friends opposite are opposing it. They are trying to get political cooperation in the constituency of Marquette; they want the Liberals and Progressives to cooperate. Then why are they opposing this bill? I have before me the report of a meeting in my principal town, Minnedosa, and it says "Cooperation between the Progressives and the Liberals." I would say to my hon. friends opposite in an advisory way: Go out as good, honest Liberals and contest the seat. If my right hon. friend gets those Progressive Liberals tacked on to him and he comes into power at the next election, he has my sympathy; I will come here and sympathize with him because when he spoke at Kentville, Nova Scotia, at Moose Jaw, Calgary and all over western Canada, he did not want those people tacked on to him and yet in Minnedosa my hon. friends opposite want cooperation. I may say that I cut this clipping out of the Free Press yesterday. A gentleman by the name of Linden outlines the Liberal policy at Minnedosa, but I find my friend Mr. J. Allison Glenn, who used to occupy the seat before me, he is with him and says that there should be cooperation as Liberal Progressives. That is the cooperation

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
they are trying to put into effect in Marquette.
If this bill will go toward aiding agriculture I am willing to give it a trial. Why do my hon. friends opposite not do the same thing? If they knew the true situation on the prairies, of the struggling masses engaged in agriculture in the west, as I do, I am sure they would support legislation which is intended to help to bring back normal conditions in the west.
There are many evils we can remedy. I am opposed to the excessively high rates of interest that are being charged by the various corporations in the big cities who have exploited the poor farmer and kept him down. They have had their pound of flesh but today there is danger in sight for them. They are not going to get the same rates of interest as they charged before. Having said that much, I am not going to take up any more of the time of the committee as I do realize the amount of money that it costs to keep this house in session. I appeal to my Liberal friends-and I have many of them on the other side whom I respect very much-that they give some opportunity to the struggling masses. Never mind whether it comes from the far southeast corner of the house or not; it does not make any difference who is supporting it. At first, when I found that the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) was supporting this legislation, I was afraid there was something wrong with it, because he and I have been fighting political battles for the last forty years. I would like to take his hand and let us walk in together and say that we meet on common ground. I ask my hon. friends to give this bill a trial in the interests of the struggling masses of the west as stated.


Vincent Dupuis: Before the hon. member
for Marquette takes his seat, would he be kind enough to give us a list of the products imported from the Argentine and to inform us whether since the present government took office they are being imported under the present high tariff?


Henry Alfred Mullins: No, they have been coming in for many years. I took this question up in 1925 when my hon. friends opposite were in power. They were bringing this commodity in then to an even greater extent than they are now. I want this stopped in the interests of the farmer, tariff or no tariff. Why should we be accepting such low prices for our cattle on account of the importations
of such rubbish as this? This is put up by the Bovril people. First, the Bovril is taken out of it and then the pulp put in cans for the people of Canada to eat.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) spoke at some length of the necessity of compulsion and coercion in all matters of government. May I say that I agree with him that where you have government intervention you must have behind it the power to compel obedience, but in justifying intervention, and the compulsion by which it is enforced, everything depends upon the purpose to be served by compulsion, in other words the purpose of the intervention. The hon. member has cited a number of instances which, he says, illustrate what he has in mind. He has spoken of the community in which he lives, in which a waterworks system was installed. He says that the people did not like to part with their water pumps, but they had to fall in line and share in the general waterworks plan. He has spoken about education and he said that when the Compulsory school education system was introduced, a number of people did not like to send their children to school but that they had to fall in line and were subject to compulsion. With those illustrations he was on perfectly sound ground, but he forgot the reason why. He himself was in those circumstances supporting compulsion. The reason was that he was making the test the good of the community, the general good. He was requiring all classes or individuals to be subject to what was conceded to be for the good of the general community. If he and I are in agreement to that extent, I think probably I can now make clear wherein I differ from him. I personally am in favour of government regulation and government control, enforced by coercion and compulsion if you wish, where it is to assert the good of the community over the good of a class, to maintain the general interest as superior to any particular interest. That is sound ground and that is the basis, where state intervention and control has been regarded as necessary, on which the Liberal party has supported compulsion and coercion in matters of government. But what is desired here in the case of this marketing legislation as proposed is the very opposite of that. What is desired here is to assert the interest of a class, and make that interest superior to the interest of the community, to make the general interest subordinate to a particular interest. May I ask the minister this question, it will illustrate
The Royal Assent

I think what we on this side who are opposing this feature of the measure have in mind. What is the basis of all representation in this parliament? It is the basis of representation by population. The representation in this House of Commons is based upon population, the entire population in given communities. It is in virtue of that fact that we are given the right to legislate for the people as a whole. But the basis of representation with regard to what is proposed by way of regulation, in other words legislation, in this bill, is not representation by population, it is representation by occupation. That fact brings out the difference. Only those who belong to a particular occupation, in one instance one class of producers, and in another instance another class of producers, are the ones who are to draw up the so-called scheme that is to govern or control. They are the ones to determine what the scheme is to be. The scheme sets forth the regulations, and these regulations, if approved, not by parliament, but by the board or minister* or governor in council, bind the whole community; also the governor in council may formulate a scheme of his own. That is where I take exception to this legislation. It does not take account of the community as a whole, nor of parliament. It takes account exclusively of the interest of one class in the community and makes that class interest superior to the interest of the community as a whole, without parliament having an opportunity either	to	approve	or	disapprove.Another doctrine that is essential if regard is to be had to our political institutions is that of ministerial responsibility. Our whole system of government	is	based upon	thedoctrine of ministerial responsibility. But here is legislation that proposes to divorce the government all but completely from responsibility. Under its provisions, the government says, we will not make the regulations, we are not the body that is going to determine what is to	be	the law	of	thiscountry, either in virtue of authority to make regulations under a general statute, or by enactment on our recommendation	by	the
House of Commons itself. We are going to leave it to different special interests to make different sets of laws to suit their own special purposes. That is a vastly different thing in the way of procedure in matters of legislation from anything we have had in the House of Commons before. Reference has been made by the government to other bills that have been introduced. For example, I think the minister himself cited the honey bill passed

at this session. It is entitled an act respecting fruit and honey. He said, this House of Commons passed that act, why should it not pass this? There is a great difference between the two measures. I have in my hand the act respecting fruit and honey, and what do I find? The regulations are all made by the minister who is a minister of the crown and whose responsibility is shared by all of his colleagues in the government, and the offences are all specifically set out in the act itself. One has only to look at the act in order to discover what the offences are. But with regard to offences to be created under this act, we do not know what they are. When this parliament prorogues we shall not know, no one will know what a week or a month hence may be an offence under the act. No one will know until one of these class groups, these occupational groups has been formed and drafted what, to serve its particular purpose, is to be in the nature of an offence. That is one great difference between any measure this parliament has previously enacted and the provisions of the measure which we are now being asked to enact.


Robert Weir: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he know the regulations that are going to be passed under the Fruit and Honey Act and the offences created thereunder?



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate,
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.
An Act to incorporate The Bishop of the Arctic of the Church of England in Canada.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act (Special Tax).
An Act to provide for the deduction from compensation in the Public Service.
An Act to amend the Oaths of Allegiance Act.
An Act respecting The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company.
An Act respecting Fruit and Honey.

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
An Act for the relief of Archibald Bruce Elliott Smart.
An Act for the relief of Lilac Violet Grumbell Reid.
An Act for the relief of Lily Archer Watson.
An Act for the relief of Annie Isabel Tinning Meld'rum.
An Act for the relief of Lois Theresa Malcolm.
An Act for the relief of Helen Isabelle Smith Maybee.
An Act for the relief of Sybil Eileen Dyson Richardson.
An Act for the relief of Lucy Doris Cannon.
An Act for the relief of Bertha Alice Maude Maher Burke.
An Act for the relief of William James Thistle.
An Act to incorporate Thousand Islands Bridge Company.
An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1935.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith- Mr. Weir (Melfort)-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, the minister asked me a question at the time of adjournment; I think it was as to whether I could say, with respect to the act concerning fruit and honey, what regulations would be made under the measure and what offences were created thereunder. I have a copy of the bill under my hand, and I find that under the heading "Regulations" section 3 states:
The minister may, from time to time, make regulations

Then follow paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and so on down to (1), each paragraph setting forth particular matters in connection with which the minister may make regulations, and setting them forth in a manner which makes clear to all hon. members and to the country what it is that is going to be regulated, how it is to be regulated and the extent to which it may be regulated. In some of these regulations there are specific limitations; for example in paragraph (a) I see:
-no such provision shall permit more than ten per cent of any lot of fruit to be under grade requirements;
That is informing parliament, which represents all classes in the community and the community itself as to the extent to which regulation may go, and the form and manner in which regulations are to be framed1 and carried out. But there is nothing of that kind in the proposed legislation now before us. This bill provides that some group of producers at present unknown, may prepare a scheme also of a nature at present unknown. It provides that such scheme may set forth what they propose, and wish to do or to have done, also what they propose or wish shall not be done. If that scheme is approved, then it binds the entire community and those who do not accept the regulations as set forth and which have been designated as such by the producers themselves become guilty of offences and are liable to fine and imprisonment. That is a very different thing from anything we have hitherto had.
Then I turn to the bill respecting fruit and honey in order to answer the minister's question as to whether I know what are offences under that act. I find that the bill goes farther than any other bill so far introduced in this house has gone. But on turning to the clause dealing with offences, I find its provisions in this particular are very specific. It states that no person shall do so and so and so and so, and then it sets forth in sixteen clauses the nature of offences. The offences are all specified, and this House of Commons is in a position to know, and the public is in a position to know, what is to be termed an offence. But under the legislation which we are asked to accept this house is to fix a penalty to be attached to some offence which has yet to be defined.


Robert Weir: May I ask a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Robert Weir: In this bill are not the regulations also controlled in the same general way, 'because they will have to be made in conformity with the bill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, they are
not controlled in the same way, and that, as a matter of fact, constitutes one of my main objections to it. I would not take exception to what the government is seeking to do with respect to the regulating of marketing, as indicated in this measure, were they to proceed along the lines followed in the fruit and honey bill, and similar legislation, and hold to the obligation of ministerial responsibility whereby the minister himself or the cabinet would make regulations in
3112	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
conformity with certain general principles or rules, which regulations would have been the subject of discussion and approval by this House of Commons and be known and applicable from the Atlantic to the Pacific, regulations which would apply alike in all parts of Canada. The effect of the proposed legislation is to bring about a condition whereby in one part of the country a given set of circumstances may create an offence, while, in another part an identical set of circumstances will not necessarily create an offence at all. Regulations under this legislation may originate in many different parts of the country, and be wholly unrelated one to the other. I am of the opinion that the law of the land ought to be generally known, and no man should be put into jeopardy with respect either to his person or his property except under the law of the land. Under the legislation now before us who can say what the law of the land is, or is to be?


Robert Weir: The house does
not know now. The regulations under the fruit and honey bill never come before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes they do.
The house has distinctly set out the nature of the regulations, and certain limitations within which alone the minister may make regulations, the minister being a member of the cabinet, and the cabinet being responsible to the house. I admit that to a certain extent parliament delegates its responsibilities but it is delegating them within certain clearly defined limits, and only to a minister responsible to the house.


Robert Weir: This bill is the same in that respect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, this bill goes much farther than that. It goes beyond the House of Commons and beyond the minister to any local groups of producers who may draw up a scheme.


Robert Weir: I would draw the attention of my right hon. friend-although I do not like to interrupt him-to section 13 of the bill which states:
The governor in council may make such regulations as may be necessary for the efficient enforcement and operation of this act and for carrying out the provisions thereof according to their true intent and meaning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Quite true, the governor in council may do that. But I would

draw the minister's attention to section 5: which in addition to what the governor in council may do says:
(1)	A representative number of persons engaged in the production and marketing or the production or marketing of a natural product may petition the governor in council to approve a scheme for the regulation of the marketing of suoh natural product by a local board under the supervision of the board.
(2)	The petition shall be filed with the minister and if he considers that the persons engaged in the production or marketing of the natural product are sufficiently represented by the petitioners, the scheme shall be referred to the board with a request for a report on the expediency thereof.
(3)	Upon receipt of a report from the board recommending the approval of the scheme as submitted or as amended by the board, the minister may recommend the approval thereof, and the governor in council may thereupon approve the said scheme and fix the date when the same shall be effective.
Then it goes on to further details.


Robert Weir: The scheme will
operate within the regulations set out by the governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but there is no knowledge in advance, so far as the members of any community are concerned, as to the basis on which regulations are to be made, it is all left in indefinite terms to a scheme which is still to be drafted.


Robert Weir: I was answering the right hon. gentleman on the point, namely, that in one instance it was subject to a responsible minister of the cabinet, and in the other it was not. In that connection I maintain they are both alike.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit there is a great difference between parliament outlining the various conditions under which regulations may be made, setting forth specifically the offences to which penalties are to be attached, and presenting them to the public so that the conditions are known from one end of the country to the other, requiring that regulations made shall apply generally to the entire country, and that after a regulation is made it shall be published in the Canada Gazette and be submitted subsequently to parliament for further consideration if desired,-I say there is a great difference between that procedure and this proposal to legislate on a basis of schemes which, instead of leaving either the initiative or the final say with parliament, leave it in the hands of particular occupational groups to draft legislation which when approved will affect

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
and bind the entire community. May I point out, further, that in the initiating of legislation the measure as drafted takes account only of one particular class in the community.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre used an expression of which I took a note at the time, because I thought it was significant. He said, "The fruit growers represent a majority of the citizens, and they feel that they cannot carry on." If the fruit growers were in any province a majority of the citizens, the hon. member would be more nearly right, but the fact is this, that the majority of the citizens, under the proposed legislation, have not necessarily any say whatever as to what the regulations are to be which the fruit growers are to make. The fruit growers may be far from being a majority of the citizens. They may be a very small minority, but the majority of the citizens are to be bound by the regulations that are drafted by this minority and subsequently approved by the minister. That is not the rule of the people as the hon. member expressed it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I meant by the
majority of the citizens in a community. May I ask, have we not for many years in this parliament passed legislation such as the Bank Act giving very considerable powers to the bankers' association? And surely the bankers are only one section of the community. We have also given the board of railway commissioners very wide discretionary powers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Any law passed by this parliament that is uniform and national in its scope, specifically setting out the limitations within which particular powers are to be exercised, is something that can be defended. But this is different. It is not a national law that is being proposed under this enactment; it is not a law that is representative of the community as a whole. It is a law that is initiated and brought into being by and for those belonging to one particular occupation, one particular class of the community, and this parliament is being asked to approve in advance, and in ignorance of which its terms may be, of that law becoming binding on the community as a whole.


Mr. NEILL:: Or approved by the minister
alone.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Or by the
minister alone, yes. It seems to me that you have two tendencies at work in this legislation, each of which is contrary to that underlying our system of government. You have, on the one hand, the tendency which is illustrated by Russia where the soviets make their laws,
not on the basis of what is in the interests of the people as a whole, but in the interests of particular occupational groups. The occupational groups determine what is to be the law with respect to matters affecting themselves, and others are made subject to the provisions of these particular laws.
The other tendency is the tendency we see in certain countries in Europe to-day, in Italy, Austria and Germany, where you have fascism; in other words, a leader taking it into his power to make whatever law he pleases and by virtue of his authority the law made binding on the rest of the community without the approval of any representative body which speaks for the community as a whole. That is the exception I take to this legislation as it has been prepared. It is not to many provisions of the bill, not to provisions that might be drafted for the purpose of regulating marketing in a way that would assist the interests of the farmers.
Hon. gentlemen say that times are changed, that the old order is yielding place to new, and that we must change conditions. That is all perfectly true, but what we have to decide is this: What is it that we want to change? Do we want to change what is basic and fundamental in our political institutions, or do we want to change economic conditions? That is the important question to ask. Do we want to change the political system of government under which British communities are accustomed to make their laws, and substitute for it something that resembles what they have in Russia, or Austria or Italy or Germany? Or do we wish to hold to British parliamentary institutions, and whatever laws we find it necessary to make, make them at least in accordance with the practice and procedure of those institutions?
Let me illustrate concretely with respect to one clause of this proposed enactment. Under British parliamentary institutions we have always held that the House of Commons had responsibility for the control of expenditures, that the House of Commons ought to control the public purse. The method of control that has been adopted has been that of obliging parliament to appropriate moneys for particular purposes. We have had that necessity discussed over and over again in this house, the necessity of parliament controlling expenditures. We on this side have taken exception to the government's course with respect to relief measures where, on the score that there was a period of distress, the government asked for a free hand. But that was claimed by the government to be in the nature of an exception required by an existing emergency.
3114	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
Here we have exactly the same thing proposed again, that the governor in council shall have the right to take out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada the moneys that are necessary for the purposes of this act.


Robert Weir: Might I ask a question? In the case of the Montreal harbour bridge was that $19,000,000, or whatever the ultimate cost was, voted by the sanction of parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer my hon. friend by saying that his side of the house have ever since been condemning what happened at Montreal. That is one of the reasons I would give him why an example of that kind, if it exists, should not be followed. The fact that one thing is wrong and obviously wrong, surely does not justify the government that is condemning that very thing from going ahead with the very same kind of procedure.


Robert Weir: I was just asking for information. I was endeavouring to follow the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, the minister was not asking for information. He knew exactly what was in his mind in regard to that.


Robert Weir: No. May I make myself clear? I was endeavouring to follow very closely the statement being made by the right hon. gentleman, and I thought I had not understood him in what he said because the Montreal harbour bridge seemed to be an exception. I wanted to have the point cleared, but it is clear now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point that I am seeking to make is clear, namely that there is no necessity from the point of view of serving the farmers of this country, why any legislation should be introduced into this House of Commons which involves taking away from parliament control over the expenditure which is necessary for putting that legislation into force; and when that step is taken it simply means that instead of trying to do something that is going to improve economic conditions we are taking a step which is threatening the very foundations of our parliamentary system; and to the extent to which that step is taken, we are undermining the security of farmers and everyone else.
I confess, Mr. Chairman, that I have no desire to discuss this matter any further. I think the points to which we take exception have been made sufficiently clear; I do think, however that it is important that members should understand whither we are tending in legislation of this kind. Is it necessary, I

ask again, to go the length of seeking to remove from the control of parliament altogether control over the expenditure of public moneys and to do away with our system of responsible government in order to meet certain economic conditions in the country at this time?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Have we control over those economic conditions as it is now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we cannot control them without torpedoing our parliamentary institutions it seems to me that is pretty good evidence that things have got beyond everybody's ken and capacity to deal with. My point is this, that we can deal with these questions effectively in this parliament by following British parliamentry procedure, and not departing from it, and the moment there has to be a departure from that procedure there is an onus on whoever wishes so to depart to justify bringing about a political revolution in this country, because that is what it all amounts to. I do not take exception to my hon. friend's attitude. He wants a political revolution, and he avowedly says so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I do not say it. I have never said that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why not?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not necessary to explain why not, but I have not said it.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Destruction rather than evolution, that is your principle.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Never. I say I want to bring democracy into industry. I want to bring about a new social order that might ultimately involve very decided changes in our political institutions, but I have gone into that only incidentally. I have always talked of working through our existing institutions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When I say political revolution I use the term in the broad sense that my hon. friend understands, not a revolution by violence, but a change in the basis on which we are now proceeding in our organized society.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask does my hon. friend wish a socialist state or does he wish to continue under a system of private enterprise? Is he not advocating every day a socialist state, which is a different state from the one we have at the present time?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am advocating a socialist state, and in the socialist state the interests of the community would be paramount. I believe that in the present state . the interests of a small group are paramount.
MAY 16, 1934	31 jg


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall not continue to argue with my hon. friend over words, but I think he will be the first to admit that the system which he has been advocating of what he terms socialized industry is entirely different from that which is existing in the country at the present time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That has nothing to do with the political system.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The change
cannot be brought about except by a change in the political system. That is the point I am making; in order to effect what my hon. friend has in mind, he will have to change it very much.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is my hon. friend's opinion; it is not mine.


Robert Weir: Is it not possible at the present time to withdraw money from the consolidated revenue fund by governor general's warrant?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All these things which the minister brings up are well known exceptions to the general practice and occasioned only to meet situations which are not supposed to be ordinary, and which cannot possibly be foreseen. A governor general's warrant is to meet a critical situation which may arise and which parliament could not have anticipated, a situation which may come up when parliament is not in session and which the ministry feels, because of the exceptional circumstances, can be justified before the House of Commons when parliament reassembles. According to my hon. friend's remarks, he is trying to do everything by governor general's warrants instead of by appropriations by this parliament. I do not think he could have given a better instance to illustrate what I have in mind. This legislation contemplates proceeding with respect to matters of normal business with the equivalent of governor general's warrants, rather than with appropriations of this parliament, and doing that, not because of provisions of enactments of this parliament but at the instance of groups, the numbers, and places of existence of which, are unknown at the present time. It is these violations of fundamental principles to which we take exception, and not to any desire of the ministry to get a marketing measure through. Everyone on this side is most anxious to have a marketing measure which will be of assistance to the farmers.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is news to us.
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is not news. I am sure the farmers do not want anything in the way of legislation which will mean the undermining of the power and control of parliament over the expenditures and taxation of the country. The farmers know only too well that any legislation put through, nominally in their interests, but which carries with it any such power will soon be exerted very much against them as a class in the community. That is the main objection which we have to the measure. We do not object to the purpose of the measure; we object to certain of these clauses which cannot be defended if one is to maintain our present parliamentary system.


Robert Weir: I am afraid I do not understand the right hon. gentleman. No one is forcing the producers to accept this legislation. If the statement of the right hon. gentleman is correct and the farmers feel that this legislation is not in their interests, they cannot be forced to accept it. There is no insidious motive behind this legislation to help anyone but the producer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certain groups of persons have made requests to the government for marketing legislation, but I think if those individuals were asked if they were getting the legislation they have asked for, they would say they are not. This is a different bill altogether from what was asked for. A group in a certain community may ask for legislation but it does not follow that when that legislation is passed it is going to sui. the country as a whole or all the groups of producers throughout the country. The minister has said that no one will be forced to come in, but he himself gave the best answer to this in his reply the other day. He said that should regulations become law and there were producers who were not members of the_ organization, they could be forced to come in. He used the word "forced" and it appears on Hansard. Is that not so?


Robert Weir: If a certain number of producers producing a certain quantity asked to be brought into a compulsory pool, the provincial government would have jurisdiction to that extent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
minister admitted I was right when he answered my question by saying that the minority would be forced in.


Robert Weir: Could be forced
in if the provincial government so decided.

M arketing

Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the scheme were approved.


Robert Weir: That can be done
at the present time even without this bilh


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In order to
illustrate what I have in mind, I should like to direct attention to one of the amendments being proposed by the ministry. Very strong exception was taken on this side to part II of the bill which left it to a particular group appointed not only to investigate conditions but to determine what was to be an offence.
I am glad to notice the government has taken account of the force of the exception taken to these clauses and is proposing to make a material ehange which, if I understand it aright, will meet what there was in the nature of opposition to that part of the measure. The government is proposing to do away with the word "determine" and substitute the word "report." That means that when an investigation is held a report will be made by the investigators to the minister and to the government. The report will be public, and undoubtedly will be serviceable in helping to make more effective the law with regard to preventing the undue enhancement of prices or the restraint of trade which is unreasonable and unfair. It is changes like these which help to bring this legislation more into line with what we have been contending all along should be the course to be followed. The individual is afforded knowledge of the law in advance and in the matter of prosecutions is surrounded with the protection accorded by the courts to innocent parties.
If a similar change could be made with respect to part I of this legislation, whereby these local organizations might make reports to the ministry of conditions as they exist and the ministry take the responsibility of enacting legislation or passing orders in council which would be generally known and made generally applicable from coast to coast, then so far as I am concerned I would cease to have any opposition to the measure as a measure of an experimental character. But where it is left to an unkown local board to say what is to constitute an offence, while we who are members of parliament are asked to fix in advance the penalty to be attached to unknown offences, then I say we are abandoning altogether the basis upon which all legislation should rest.
What are some of the conditions which should govern in conferring power to legislate? First of all, we have the Representation Act which provides that members to have the right to legislate shall obtain that right pro-

vided only that they represent all classes in a particular constituency. There is no such safeguard here with regard to those who are to make regulations. They may be individuals; they may be a small group in a given locality, they may be a fairly comprehensive group, but all that the Representation Act stands for, in the way of representing the community as a whole, is being swept to one side. Then we have the Elections Act which provides for a secret ballot and contains provisions which must be enforced and observed before anyone can be permitted to make the laws of the land. There is nothing here in the nature of a secret ballot. It is provided that a certain group, which may be a powerful group, shall determine what is to be done. The safeguards which the Elections Act throws around the selection of those who are to make the laws are being cast to one side. Finally we have the Franchise Act-the ministry is introducing a new one this session- which provides what individuals are entitled to have their names on the voters' lists. They are to be the ones who are to determine who shall make the laws. There is no such provision here. The laws to be enacted under this measure are to be enacted by a particular group belonging to one special occupation which comes along and draws up a scheme and asks the ministry to approve. If that scheme is approved the whole thing becomes binding, on all in a particular community, but not equally in all parts of the country. As has been said over and over again, the individuals which thus meet to frame the law are only a group representing one class in a given community. While the legislation which they pass may be for their own special interest, it is for their interest as a class, but not with regard to the interest of the community as a whole. I say that no board should be permitted to deal with matters of this kind that has not on it representation of all the classes in the community, particularly the consumers, with respect to anything in which producers are interested; because it is useless to say that you can legislate in the interests of one class without affecting those of other classes as well. We all know the interests of all classes are intertwined and interwoven in a variety of ways.


Robert Weir: Just one word in
order that we may keep the record straight. Under this bill the local board has not authority of itself to set up regulations apart from approval given and the authority of the governor in council.

Public Archives of Canada


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but they prepare the scheme.


Robert Weir: Subject to the approval of the governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, various schemes for various commodities and various localities.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I have in my hand a communication that was sent by the Canadian Press to the Montreal Gazette of May 14, 1934, headed: Dairy industry has big interest in marketing act.
And so forth. I quote just one paragraph:
The plan under the marketing act would be to make provision, when a butter surplus did develop, to ship this surplus to an outside market, and any loss entailed as compared with local prices would be met out of the funds 01 the local marketing board. Alongside this would be provided greater facilities for the storing and ageing of Canadian cheese with the idea of making it as prohtable to produce cheese as butter.
May I ask the minister whether it is within the scope of this bill that if any loss is incurred by an exporter, moneys will be raised from the producers of butter or cheese throughout the whole dominion to compensate for this loss, or whether this money is to be withdrawn from the consolidated revenue fund.


Robert Weir: The press statement read is not of course an official one. In answer to- the hon. member for Kamouraska, the matter depends entirely on whether the butter, for example, is lifted off the market on the determination of a local board or under section 9. That is, if the butter industry were organized under this bill and they requested in their scheme-and that request was accepted-that if it were felt necessary, due to the condition of the market or the supply in the case of a small surplus, to lift that surplus off the market, those farming the association be permitted to tax themselves to absorb the loss, in that case the payment would be made only on the order of the board itself; that is, any exporter who exported butter and suffered a loss would not be paid. It would also be possible in this way: if under the dominion board or if under section 9 it was decided that action should be taken to lift a small surplus off the market, it would be possible to do that, but in that case, the money would be taken not from the dairy industry but from the consolidated revenue fund.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: So it would be a dumping of our butter on the export market.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No answer.
74726-197i


Robert Weir: No answer is necessary. I did not say that it would be done. I said that it would be possible to do it.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: That would be something similar to the Patterson scheme in Australia.


Robert Weir: If adopted, yes.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 5.57 p.m.
Thursday, May 17, 1934