1934-06-05

RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. -Mr. Chaplin.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have received several communications from cooperative associations in my constituency and also one from a municipal council, all having to do with an alleged monopoly in the oil refining industry. Is it the intention of the price spread and mass buying committee to inquire into this alleged monopoly with the undue profits and prices arising therefrom?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I believe it is impossible for me to give a complete answer to my hon. friend. I can merely say that the committee at the moment is simply overwhelmed with matters already in hand and the anticipated early ending of the session may make it impossible for us to complete our studies of several subjects which are of considerable importance and in which great public interest has been taken. All I can say is that I have received a number of communications similar to that indicated and the whole matter is under consideration, but there are physical limitations to what the committee can do.



AUSTRALIAN WHEAT AND FLOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I have a question I desire to ask of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the importation of Australian wheat and flour. I understand some shipments of Australian flour have already arrived in eastern Canada and further orders have been placed for future shipments. I am not so sure that any wheat hascome in yet but my question takes in both wheat and flour. I have had several communications from certain people in my constituency in regard to the flour and I am told that if the Ontario millers have to meet the competition of the Australian flour, something rather disastrous will happen to the farmers of Ontario. The millers are now paying from ninety-five cents to one dollar a
Unemployment Relief

bushel. My information is that if the millers have to meet the competition of the Australian flour they will not be able to pay-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Frederick George Sanderson: I want to say that I gave notice to the minister of my question and I am putting it so that he can answer it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Having given notice, the hon. member can make his question a little more brief. He is making a speech.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not think the minister has any objection to the way in which I am putting my question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Frederick George Sanderson: With all due deference to Your Honour, it appears to me that you should keep order on the other side of the house when I am asking a question.
Mr.'SPEAKER: The hon. member is out of order now, and I would ask him to confine himself to the rules.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have always complied with the rules. My question to the minister is this: In regard to Australian flour coming in at its present price and the competition it will give to the Ontario millers, is he conversant with what is taking place, what action will he take and has he the matter under consideration?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The whole subject to which the hon. member has referred is quite familiar to me, the department, and I may say, the government. Quite adequate and I think satisfactory steps are being taken to meet the situation. I feel it would be inadvisable at the moment to enter into any detailed reply.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: In certain Ottawa papers there is a news dispatch of June 1 stating that the federal government intends to end relief on June 15. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) whether he is prepared to give the house a definite statement in connection with the matter in view of the very serious conditions still existing in many communities throughout the dominion. For instance, in my own city we still have around 7,000 families on relief, and they are quite concerned about the telegraphic dispatch from the minister in connection with the matter.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the agreement under
which contributions were made by the federal government to the provinces of Canada to assist them in providing direct relief and other employment came to an end according to its terms on the 31st day of March last. This government advised the various provinces at that time that we would continue to make contributions for direct relief where it seemed that the provinces had an acute situation, that the need was great, and the provinces concerned, with their municipalities, were unable to cope with it. We said we would continue it until the end of May; expressing the hope, of course, that with improved conditions direct relief could soon be abandoned. There are many places in Canada, I am sure hon. members will be pleased to know, where assistance by direct relief has now been found1 not to be necessary.
Following up the first message to the provinces a further extension of dominion contribution was intimated, to carry forward to the 15th of this month. Perhaps there will be places in Canada where, by reason of exceptional circumstances, special consideration will have to be given by way of assistance, but at the same time there is no doubt that the pressure with respect to contributions to direct relief is diminishing in a very satisfactory manner. The intimation given to the provinces as to its discontinuance was founded upon information supplied to the Department of Labour, and on a review of the position of the various provinces with respect to their ability to take care of what direct relief was necessary during the coming summer.
I do not know that I can add anything further to what I have said, but I feel quite hopeful that during the summer months at least we shall find that in the majority of places throughout the dominion direct relief can be abandoned in view of the revival of activity in the building and other trades. However, the situation will be constantly under review by myself and the government, and if it appears that assistance is necessary it will be given very serious consideration.



CONTRIBUTION TO QUEBEC ROAD FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BARIBEAU (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). In Le Canada of Montreal in its edition of the 21st of May, it is reported that the hon. Mr. Arcand, Minister of Labour of the provincial

Privilege-Mr. McIntosh
government of Quebec, speaking at Grand-Mere on the 20th of May declared as follows:
(Translation)
Our province does not receive from the Dominion government what it is entitled to. Thus Ontario was granted $10,000,000 to build highways, while Quebec has only received $350,000. If it were fair to help the neighbouring province-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Jean Louis Baribeau: * our province also should have been granted, on that occasion, $8,000,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. If the hon. member has a question to address to the government or a member of the government he should do so.


Jean Louis Baribeau: My question is: Is the
above statement made by Mr. Arcand in accordance with the facts?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, probably the question would not be difficult to answer, but in order that there may be no doubt about it I would like it to stand until to-morrow.



FOREST FIRE SUFFERERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. MICHAUD (Restigouche-Mada-waska):: I wish to call the attention of the
government to the fact that in the county of Restigouche, province of New Brunswick, the village of Oliver has been destroyed by the recent forest fire, and at the present time there are over three hundred persons living in the open without shelter. At the present time they are supported by the provincial and municipal authorities exclusively. My question is whether it is possible for this government to come to the relief of these people under the Relief Act, because everything they had in the world has been destroyed. They have nothing. They were, new settlers, on ungranted land, and have lost all they had. I think they would be proper subjects for relief under the Relief Act.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The situation described by the hon. member is known to the Department of Labour. The provincial government of New Brunswick have taken steps and are making adequate arrangements to take care of the people who 74726-232
have suffered by reason of the incident referred to. The premier of New Brunswick is in the city to-day and had a conference with myself and probably other members of this government. There should be little difficulty in taking care of the people who have suffered by reason of these fires.



PRIVILEGE-MR. McINTOSH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege and explanation. I find on page 3623 of Hansard of yesterday, June 4, the following statement by the hon. member for Melfort, the Minister of Agriculture:
Hon. Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In this connection I regret that the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) is not in his seat but I feel I cannot delay the matter. It is reported on page 3900 of unrevised Hansard of Friday, June 1, 1934, that the hon. member for North Battleford stated as follows:
Last year the minister contended that the Anglo-Saxons were the only people in the north; he suggested that the Mennonites. the French, the Belgians, the Scotch and the Welsh and others were not people, but merely political cattle.
I was listening very closely to the hon. member for North Battleford and I did not hear him use the words "but merely political cattle." I asked some of my colleagues if they had heard these words used and they stated definitely that they had not.
On checking up the typewritten copy of Hansard I found that the words "but merely political cattle" had been written in with red pencil, and that there had been a period after the word "people." Upon inquiring of the staff of Hansard I was informed that the word's were not in the reporter's notes and the reason they were inserted was that the hon. member for North Battleford instructed Mr. Young, associate editor of debates, that he had used these words and insisted that they be inserted.
That is the first question of privilege to which I should like to refer, and I should like to take the matter step by step. Yesterday the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Weir) regretted that I was not in my seat. I am very pleased to be in my seat to-day; in fact I am delighted to be here to answer the minister. In the second place the hon. member for Melfort takes the words "but merely political cattle" and says that though he was listening closely he did not hear me use those words. That is no proof that I did not use them. Further he says that his colleagues
[Stage Direction]
Privilege-Mr. McIntosh
[Stage Direction]
were listening closely and they did not hear the words, but that is no proof either. Actually that makes it worse than ever, because the disorder and the din in the house were of such a nature that words really could not be heard.
Then may I go a little further. The minister went on to say that I insisted to Mr. Young, the associate editor, that those words should be put in Hansard. I did not do any insisting; I merely requested to have the words I used put in Hansard, because I concluded that if a member uses certain words while speaking in a national assembly and those words are not reported, on his honour he should state that they were used and, by having them inserted in Hansard, have the speech as a whole given to parliament and the country. I used those words; that is why they are in Hansard. I did not insist upon Mr. Young making any change; I simply requested him to make the change, saying that I used the words and I would back them up.
Now I come to the next point. I notice that Your Honour made an intimation or statement to the house suggesting that the matter should be brought before the standing committee on the official report of debates. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) also became very much concerned about the matter and added to your suggestion by making the statement that perhaps it might be wise to have the committee on privileges and elections consider the matter. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to go before any standing committee of the House of Commons and back up the words I used in this assembly, but I want to say something further. If that is done I want the hon. member for Melfort brought before the same committee; I want him examined and reported upon with regard to the words he put into Hansard last year, which he did not use. We can prove it on this side of the house.
Mr. WEIR (Melfort); On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Let me finish my statement. This is a question of privilege. Kindly restrain yourself for a little while.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: During the remarks of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) raises a point of order, which he has a right to do.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: I must insist that the hon. member withdraw his statement, that I inserted words in Hansard that I did not say. I take objection; I ask that the hon. member withdraw that statement.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is the charge the minister makes against me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: -and it is not true, but the charge I am making against him can be proved to be true.


Robert Weir: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not make the statement that the hon. member for North Battle-ford did not say the words that appeared in Hansard, "but merely political cattle." What I did say was that I did not hear him say those words, and that if I had heard him I would have asked that they be withdrawn immediately. Having satisfied myself that it was through no fault of mine that I did not hear him, because of the insulting nature of the words I simply requested that they be deleted from Hansard. I did not state that the hon. member had not used the words. I must insist that the hon. member for North Battleford withdraw the statement he has made.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am not through yet.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for North Battleford accuses the Minister of Agriculture of having altered the report of his remarks in Hansard last session. The Minister of Agriculture denies that this took place. I submit that the hon. member for North Battleford should withdraw that statement.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If the hon. member
makes the statement that he did not-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, the statement I make is that the words were inserted in Hansard not that they were changed or altered. If the minister says he did not do it some other person did it, and he knows who it was.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In order to carry on the business of this house in a dignified way the hon. member knows that is not a withdrawal. The minister says he did not alter his remarks in Hansard. Having made that statement-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am quite pleased, Mr. Speaker, if the minister says he did not make the alterations himself to withdraw that statement, but that does not alter the fact that the words were changed.

Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, the privileges of this house do not permit a member, rising on a question of privilege, to make a charge against a fellow member. The hon. gentleman has risen to a question of privilege. The observations he has made as to the conduct of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Weir) cannot possibly be proper remarks to make on a question of privilege. The hon. member is dealing with a matter raised yesterday, with which he has every right to deal, and we will listen to him with very great interest if he continues to deal with it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yesterday, when I was not in the house, the charge was made against me that I had changed my remarks in Hansard. On a question of privilege I am merely making an explanation of the matter, and I want to finish my last statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am not going to withdraw any more. You had better withdraw yourselves.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Did I understand the
hon. member for North Battleford to withdraw his statement?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, about five minutes
ago.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Very well.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was referring to the
statement made by the hon. member for Melfort that the words I used should be stricken from the record. Well, they are good Anglo-Saxon words. Then later on Your Honour suggested that the matter should be referred to one of the committees of the house, and the Prime Minister also stated that this might be done. I made the statement that I would be quite willing to have that done providing the words that were altered in the speech of the hon. member on May 22 of last year in connection with redistribution were also brought before that committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. If any action
is taken by the house concerning a matter which occurred yesterday or during this session it will be done by the house as it sees fit, not with any proviso that may be made by the hon. member for North Battle-ford.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, I shall feel fine
about any action that may be taken. I am through.



RELIEF CLOTHING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on the orders of
the day I should like to direct a question to the government based upon a dispatch appearing in the Toronto Mail and Empire of June 1. The dispatch states that a contract has been let to the Needlecraft Mills Limited of St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, for the purchase of fifteen thousand pairs of trousers for distribution among men employed on relief projects, at a cost of $1.76 per pair. The cloth required will be issued by the department and charged against the price, and I understand that, after everything is considered including freight, trimmings and so on, the labour cost of these trousers will be eighteen cents per pair. The cheapest that it can be done in the city of Toronto is forty-five cents a pair. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the fair wages policy of the government will be enforced in connection with that contract towards the end of preventing sweated labour conditions existing under government contract.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe the remarks of the hon. member have reference to goods purchased through the Department of National Defence. If the question stands it may be looked into and answered to-morrow.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am most concerned about the labour conditions under which the contract will be undertaken; I am not particularly interested in the goods in question, but in the conditions affecting the working people employed in the industry.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before the third reading passes I should like to make a very few observations in connection with the bill. I believe all hon. members who have given any concern or thought during the past few years to the marketing of the primary products of the dominion, whether they be producers, those engaged in the marketing of the
3664	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)
products or those who consume the products, agree that there has been felt a need for some legislation or action which would tend to reduce to a minimum the wastage which now exists in our more or less haphazard method of marketing, and also that steps should be taken as far as possible to stabilize the prices of products of the primary producers.
In endeavouring to give effect to this desire or much felt need, we set out to prepare a bill which for some weeks has been under discussion both in the house and in committee of the whole house. In the preparation of it we gave careful study, first, to other marketing bills which have been passed and have been in force in various countries. However, after careful examination of these bills and the boards set up by such legislation we felt that the conditions with which they were formed to deal were so different from those confronting us in connection with the marketing and regulation of marketing of the primary products of Canada, that they could be of little use to us, certainly could not be adopted as a model, and could be used only as a guide here and there in the preparation of our bill.
It was therefore decided that we must first have clearly before us the conditions we wished to remedy in order to prepare a bill peculiarly suitable and adaptable to the conditions in Canada with which it had to deal. In the preparation of the bill we had numerous discussions with cooperative associations, private individuals engaged in primary production, and with the trade. In the first draft of the bill we had made it much more definite, dealing to a greater extent with specific commodities. But as other problems were presented it was felt that the very definiteness of it, limiting it to particular problems, made it inapplicable to the marketing of other products. Therefore the bill underwent a gradual change, becoming more comprehensive and, as one hon. member stated in discussion, became more in the nature of a skeleton of a bill which could be filled in and could better meet the varying conditions. This was also necessary so that every possibility of full cooperation between the provinces and the dominion could be brought about.
The fundamental principles of the bill as submitted to the house are briefly these: First, as far as was possible and as far as Was indicated by organizations of primary producers to place in their own hands the marketing of their own products. Secondly, in case of emergency or in dealing with a

primary product concerning which, due to geographical and other reasons it was difficult for the producers to organize, where it was felt by the government that some assistance or organization should be arranged, power is given the government to deal with such emergency or condition on its merits.
Then, in the third place, power is given in the bill to investigate spreads, or the cost of marketing, thereby giving an assurance to the producers that they will not be exploited in the marketing of their product, an assurance which applies similarly to the purchaser of such products. Then, power was given in the bill to deal with the importation and exportation of natural or primary products into and out of the dominion, so that under the different conditions in which we find ourselves we would have the machinery to enable us to take our place among the trading nations of the world.
Then, lastly, provision is made in the bill to enable complete cooperation between the provincial bodies to be set up and the federal bodies which may be set up. I give this brief review for this reason: It was no surprise when the bill was up for discussion that many hon. members should have traversed the very paths which we pursued in the preparation of the bill. They had in mind some specific commodities with which they wanted the bill to deal. However, although realizing that if the measure were so defined it would become ineffective as regards other commodities, yet as the amendments proposed did not in any way affect what we felt we had already set out in the bill and for which we had made definite provision and to set at rest the doubts of some persons, we accepted amendments to the bill based on the requests and desires of hon. members as evidenced in the discussion.
I believe therefore that it would be of interest to the house if I were to put on record a short analysis of the effect of the amendments to the bill as first brought down, to *bear out the statement I have made as to why the amendments were introduced and accepted.
1.	Principle
The fundamental principle embodied in this bill is that of governmental sanction and support of regulated marketing by producers and ether persons engaged in such activity, supplemented by direct governmental action when unusual conditions warrant such procedure. The amendments have in no way altered this principle.

Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Melfort)
2.	Purpose
To regulate rather than to disrupt trade is the purpose of this bill. Improvement of conditions by the control or direction of marketing as to time, place, quantity, quality and manner of distribution was sought in the original bill. Regulation, with a minimum of interference with trade practices, is the keynote of this legislation. The amendments have in no way altered these objectives.
3.	Machinery of regulation
The machinery provided for in the bill consists of a central board appointed by the government and local boards created by persons engaged in production and/or marketing to which power to regulate the marketing of the natural product may be given. No change has been made in this connection by the amendments.
4.	Powers
The powers to be conferred upon the dominion board and by delegation upon local boards, namely, to regulate marketing, to raise funds, to compensate for loss under stated conditions, to require information, to cooperate with provincial boards, to register and license producers and persons engaged in marketing, remain almost exactly as they were in the bill as introduced. Clarifications having to do with pooling and collection of funds have been made and an extension of powers under clause (e), subsection (1), section 4, to include "processing" was made.
5.	Federal and provincial jurisdiction
Certain changes to clarify the intention and
make more certain the division of authority between the dominion and provincial bodies has been made but the purpose in this respect has in no way been changed.
6.	Regulation of import and export
This section of the original bill was redrafted and the provision re imposition of penalties, which in a measure conflicted with other similar provisions of the act, was deleted. However, the purpose of the section, namely, control of import and export trade in natural products within certain limitations remains as it was.
7.	Spreads
A number of changes have been made in the second part of the bill and several sections have been added. These are, for the most part, designed to establish more definitely the legal procedure in the case of prosecutions. There is no change in the principle or purpose of this part of the act.
8.	Summary of changes
There are ninety-two numbered or lettered sections, subsections, clauses or other divisions in the original bill. Of these thirty-three were altered in some respect by amendments but thirteen of these changes were of one or two words. The introduction of the word "natural" in the second part involved changes in eight sections or subsections.
9.	The introduction of provisions designed to clarify several sections involving such matters as "pooling" and the provision and use of "funds" by local boards each required changes in several other sections. In each of such instances it is believed the power to do the thing desired was conveyed in the original draft but to satisfy some who held doubts on the subject, amendments were agreed to.
The principal changes made are those affecting the definition of natural product, section 2 (e); limiting the demands upon the consolidated revenue fund, section 3 (9); removing uncertainty as to the use of funds collected, section 4 (4); defining the powers under section 9; improving the section having to do with import and export restrictions.
In moving the third reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I frankly requested constructive criticism of the bill as introduced, and I regret that the discussion so repeatedly went very far afield from the subject matter of the bill itself. I feel, however, that that may be due perhaps to the bill covering a new field. I regret that we have not had more constructive criticism but I sincerely wish to express my appreciation to those who have contributed to bringing the bill into the form in which it is at the present time.
Mr. DUFF:: Does the minister wish to name those who have made constructive criticism?


Robert Weir: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there will be unanimous agreement on all sides of this house that this bill is a forward step in an endeavour so to improve the efficiency of marketing in the not distant future that some of the costly weaknesses that are in our present practices may be eliminated.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I can imagine hearing some of the hon. members weary of this heat remarking, "Could we not cut out this talkfest and have a vote and be through with it," but the minister himself evidently did not think that was the way to proceed, and I am only following his example in making a few remarks.

Marketing Act-Mr. Motherwell
This is the government's first marketing baby, and like all events of that nature they have had great anguish over delivering the baby, so much so that they might very well have resorted to that ameliorating practice known as twilight sleep. But that might have injured the baby, and we do not want to do that. I certainly do not want to do that, and I am glad that the ministry staggered through with it the way they did eventually and got on to their feet somehow. But, Mr. Speaker, it was a most distressing spectacle. However, the baby has arrived, and with a good deal of the Tory plumage all gone, but there are some objectionable features the size of one's fist still sticking out all over it. But there is just enough for identification purposes, just enough to show its semi-Tory origin, or its foster parentage, because the government was not the real parent of the bill at all. This bill was born of the farmers and producers, of western Canada particularly, and especially of the Pacific coast. That is where it came from, and the statement that the government is thrusting this upon the people is not right. It is the growers that are thrusting this marketing bill down the throats of an unwilling government, except the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir, Melfort) who was ready for it for some time past. That is the real position.
My analysis of this bill is quite different from the minister's. He regretted that there were not more constructive criticisms. Why, Mr. Speaker, so constructive have our criticisms been that this is almost a new bill entirely. According to my count there have been twenty-nine amendments, and I could make it a little more if I desired to stretch it. I could bring it to thirty-three, or thirty-five or even forty, but I have not counted those small amendments to which the minister referred. In order to leave no doubt about it I am going to, take the necessary time out of my precious forty minutes to outline the changes that have been made in this bill and, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give me three minutes' notice of the expiry of my forty minutes because I do not even know what time it was when I started.
I have classified the changes into three divisions, "very important" changes, "less important" changes, and "unimportant" changes. I shall not have time to go over them all, but I shall refer to them.
First, section 2, paragraph (e) extends the definition of natural product to include lumber and food and drink derived from products of forest, lake, sea and river. I think this

new list of natural products is much better than the original definition, perhaps because it is almost identical with what I suggested myself if hon. gentlemen will recall my remarks on the second reading of the bill.
The next amendment deals with section 3, subsection 9, and provides that instead of permitting the costs of the board to be paid from consolidated revenue fund, they shall be appropriated by parliament. My right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) urged that amendment very strongly.
The next deals with section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (a) and provides for the setting up of a single selling agency which may be designated. Without this there is no centralized selling possible. That amendment was insisted upon by the producers. It was put in once by the ministry but they could hardly find it and they had to put it in the second time.
The fourth amendment deals with section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (c) and provides for the pooling of proceeds received from the sale of a product. No such provision existed in the original act. The minister tried to persuade us that it was there but nobody could find it, not even himself. There again, they had to insert it twice before it was really there.
Amendment number 5 deals with section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (e) and enables grants or loans to be made for the assistance of processing farm products. I do not want to plume myself too much, but that was my suggestion. I should like to refer for a moment to what this means as I believe it has a significance far beyond the conception of most hon. members. I gave an illustration of what "processing" could mean by referring to experimental or demonstration abattoirs which could be set up under these grants or loans. It is only by this means that we can have a satisfactory solution of the question of abattoirs and live stock marketing generally. This matter has been in my mind for years and I have always advocated it. The time has now come to close in on it. It provides also for the establishment of cheese and butter factories such as they have in other countries with which we have to compete. They have them in Denmark, in the United States, in Australia and in New Zealand. Fine large plants are established in those countries to which the producer can take his milk and be paid immediately on the basis of the butter fat content. This provides for the assistance to the processing of the fifteen or twenty dairy commodities that are made out of milk. It

Marketing Act-Mr. Motherwell
provides also for the processing of fruits, vegetables, wool, maple products, of wheat into flour, of oats into meal and many other forms of processing. All these activities are covered by the single word "processing." I have not the time to dwell at length upon the scope of this amendment or to show how far embracing it is.
The sixth amendment deals with section 4, subsection 2, and limits the powers which the dominion board may delegate to a local board to those contained in section 4. This prevents a local board from getting money from parliament to pay the costs of operation or to enable them to compensate for loss. It also prevents the dominion board from delegating to a local board the right given to it under section 9 actually to sell commodities. I remember quite distinctly that my right hon. leader spoke very strongly against what was embodied in the original bill and this has been amended.
Amendment 7 deals with section 4, subsections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. These are all entirely new and they provide for obtaining funds from producers instead of from parliament, which funds are to be used to pay any loss, compensation to producers, equalized payments, that is, pool receipts and building up reserves. According to the original bill, these expenses were to be borne by the state, but this amendment was finally inserted at the request of the growers.
Amendment number 8 deals with section 5, subsection 3 and enables the minister to demand a poll before a scheme is approved. The original bill made no provision for a poll. I am sure the government included this amendment because of the discussion which took place. The minister was good enough to invite suggestions.
Amendment number 9 deals with section 7, subsection 4, and provides that if a poll is taken and a scheme adopted, it cannot be revoked without a further poll being taken of the growers. The original bill contained no provision for a poll before revocation.
Amendment number 10 deals with section 9. This gives the dominion board power to set up a scheme itself and, as amended, it makes it clear that the scheme so set up may permit the board either to regulate marketing or actually to sell a commodity. The local boards are not allowed to do this. It also makes it clear that in setting up such schemes they can only relate to interprovincial and export trade. This very important amendment was suggested by the Liberal opposition.
Amendment number 11 deals with section 15. This is an entirely new section and
provides that the dominion board must make an annual report to the minister which report must be laid before parliament within a stated period of time. I have a very vivid recollection of my right hon. leader suggesting this amendment.
Amendment number 12 deals with section 16, paragraph (b), and extends the scope of the investigations to include investigations in natural products as well as in regulated products. I am not quite sure as to who suggested this amendment but I think it was someone on this side. If it were not, it was the producers themselves.
Amendment number 13 deals with section 20 and makes the committee's findings merely a report to the minister rather than a determination for which penalties could be imposed.
These are the thirteen amendments which I consider to be " very important." That may be considered an unlucky number but as one amendment takes in seven subsections, the total is really more than thirteen, really seventeen.
We come now to the "less important" amendments. Amendment number 14 deals with section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (c) and provides that no compensation can be given for loss if the grade is unsuitable for market or is incurred as a result of agreements with foreign countries. Had this amendment not been included the government would have been exploited in all directions. Had the bill as originally drafted been passed this marketing act would never have got started. It would have been like the British act of 1931, simply a negation on the statute books. That was what happened with the British act until it was amended once and again two years later.
Amendment 15 deals with section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (i). This paragraph originally gave the local board the power to hold real property but it has since been deleted.
Amendment number 16 deals with section 12 and makes it necessary that the governor in council rather than the minister license importers and exporters. The clause by which the governor in council could provide penalties for any breach in connection with this section has been deleted.
Amendment number 17 deals with section
23.	This is an entirely new section and provides for the transmitting of reports of investigating committees to the provincial attorneys general for such action as is deemed necessary. The next amendment, number 18, deals with section 24. This is a new section and provides that the accused in any action as above may demand trial by jury. Amend-
3668	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Motherwell
ment number 19 deals with section 25 and provides that the minister must file annually with parliament a report oi all proceedings taken under the investigating sections. This is entirely new. Amendment number 20 deals with section 26. This is a new section which declares that if any section of the act is found to be beyond the powers of parliament, it shall not affect the remaining provisions thereof. This is one of the very few amendments proposed by the government itself.
With the "less important" and "unimportant" amendments, there are 29 in all. I think it should be noted that not one single amendment has been suggested by what we know as the C.'C.F'ers. They were in favour of the bill just as it was brought down. I do not include the United Farmers of Alberta when I refer to the C.C.F'ers because they, the former, have renounced them. This is an example of the delightful harmony we find between the different portions of the far C.C.F. corner. They can dispense hot air by the barrel full but when it comes to helping the government to improve this bill, of which they said they approved, the results have been nil. Perhaps I should exempt the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man). That hon. gentleman says he is not a member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and he has made a valuable suggestion in connection with this bill, but I do not know whether he made it before I did or not.
There are one or two other members who made suggestions with regard to organization grants. The government of which I was a member made the first valuable contribution by way of an organization grant to the Cooperative Live Stock Marketing Association. The first year in 1928 this grant was $5,000; the second year, it was $10,000, and the third year it was $20,000. This splendid live stock cooperation agency went along fine until 1931, when the present government deliberately killed that institution by withholding the grant when Great Britain went off the gold standard. With the loss on the pound sterling and with no grant this great institution was simply stricken amidships and went down under the blow. If some hon. member referred to this question of organization grants before your humble servant did, the fact remains that the government of which I had the honour to be a member, was the first to act upon this policy away back in 1928.
As much as I would like to follow all these amendments up to the last I have not the time, so I will mention the twenty-ninth and

if nobody objects I would like to give the intervening ones to Hansard.
21.	Section 5, subsection 5 (6), provides that when scheme submitted it must say if a poll is desired.
22.	Section 6, subsection 2, deleted the words "body politic" before the word "corporate."
23.	Section 10 does away with the right of the dominion board to authorize a marketing board set up under provincial legislation to collect charges or tolls because such right is included in new section 4, subsections 6 and
7.
24.	Section 11 allows dominion board to confer upon a local board any power given it by a provincial act. This is necessary because new section 4 limits the powers the dominion board may delegate to those contained in that section.
25.	Section 17, by inserting the words "or regulated" merely makes that section conform to section 16.
26.	27, 28. Sections 18, 19 and 22 are amended to make them conform to the wording of 16 and 17 with reference to natural and regulated products.
29. Section 21 is amended to make it necessary to publish within thirty days after the minister has received the same the report of the investigating committee. The original act did not state within what time such report must be published.
I think my right hon. leader had something to do with that too. It may surprise some hon. members if this marketing act should not be and indeed was preceded by another act, a very necessary prerequisite to this marketing bill. I will not ask the house to accept my statement on that; I will refer to Major Elliot, Minister of Agriculture for Great Britain. I have no doubt my good friend the minister expects some day when this bill goes through to be the minister of agriculture in Canada representing the same position that Major Elliot represents in Great Britain namely, that he is the pioneer in Canada of the idea of quotas, turning on the tap for larger or smaller quotas according to the requirements of the occasion. I do not, however, know about that; I do not want to see anybody play the DeValera for Canada in our relationship to Great Britain, and that is what I am afraid will be the result. Let me read what Major Elliot says about the prerequisites to a marketing act:
Agriculture, at home and abroad, is recognizing the urgent need for an improved marketing technique and is setting out in diverse ways to obtain it.

Marketing Act-Mr. Motherwell
In two main directions is reform being pursued-in the direction of standardization and in that of organization, the latter in order not merely to implement the former but to enable producers, by a combination of their man-power and, if they so desire, of their produce-power and their money-power, to control effectively the marketing end of their business and enjoy equal opportunity with other highly organized groups in the industrial community.
Major Elliot divides this into two distinct subdivisions: standardization of product and then the marketing thereof. Surely it is within the memory of almost every hon. member that for eight and a half years the Liberal government, headed by my right hon. leader, spent a great deal of their time in standardization of farm products from one end of Canada to the other. That is the great prerequisite to a marketing proposal. During that period where were hon. gentlemen opposite? Their most effective harpooner, the then leader of the opposition, was looking for my short ribs half of the time. Where were the birds to my left who are presumed to represent agriculture? They were in the same category for the first four years; after that they came to the conclusion that maybe this was all right and many of them so signified. But some of my best measures were left on the order paper to die there because I could not get the support of those who were then in opposition either official or unofficial, or a sufficient number on any side. One of those measures was the Hay and Straw Act which in 1929 fell thus by the wayside, which some two years ago I had the pleasure of assisting my hon. friend to put through.
Major Elliot continues:
Standardization is a fundamental principle of our modern commercial system.
So this foundation upon which this marketing bill is built, was laid by the former Liberal government. I am taking, not my definition but that of Major Elliot of the close relationship between standardization and marketing. Let me read another paragraph of what he says:
The commercial advantages of standardization are well known and need not be repeated here. In this country, as elsewhere, legislation has proved to be necessary to put the standardization of farm produce on a national basis. Here, it has taken the form of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marketing) Acts, 1928 and 1931.
We were almost through with our grading and standardizing policy under the preceding Liberal government by the time Great Britain started; we were a lap ahead of even the mother country in the standardization of farm
products, as over there they are only now at some of that work.
Now comes the marketing bill. Because my hon. friends opposite through this bill build upon our Liberal foundation, am I going to refuse to accept it in accordance with the stand I took on the second reading? I am not going to proclaim exactly at this stage how I am going to vote on the third reading division, if I can avoid doing so. But I will try to present the facts. The measure was such a Tory distortion of Liberal principles and so contrary to what the farmers asked for that one could easily take one side or the other and yet justify one's position. Major Elliot continues:
So the time has come to develop further the policy to which successive governments have already contributed and prepare to rebuild the whole organizational structure of our agricultural marketing.
He points out that the first prerequisite was to get standardization. I will leave it to the house and to the country whether the Liberal government have not done that. Consequently, with all these amendments made to this measure largely at the instance of the Liberal opposition and the producers, we have given to the country the first prerequisite of a marketing act. I can and I do claim that the first principle of this bill as now amended, defaced as it is by some Tory distortions that have been thrown in, is now, built upon Liberal foundations already cited, and is really Liberal if such few distortions were eliminated. That is what it is, even after these amendments have been made, but some of the distortions, the Tory excrescences that I abominate, are still there. What shall I do in an emergency of that nature? Heaven help me that I may make the right choice, because it is not an easy one. This report to the Minister of Agriculture which I hold in my hand, and which I will read will confirm my statement. One is on pretty strong grounds when one reads something from official reports as I have been doing and propose to do. This is the report of Doctor J. F. Booth, commissioner of farm economics, to his minister, the Minister of Agriculture. On page 222 thereof, I find under the subhead of "Farmers' Business Organizations" the following. I hope the house will bear with me because this is very important and if it means anything, it means-well, that it is favourable to this bill. But coming as it does from this intermediary Tory source, one can
3670	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Motherwell
come to another conclusion if one wants to. It reads:
Records and statistics properly tabulated and summarized form the basis for investigation and comparative analysis in economic research. From a national standpoint Canada is without this ground work for a study of farmers' business organizations. It is true that considerable work has been accomplished by provincial and federal bodies in collecting and presenting facts on cooperative organizations in Canada. The information available, however, does not present us with a complete picture of business organization among farmers throughout the dominion or permit of research and analysis which it is generally agreed should be undertaken. At the time the branch was instituted-
That was about 1928.
-it was understood that cooperative marketing would receive consideration. With this in view plans were made to obtain the basic information necessary to a comprehensive program of research and service.
Next comes a paragraph that I would rather skip, but I can read it if anybody thinks I am garbling the report. He goes on:
With the assistance of provincial registrars and' from various other sources a list of farmers' business organizations in Canada has been prepared. On this list there is a total of 1,759 associations. In response to a first request for information 737 or 42 per cent of the solicited organizations replied. This has been followed up by a second request in some provinces and where necessary the associations will be circularized a third time.
In the study of farmers' business organizations special attention will be given to financial analysis. If such organizations are going to develop and endure they must withstand scrutiny of the same nature as private business. Certain tests well known in business practice are applied. Other problems to which the branch is giving attention are uniformity in financial statements, type and method of organization, raising of funds, credit operations. A central bureau of records of this kind will permit a study of business practices which include financing, price and sales policies and advertising. The scope of this work naturally extends to the operations of marketing agencies and distribution costs. Legal phases, membership and contractual relations present problems, all of which have a bearing on the development of farmers' business organizations, local or national in character. Continuity of work over a period of years and especially covering this period of economic stress should be significant and of considerable historical value.
In addition to the survey of farmers' business organizations the branch is endeavouring to obtain a complete and up-to-date record of all other agricultural organizations. A listing of this nature will include the non-commercial organizations such as fruit growers and live stock improvement associations. The index compiled at the present time contains over 400 societies with names of officers, membership affiliations and other information. When the records for the dominion as a whole are com-
pleted and the bureau becomes fully established the branch will provide a directory and may be in position to act as a consulting agency for farmers' organizations and those interested in their development.
That is what the Liberal government of that day had in mind in establishing the economic branch, so that it would be a centre, a directory, a registration and advisory retreat to which all such organizations as this could rally from one end of Canada to the other. It is said that Doctor Booth is slated to be one of the central board. If that be so, then he will act in a double capacity, he will be head of the economic branch and a member of the board, and will have a double opportunity of tying up voluntarily this great organization from one end of Canada to the other in one centre. I can imagine the valuable advice that such a board or directory could have given in years past when great farm movements, economic and educational, were wrecked one after another by going into politics. We saw the old Grangers, that came from the United States in the early 70's, twenty years afterwards totally wrecked on the rocks of commerce mixed with politics. Look at the same movement of which I had the honour to be the first president in 1901, that started out as an educational body, non-political and non-commercial; it stayed that way for five years, and then in 1919 gravitated into politics. The itch for power, the thirst for this kind of adventure was strong, and after certain years of successful service they wanted to get into politics, against which, of course, there is no law. Politics and commerce, however, do not seem to work together, they never have. I wish I had time to read some of the platform of the old Grange movement that started out so nobly and ended so disastrously in the form of the Patrons of Industry twenty years afterwards.
I can count more than one movement of the same kind. In the case of the one I know so well, the old Grain Growers' Association, as long as your humble servant was president and Hon. R. S. Lake vice-president both politics and commerce of a purchasing nature were kept out. But the day came when some arose "who knew not Joseph," and that great farmers' organization drifted into the same evil that had wrecked the Patrons of Industry, nearly thirty years previously. Of course, they have the right to do it if they want to, but we cannot keep up our commercial end successfully if we are jumping into the political end at the same time. We are in danger of that at this very minute. If that is the desirable thing, why should the C.C.F. support this bill, as it is neither state

Marketing Act-Mr. Motherwell
socialism, or production for use and not for profit? We have therefore a rallying centre in the capital; we the former Liberal government established it ourselves in the economic branch to make it a source of advice for all who would seek it on any phase whatever of their activities. If we had had access to the central board or the economic branch through all the past years do you think that such racketeers as Aaron Shapiro could have paralyzed and bedevilled the cooperative agricultural activities of this country and this continent as he did? He could not. But farmers in their difficulties and distress will sometimes listen to the wiles of the devil himself.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear. They are!


Robert Weir: They do in Melville !


William Richard Motherwell: When people are
in trouble and anyone throws them any kind of life-line they grab at it. Shapiro was the quintessence of hypocrisy, delusion and racketeering. Who was going to advise these newly organized units as long as they were spread abroad on the face of the earth with no centre to converge on? They had such a centre under our Liberal government in the economic branch as I have just referred to. That is one of the reasons why I take the ground that I have taken with respect to this bill. It may be asked, Why did we not start a marketing board? We were fighting a sister dominion-Australia-because they were shooting the objectionable phases of a marketing board onto Canada under the "Patterson" plan. We did not believe in passing on those objectionable phases to the mother country, at that time at all events. We gave evidence of our desire to promote marketing proposals by starting up the Cooperative Live Stock Producers in the manner I have described, a first class commission organization at first and then an equally first class export organization until the casualty that occurred to it because of the gross neglect of this government.
Now I might say more. I think I have ten minutes yet. I should like to devote a little of that time to my hon. friends on my left, the C.C.F'ers. It is a strange thing that on the second reading of this bill I found myself in company with these birds over here. Well, you cannot always choose your associates. If I think a thing is right I have to stand by it; I am not going to run away because someone else also thinks it is right. I was thinking of the ghastly company that I was in, a most excruciating experience from both directions. But, Mr. Speaker, I have recently been looking over the history of reforms, and
this is a reform bill but in bad company. It is in the hands of foster parents, I admit, and they naturally make a mess of it. But what was the history of reform bills in the early part of last century, who finally had to espouse them, after opposing them to the uttermost at the beginning? What about Tory Peel? What about Tory Disraeli? They stayed Tories but they took up the Liberal program embodied in the reform bills and free trade. Was it not so with Gladstone also, only he remained Liberal. Bright and Cobden undoubtedly were the authors of free trade, but the previous Tory, Gladstone came over and supported it, because it grew so popular. The last straw that turned the tide was the potato famine in Ireland, a small thing in a way but terrible in Ireland, but it helped to concentrate and crystallize public sentiment and bring about free trade. So here we have our friends on the other side performing the same stunt as Peel and Disraeli, just walking off with the other fellow's clothes. They still fit me in some particulars. I want some of the distortions taken out, some more of the Tory plumage taken off if possible. But my C.C J. hon. friends over here are full of an abundance of hot air and heifer dust; that is about all they deal in, not having contributed one iota for the benefit of this bill, and their leader is parading around the country asking the people to flock to his standard. We have bhe Coldwells in Saskatchewan, the Philpotts and the whatnots in Ontario. What are they doing? Just shooting hot air with not one practical idea behind it. Here in amending this bill, they were given an opportunity to display some of their knowledge and ability, to do something but talk, but they failed utterly.
I seem to have covered quite a bit of ground, but there is one thing more. On the second reading unfortunately I had to vote differently from nearly all of my party, but I do not consider that there was anything contradictory as between my attitude and that of my leader. The duty of a leader is to have a much wider vision than that of a humble follower. The duty of a leader as I see it is not only to represent one great occupation but to represent all occupations in Canada, producers and consumers. There is absolutely no recognition of consumers in this bill. The duty of a leader is not only to represent all Canada and all businesses and occupations in Canada but to recognize the rights and interests of all the units of the British commonwealth and the relationships of Canada, especially commercial, with the rest of the world. That is the attitude that

Marketing Act-Mr. Motherwell
must be taken by the great leader of a great party, and I would not have my right hon. leader take any other position. On the other hand the scope of my duty as I see it, is relatively circumscribed. I represent a rural constituency. I do not say that I always consult them; I have to assume that they expect me to do my duty as I see it and explain to them later. When you are two thousand miles away you cannot rush to your constituency for this, that or the other thing; it takes us all our time to understand what we are discussing here, without trying to impart it to others at every stage of development. By virtue of my position in the preceding government, however, I am compelled to consider the producers and farmers generally, the growers as we call them on the Pacific, if there is any preference to be given to anyone. I gladly do that, though I hope I am broad enough to recognize the principle that you cannot do full justice to the producers without giving fair consideration to the consumers as well, and that has been my position. There is nothing contradictory or incompatible in a leader expressing a different position from that of a humble follower. Those positions are entirely different, as I have stated. I make these remarks in reference to the second reading of this bill, in reply to one or two letters I have received expressing regret that I could not maintain the entity of the party and vote against the second reading of the bill.
I think this is a sufficiently important occasion to speak for my full forty minutes, but just to show that I am not unnecessarily taking up time I will conclude by saying that I do not intend to make any pronouncement as to the way I will vote either on any possible amendment or on the third reading of the bill. I do not know whether in my desire not to do so or in my anxiety to show my interest in the whole matter I may have crossed my wires and already revealed how I am going to vote, but if I have done so you will understand the reason. I have decided to reserve my decision until the actual vote is taken, whether it be on an amendment or otherwise. I only decided that at the very last moment; my few notes were based upon another assumption to be revealed later.


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, after the storms in committee and the various discords passed away I had the feeling that the third reading might be an occasion of harmony and amity, on which the whole house might get together to advise the farmers of this country to make the best of an act which affords them some opportunity. (Mr. Motherwell.]
Because of that feeling I shall not traverse at any length the ground covered by the last speaker, the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), nor shall I enter into a discussion of the relative attitudes of those in this corner of the house and those whom he represents in relation to this bill. As to the attitude of those in this corner, including myself, I think I shall leave it to Hansard, to this house and to the farmers of this country to decide as to whether we do not occupy a reasonably fair position in respect to our attitude, in the contributions we may have made, in our understanding of the problems and of the bill itself, as compared with my hon. friends to my right. I sympathized with the ex-Minister of Agriculture when he was reluctantly forced to associate himself with us for once in supporting a measure brought in by a Conservative government. I think perhaps if any argument were required, that is the last and final argument in favour of this bill. It shows that even he, driven between two contrary winds and tides, was forced by his own knowledge of the situation and his own inherent sympathy for the farmer to support that which, as he said, he felt was a move in the right direction, even though in doing so he had to associate with those whom I have mentioned.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say that;
I said the C.C.F., and my hon. friend is not one of those.


Alfred Speakman: The organization to which I belong has associated itself with the C.C.F.


William Richard Motherwell: I took particular pains to single out my hon. friend in my remarks.


Alfred Speakman: I merely point out that the association to which I belong, which the minister was so careful to mention, has joined the other association to which he has referred.
I,	of course, was elfected as a United Farmers of Alberta member, and I am subject to the action taken by that association. However, that is mostly by the way. I had no intention of entering into any competition, nor indeed bad I any intention of referring to hot air, though in passing I might remark that a perusal of the pages of Hansard might induce some people, even those who have not had the pleasure of sitting in this house during part of the debate, to believe that all the hot air that came from this side of the house was not confined to the southeast corner.
This bill has been described and may be looked upon as a radical departure from

Marketing Act-Mr. Speakman
customary methods. In some respects that is so, but I agree with the ex-Minister of Agriculture that it follows in logical sequence the actions taken in prior years and by former ministers, and may I say in particular by the ex-Minister of Agriculture for whom, in spite of some of his strictures, I entertain the highest regard as having been one of the best ministers of agriculture this country has seen. To my mind there were three definite stages through which to pass, three definite steps to be taken in sequence, and to have taken a step like this before the other two steps had been taken, before the foundation had been laid, would have been impossible. The first step, of course, was the work carried on by the different departments of agriculture and by various farm bodies through experimental farms, through research, through education and so on, to improve the quality and kind of the various farm products. Obviously it is useless to establish a marketing act un-les you have a suitable type of product to market. Then followed that long sequence of inspection and grading acts which have not only graded, divided and regulated the products themselves but have accustomed the farmers to inspection, regulation, grading and control, and have disabused their minds of that impression perhaps formerly held, that any individual can of his own volition and without regard to marketing conditions and to his fellowmen produce just exactly that class and kind of stuff which he himself would like to produce. They have learned that they must, for their own good and for the common good, defer to law and as I say, subject themselves, to regulation, inspection and control of all kinds. Had it not been for that they would not now be ready to accept the bill before the house. I say at this point that while this is a new step and a most important step, it would be impossible were it not for the work done in former years by former ministers. It is a combination of that work,- the most important, but unable to stand by itself.
Now, as we come to the bill itself as amended may I express my pleasure and gratification concerning certain of the amendments which have been made. I believe I have studied the bill as carefully as any other private member, and I am unable to see that in essence the main principles of the bill have been affected. What has been done is to clarify many points suggested, but suggested in so vague a manner as to be capable of complete misapprehension and complete misinterpretation. I refer to such matters as the ability and right of the producers organizations to carry on pooling projects. I think that would have been embraced in the presentation of a scheme, but for their satisfaction and to place the matter beyond doubt I believe it was necessary that the conditions should be placed clearly and specifically in the bill. Then, I might mention others,-the ability of the board to designate the agency through which the marketing might be carried on. This again is made clear beyond doubt, that if the producers have formed their pools and wish to operate through such pools as their agencies, such agencies may be designated as the agencies through which marketing shall be carried on. And so it leaves the way clearly open for each producers' organization to organize so as to market and to handle its own affairs in the way it deems best and which experience has taught it to be wisest.
The bill itself is, of course, stringent-and to my mind it must be so. In my view one of the most fatal mistakes in a bill of this kind would have been to endow the board in the first instance with too narrow powers, and to restrict it in its operations. We are entering a new field, a field where new problems will be encountered, some of which are unforeseen at the present time. It is a field which will be subject to the changing conditions not only in this but in other countries, and to my mind it is essential for the success of the bill, the success of the board and the success of the whole program that from the commencement the board shall be endowed with sufficient powers, wide and strong, to meet those eventualities as they may arise. I am glad to see that this has been done, and that the legislation does and will include within its scope almost any essential action which must be taken to relieve the situation now existing among the producers of Canada.
There are points in the bill to which, under ordinary circumstances and had we been living in a world as it was in former years, I should have taken strong exception. For instance, I should have taken exception to the powers to control exports and imports. But as I look around the world to-day and as we all look around the world to-day and note the actual conditions which exist and which apparently will exist for years to come I find I cannot take that exception, because once the nations of the world have launched themselves upon that course of attempted selfsufficiency, no matter how unsuitable the climate or conditions-once	they have
launched themselves upon that course it will take years before they can possibly retrace their steps. In the world in which we must

Marketing Act-Mr. Speakman
live, a world which has been described to us by a man of great experience as one in which Great Britain remains the one country offering reasonable opportunity for the sale of our farm products in a world where tariffs have become the least part of restriction, and where absolute prohibition, licensing of imports and the most strict application of the quota system is applied in almost every one of the great European countries which at one time had relatively open markets-in this world we must realize forcibly that through this board we must have the power to regulate and absolutely to control the export of goods in order that we may meet existing conditions.
The condition as regards imports may not be as obvious, but may I point this out to hon. gentlemen. Assuming that the bill does all that we hope it will do; assuming that we succeed in the coming years in raising prices to a reasonable level-I am not speaking about exorbitant prices, but I am referring to stabilizing prices and freeing them from those seasonal and most calamitous price fluctuations and thereby establishing the farmer upon a reasonable and suitable basis-what will be the result? The result will be that during times when the outside world market is at a lower level than our own market we will be subjected to a flooding into this country of those similar goods from other countries seeking markets, countries the goods of which had been debarred from other markets and who see in Canada the Eldorado of their dreams. Having taken these steps and having undergone such sacrifice in arranging our own price level, would it be possible for us to leave our market completely open to be shattered and brought to naught at any time by the importations from other countries? To my mind it is essential, if eventually we are to succeed, that there must be some provision whereby we may stop those importations at times when they would demoralize and break our own markets.
It is not for the good of the consumer that the producer of this country should be put out of business. That is one point I should like to impress upon those hon. gentlemen whose chief concern-and laudable concern-is for the consumers. They speak of restriction; they speak of the possibility of having scarcity instead of plenty. I say there is nothing which will more easily bring about potential and actual scarcity than to continue as we are, expecting the producers to bring forward their crops produced at a loss. They cannot and they will not continue in that way. It would be far better for the consumers to have a steady flow of products at 
reasonable prices and at prices which can be depended upon to be maintained from oDe year's end to another than to be subject to this overwhelming probability that some time or some day under conditions as they are, unless remedied, the producers may simply cease to produce. Under such conditions where would the consumer be? Then he would see soaring prices, and he would see real scarcity. To my mind in protecting the producers who, alone, constitute almost fifty per cent of the consumers, and in enabling them to organize, to stabilize, to regulate and to place their own business upon a sane and satisfactory basis, we are affording the best guarantee for the future prosperity and future welfare of the rest of Canada.
Because of these things, Mr. Speaker, I welcomed the bill at its inception. Along with others, I had visions of such a bill years ago; I know that the Minister of Agriculture had, and certainly many of us had. I regret that it took so long to work out the measure, to meet conditions and to introduce the bill. I should liked to have seen it working now. I realize that the bill cannot be perfect. As I said before, and as has been stated by many hon. members, we are venturing into that which for this country is a new field and a new venture. There is nothing in this world, save experience alone, which will teach us just where the rocks and quicksands may lie, which will teach us exactly what difficulties we may have to encounter, or which will teach us exactly what measures may have to be taken in order to meet those difficulties. So I do not expect this to be a perfect bill any more than I would expect a new-born child to go out and do a day's work in the ha3ffields. That requires development; the child must grow up. But I do say this, that in my opinion, and I am giving it for what it is worth, and in the opinion of almost every farmer in my province who has communicated with me upon the subject, this bill does afford a hope. It does provide the initial machinery. It does make it possible for us to go forward and improve in the doing. Because of these things I give this bill the same support on the third reading that I gave it on the second, that I gave it in committee and that I have given it at all times.
May I suggest this to the house? There are two essentials upon which the work to be done under this bill will absolutely depend for its success. First is the cooperation among the producers, the working together by the producers under the terms of this bill. I suggest to the house that if this bill affords some opportunity to the producers to do this

Marketing Act-Mr. Lapointe
thing, it is the duty of this house to encourage them to do so. That is one reason, Mr. Speaker, why I have always spoken and argued in its favour. I realize some of its weaknesses, but I realize too that unless we can give to the farmers who are to benefit from this measure some feeling of encouragement, some hope that the bill is worth while, some feeling that it affords them an opportunity, we could not expect it to succeed nor could it succeed. I would like to see the united opinion of this house behind this bill, but that seems impossible. I sincerely hope to see a reasonably united opinion among the farmers that they will make the best use possible of this measure which is here provided and of acts to a similar effect which have been or will be passed in the various provinces.
There is just one other thought, and with that I shall conclude. The success of this bill again will depend, as is the case with all other bills of this nature, upon its administration. You can have a good bill badly administered and it will come to nothing. You can have a bill that affords opportunities for good or ill, such as this bill does, and if it is properly administered by men with the right viewpoint it will succeed. So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the two essentials are an understanding cooperation on the part of the farmers and a sympathetic and efficient administration by the boards. With those twm essentials present, I believe that this bill will start us in the proper way and enable us to say that something has been done, that an advancement has been made towards raising the lot of the producer to that level where we should like to see it.
No one imagines that this bill by itself is a cure-all. No one,would be so foolish. Personally I agree with those who feel that before we can have conditions as they should be we must deal radically-no matter who may not like that word-with the whole financial question and with the application of finance to our daily vocation. May I suggest this also, that supposing we have a financial system equal to the wildest dreams of the most extreme visionary, even then if you are to have parity between one class and another, if you are to have a system that will work fairly smoothly, you must have an organization of those classes that work. You must have organization of producers in an organized world, and action along the lines of this bill would be essential no matter under what system we worked. Because of these things, Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that the bill will be a success, that its objects will be achieved.
I express further the hope that every farmers' organization and every producer in the country will come together to do what they can do under the terms of this bill, no matter what weaknesses they may find in it, in order to improve their own lot.


Mr. VALLANCE:: May I ask the hon.
member a question? Having in mind that fifty per cent of the people of Canada are primary producers, as the hon. member himself has admitted, does he think this bill will bring about the result which he hopes for, namely, to raise the price level of the product, say, of the wheat farmer?


Alfred Speakman: I expressed myself in
committee and on former occasions-


John Vallance: I asked a question.


Alfred Speakman: And I was going to
answer it, but perhaps the hon. gentleman will permit me to answer it in my own way. I have already expressed the opinion that wheat differed in its problems from any other product. I expressed the opinion that wheat would be better dealt with under a federal wheat board constituted to deal solely with that product, but I expressed the further opinion that so long as that was not done, wheat should come within the purview of this bill in order that the producers of wheat might do what they could under its provisions. I say quite frankly to the hon. member that so long as world conditions remain as they are, so long as we have an overhanging surplus of wheat, I doubt very much whether any action taken by this country alone can raise the price of wheat very materially above what would be world prices.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the hon, member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) has expressed the wish that this bill should find the united support of this house. I am sorry indeed to have to say to him that his wish cannot be met either in this house or, still less, in the country.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) has complained that he did not receive constructive criticism from most of the members of the house while this bill was being discussed in committee. Yet although he states he did not receive constructive criticism, he has himself seen the need of amending the bill in thirty-three instances, which shows the great need there was for changes.
For my part, and this is the first time I have spoken on this measure, I have been opposed to this bill ever since it was introduced. I have been waiting. I was absolutely sure that it was impossible to improve it-

Marketing Act-Mr. Lapointe
in a way that could have made it acceptable at least to myself. I am opposed to the whole measure, ho its principle, to the new changes which it involves, to the directions towards which it tends. I think that in normal times some of the members of this house who are supporting this bill would view it with great repugnance, would perhaps repel it with horror. Even my friend from Red Deer said in one part of his remarks that in normal times he would be strongly opposed to some of the provisions of this bill.


Alfred Speakman: In times which formerly were apparently normal times.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, what is the difference? Of course the economic depression has made people suffer in such a tremendous way that many have become despondent and their normal resistance to measures which are arbitrary * and authoritarian seems to have weakened. But let me tell my hon. friend that this bill is not merely for an emergency situation. Let me say to the members of the house generally that this bill is going to be the law of Canada for all time to come unless and until it is repealed by parliament. It is not there at all as an emergency. We are making a leap in the dark. During this discussion many hon. members have described this measure as an experiment. Why make the experiment at the expense of the primary producer or the farmer? The great danger in bad times is to force the acceptance of poor remedies. Sometimes these remedies instead of curing the disease, make it worse. During the course of his remarks, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) referred to the dislocation which had taken place in agriculture and our economic life. If that dislocation is not helped by this measure, will he advocate more drastic remedies? Many of us think that it cannot be a success but is he sure that these restrictions will not hamper the producer instead of helping him? After all, this bill will bring about restrictions which will hamper the freedom of action of the producer.
Planned marketing is a theory, but farmers do not live on theories. I represent a constituency which is made up mostly of consumers, but although there is nothing in this bill to protect the consumer, I do not want to discuss it from a class viewpoint. I was raised and brought up in a farming community and it is the point of view of that class which I want to lay before the house. The depression has hit the farmer in a most terrible way. He has seen the prices of his products go down while his cost of producfMr. Lapointe.]
tion did not decrease proportionately. We must admit that our whole fiscal system bears heavily against the farmer. He must bear the greater burden than he ought to be made to bear. His operations are determined by the seasons and the weather conditions. His is a risky work; his goods are perishable and he must dispose of them within a certain period of time. But after all, I think he is the best judge of when and how to dispose of them, a much better judge than any board, whether federal, provincial or local.
Agriculture is a highly individualized occupation. It is an industry which is conducted on a smaller scale than any other. It is diversified and must take into account such conditions as I referred to a moment ago. I submit that a complicated system of prohibitions, of limitations and of interferences will not help the plight of the farmer. We are all in favour of anything which will assist the farmer and educate him. The world has entered into what seems to be an era of cooperation but except in a few countries, to which I shall allude in a moment, this cooperation is voluntary and respects the personal will and liberty of the farmer. Reference has been made to the work of the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and he has been praised by hon. gentlemen on the other side. A minute ago the hon. member for Red Deer praised his work but the whole basis of cooperation in connection with that work was voluntary and not compulsion.


Alfred Speakman: Might I-


Ernest Lapointe: I would be obliged to
my hon. friend if he would allow me to proceed. I admit that I am not enamoured with the phrase "compulsory cooperation" which I have heard used by so many hon. members during this debate. It is a contradiction of terms.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: One of its
advocates sits immediately beside the hon. member, the former Minister of Agriculture.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not agree with my hon. friend; does my hon. friend refer to the former Minister of Agriculture?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am afraid so.


Ernest Lapointe: I must differ from the
former Minister of Agriculture on this. I repeat that compulsory cooperation is a contradiction of terms. It is something like virtuous vice; it is something like benevolent tyranny; it is something like diabolic sanctity; it is more like Liberal Conservatism.


An hon. MEMBER:: Liberal Progressives.

Marketing Act-Mr. Lapointe


William Richard Motherwell: These hyphenated names always get into trouble.


Ernest Lapointe: I believe that governments are not the best qualified bodies to handle merchandizing or marketing. These things should be left to private initiative. The experience of the past shows that there has always been failure when this had been tried, whether in cotton, in wheat, in coffee or anything else. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has referred to the old shibboleths -many people like to use this term-of supply and demand. The free encounter of seller and buyer, competitive prices, the decision as to markets and as to the raising or lowering of prices have always proved to be and I believe always will prove to be in the future a better regulator of human energy than any board, whether national or provincial. I do not believe in price control, in heavy restrictions and in artificial scarcity. I believe in freedom even if it brings me the sneering comments of some of my hon. friends to my extreme left. Many arbitrary and undemocratic measures have been enacted not only in this country but in the world. We are starting now under the disguise of planning. That word "planning" seems now to cover everything. Everybody becomes a planner; even the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) has become a planner and after having asked me the whole summer of last year whether I was going to the right or to the left, I wonder whither he is going now?


Mr. HANBURY:: He is up in the air.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: He is in the air.


William Richard Motherwell: He was the lay reader for the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Where, after all, did this wonderful planning start? It started in Russia, extended to Italy and finally Germany caught the infection.


Mr. MacINNIS:: And British Columbia.


Ernest Lapointe: I will deal with my hon. friend in a minute.


Edward Joseph Garland: Under a Liberal government.


Ernest Lapointe: I see it is my hon. friends to my left who do not like my remarks. I am surprised at that. I will ask them to use their patience for a little while.
Of course the Russian communists went further than most of the planners in other countries. They abolished all private capitalism. They took charge of all imports 74726-233
and exports, hours of work, all conditions, everything exactly like conditions governing soldiers and sailors elsewhere. They organized a big planning unit in Russia, the head being at Moscow and extending to every remote part of the territory. They called it the All Union Planning Commission. They had a national planning commission at .Moscow, a planning commission in every one of the seven what they call constitutive republics of the soviet, and also one in every one of the thirty so-called autonomous republics of the union. Then there was one in every little section and territory but all welded into a big whole, working under the direction of the state. Under this system Russia has become a trading unit, and if the system is a success, Russia will be the greatest trading corporation in the world. Of course it shoots any peasants or old-fashioned people who do not believe in being planned in that way. Our own bill is a mere kindergarten compared with the planning of Russia. Here they satisfy themselves with misrepresenting those who oppose the bill.
In Italy a different method was adopted. There they did not do away altogether with private ownership, but they organized the state into many corporations, guilds, also all im-der a commission of their own and welded into a unit, the result being that at least part of the individual freedom of the subject is taken away.
In Germany the system is still in an immature state and cannot be fully appreciated and criticised. It is still subject to variation according to the whims of the restless chancellor. But one thing certain is that there is always an armed ipoliceman pretty near representing the chancellor and there to see that the planning is well done and observed by everybody. Sir Norman Angell, speaking of those various dictatorships, said that they represent the psychology of the lynching party. Whatever my friends to my left may think about my views these are things that I cannot swallow and that as a Liberal I shall never digest.
Last year it was my privilege to be invited to a debate held at Hart House by the debating society of the university of Toronto. It was being conducted under parliamentary rules; there was the government on one side and the opposition on the other. I was defending Liberalism along with two of the students of the university against three opponents. The debate was a very interesting one of course until I spoke, but one thing which I remember and which I thought was

Marketing Act-Mr. Lapointe

rather bold when it was stated at the time but which seems to me now rather reasonable, was this: of course in the university there is a strong element of those who do not recognize either the Liberal or the Conservative party as their affiliation; they are Fabians, Marxists, communists, C.C.F.'s and many other denominations. We did not know which way they would vote and the Conservative. debaters made an appeal to them, telling them that after all Tory policy and communist policy are both based upon the same theory, both based upon the interference of the state in the private business of the citizen. They offered along those lines a strong argument which I had some difficulty to repel successfully. We, however, won the day.


Mr. MANION:: You should have won it after an argument like that.


Ernest Lapointe: I see. That is why in this house certain associations on this bill may not be so queer as they look when we first see them. Heaven forbid that I say about my friends to my extreme left what their new associates were saying about them last year and for the last two years in my province. They were wrong when they were saying that, but I know my hon. friends will not say I am unfair when I state that they are more to the left than we are. They represent a more extreme left than we do. We are witnessing a union of the extreme right and the extreme left on this bill. It was noticeable during the speech of the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Maclnnis); he was pleased to quote the words, many of them, of the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Dorion) and he said: That is our doctrine; that is exactly what we promulgated at our conference in Regina last year. I admit I was surprised to find these two gentlemen standing side by side.


Mr. DORION:: Not exactly.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, it will be for my hon. friend to try to extricate himself from this embrace. But coming back to the hon. member for South Vancouver, he said something to which I wish to allude. He said: "Hon. gentlemen to my right are speaking all the time of liberty and freedom, and it gives me a pain in the neck." Well, sir, I must tell my hon. friend that I am a Liberal, and I still believe in liberty and freedom, freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of exchange, even if it gives him a pain anywhere in his anatomy.
I want to refer to the stand taken by the Labour opposition in Great Britain as to the

marketing act of last year. Of course the word "planning" was borrowed by Mr. Elliot from Mr. Cole. They approved of the principle of the bill, and I am not surprised at that. But they moved an amendment that all lands should be nationalized, because they said that it is the logical conclusion.


Wilfred Hanbury: So it is.


Ernest Lapointe: It is only piecemeal planning that you are doing; their stand was for the nationalization of the land. I shall quote from an article of the Right Hon. Doctor C. Addison, M.P., one of the leaders of the Labour party, stating what their aims are with regard to that marketing act. He says:
The powers that would require to be taken would be these:
(1)	Power to conduct purchases and control supply and distribution on national account, as far as necessary.
(2) Power to control the prices and the charges of distribution.
(3)	Power to ascertain costs and to fix fair prices.
And for the long term policy the powers that would be required are:
(1)	Power to plan land development.
(2)	Power to give effect to the plan by possessing.
(a)	Power to make the best and wisest use of the land;
(b)	Power over prices, including marketing, distribution and costs right down to the consumer; and
(c)	Ability to create the machinery for securing the progressive development of the plan.
Mr. Cole, who is a Labour authority in the matter, in an article entitled Planning International Trade, does not like the planned economy under capitalist conditions. He says:
What is doubtful is whether a planned economy introduced under capitalist conditions can possibly so establish itself in face of the powerful vested interests with which it will have to deal as to exercise the degree of control over the use of national resources necessary to afford a sure foundation for a system of internally planned production and trade.
And further:
Under such conditions national planning will lead, not to the regime of plenty which is now well within the world's grasp in view of its greatly expanded productive power, but to a perpetuation of scarcity, and to the shutting up of each developed country more and more behind a wall of economic nationalism, save to the extent to which the stronger countries are able by the methods of economic imperialism to force their way into the markets of the weaker and reduce the smaller countries *o the position of satellites.

Marketing Act-Mr. Lapoin.e
I should like to read more of Mr. Cole's article, but time does not permit.
Of course the socialist opposition there accepted with great cheerfulness all the new methods of dealing with the constitution, orders in council, minister, officials and boards being substituted for the authority of parliament. On May 29, 1932, in the report stage of the agricultural marketing bill, Sir Herbert Samuel moved an amendment to omit a clause providing that:
-the making of an order in pursuance of this section shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this act have been complied with.
The Labour party did not vote against it; they were delighted with the provision. What did Sir Stafford Cripps say? I quote:
This is an excellent precedent, which will be followed widely in the future, and seems to us in every way to be desired. We shall be delighted when on future occasions (as ministers) we have to draw the attention of hon. members opposite to the excellence of the precedent.
Again, on July 5, 1933, when an order made under the Import Duties Act was being discussed, Sir Stafford Cripps on behalf of the Labour party said:
We desire to put it upon record decisively that this is a mode of procedure which, if we get the opportunity, we shall adopt in an increasing measure. ... We hope we shall be able to utilize it for just such measures as the transference of the national wealth from one lot of people to another.
Nothing can better serve the purposes of those who desire to break away from the constitution and not be hampered by its provisions than this bill. I do not mean to suggest that all who favour the bill would favour the implications which I suggest. They certainly would protest against anything which would operate exclusively along the lines I have mentioned, but we are entering on the road which leads in that direction.
The most perfectly planned society is an army. All the fascist and communist countries have organized their planned economy on a military basis and along military lines-1'etat major, the staff which does the planning, captains and officers, then the officers who deal more directly with the rank and file, and then the rank and file which has to accept and submit to everything, as it is done in an army.
Mr. ST-PERE:	Sometimes shoot them.


Ernest Lapointe: These planners have, of course, great confidence in the power of men to govern other men they think they are best suited to decide what is best for the individual 74726-233J
farmer or the individual industrialist. That is the state of mind necessary for the success of national planning. I quite admit it. But those who do not like this way of dealing with the people of a country cannot accept this. The rational method of dealing with the difficulties of the farmers at the present time I submit would be to try to increase the purchasing power of the consumers, to try to enact tariff and other economic legislation in such a way that people in the cities, towns and villages would be able to buy the products of the farmers and other producers instead of being forced to live on bread, potatoes and things of that kind, as thousands to-day are forced to do. In my view, to be at all effective a system like this must be universal and must be applied to all kinds of products. If, by reason of these regulations, the prices of some articles go higher while, other prices stay where they are or go lower, all the farmers will try to produce the articles selling at the higher prices, and there will be a glut on the market. That is unavoidable. You cannot force the consumer to buy where prices are higher; he will buy where prices are lower, and he will buy from the unregulated producer if he can get better prices there.
We are entering lightheartedly on the very difficult task of controlling thousands of small, unregulated farmers. As I said before, agriculture is a long range industry, in which you have to plan for years in advance. It is subject to changes and modifications of which the individual farmer is a better judge than any board sitting in Ottawa, Quebec or elsewhere. The economic planner, whether in Rqssia, Italy, Germany or elsewhere, seems to forget the human mind. There is a difference of mentality as between peoples and as between individuals. Russia can have its economic planning; Italy and Germany can have their plans, but I do not believe Canada will ever submit to any system which will make the state the master of the individual. I know the Quebec farmer, and I think the other farmers of Canada are much the same. The Quebec farmer will never submit to this system; he will never agree that his judgment should be subordinated to the judgment of any board however it may be organized. When the depression ends-and it will end- I submit that those planners will disappear like the night birds that are chased away by the sunshine. The Canadian farmers will remove this restriction on their liberty, and they will never accept what may be quite acceptable in a socialized state. Great institutions are rooted in the life and the habits of a nation and should not be subjected to
36S0
Marketing Act-Mr. Lapointe

sudden changes. We cannot tear ourselves loose from our history and adopt unfamiliar and exotic arrangements which may be quite good in other countries and for other people. Historical, geographical and racial conditions in Canada will make those changes not serviceable to all the producers of our country in the same way. Paternalism is not what has made Canada what it is to-day. Regimentation is not what has made Canada a great success. Neither paternalism nor regimentation will make Canadians the great people they are destined to be. This bill represents an organization of bureaucracy, and if I have time I should like to quote a sentence or two from the May edition of a review entitled Canadian Business, which is not a political paper. Dealing with this bill this review states:
The oft repeated term "governor in council" in the bill leaves an indelible inference in the reader's mind and in making the act effective the government should remember that the control of commerce by such means tends to make trading uncertain and traders reluctant to make forward contracts.
The writer continues to declare against the element of compulsion. If I had time I should like to read a resolution adopted by the farmers of France protesting against a plan of this kind which they said was against French mentality and was conducive to chaos and fallacy.
I am told that I am at the end of my time, Mr. Speaker; perhaps the house does not regret it but I do, because I have something else to say. In conclusion, however, may I merely direct the attention of the house to the topsy-turvy policies of the government. In this bill they are trying to control nationally what is private business. In the Bank of Canada Act they control privately what is national and public business. Here we have absolutely two different standards, and in order to be logical I think the government should reverse the policies embodied in those two pieces of legislation.


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) :: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) would address the house, but perhaps I may be forgiven if very humbly I try to answer some of his remarks. I think my hon. friend has drawn a rather dark picture of the bill under discussion. It is not as bad as he says. He calls it a leap in the dark. May I say that the right appellation is a leap forward. He calls it also a sort of regimentation, while on our side-and I think this is

the right interpretation-we call it a measure to create cooperation and bring about mutual help among the classes. This is the difference we see in the interpretation of this measure.
After having listened with great care to what I may call the charge of the ex-Minister of Justice against the bill I have come to the conclusion that he has not given a real argument against it. We must be satisfied with his "ipse dixit." Of course, the high personality of my hon. friend may carry a certain weight, but I would have preferred precise arguments against the bill, based on the provisions of the bill, to the ipse dixit of my hon. friend.
My hon. friend stated that this bill will not help the producers, and that the farmer is the best judge of his own requirements and necessities. With the last point I agree; there is no doubt that the farmer is the best judge of his requirements and necessities. But it is for the farmer to say whether or not he will profit by this measure; it is for him to say whether or not he will use the machinery provided by it. There is no compulsion on the farmer to accept and to use the provisions of the bill, and there is no regimentation.
My hon. friend referred to the stand I took last summer during the course of a campaign in the province of Quebec. He was referring to the question I put to him wherein I asked him whether he was going to the right or to the left. The hon. member did not give this House of Commons the answer he gave me. He told me he was not going either to the right or to the left, but that he was going forward.


Ernest Lapointe: Straight ahead.


Maurice Dupré: Surely my hon. friend
should be satisfied because in this measure we are going forward. The reason why I asked my question was obvious. The electors of Canada at that time did not know exactly where the Liberal party stood. They listened to my hon. friend in the counties of Belle-chasse and Lotbiniere when he stated that his party was going forward, and not to the left. Only a few days before that we had listened to the declaration made in the western provinces by his right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the effect that at least three-quarters of the third party platform could be accepted by the Liberal party. Only a few minutes before or after thfe truly remarkable speech of the ex-Minister of Justice at St.

Marketing Act-Mr. Dupre
Flavien in the county of Lotbiniere, on the same platform we could hear the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, premier of Quebec, summoning the ex-Minister of Justice to oppose any bill establishing a central bank.


Ernest Lapointe: He did not succeed.


Maurice Dupré: Therefore we may be forgiven if at that time we did not know where the Liberal party stood. We remembered the fact that we had listened to speeches delivered in this house by my hon. friends opposite- I mean the Liberal opposition-


Wilfred Hanbury: Not your new friends.


Maurice Dupré: -against section 98 of the criminal code, and we knew that at that time the same Mr. Taschereau, premier of Quebec, was in favour of section 98 being inserted in the criminal code.


Mr. BROWN:: Taschereau is a Tory.


Maurice Dupré: Therefore we had before us all these contradictions; and I have not mentioned the declaration of the Liberal party which, before the last election, stated it was in favour of the St. Lawrence waterway scheme, despite the fact that their Mr. Taschereau had i called the waterway scheme a national crime. We did not know where they stood, and we were asking the question of the ex-Minister of Justice.
In a few words, what is this measure which has been denounced by Tie ex-Minister of Justice? It is a measure designed to secure for the Canadian farmers a more orderly marketing system.


Ernest Lapointe: Would my hon. friend excuse me? I have to go to the banking committee.


Mr. JACOBS:: He is going there to support the central bank.


Maurice Dupré: This measure is to promote a more orderly marketing system than that which at present prevails, one which without unfairness either to distributors or to consumers will operate to their financial advantage.


Wilfred Hanbury: Where in the bill is there reference to the consumer?


Maurice Dupré: The bill is designed-and I hope this will be understood-to prevent manipulation and exploitation. I do not think that the Canadian farmers would be opposed to any measure which in our estimation would prevent manipulation and exploitation. The bill provides machinery for regulating the
movement of products in such a way as tc tend to stabilize prices. It has been ofter said by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) that the bill does not provide for price fixing or the restricting of production. That is one point which seems tc be forgotten when the bill is under discussion. Referring to the measure I find that it is designed to establish a dominion marketing board to regulate the marketing of natural products, which board will cooperate with local boards and any marketing board or agency established under the law of any province to regulate the marketing of any natural product.
Before we proceed to the second part of the bill we find in part I the procedure whereby the bill may be made workable. It gives the government power to limit or to restrict the importation of a product which is competing with a product subject to regulation by a board. I do not understand-and the fact that I do not understand may be proof that I am wrong-how farmers can be opposed to a bill which will impose some restrictions upon products competing in a nasty way against their own products. The bill gives the power, further, to restrict the export of products from Canada when it is in the interests of producers to impose such restrictions. But the producers themselves are the people who will say whether they want restrictions of imports or exports.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Where do you
see that?


Maurice Dupré: The second part of the bill provides for the determination of investigations, and so on. Representations were made first by farmers' organizations in western Canada, and then by organizations in central and eastern Canada stressing the necessity of the dominion government's enacting such legislation, I submit that this is a democratic measure, and I do not see why as such it should not be enacted by a Conservative government or a Conservative party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the minister allow a question? I did not wish to interrupt him in the course of his remarks. A moment ago he said it would be for the producers themselves to say when there were to be restrictions of imports or exports. Where does he find that in the bill?


Maurice Dupré: That will be done by local boards and the federal board. The local boards and the federal board are controlled by the people who take part in these aoti-vi-
Marketing Act-Mr. Dupre

ties, and those people are the producers or the farmers. That is mj contention. They will speak for themselves, and decide what attitude they should take, namely as to whether they would be in favour of or against restriction.
Mr. Speaker, these are the few remarks I wanted to submit in answer to my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). He has tried to be witty and has spoken of the new policy of the Conservative party. There is no harm in that. So far as I can see we shall continue to move forward and to initiate, and if we are to believe what my hon. friend from Quebec East says, the old Liberal party of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, thanks to the new leadership, instead of being a progressive party, will become retrogressive and reactionary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
minister concludes, may I say that he did not answer my question? I asked him where he found in the act a provision which allows the producer to say when imports or exports are to be restricted.


Maurice Dupré: My right hon. friend remembers perfectly well the discussion that we had of that point in committee and the statements that were made by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture. I have not the act before me at the moment, but my right hon. friend knows that the boards will decide what policies they are going to follow, and if they decide in favour of restriction they will make regulations accordingly. That is the procedure that will be followed, and it is for the board, not for the government or any party, to decide.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid
the minister has forgotten a part of the bill, because what he says applies only to its early provisions. The part relating to restriction of exports and imports appears by itself under a distinctive heading. It is a paragraph by itself, section 12. It says the governor in council may restrict, and it is only the governor in council. There is no clause anywhere in the act which gives the producers the power to tell the governor in council what to do.


Maurice Dupré: The governor in council will pass orders in council after having received suggestions from the local board, and regulations will be made accordingly.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HEENAN

Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. On Friday, May 25, the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) quoted from a statement which I had made at page 3349 of Hansard in which I corrected a statement which he made with respect to my expenses as Minister of Labour. After he had quoted what I had said he went on to say:
I have no desire to do an injustice to any hon. member. If that statement is not true, I wish the hon. member had given the correct figures,-
That is, if his statement was not true, I should have given the figures. Then, Mr. Speaker, you permitted him to make a further statement as follows:
-because his total personal expenses for 1929, exclusive of his sessional indemnity and ministerial salary, were $9,291.
Let me say, standing here in this House of Commons, that that statement is not true. He then proceeded:
His total personal expenses from 1926 to the end of his term in office were $16,691.
Again let me say, standing here in this House of Commons, that that statement is not true either. I should like to be given an opportunity at the proper time to compare my expenses with those of any member of previous Conservative governments or of this government.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Weir (Melfort) for the third reading of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith.
Mr. W. H. MOORE (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) upon having carried out an extremely arduous task. At times we have disagreed; at times I have felt that he was not giving to the committee and to

Marketing Act-Mr. Moore (Ontario)
the house the full information which he possessed, but at least he kept his good humour.
As the minister said to-day, this bill is designed to deal with the very serious gap which exists between the producer and the consumer of natural products. This is not a new matter; it is an old one and one which this house and the legislatures of this country have had under consideration for many years. We have dealt with it in a political way and our way affords a good illustration of political industry or government intervention in industry. It seems to me that the most sensible thing to have done would have been to analyze the causes of and the items which go to make up this gap. May I illustrate what I mean? There is the long haul, the short haul, the matter of cost of delivery; there is waste, insurance, conversion costs and, above all, the risks of the market. We have not entered into those matters. I followed the work of the committee fairly closely. To-day the minister complained- quite properly so, as far as I am concerned -that he had had no constructive criticism. But he will remember that at the commencement I said I was opposed to the compulsory features of the bill. I could not see how I could make a compulsory act of service to the country, and frankly I did not try. I felt that the government should take the responsibility.
At the closing hour of the house this afternoon, the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) referred to this bill as a forward movement. He referred also, as did other speakers, to the price spread features in the second portion of the bill. That is not a forward movement. The Solicitor General is a student and I fancy that he can find many quotations in Piers Plowman which will illustrate the argument which has been offered against price spreads. He is a lawyer and well versed in the history of the law and I have no doubt he will remember a case which we were told was rather famous, that of Rusby who was tried in 1800 for having made an excessive price spread advantage in the wheat market. He was fined and reprimanded by the court. Those who are familiar with the matter will remember that there were riots and the populace visited the home of Rusby and sought his life. Merchants were denounced as extortionists, particularly those in the wheat trade, but what happened? The merchants abstained from the market and the results were just the reverse of what was expected by the court and by the legislature.
I am very fond of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens)'-I hope he does not mind. I followed with a great deal of interest what he said in the budget debate because it bore upon this matter. He will recall that as reported on page 2641 of Hansard he referred to the revolution that, mind you, had taken place in the economic life of the country. He referred to this over and over again during his speech, and as reported on page 2653 of Hansard he used these words:
I have endeavoured to make clear to the house that new and momentous changes have talcep place in the economic structure of the world, changes which forever bar us from a return to the old methods.
That is pretty strong language. Reading that, I had a very pessimistic outlook upon the future of this country, but the minister buoyed me up this morning when I received a bulletin from the bureau of statistics over which he presides, and without the advent of this legislation, without destroying individualism, without subjecting the individual producer to the action of the mass, I find the Minister of Trade and Commerce saying:
The index of economic conditions, maintained by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, showed a gain of more than 20 per cent in the week ended May 26 over the same week of last year. The standing for last week was 94.0 compared with 79.3 in the week ended May 27, 1933, the index being expressed as a percentage of the average for the base year of 1926.
I have no desire to tell the minister what he should do as a member of this government, but if I were a member of the government I should be inclined to take some credit for having brought about improved conditions, although of course I should realize that the improvement had come about, as the minister appreciates, through the energy and the activity of individual Canadians in their ordinary vocations of life.
The Minister of Agriculture to-day, as did the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man), referred to the haphazard manner in which we have been marketing our natural products. I wonder if that statement is quite accurate. The minister referred to the object of this legislation as orderly marketing, as stabilization, and I was given the impression that we lacked those things because of excessive individualism. I wonder if that is quite accurate. The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) told us that he had prepared the way for this bill; that he had taken steps which led to the first stage. Well, we know that throughout the world since the war there has been a tightening of control of
3684	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Moore (Ontario)
production, not only of natural but of all products. That came about naturally through the war and it was only gradually released. The control was not quite so strong for a few years and since then it has been growing stronger and stronger. Then we had collapse. Can anyone say that that collapse came because we had had too much freedom of trade internally or externally, or are we to say that it is because we have had too much control? If we have had too much control and then collapse, are we to get out of collapse by further control? I have in my hand the monthly summary of February, 1934, of the League of Nations. I cannot say that I always agree but they have given this as a very definite statement. After showing, I am glad to say, that Great Britain and Canada are leading the way in recovery, they have this to say, speaking of the recovery:
For how long will the process of recovery and development on the national markets be maintained unless there is a corresponding return to freedom and confidence on the international market?
I say that that applies also to the domestic market. I would say that we are making our recovery as against the nations of the world because we have better maintained our freedom. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) to-day ventured into economics; he spoke of the shibboleth of the law of demand and supply. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, I think, used the phrase and rather offended me because I have always believed that even governments have to take that into consideration. If I remember aright, when the minister made his speech he must even then have been considering the demand from his own province for assistance from the supply of the federal government.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That is
another kind of commodity.


William Henry Moore: 
Edward Joseph Garland: Or the exMinister of Justice.


William Henry Moore: I would try also
with the ex-Minister of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: You may try your luck.


William Henry Moore: This government has a very serious problem. I know of no government that has been burdened with more problems than has this government during the past two or three years. The problem in western Canada is most serious. Irrespective of politics I would say that the position in western Canada had been brought about largely by government intervention. I believe that this government should face the situation. When anyone has been running fast in one direction he cannot tum around and run fast in the other.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


William Henry Moore: I have no desire to trespass upon the time of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Proceed.


William Henry Moore: Is it understood that I may go on for a few moments?


Mr. YENIOT:: No objection has been raised.


Mr. F. H. PICKEL (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong the debate, but there are a few observations I should like to make on the third reading of the bill, and especially after listening to the comments by hon. members opposite. I should think the house would agree with me when I state it is my impression that the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) left the farm when he was very young. He is not in favour of price fixing. He wants to get cheap butter. I wonder if he is just as liberal towards price fixing in connection with legal fees, judges' fees, superannuation, doctors' fees, notaries' fees, and fees for other professional men. In the present measure we are not asking for price fixing; we are not asking that the price to the consumer be increased. AH we are asking
is that the farmer should get his just share of what1 is paid by the consumer for his products. That is what we are after.
I should like to refer to only a few commodities which affect all the farmers in Ontario and Quebec and in the maritime provinces. I cannot see how the present measure will affect the price of wheat to any great extent, nor can I see how it could greatly affect the price of beef, except to the extent that poor quality beef might be kept off the market. The principal products of farmers in Ontario and Quebec are butter, eggs, pork and milk. To-day we hear nothing said about the price of pork, because thanks to the imperial preferences we are receiving three times as much as are the producers on the other side of the boundary line. One may note that in the spring of the year the price of these products is depressed arbitrarily by the middleman; it is fixed by him. I think it was the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr Motherwell) who said that we were stirred up simply because of the depression, but I say to him that this condition has existed for years. The middleman says, "We will pay so much this week," and through the summer as long as the farmer is producing the price is kept down to that level. Eggs bought to-day in the west at seven or eight cents a dozen are being placed in cold storage, and this fall and winter we shall have to pay forty cents or fifty cents a dozen for them. Is that right?-not much. They are doing the same thing with butter. This fall the storage houses will be filled with butter; they will have the whole season's make right there in one large quantity. We talk about supply and demand; six months' supply of butter will be right there in storage. Then those middlemen send the price up to thirty or thirty-five cents per pound. The farmer does not get any of that; it is no satisfaction to him to know that butter is thirty-five cents a pound or eggs fifty cents a dozen when he has none to sell. In fact at such times a good many of the farmers have to buy.
I believe that through the marketing bill we will receive some redress, and if we do not I do not know what we shall do. I understand that this afternoon a bill was introduced to effect farm relief, to put the farmer on his feet, I contend that if he is given a just share of the selling price of his goods he will put himself on his feet; give him a chance, because that is all we want. Everybody else in the country is protected, but the farmer is the man who is down under. He has lost
36SS
Marketing Act-Mr. Picket

his morale. In the cities they are robbing him right and left.
The price of butter to-day is not as low as it was last year, and the same statement applies to the price of eggs. They see the handwriting on the wall; they ex.pect they are going to be pulled up, and they deserve it. Talk about cooperation! Several members have mentioned that they are in favour of cooperation and I say that this whole scheme of production right from the soil to the consumer would be all right if there were cooperation right through, but you cannot get the middleman to cooperate. The farmers will cooperate but still they have to sell their produce at a depreciated price, with the middleman exploiting them. There is no such thing as cooperation between the producer and the middleman. The middleman is robbing the farmer all the time.
So far as compulsion is concerned, I see nothing in this bill of a compulsory nature except that when a sufficient body of producers ask that a certain product be regulated there are means of compulsion. If the butter producers, the egg producers, the strawberry producers or the producers of any other natural product are perfectly satisfied with the present marketing conditions they will not ask for anything else and there is no compulsion, but if they do ask for a change there is power under, the bill to deal with the situation and give them what they want. This is not a question at all of trying to create monopolies as the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Moore) has said. He gave us a great many academic quotations from different authorities dating back to the time of "corn in Egypt" and coming right down to the present, but that has nothing to do with the situation in Canada. We are in a unique position in this country. We consume in Canada ninety-eight per cent of all our farm products with the exception of cheese and wheat. It is right here on our own doorstep that we are being robbed; it is our own people who are robbing us, and I say that we should have means to prevent that. Give the farmer a just share of what he has produced and sells on the market and endeavour to make his returns more uniform throughout the year. Butter should never drop below twenty-five cents a pound or eggs below twenty-five cents a dozen. This idea of eggs at eight and ten cents a dozen in the spring and summer when the distributors fire accumulating their stocks is all wrong, and I do not see how even the consumer derives any benefit from it; next winter he

will have to pay four times as much because prices will be four or five hundred per cent higher. On every box of butter that is put into cold storage the farmer is robbed of from five to ten dollars by the packing houses. If this bill rectifies that situation, and I think it will, it certainly will be of great benefit. I know that a great many members opposite do not pretend to know much about farming, and there are a great many others opposite who have expressed themselves and think they know something about farming but who do not know very much. I have been farming all my life and I know what I am talking about. I come in close contact with the Montreal market, and the Toronto market conditions are just the same, and I know what the middlemen are doing. They are making their millions every winter at the expense of the farmer. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will be given the support it deserves.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, before the bill is given third reading I desire to reply to some of the statements that have been made in the house this afternoon. It does appear to me that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) have overlooked one very important factor in our present economic system which they cannot afford to ignore. The. member for Ontario referred to the inefficiency of monopolies of the character of the pools and claimed that the pools had failed and blamed failure on the minority that was not in the pools. The fact is that the pools and cooperative organizations of all kinds do not come into existence simply for the fun of running a pool or cooperative organization. They have come into existence just as this bill is now forced to come into existence, because of the extravagance and waste and mad inefficiency of the present competitive system. Let hon. members beware of this fact, particularly the hon. member for Ontario, that so long as you have a commercial system governed entirely in its distributive end by a regulated and restricted monetary system it is absolutely necessary that you have a regulated and controlled producing system. If not, you have chaotic conditions continuing interminably.
In an intelligently organized state one would not have to worry at all about so-called surpluses, certainly not for many years, but in a type of society such as we have now there must be some regulation, some direction, until the time comes when we get sufficient sense to determine and evolve a

Marketing Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
method of distribution under which we can permit the freest production and consumption of all things.
I am quite satisfied that the government is not willingly introducing this measure, any more than farmers cooperate willingly, any more than business men willingly form cartels. They are compelled to do so because of the inherent waste of the individualistic competitive system, because of the debt-causing character of that system.
The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred to this bill in most uncomplimentary terms this afternoon. With some of his references I do not entirely disagree, but when he asks rhetorically, "Why experiment with the farmers?" I answer: because the farmers want to be experimented with in this particular direction. They have been asking for it for years. My own farmers have been seeking power to force upon a selfish and indifferent minority a recognition of their obligations. to the majority. I am quite in agreement with the hon. member for Ontario that the creation of a monopoly in itself does not necessarily mean that you improve conditions, because you have to take into consideration factors outside of it as well; but the creation of monopolies is indicated as a definite trend in present conditions. The time may come when you will have complete decentralization, but I cannot see it coming under the present system.
The illustration given by the hon. member for Ontario of the Conservative party rushing to reach a certain place along a certain road and his suggestion that they would get there if they did not collide with members in this section of the house struck me as rather apt except that he did not get the whole picture. The fact is that on the road, and a little distance ahead, there has been a group indicating the course that should have been followed for some years. The bulk of the producers have been trailing along the road in between. The Conservative party sees what is happening, jumps in the car, and tries to catch up. The Liberal party standing to one side in the bog of mid-Victorian economics refuses to participate in the twentieth century method of dealing with economic facts. That is what they are suffering from.


Ernest Lapointe: Truth is eternal.


Edward Joseph Garland: Truth is not
eternal; it is a matter of adjustments, but that is a metaphysical subject that I might discuss with the hon. member with more profit to himself than myself at some future date. Of course certain truths, certain elemental facts,
are eternal, but when he attempts to apply the term "eternal" to economic conditions or "truth" to the governing factors in an economic system he is talking nonsense.
I am supporting this measure not because it is a particularly good one-there are many weaknesses in it and there will continue to be many weaknesses because of the very nature of events and men-but because it purports to extend to producers the opportunity to organize. To the extent that it encourages them to do that, I am for the bill; to the extent that it enables them, after organization, to function more thoroughly as a group, I am in favour of the bill, but I still object to certain bureaucratic features which are embodied in section 9. I think the minister would have been wise if he had avoided the anomaly of reserving to himself and to the central board the right and power to give to a local board created by the minister or the governor in council the power to act as a selling agency whereas in the case of the organization estabiished by the producers he denies that local board the right to become a selling agency. It is true he gives them the power to designate another body as the instrument through which sales may take place, but this is to me one of the most objectionable features of the bill and one which will necessitate a multiplicity of organization on the pant of the producers. It will be wasteful and will likely lead to a good deal of confusion and conflict later on.
I am in favour of other parts of the bill because I am in favour of the cooperative principle. I like the idea because it is not, as hon. friends to my right have said, an experiment or a theory; it is something which has proven itself through the years. It has proven that it can function and be efficient even under an utterly inefficient and chaotic system. I wonder if hon. members have taken the trouble to study what has been happening in connection with cooperation. In the first place, cooperation never made a millionaire, but it never made a pauper. That is a record which cannot be credited to the capitalist system, or the present competitive commercial system, if you prefer the term. In the very industries which we have been discussing under this measure, such as the packing industry, we find millionaires and multimillionaires like Mr. Stanley Maclean, Sir Joseph Flavelle, Mr. William Davies, Mr. Pat Burns and Messrs. Matthews and Blackwell. In the milling business we find men like Jim
3090	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
Stewart, James Richardson and so on. Surely the time has come when the producers must be given an opportunity to check the exploitation of their efforts by men of this stamp who by financial reorganization of their companies and by utterly unfair and unethical methods are able to rob the producer of what is properly his. Senator Brookhart, of the United States, when studying this question stated that ninety-two per cent of business ventures end in failure. How does the hon. member for Ontario like that? Ninety-two per cent of business enterprises end in failure under the genius of the capitalist competitive system. On the other hand, cooperative failures are comparatively few. Senator Brookhart pointed out also that out of S30,000,000,000 paid by the consumers for the products of the farm, the farmer received in the neighbourhood of $9,000,000,000. The farmer receives $9,000,000,000 and the consumer pays $30,000,000,000. If this bill will enable the setting up of producer boards to act in between the producer and the consumer, getting for the consumer and the producers better prices, then it is good. If it fails to do that, of course it is bad. But as I have said twice in earlier speeches the highest effectiveness of this bill can come only when the government of the day, whether it be this one or some other, decides to reorganize the monetary system of the country and see that the purchasing power of the people is kept in consonance with our productive ability.
If hon. members will turn to Great Britain they will find a growth in cooperative movement, a movement which is both consumer and producer, which is one of the great attributes of the British system of cooperation. The total membership of that movement is 6,760,432, while the total share loan capital is $944,000,000. The total retail sales of the cooperatives in Great Britain during 1932 were in the neighbourhood of one billion dollars. More than half of the families in Great Britain belong to cooperative societies. I pause here to say to the minister that I would have welcomed the introduction of a section into this measure having for its object the encouraging of the setting up of consumer societies in order that the consumer's end of the system might be organized for his own protection and to facilitate the interchange and the interrelationship between producer and consumer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have the consumers' league.


Edward Joseph Garland: not a socialist movement. The cooperative movement in the different countries has developed as it has done under the order of society as it exists at the present time.
He endeavoured to leave the impression with the house that the cooperative system was a part of the competitive system, when, as a matter of fact, it is created for the pur-

. Marketing Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
pose of removing as completely as possible the present competitive system. To demonstrate the wildness of the attitude taken I now quote a part of the report of the directors of the British Cooperative Union, 1932, May 16 to 18:
Capitalist apologists cannot explain in terms which do not condemn their theory the disconcerting fact that, at the apex of productive capacity, _ world consumption and exchange of commodities are dwindling. Systematic destruction of valuable goods alleged' to have been over-produced, the collapse of credit systems sanctified by banking tradition, and reversions to crude barter reveal even to the man in the street the lamentable failure of competitive industry and the flimsiness of its foundations. In such a world of unreality the simple verities of the cooperative ideal stand out as basic common sense.
That official statement of the board of directors does not give any colour to the implication in the words used by the right hon. leader of the opposition.
Again to-day we were treated to a dissertation similar to the one of last year, that economic planning is something that is abhorrent and unintelligent and would lead to the wildest kinds of bureaucracy and injustice. I do wish, with all due respect, my good friends to the right, for whom I have high personal regard and affection, would try to keep their records or their opinions straight. At the very time that the leader of the opposition in western Canada was smashing at the idea of a planned state of society, proclaiming against it in the most bitter and denunciatory terms, the president of the Liberal Federation was making speeches in eastern Canada the very contrary of those expressed by the leader of the opposition. I suggest to the ex-Minister of Justice, who to-day also waxed eloquent on the subject of the evils of planning, that he go back this year to the summer school of the Liberal group and take new lessons in economics from Mr. Massey. I regard Mr. Vincent Massey as an intellectual realist. I am afraid I look upon the leader of the opposition and the ex-Minister of Justice as mid-Victorian constitutionalists. That would be about the fair comparison at this stage as demonstrated by their attitude on this and other measures. If they could only recognize the inevitability of these things under the system, I could have some patience with them, but they will not even recognize that much.
To return, however, to Mr. Massey; he had just indicated that national planning could not be regarded as an end in itself but rather as a prelude to world cooperation. I agree thoroughly with him. It is a long distance
to look ahead, but it is quite intelligible. He continues:
The new state, as I see it, will be subject in an increasing degree to comprehensive planning.
Of course it will be; and if this bill is part -and I regard it as such-of the national planning of the productive and distributive effort of Canada, then of course Mr. Massey, if he were in the house, would support this measure. He continues further:
The primary conflict is not, therefore, isolation versus internationalism-
As we have been led to believe in this debate.
[DOT]-but planning versus improvisation and in this struggle planning will, I believe, be victorious,
I submit that that very reference, "isolation versus internationalism," if taken with the meaning he appeared to have read into it, would definitely demolish the whole thesis of traditional Canadian liberalism. He goes further and says:
There is no reason why the new nationalism, frankly recognized, should be provocative either in motive or in effect. It can be based on the reasonable idea that a national unit can make the best contribution to the world by tidying up its own affairs. It can be purged of the nature which has so degraded the international world in past years.
He continues:
How then are we to adjust ourselves to this situation?
That is, of general national control of imports. He answers himself by saying:
In the first place we must plan our own economic life in an orderly and comprehensive way and to the limits of our capacity so to do.
At the very moment or almost at the moment he was saying this, the right hon. leader of the opposition was declaring in Winnipeg that state control of industry and finance inevitably meant that the individual must accept the decisions of those in power as to where he will work, what he will do and how and where he will do it.
Of course that at best is a wild exaggeration, but Mr. Massey would answer my right hon. friend as he did, or at least it might have been an answer to him, by saying:
As governments play an increasing part in the control of international trade, many of the matters which in the nineteenth century were left to the action of markets and private individuals, will be arranged through representatives of the state. This is a situation we shall have to accept.
With everything Mr. Massey says in that document I agree. I go further and would
3692	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
point out to the leader of the opposition and to hon. gentlemen to my right that there is nothing incompatible in the fact that as a cooperator I am associating myself, as my organization is doing, with a group of persons who have been called by others socialists. It seemed to astonish the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. MacMillan) who does not happen to be in the chamber at the moment, and one or two others when I made the statement on the second reading of the bill that I was not a socialist; nor am I one, but I am a cooperator. In many respects the methods and objective of the two philosophies appear to be exactly the same.
I have given the membership of the British cooperative at about 6,760,000, which of course includes many women. I now ask hon. members to refer to the British cooperative political movement, the most powerful movement in Great Britain at this moment in point of membership, having a present subscribing membership of 4,000,000 people. This is the highest membership of any political party in Great Britain and is a definite sign of the times. In common with similar movements in many other countries the British cooperative movement and cooperative society have suffered at the hands of capitalistic governments. For instance, in the effort to establish a cooperative bank in that country they were enormously hampered by a definite refusal to allow them clearing house privileges. During the session, a year ago, of the British parliament, the income of the cooperative societies was taxed. They succeeded in passing the law to do so and the immediate effect of that harsh, unjustifiable legislation was to give an immense stimulus to the cooperative movement and particularly to the political side of it. If 'hon. members will bear in mind the terns of the resolution moved from this side of the house last year in a debate on this question of a cooperative commonwealth they will find a striking similarity between the terms used by us and those used by the British cooperative party. In the resolution which has been carried by their association and which may be found at page 26 of the People's Year Book for 1934, the official publication of the cooperative board, it will be found that the policy of the cooperative party in regard to the cooperative commonwealth was expressed in these terms:
That the object of the Cooperative party is the establishment of the cooperative commonwealth wherein the means of production, distribution, and exchange shall be collectively owned, and wherein the cooperative movement shall function as the medium for the provision of the personal and domestic requirements of the community. tMr. E. J. Garland.)
That is as close to the proposal that we have been making for many years as anything I can imagine; indeed, I see no difference, nor need there be one. The ideal state when properly developed-possibly this legislation may be the first step toward it; properly administered and sympathetically handled;, it will be-would be a state in which the natural monopolies, the great public utilities would be state owned and state controlled in the interests of the people. But the producing functions of the state can be well handled by cooperative producing groups. In the ideal state that will come eventually, when you have a conjunction of the two principles, state socialism handling the industries and institutions of monopolistic character, and the people carrying on by cooperative functional groups the business of production. In the international field the success of the movement has been just as marked as in the purely national field. I submit that in every sense members of this group are justified in supporting this measure as a first step towards a planned and ordered state of society. Certainly I do not think that it will achieve very great success, tempered as it will be by the factors, monetary and otherwise, to which I have referred; but as far as it goes I give it my cooperation and support in helping to improve the conditions of my people. But I warn the government definitely that they would have been better advised to turn their entire attention to the question of stimulating the capacity of the producer to organize himself and to create his own schemes and his own boards. I do not believe that any government can save producers in the long run, but the producers can save themselves and can be helped to do so by government.
There is one other feature of the bill to which I object; the provisions granting assistance for processing, warehousing et cetera of primary products should have been limited to cooperative enterprises. That assistance should not have been granted to private enterprises functioning for profit. If it were granted to the producers I could see the merit of the scheme; as it is there is a grave weakness in that regard. This afternoon the ex-Minister of Justice referred to the attitude of the cooperative movement in Great Britain. I was not able to catch all that he said. But for fear he may have suggested that that movement was opposed to such marketing legislation-he shakes his head; then this is further support of my position, for the British cooperative movement not only has not condemned the British marketing scheme,

Marketing Act-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
which is somewhat similar to this, but passed this resolution:
The conference requests the national cooperative authority to press upon the government that producers' boards shall not be established under the Agricultural Marketing Acts until statutory powers have been secured for the establishment of complementary boards representing distributors' and consumers' interests.
As I said earlier in my remarks, I believe that should have been done here andl a provision placed in the bill to enable the creation of boards representative of consumers' interests. But we have to take what we can get under existing conditions; a slice of bread is better than no bread. For what merit it may have I am willing to accept the bill and shall vote for the third reading.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: I shall not detain the house very long, but wish to express some opinions on this bill. I was extremely interested in what the last speaker (Mr. Garland, Bow River) had to say about cooperation; he seems to be under a misapprehension with respect to the success of the Scottish and British cooperative societies. The fact is they did grow up in a highly competitive system. .We have known of that for years. Their great success was in cooperation.


Edward Joseph Garland: There was no place else they could grow.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend suggested that my leader was making a mistake in making that statement.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, the
hon. gentleman is not correct; he must not misrepresent me. What I said was that the leader of the opposition definitely conveyed the implication in his speech, as have others, that the cooperative movement was a part of the competitive system and functioned in and under it as a part of it. It is the very antithesis of that.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot see why that statement would be incorrect either; it did do so, and the hon. gentleman did not deny it.


Edward Joseph Garland: In spite of the competitive system.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, its great success was achieved in direct competition with the retail trade of Scotland and England. They made a success of it, and they are to be commended for so doing. And the same thing may be done in Canada. I for one am ready to support any such institution in Canada. Farmers of this country have a 74726-234
perfect right to be permitted to organize on a cooperative basis in their own interest to sell their own produce, and be given the facilities to carry it to the consumer if necessary.
I agree absolutely with the statement of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel); there is too wide a spread between the prices received by the producer and the prices paid by the consumer. I can agree with him also that the consumer will not be called upon to pay any more than he is paying under existing conditions. And I am entirely in favour of the action of this government so far as it seeks to remove the difficulty heretofore in evidence between the provinces and the federal government with respect to the sales of natural products. But what I am not in sympathy with, and what I know my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) is not in sympathy with are the compulsory features of this bill. I ask him here and now if anyone was ever compelled to go into the cooperative movement in England or Scotland against his will. It was a purely voluntary system from start to finish.


Ernest Lapointe: We are all in favour of that.


Charles A. Stewart: We stand entirely for that system. Have the wheat pools of western Canada ever sought to coerce people to go into them? I know a few of them tried to, but they did not succeed.


Edward Joseph Garland: And they have been asking for a government wheat board.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes that
may all be in line, quite in line, asking to have a sales board of their own. True, it did not prove entirely successful, but I agree with the hon. member for Bow River that in the inception of such a movement as this there is bound to be difficulty. You cannot make a hundred per cent success of any given movement ; where groups of people are banded together for certain purposes they are bound to make mistakes, and I for one am not going to say that on account of those mistakes the movement is an entire failure.
But what I object to in this bill more than anything else are sections 9 and 12. I am not going to detain the house at any length, but I object to the government of this country taking the arbitrary powers that they do take with respect to imports. I object to it most strenuously. If we are to have a tariff, then for heaven's sake let this parliament decide what that tariff shall be, in order that the business interests of the country may

3694	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
know what it is and be able to carry on their business under the provisions of the schedules laid down by parliament. When you depart from that you immediately interfere with the free business exchange that should go on in any country. And when it comes to the point as enunciated by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), that the boards will recommend to the minister and the governor in council when imports should be allowed to come in and when they should be prohibited, particularly natural products, that is just adding to the difficulties that we have to-day. Ever since I entered the House of Commons, indeed all my life, I have been opposed to excessive tariffs. I have always believed that they would react against the interests of the producers of natural products of the country in the long run. To-day we have evidence as to how they are reacting against the producers of natural products, as we are operating under a very high system of tariffs protecting secondary industry to the detriment of the producers of natural products. It is bound to do so. Day by day we see the loss of our foreign markets. It has been remarked that ninety-eight per cent of our production is consumed in Canada. I admit that a very large proportion is consumed in Canada. I will admit also that the United States consume quite as large if not a little larger proportion of their production, yet they cannot control the price of their natural products, nor can we in Canada. So long as we export a bushel of wheat, a pound of butter or a quart of cream it will have a regulating influence on the price we receive at home, I do not care how many marketing boards you establish or how many cooperative commonwealth institutions you put in operation throughout the country. World prices will prevail. This is so well set out under the British agreements that we need not argue the point. Great Britain said, "Yes, we will put a duty against imports of foreign natural products, but we will not pay you one cent more than the world prices for the products that come in from Canada." Again world prices prevail, and world prices have a regulating influence upon domestic prices.
My hon. friend from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) made something of the point that owing to the agreement with Great Britain we are getting a higher price for pork than they are getting in the United States. But we are getting the world price for pork. The United States, not having the privilege of that market, is not getting as high a price, but world prices prevail for us and less than world prices prevail in the United States. Who
!Mr. C. A. Stewart.]
suffers? No one but the producers of pork or other natural products in that country.
So it has been ever since I have been interested in public affairs. Ultimately the producer of natural products has to pay for the protection that is given the secondary industries, and I question very much whether all the protection that has been given the secondary industries in Canada has done them very much good. I have no disagreement with my hon. friends in the corner with regard to the monetary question, but I have a very considerable disagreement with them over their change of front with respect to tariffs. I do disagree absolutely with the statement made here and there that tariffs have little or nothing to do with the economic condition in which we find ourselves to-day. They have a great deal to do with it. I will agree that the monetary situation plays an important part, and I have a good deal of sympathy with the stand of my hon. friends in that regard. I disagree, however, with the extreme nationalism that is assumed both by the Conservative party and by my friends in the corner, that this is going to be a permanent thing in which there will be no change, and that we must so readjust our whole fiscal and economic system-this is what it m-ans ultimately-that we shall not produce anything that we cannot consume within the boundaries of our own country. That is what it gets down to. If that doctrine is to be accepted we may as well make up our minds at once that we must go under cartels, that we must have that planned production which my hon. friends speak about so glibly, and that we must work within the confines of that system for the next decade or two at all events. I do not agree with that in any particular; I cannot accept that as the ultimate destiny of the people of this country. If it is our destiny we are going to have a pretty difficult country to live in for the next thirty or forty years.


Edward Joseph Garland: Neither do I accept that as our ultimate destiny; I never have done so.


Charles A. Stewart: Then all I can say to my hon. friend is that to one listening to his argument it means that or nothing. I should be glad to discuss it with the hon. gentleman; I am sorry if I am making a mistake in that regard, but that is the conclusion to which I have come after listening carefully to the statements made by hon. gentlemen in that corner to the effect that extreme nationalism is here to stay,

Marketing Act-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
that exchange between countries, if carried on at all, is going to be extremely difficult and that therefore we must plan our monetary system and our economic system, as well as our production, to meet that contingency. If I am wrong in those deductions I shall be glad to be put right. I say that I do not agree with that statement, because even today, despite the extreme nationalism of the various trading countries of the world, what are they doing? They are getting together for the purpose of exchanging surplus goods one with the other. When we look abroad to-day we find that the surplus wheat production in most of the competitive countries that are doing business in Great Britain along with Canada has been wiped out, while our surplus remains. I am very glad to believe that day by day our surplus is going down; I am glad to know also that, through fear of drought and a short crop this year, the price of wheat is going up and there is a fair prospect of our getting out of at least a great part of our difficulty in that regard.
I do not want to enter into a discussion of that kind to-night; I simply want to say that if there is one decent thing about this bill it is the attempt that is made-I think it is an honest attempt-to remove so far as it is possible to do so the difficulties heretofore experienced as between provincial and federal jurisdiction. Beyond that, however, I cannot see anything in the bill to recommend it at all. I cannot and will not support section 9 of this bill, whi^h nuts extreme power in the hands of the minister and the governor in council. I have been consistently fighting the attitude of this government in regard to trade restrictions; not satisfied with extreme tariffs they have been using every means in their power to prevent imports into this country. If as farmers we have one grievance more than another it is that we are forced to pay for the protection of the secondary industries. The automobile industry is one; the textiles industry is another. It is needless to go into a discussion, but in both cases we are forced to pay extreme prices which would not prevail if more moderate duties were in effect against goods entering Canada. Farm machinery is another article that is protected, but I want to be fair; I have said that I do not believe it makes very much difference what duty is placed against farm machinery while it is controlled in the circle in which it is operating to-day.
I do say, Mr. Speaker, that the spread in Canada to-day between primary and second-
74726-224*
ary products is far too wide, and that is the result of the policies of this government. Now when they come with this bill asking for wider powers in that direction I assume at once-and I think I am right in the assumption-that it is going to reflect upon me as a producer. Ultimately it will do so. Why, I remember the terrible castigation administered to the Liberal party by hon. gentlemen opposite not only in this house but throughout the country in 1930 with respect to the price of butter, about which my hon. friend from Brome-Missisquoi speaks so frequently. It was said that it was a crime to allow New Zealand butter into Canada in competition with our own buttter. I for one believed that I could not conscientiously ask for protection for myself if I fought protection when I thought it was going to do me an injury, and I for one believed that the Canadian farmer could produce butter as cheaply as the Australian or New Zealander.


An hon. MEMBER:: He cannot.


Charles A. Stewart: He cannot? I think he can, particularly since he is so far removed from the scene of operations. At all events that is my conviction. I do know that when that protection is given it is simply a weapon used against me when I want to beat down the protection given the secondary industries, which I think is so injurious to me. If I could conceive a reason for the restrictive measures contained in this bill it would be that in order, in a sense, to placate the farmer they are going to hold out to him the bait that he is going to get something out of this, so that he may not so seriously attack these excessive duties which give protection to the secondary industries. The right hon. leader of the government promised the farmers of this country that he would secure markets for them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So he has.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I
have not the time to-night to enter into an argument of that sort. But if this measure is an attempt to implement that promise, then I have some understanding as to how hon. gentlemen in the comer are meeting with the government on common ground in that respect. I, for one, cannot support the bill in its present form. I must say that I am rather agreeably pleased with most of the provisions in the two bills introduced yesterday for the purpose of assisting agricultural
Marketing Act-Mr. Turnbull

communities. But, with sections 9 and 12 remaining in the present bill, and the absolute refusal of the government either materially to amend them or to strike them out, I must vote against the third reading of the bill.


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a few observations on the third reading of the bill, and shall make them as brief as is reasonably possihle. I believe I may sum up the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) by these words, that he loves the farmers, he loves them very exceedingly, but he does not want to lift a finger to help them because the Conservative government has brought in a bill which, because it is brought in by a Conservative government, he must oppose. He sees a deep dyed plot behind the measure to drag the farmers into accepting high tariffs simply by giving them a marketing bill.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a
fair statement.


Franklin White Turnbull: The hon. member says that that is a fair statement of his position. Of course he rings the death knell of protection when he is not in office, but the bells are singularly silent when his party is sitting to the right of Mr. Speaker.
I was glad to hear the speech made this evening by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Theoretically I do not know of any two hon. members in the House of Commons who agree with each other better than the hon. member for Ontario and myself, except on the question of protection where he is a very much higher protectionist than I am. But on theory he is pretty good, and when you want a sort of diagnosis of the law of supply and demand the hon. member for Ontario is unexcelled. He has talked about the free meeting of sellers and buyers. Well, if we had a free meeting of sellers and buyers conditions might be different, but we have not that free meeting. How much freedom have we when we try to sell a bushel of wheat in France, which is our market? We meet with a duty of 85 cents per bushel, and a 97 per cent milling quota. Try to sell a bushel of wheat in Italy, and you are up against the same thing. Try to sell a bushel of wheat in Germany, and you are up against the same thing.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: This bill will not correct that condition.


Franklin White Turnbull: So I say that so far as the export market is concerned you are not in the position of having a free meeting of (Mr. C. A. Stewart.]
buyers and sellers. While the argument of the hon. member for Ontario might be perfects proper if the conditions he described existed, yet my hon. friend must be the first to recognize that so far as the world is concerned those conditions do not exist. He must further agree that there is no possibility of our producing those conditions throughout the world, and the result is that we must direct our attention to the conditions which exist and not the conditions which we hope may exist. The trouble with my hon. friends opposite is that they have not recognized the condition, and they are still dealing in theories. I hope that when the hon. member for Ontario took that long digression into the early history of England he was not suggesting that the Liberal party in Canada today are the mental contemporaries of Piers Plowman because they certainly have not advanced far along the road.
Let us see what the conditions are. There is no question in the world that there must be difficulty in getting markets. There is no question that a free and open market so far as our exports are concerned does not exist anywhere except in Great Britain. And when my hon. friends opposite say that that is due to something which this party has done, I really think they know that that is not in accordance with the facts. But repeating it often enough they make themselves believe it, because unless they can believe it they cannot believe anything, and their position would be hopeless.
The Hon. Charles A. Dunning, a former minister of finance was a pretty close student of our markets, and particularly our wheat market. When the hon. member for Ontario suggests that government intervention has been the cause of our trouble in Saskatchewan there are other points I should like to call to his attention. I am suggesting that drought and the grasshoppers had something to do with southern Saskatchewan. I know, however, that the hon. member was referring to the fact that the government stepped into the wheat market. If he was not referring to the government's action in connection with its intervention with respect to wheat in western Canada-


William Henry Moore: I did not refer
to the intervention of this government, particularly.


Franklin White Turnbull: Was it the intervention of the provincial government?


William Henry Moore: Of governments.

Marketing Act-Mr. Turnbull


Franklin White Turnbull: I do not know what the intervention of governments was in western Canada-


William Henry Moore: And extending over a period of years.


Franklin White Turnbull: -unless it was the action taken in 1929 by the provincial governments to assist the wheat pools when the world markets were closed to our wheat, during the regime of hon. members opposite. But that was not the action of this government. Let us clear up any doubt as to the fact that the world markets were closed, and let us clear up any doubt as to what the real trouble in western Canada was. In this connection I shall quote the words of the Hon. Charles A. Dunning. Speaking at Broadview on June 13, 1930, while he was still minister of finance, and while the present right hon. leader of the opposition was prime minister, he said:
The importance of western wheat to Canada has never been so evident as in the last two years.
The last two years.
When we have plenty of it and can sell it, the men on the railways are busy moving it, the men in the offices are busy keeping track of it; the men in the factories are busy making those things which you producers need. If we only have a half crop and do not sell it the prosperity of the whole dominion is affected.
That is what happened in western Canada. We had half a crop, yet we could not sell even that. Let me repeat that that occurred during a time my hon. friends opposite had control of the reins of government, and during a time when across the country they were preaching the doctrines of wider markets, and were allowing the markets to be constantly restricted. We lost all our markets between 1922 and 1930, with the exception of the market in Great Britain. I do not ask hon. members to take my word for that, either, because in this connection I shall quote Mr. Dunning again. Speaking at Melfort he is reported in the Leader Post of June 21, 1930, as follows:
Mr. Dunning at Melfort, gave reasons for men who are jobless as being due wholly to the half grain crop of western Canada last year not being successful in selling.
And remember, these are the gentlemen who say we caused unemployment. Yet their minister of finance was aware of the fact that there were jobless in 1930 before we took office. He went on to say:
The only market left at the present time for wheat is Great Britain, which has a free market, but the mother country has recently lessened their demand for Canadian wheat.
Then, speaking again, and reported in the Leader Post of June 25, 1930, Mr. Dunning explained that the present depression, that of 1930, which my hon. friends opposite are continually declaring was caused by the Conservative government, was due to world wide overproduction of basic commodities, and until this surplus was used up the government could do very little to assist in unemployment. Laissez-faire again; let it take care of itself. In all the world there was no market, except in Great Britain, and the only thing to do was to stimulate trade with her. That was the condition which existed in 1930.
What solution have hon. gentlemen opposite presented? We had that condition in 1931; we had it in 1932, aggravated by the return of Russia to competition with the wheat exporting countries. That country said to Great Britain the other day, " If you will lend us money we will quit selling wheat, but we have to sell wheat in order to get money to buy the things we need. If you will lend us money we will quit selling it, and begin to buy it." That was Russia's condition in 1932, and that is her condition to-day. Then 1933 came along, and these gentlemen opposite who preach wider markets had a summer school at Port Hope, and at that Port Hope summer school according to press reports the right hon. leader of the opposition attended every session. The report of one session of the Liberal summer school that appeared in the Leader Post of September 26, 1933, said this:
What immediate action could be adopted to increase Canada's exports, particularly of wheat, was canvassed at Tuesday's session of the round table on tariffs at the Liberal summer conference here.
You would have thought that they would have produced this plan for wider markets at that stage, because the leader of the opposition had told us that it was the policy of his party to get wider markets. But then he came to Kelvington in the constituency of Mackenzie, just fresh from the summer school where this conference had taken place, and he told the people of Mackenzie, not how he was going to get wider markets, but of the beauties of wider markets, and then he came here and boasted of how he had won that election on that basis. What did the summer conference say?
At the end of the discussion, however, when everything from reciprocity to free trade had been discussed, no suggested solution was forthcoming.
That is the Liberal position with regard to getting wider markets. They have no solution; on the fifth day of June, 1934, they still

Marketing Act-Mr. Turnbull
have no solution. They have not presented one single suggestion for wider markets for any line of produce in this country. And when we come here with a bill which we hope will assist us to meet conditions that exist throughout the world, the only thing we get is weeks and weeks of opposition and diatribes on liberty and things of that kind.
I believe in liberty; I believe in the constitution ; I believe in a man's liberty to do what he likes so long as he does not unduly interfere with anybody else; but there is one thing the primary producer in this country is demanding and is entitled to get if governments can give it to him, and that is the liberty to live, the liberty to get for his products a fair price and a fair method of marketing. He is entitled to any assistance we can give him in order that he may have the liberty to live. That is what we are trying to do, and we are accused of restricting production. There is nothing in the bill about that. We are accused of restricting imports. There is something in the bill about that. If my hearing was not so bad this afternoon I heard some hon. member opposite ask what was being done about the importation of flour from Australia. I think it was the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) who was very much alarmed at what might happen the primary producers of Ontario and what might happen to the price of wheat in Ontario if we allowed flour to come in from Australia. If he was not urging the restriction of the importation of that flour from Australia, I do not know what he was urging.
There is the situation, and if this bill passes we shall have some system of dealing with a situation of that kind whether the importation is from Australia or from any other country.
The results of government action in this session of the house are beginning to be apparent already. I think it was the hon. member for Ontario, who talked about this bill being a method of transferring natural wealth from the pockets of one class to the pockets of another class. He says it was not he; at all events some hon. member opposite discussed it. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things that has been going on here for years. Ask the tobacco producers of southern Ontario who got such low prices for their tobacco while dividends were being paid if wealth was not .being transferred unduly from the pockets of one class to the pockets of another class. Ask them now that they are getting ten and fifteen cents a pound more for their tobacco this year than last year. Ask the tomato growers who are being paid

under contract ten and fifteen cents a bushel more for their tomatoes this year than last whether they do not think that wealth has been unduly transferred from the pockets of one class to the pockets of another class and whether it is not good business on the part of the government, not to transfer wealth but to see that the producer class get a fair proportion of the monetary returns from the goods they produce.
An attempt has been made to stir up a little feeling between consumers and producers. There is no division between the people of this country as between producers and consumers. There cannot possibly be. The producer of wheat is a consumer of lumber; the producer of lumber is a consumer of metallic products, and of those things that are produced on the farm. Every producer is a consumer, and in the main every consumer is also a producer, not perhaps a direct producer. The railwayman, for instance, is not a producer of wheat, but he assists the producer of wheat to obtain the return from the production of that form of wealth. There is no arbitrary distinction between producers and consumers. To say that if you help the producer you are going to hurt the consumer or that if you help the consumer you are going to hurt the producer is really, to my mind, to befog the real issue.
' I agree with my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) that there is too wide a spread between the price of primary products and the price of secondary products, and this is not the first time I have said it in this house. But this bill is aimed at helping the producer of primary products to get a better return for his primary products by orderly marketing, and if it succeeds in that regard it will to that extent have reduced the spread between the price of primary products and the price of secondary products.
Our imperial conference treaties were aimed at the same thing, and we got some results from them. We had, for example, my hon. friend from West Edmonton saying that the reason why we are getting a higher price for bacon in the world market is because of those treaties, but it was not because of his vote on those treaties. It was in spite of the fact that he tried to see that we did not get those treaties, and in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) went around the country telling the farmers not to produce bacon hogs because there was nothing in the treaties for them.


William Richard Motherwell: Come off, now.

Marketing Act-Mr. Turnbull


Franklin White Turnbull: And that is part of the reason why we were able to sell only 70,000,000 pounds instead of 280,000,000 pounds.


William Richard Motherwell: I will straighten you out the next time.


Franklin White Turnbull: What is the matter with this particular bill? Here is the ex-Minister of Agriculture, who has surely had the interests of the farmers at heart, or if he has not he ought to have had. It is true that he said we would have to have a new basis for agriculture, but we will take it that he was always struggling to get something better though he was not very successful in doing so. The best part of his acts died on the order paper, be said. Was one of them the attempt to permit the importation of renovated butter from the United States in 1923?


William Richard Motherwell: You should keep quiet about butter.


Franklin White Turnbull: Wouldn't you like me to? My hon. friend from Melville says: I laid the foundation for this bill. He says. I passed grading acts, apple grading acts, fruit grading acts, vegetable grading acts, and they were all the foundation of this bill. Each one of those acts was the foundation stone upon which this bill should be built. Well, having got the foundation well laid with the assistance of his fellow members around him, and the assistance of the leader of the opposition, I wonder if he told his leader when he was laying that foundation that the superstructure was going to look like this bill, and I wonder if the leader of the opposition did not read him a homily on the liberty of the subject when he got around to that. Surely the hon. member for Melville did not deceive his leader and lay the foundation without telling him what kind of building he was going to erect on that foundation, without telling him that all these grading acts were to be the basis of some sort of marketing act that was to have come later if the people had not got tired of them so soon.


William Richard Motherwell: You evidently did not hear what I said this afternoon.


Franklin White Turnbull: Here we are with the foundation all laid by a responsible minister of the Liberal party, and then he is faced with the opposition of his colleagues beside him. They refuse to help him erect the superstructure on the foundation. They all say: No, we have got this far, we will not go any further; this marketing bill cannot be put through. The only reason advanced so far for this stand is their rugged individualism.
Y'ou could hear them applaud when the hon. member for Ontario said that we should not interfere with individual liberty. That is a very worthy subject for applause as no one wants to interfere with it any more than is necessary. But we do want to interfere with the individual liberty of a small minority in order that a substantial majority may get the best they can out of their products. While I do not believe in interfering with liberty, to that extent I think the bill should be supported.
There is a good deal to be said against controlled planning, that the individual should be allowed to plan for himself, but that is not what is done in the civilized world. We are not selling our goods in Canada where there is a free market for buyer and seller; we are selling our surplus goods on the world markets where there is no longer a free market. During the war there was centralized buying of agricultural products by the allies. We had to meet that in this country by centralized selling and we established a wheat board. It is quite true that hon. gentlemen in the Liberal party were not very much enamoured of the wheat board when it was first started; it is quite true that the United Farmers of Alberta were very loud in their lamentations when the wheat board was first started. We had the same thing from the grain growers in Saskatchewan, but when -the benefits of the board were discovered they were equally loud in their lamentations when it came to an end. As soon as centralized buying ceased, centralized selling had to cease and the wheat board came to an end. The War Measures Act was not sufficient to continue it any longer.
For a few years, from 1923 to 1925, we got along with the free flow of buying and selling, but in 1925 a new item began to enter into things, free buying and selling and the free meeting of buyer and seller ceased. The people in Europe who bought our goods decided that they did not want to buy any more from us. European countries began to organize their own trade in order that they might get along without wheat from Canada, the Argentine, Australia or anywhere else. Hon. gentlemen opposite were very glad to go through the country stating that this was because of Bennett's tariffs. They are doing the same thing to-day from one end to the other of Ontario. There must have been a great deal of prescience in Italy in 1925 when Mr. Mussolini began to prepare Italy for tariffs which were to be put into force in 1930. This thing started in Italy in 1925, in Germany in 1927, and in France in the
Marketing Act-Mr. Turnbull

same year, all during the regime of the Liberal party. It started in the United States in 1922 and it got its cap sheaf in the spring of 1930. At that time the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) declared that he was not interested in marketing wheat; he thought he could do the greatest service for this country if he increased the sale of our industrial production. The right hon. leader of the opposition declared that he was afraid either to increase his tariffs against the United States or to increase the British preference lest he might provoke the people of that country. This was the attitude of the leader of the opposition in 1930, and then we got the Hawley-Smoot tariff which completed the disaster as far as the contemplated sale of farm products on the American market was concerned. That was the condition with which we were faced. There was no longer a free meeting between buyer and seller. There was a planned economy in existence in Italy, in France and in Germany, a determination to make those three countries self-supporting as far as their production of wheat was concerned. And they succeeded. Because of this action, taken long before we came into office and upon which our entry into office had no bearing, we lost our European sale of wheat. Because we lost our European sale of wheat that commodity piled up in this country and remained unsold. Because the western farmer could not sell his wheat for a price, because the eastern farmer could not dispose of his dairy products, there was a lack of consuming power on the part of the agricultural population. This led to a lack of ability to sell on the part of the industrial population, which resulted in unemployment.
It is apparent that these countries intend to pursue the path they have trodden so far. This being apparent it becomes necessary for us, no matter how much we may love rugged individualism or individual liberty, to take steps to preserve our liberty in competition with the goods of other countries so that Canada shall not become an economic subject but rather shall be an economic equal among the nations of the world. This is necessary to preserve our Canadian liberty and our Canadian markets. It is necessary to regulate the flow of goods not into markets which are wide open but into markets which are very restricted. This restriction did not occur in 1933 or 1934; it occurred in the period between 1922 and 1930.
However, we got down to the point where the former Minister of Agriculture had the whole structure ready for the keystone. The

arch was all built because of the efforts he had made during the nine years he was in office. We are now ready to put the keystone in the arch and the former Minister of Agriculture is ready to help us to the best of his ability. But he is hampered by all his friends on the other side. They say: Do not put it in; it may be socialism. Let me assure my hon. friends that this bill is not socialism. As far as I can see, it contains not one element of socialism.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is socialism?


Franklin White Turnbull: The hon. member for
East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) has been in Russia and he should be better advised than I on that. I am quite sure he is not so fond of the exemplifications of socialism which he saw there. This bill is not communism. There is no difference between communism and socialism. There may be a slight difference between the methods used. This bill is not socialism. Socialism in this country and in Great Britain embodies the state ownership of industry. That is state socialism, but there is no element of state ownership in this bill. The government is not going to own the products of the farm, of the forest, of the field, of the mines or of the sea. There is no state ownership or state socialism about it. There is no colour of that thing called socialism, of that thing which is advocated by those who sometimes say they are socialists and sometimes say they are not, but yet lead the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in this country. This afternoon the hon. member for Bow River declared that he was not a socialist, but I have a newspaper report in my office which reports him as saying that he is. I am glad he has seen the light and is turning from the error of his ways. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) declares he is one, as does the leader of his party in Saskatchewan. This bill has nothing to do with socialism, and it contains no element of state socialism or state ownership. It contains only the element of control and regulation of marketing. It does not contain the element of the Liberal [DOT] doctrine which has been pursued in this house, the doctrine of leaving well enough alone and letting the law of supply and demand work things out when there is no free market.
As the hon. member for Ontario says, we are doing very well. He says that the volume of business as disclosed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce shows an increase in business and that the country is progressing. The hon. member says:	Let it progress; do

Marketing Act

Mr. Turnbull
not interfere with it. The most cheerful thing I have heard this session was the Liberal benches applauding the hon. member for Ontario when he said this country was progressing. This is a wonderful change from the miserable wail of woe which has been coming up from that side of the house from 1930 down to the present. I am glad they are getting on the band wagon and admitting that under Conservative policies the country has turned the corner as far as depression is concerned. In their day it was only a financial recess, but to-day it is a depression. But we have turned the corner; our markets are not restricted; they are as a matter of fact increasing in both Great Britain and other countries and we hope by this bill which we are presenting to the house to assist in the increase of those markets and to help farmers and other primary producers to find a place in which to sell their goods. If in April, 1934, they sold fifty per cent more than they did in 1933, that is good; but if by this bill we can help them to sell sixty or seventy per cent more, I say that we ought to do so. That applies not only to the farmer but to the lumberman.
It is true that in nearly every line of primary products except wheat and cheese we are increasing our markets, but as we do so we are moving into markets that are more and more restricted, and the time has arrived when wre should take the necessary measures to place in the hands of our people the means of meeting the methods that other countries are using with regard to their products. We must do this, not because we want to do it, not because we desire to have anything to do with restricting markets, not that we would not have the individual flow of trade continue, but because we are met with markets where the individual flow of trade is not continuing and with markets where, if we go into them unarmed, without any control, with a group of individual traders trying to sell in a rigidly controlled market, we are putting them at a disadvantage in such a market. The purpose of this bill is to give them the means of placing themselves in some degree in a position of equality with those with whom they have to trade.
I think the ex-Minister of Agriculture is correct when he says that the grading acts form a certain foundation upon which this marketing legislation should be built. He is quite correct when he says that this marketing bill is the keystone of the arch, and although with almost every word he has uttered since this measure has come into the house he has declared his condemnation
of the legislation, I am glad that in spite of that he supported the bill on the second reading. I am afraid he is now lacking courage to tell us what he will do on the third reading; he seems to be wobbling a little. He spoke for a long time this afternoon but he would not say whether he would vote for the third reading or not, and he spent most of his time in trying to settle some differences between himself and his leader.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member will see what I will do when the matter comes to a vote.


Franklin White Turnbull: I only hope my hon. friend's example will be followed even at the twelfth hour by some of those who sit around him. There is still time for the sinners to repent.


An hon. MEMBER:: They won't do it.


Franklin White Turnbull: I am afraid not. My hon. friend knows them better than I. do. There has been no repentence from :he benches opposite, but in any event it would be pretty difficult for them to repent now.
I thought they were going to try to hang their hats on those amendments that were made in committee, but they found the hook was not strong enough even for that. They voted against the second reading; they voted against, not only against having a bill that might be approved in committee, but against having a bill at all. Then they have attempted to create the impression that they have made this bill in committee. If they have made the bill in committee, why do they not vote for it? If they did not make it in committee, why do they say they did? Why do hon. gentlemen not get off the fence and sit on one side or the other? Let them say either they are for this or they are against it; let them say that it is good or that it is bad, 'but let the country know where they stand and know it in certain terms so that hon. gentlemen oannot go around the back townships during election time and try to lead the people to believe that they stood on both sides.
They said that there were thirty-three amendments to the bill, but before the second reading hon. gentlemen were told that amendments were coming, and the bulk of the thirty-three amendments, all the important ones except possibly one, came from this side of the house, Moreover, eight of the thirty-three amendments were consequential ones; a change was made in one section in connection with natural or related products and the same change was made in eight
Marketing Act-Mr. Turnbull

others. They hoped to be able to hang their hats on those amendments as an excuse for saying it might be to their political interest to support the bill, but there is not a single amendment that has in any way changed the principle of the legislation. If every one of those amendments had been inserted in the bill when it came down for the second reading, that would not have served as an excuse for any hon. gentleman on either side to vote any differently from the way he did, because the principle was exactly the same after the insertion of the amendments as before. There may have been some changes with regard to the consequences of the price spreads investigation, as to what should happen in connection with the report when it was made, but there was nothing at all that changed in the slightest degree the principle of the bill, which was the provision by the government of machinery, not whereby the government should market goods, but whereby the primary producers themselves, not forced into it by the government but on their own initiative-because aside from the exceptional circumstances under section 9 the initiative comes in every case from the producer-may organize themselves, take advantage of the machinery provided and try at least to get a better share of the consumer's dollar whether it be in this or some other country. I say again that except for exceptional circumstances provided for in the one section there is in the bill nothing whereby the government forces its views on anybody, but there are in it provisions for which the producers may carry out the work themselves. Nevertheless we heard hon. gentlemen day after day declaring only one thing, that the producers shall not have the opportunity to organize themselves to meet marketing conditions that prevail not only in Canada but outside.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They did not say that.


Franklin White Turnbull: There is no other
deduction, inference or meaning that is possible from the day to day opposition we have had to this bill, with the exception of the second part which has to do not with marketing but with the investigation of spreads and prices. So far as the marketing feature is concerned, I repeat that since the day this bill was first introduced in the house all that the opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite has meant is that they have declared that so far as they are concerned-and I am excepting the hon. member for Melville and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid)-the primary producer shall not through the medium of this bill have the privilege 
of initiating a movement to allow him to have greater control in the marketing of his own product with the object that he will market it better and obtain a higher price for it. But because this government, possibly for the first time in the history of Canada, has really attempted through federal legislation in conjunction with provincial legislation to give the primary producers a chance to organize to meet the great organizations with which they have to deal, I am supporting the third reading of this bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
there are at least three results apparent from the lengthy discussion which took place on this measure in committee of the whole. The first is that the bill as introduced was very much in need of amendment. Opinions may differ as to the value of the amendments that have been made, but I assume that the government has attached importance to them, otherwise they certainly would not have been added to the bill. I do not believe that the value of the amendments can be estimated by their number, or by the particular amount of space that they occupy in the bill. I think they are to be valued only by the extent to which they bring the bill into conformity with customary constitutional procedure and practice, and into conformity with legislation which ensures to the representatives of the people the opportunity of legislating in the interests not of any one class, but of all classes in the community.
The second apparent result is that there are provisions of the bill with which pretty nearly all members of the house are in agreement. There are large portions of this measure with respect to which there has been practical unanimity. I might draw the attention of the house to the fact that the bill is divided into two parts, the second part dealing with investigations. I think I am right when I say that the second part of the bill encountered no opposition at all, once the government had made a very important change with respect to one or two of its clauses, the limitations of which were pointed out in the early part of the discussion. The scope of this portion of the bill was as a matter of fact vastly enlarged by an amendment proposed by the opposition which extended its provisions from regulated to all natural products.
The third apparent result is that with respect to certain provisions there is a diversity of opinion between members of the official opposition and hon. gentlemen opposite which is very wide indeed, and which I fear

from what has been said thus far by members of the administration may prove to be irreconcilable.
However, I am rising at the moment not for the purpose of opposing the bill on its third reading, but rather in order to propose at the close of my remarks that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole with the request that the committee reconsider certain of its objectionable provisions with a view to seeing if those provisions cannot be so modified as to make the bill acceptable to the house as a whole. I hope I have made it clear that as far as the purpose of the bill is concerned, as far as the necessity for the introduction of legislation for the regulation of marketing is concerned, we on this side are in agreement with hon. gentlemen opposite. To certain of the provisions of this particular measure, however, there is a very decided opposition on the part of some, in fact of all of us on this side. The question then naturally arises as to whether the provisions to which we take exception are so all-important in their significance as to render it advisable and necessary to oppose the bill on the third reading in the event of the government not agreeing to refer it back for further consideration to the committee of the whole, or the committee of the whole upon reconsidering it not making certain of the changes, or whether it should be supported on third reading simply for what there may be of possible good in some of its provisions. notwithstanding the possibilities and probability of great harm that, if adopted, it may have as a whole.


Ernest Lapointe: You cannot improve it as far as I am concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to the amendments which have been introduced may I say that certain of them have been, I think, distinctly beneficial, and in the right direction. I am not desirous of claiming for any particular part of the house the credit for these amendments, although I think if it were desired to do so it could be shown that the more important amendments have been the result of suggestions from this side of the house. Among amendments which I think are in the right direction are amendments which have restored in a very real way the control of this House of Commons over certain phases of the subjects dealt with in the legislation itself. The first amendment I refer to is the one which provides that the expenditures in connection with the bill shall be made out of moneys appropriated by parliament. That I think is an all-important amendment. The original bill provided that these moneys were
1934	3703
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
to be taken by the board out of the consolidated revenue fund. There was no requirement as to their being appropriated in the first instance by parliament. In other words, parliament was simply abandoning its control over expenditure. I pointed out as forcibly as I could at the outset that that was certainly ignoring the fundamental principle of control over expenditure and taxation by the House of Commons. I am glad that the members of the ministry have thought it well to amend the bill in that particular and to get rid of that obnoxious feature.
Another amendment is that the ministry shall report to parliament within a certain time, within fifteen days of the reassembling of parliament, all action which has been taken and expenditures incurred under this measure.
It has been stated over and over again that this is experimental legislation, and great power is given under it to local boards to initiate schemes which are to be approved by the governor in council, but of which this parliament has no information at all, and with respect to which it would have no information had the bill not rendered it obligatory that a report should be made to parliament within a stated time. That report at least gives some opportunity to this House of Commons to review the various schemes which may be brought forward. So I regard that as an important amendment.
There was a provision in part II of the bill which had to do with the powers of investigating committees. That provision gave power to the committees to designate what were to be offences punishable by fine or imprisonment. It was pointed out from this side of the house that there again the function of parliament was being wholly abrogated through its function and power being given to boards unnamed and unknown, and still to be constituted, to create offences which would be so punishable. The bill as it now stands sets forth, as part of the statute, what constitutes offences as well as the penalties. Parliament itself has named what the offences are to be. To that extent the bill has been brought into conformity with constitutional procedure and practice.
Then there has also been an amendment with respect to the powers of these local boards which brings their actions and regulations very much more under the control, if not of parliament, at least of the ministry. In the bill as originally introduced powers were given to local boards to make regulations which would, if violated, be punishable by fine and imprisonment. These unknown and unnamed boards were to have authority to make regulations, and parliament's part in
3704	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
the procedure consisted in setting out in advance the penalty which was to attach to the offences to be named by the local boards. The government have seen fit to alter that provision of the bill and to require that all these schemes of local boards shall in the first instance meet with the approval of the governor in council, and the governor in council being responsible in an immediate way to parliament there is at least an approach to the restoration of the authority of parliament over a great deal that is set forth in the bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these are important amendments, and all of them are in accordance with the fundamental principle which safeguards the sovereignty of parliament. That is the basic principle underlying the amendments that have been made. What I wish to suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite is that they continue to apply that principle to all the provisions of the bill; and where the bill as it stands at present is deficient in that it takes away from this House of Commons powers and authority which the house should not part with, but which it should keep in matters of legislation, that such power should be restored by the committee of the whole after the bill is referred back to it for that purpose. If it be a sound procedure and practice with respect to control by this House of Commons over expenditure and taxation, with respect to the legislation of this House of Commons as to regulations and offences and with respect to other phases of control by parliament so to amend the measure as to ensure the safeguarding of a fundamental right of parliament, a right by which alone the liberties and the rights of citizens can be maintained, surely it is equally important that the bill in all particulars should be made to conform to that great fundamental principle.
That brings me for a moment, to the consideration of what is responsible for the taking away from parliament of these powers that some of us feel should be retained by parliament, and having them given to other bodies, it is due to a certain theory of delegation of powers. This theory of delegation of power aas come to the fore rather rapidly and very recently. It has within limits been found necessary at Westminster with respect to some legislation there, but I would point out that the condition at Westminster, a parliament that deals with matters corresponding to federal, provincial and in many cases municipal matters in this country, is very different from the condition with which this parliament is faced. I think we should be particularly careful to see where a tendency of that kind if too largely indulged in is likely to lead us.

If it is absolutely necessary and the tendency is safeguarded to a sufficient degree then I would have no exception to take to it, but if it is simply adopting an innovation in constitutional procedure, particularly at a time when innovations are coming from other quarters that we all know threaten the very existence of parliamentary institutions, then I say the innovation should be considered with the greatest care before it is permitted to go very far. While the policy of delegating power has gained certain headway at Westminster I would point out to hon. gentlemen opposite that where it has done so it has been always with the exercise of the greatest caution on the part of the government. In fact the government at Westminster has been most careful to see that any powers of delegation should be so granted as not to deprive parliament of the complete supervision which it should have in the interests of all classes in the community, particularly with regard to measures relating specifically and especially to the interests of one particular class. There is one principle which governs in matters of delegation; it is the essentially subordinate character of delegated legislation; it is that the power of the body which is receiving the delegated power always must be subordinate to the power of the body which confers delegated power. The power to legislate, when delegated by parliament, differs from parliaments own power to legislate. In other words parliament itself is supreme in the matter, particularly in legislation, and parliament should not give to another body power to legislate on any subject to a greater extent than parliament itself is prepared to legislate with respect to the matter under consideration. Any power delegated by parliament is necessarily a subordinate power because it is, and must be limited by the terms of the enactment whereby it is delegated.
That seems so obvious as to be hardly necessary to assert it, yet when one considers the provisions of this measure one finds that parliament is giving to local bodies, as yet unnamed and unknown, power to draft legislation, and later to the governor in council power to enact these drafts into legislation and enact other legislation infinitely more considerable in extent and in importance than that which parliament is retaining to itself as governing the situation in hand. Surely that procedure is not right. During the course of this discussion many reasons have been advanced as to why these powers have to be delegated. It has been stated that they deal with matters of detail, that parliament

Marketing Act

Mr. Mackenzie King
has not time to consider these things, and that the executive ought to be in a position to govern in these matters. But may I point out that government consists of three distinctive branches. There is the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch. If it had been intended that the executive was to become the legislative body, the constitution of the country would have made that clear, but so long as the function of legislation resides in parliament it should be kept in parliament and not transferred to the executive much less to other and inferior bodies.
I am going to seek to ayoid much in the way of quotation this evening; indeed I intend to make my remarks as brief as possible, but I should like to quote in particular one page from a volume to which I have referred previously and to which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was fond of referring when he was in the position which I now occunv. It is so pertinent to this entire legislation and so clearly and concisely expressed that I think it will give hon. members in a moment the complete picture I should like to present to their minds. The volume is entitled The New Despotism, and is by the Right Hon. Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of England. This is what Chief Justice Hewart says, at page 76 in describing how this system of delegating power works:
The excuses which are offered even by the most able of the apologists of the new despotism are sometimes rather entertaining. It is said that parliament simply has not time to do otherwise than delegate legislative power; that parliament, even if it had the time, has not the reouisite aptitude for the work; and that, after all. it is not the task of parliament, but the task of the executive, to govern the country. The last of these three propositions is said to constitute the "greatest justification for del"gated legislation." Now. to some onlookers it may occur that, if this threefold defence is really to be regarded as a fair and considered statement of the frame of mind which exhibits itself in the new despotism, nothing could well be more grave. For what does it mean? Let it be granted, for the sake of the argument, that there are matters of detail which can hardlv be debated at length across the floor of the House of Commons. Let it be granted, again, for the sake of argument. that from time to time an act of parliament may involve technical matters which require careful and protracted consideration at the hands of experts and specialists. Neither of these circumstances, nor the pair of them in combination, can be said to afford the smallest reason why the work which is done should be done behind the back of parliament. nor without its knowledge and real assent. Nor do these or any other circumstances afford a reason why the order which is
made, or the decision which is given, should be so contrived as to be beyond review in a court of law. As for the third of the propositions, if it contemplates anything over and above what in a particular emergency may be rendered necessary by "sudden causes and occasions" or "promptitude to meet the exigency of the case," it is not easy to imagine anything more mischievous or more subversive.
I ask hon. members to listen particularly to these words:
True, it is indeed the task of the executive to govern the country. But it is the task of parliament to make the laws, and the real business of the executive is to govern the country in accordance with the laws which parliament has made. Is it not precisely because it is the task of the executive to govern the country that it is so dangerous to hand over to the executive the power of making laws as well, and of making them in ways which, while a kind of formal homage is paid to the sovereignty of parliament, have the effect of employing the sovereignty of parliament to oust the jurisdiction of the courts.
That is exactly what this legislation does. So far as regulations and offences go, it simply hands over to the executive, which we all admit exists for the work of government and administration, the making of practically all the laws which are to be an outcome of the provisions of this particular enactment.
Hon. members have said that these laws are intended to help the producers. But how is this help provided? The bill allows a group of producers to initiate a scheme, and to present such scheme to the executive. If it is approved lby the executive, it becomes the law of the land, although parliament has not had any say in the matter at all. It is done behind the doors of parliament; it is done outside the walls of parliament, and yet it all becomes part of the law of the land. That is not preserving the sovereignty of parliament ; that is not preserving the principle of sound constitutional government. That is one of the features of the bill to which hon. members on this side take such strong exception.
Is it necessary, in order to frame a marketing bill which will be of service to the farmers throughout the country, to sabotage a great constitutional principle of government upon which the security of the rights of all depend? Is not such a consequence too great a price to pay? That is the point I should like to make in criticism of the measure. I submit that in seeking to serve one end, the government is taking a step which either deliberately or inadvertently is destroying fundamental principles of constitutional government. Surely such a course is not necessary to achieve a legitimate end. I believe one of
3706	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
the reasons parliament has been countenancing such legislation is that, under the stress of emergency, we have become accustomed to granting great powers to the executive in matters of relief. These powers having been asked, always with the statement from the Prime Minister that they would be carefully safeguarded, and session after session we have become more or less accustomed to consenting to give them to the executive. But there is another reason, and it is this. Throughout the world there have been great changes in matters of government in many countries. Some of the effects of those changes are making themselves felt in our own country. I am afraid a good many of our own people, instead of holding to what has been the bulwark of liberty and freedom throughout past centuries, namely, the British constitution and all it stands for in the working of British parliamentary institutions have, under conditions which, however, prevail to-day, been prepared to accept a lot of the new ideas and new doctrines offered as a means of salvation in countries which have yet to learn the meaning of freedom. The influence of doctrines of the kind is, I believe, much more subtle than most of us have had reason to assume.
This afternoon my hon. colleague and very dear friend, the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) made a statement as to his view of the position a member of parliament holds in relation to his leader. He pointed out that a leader had certain responsibilities in matters of legislation which possibly a private member did not have. He said that a leader of a party has to regard himself as representing not any one class but all classes, and not only one constituency but the country as a whole. It was his view that a leader has to have regard not only for the problems of his own country but must also have regard for international relations, and the like. He believed that a member of parliament, a humble follower coming from an agricultural constituency, for example, and particularly an hon. member representing mostly people interested in a particular industry or occupation, would be in quite a different position. I believe I am stating the hon. member's position correctly.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And he agrees with me. With all respect to my hon. friend, and he is a much older parliamentarian than I am, may I say that if he puts forward a doctrine of that kind he would cause it to appegr that years were beginning to get the better of his judgment.


William Richard Motherwell: That is what the Prime Minister has tried to tell me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the old theory of delegation which at different times has been put forward as the one which should govern representatives in parliament. I say that the delegation theory in the matter of representation is not the one under the British parliamentary system by which members have been assumed to carry out their duties in parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the time of Burke.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Since the time of Burke, the Prime Minister has said and I wish the Prime Minister also would take the lesson to heart, because he too in many things is getting away from the true theory. The Prime Minister has well reminded us that when Edmund Burke was addressing his constituents in Bristol he told them that they were entitled to have not only his vote in parliament, but that they were entitled to have as well, his judgment and intelligence and his powers of reasoning, in regard to all questions which came before parliament, I cannot understand how any person could question at this time the fact that, once an elected member takes the oath and takes his seat in this house he must regard himself no longer as the representative of a class, a sect or of a group in the community from which he comes but as one of the representatives of all the people, of all classes and of all parts of the country.
I was surprised this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) indicate that he was here at the instance and under the direction of some local unit of the United Earmers of Alberta, no>t to do the bidding of his own judgment, and not to take an independent stand as a member of parliament representative of all classes, but to do the bidding of a particular group in the community which sent him here.


Alfred Speakman: I am sure the right hon. gentleman does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I stated in answer to a question as to whether or not I belong to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation that I was nominated by an organization which associated itself with that body. I did not say my judgment would be limited by it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe when my hon. friend reads Hansard he will find that he said there had been a local body which had sent him here, and that he was here subject to the direction of a particular

Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
group. I do not remember the word he used when referring to the unit of the United Farmers of Alberta. Certainly that was the impression I gathered, and I find other hon. members gathered the same impression. However, I am quite prepared to accept my hon. friend's statement about his own position. I do know, however, that there are hon. members who take the stand that they are being sent to parliament by certain groups, and that in parliament they are bound before all else to represent the views and interests of those groups. I say that that theory of representation is all wrong. I believe it does not matter how great or how humble the followers or the leader of a party may be, they all have the same responsibility to the people as a whole, and to the country as a whole. Once they enter parliament in the capacity of representatives, they cease to represent any individual class; they are bound to forget their personal interests; they are bound to have regard for the interests of all classes in all parts of the country and are the representatives of all. It is for that reason and upon that basis that many of us of the opposition have taken our stand in opposition to certain clauses of this measure.
I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if I am not right when I state that the bill is founded on the theory that there will be an occupational group which will draft a scheme to be submitted to the governor in council and the governor in council must approve or disapprove of such scheme? If he approves that then the scheme becomes law? I believe that is a correct statement of what is provided in the first part of the bill. In connection with each scheme, regulations are made and offences created. I say that that is legislation based not on any theory of representation by population, but on a theory of representation by occupation. I submit that, once we begin legislating not on a basis of population, but on that of occupation, we are beginning to undermine the British parliamentary system of government, and if we continue it will not be long before we get the kind of thing which the hon. member for East Hamilton witnessed in Russia where, as he knows quite well, occupational groups determine what the law is to be. When such determination receives the approval of the supreme command it becomes enforcible over the country as a whole.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to point out that the occupational groups do not have any say in Russia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Occupational groups or those who speak for occupational
groups, present the scheme to the government, or to the superior council,-whatever its particular designation may be. The arrangement is then made binding upon all. It is a system of planning from beginning to close. At least my hon. friend will agree in this, that in Russia they have no parliament the members of which are representative of the people as a whole, but they have this council which has authority to make laws for the entire population in a manner which they believe will serve occupational interests. What, may I ask, is the difference between that and what is in this bill? This is exactly the same thing, only it is done under the guise of parliamentary forms; but parliament is a mere facade so far as being any real part of the structure once parliament has prorogued and the real work of legislating is begun. I presented the matter I think fairly to the minister when I said that these occupational groups prepare the scheme, the governor in council assents to it, and as I have said, until the bill was amended, this parliament had not even a say as to the amount of money to be spent. This board and the governor in council were to have power to dip into the revenues of the country and take what was needed for their purpose, and there was no obligation even of reporting to parliament on the matter.
References have been made to the British legislation. Let me point out the difference between the two, because it is very marked. So far as Great Britain is concerned, they have in their marketing act provision for the working out of certain schemes and having those schemes approved by the min'ster; but, before any scheme can become effective in Great Britain, it has to be laid before the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and a resolution approving of the scheme has to be passed by both houses of parliament. Why have we not that or some such similar provision in this bill? Why cannot we have it? If the minister will put a provision to that effect in this bill, it will remove three-quarters of the objections that we have to it. Give to members of parliament who represent the interests of all classes the right to have a say as to whether a particular scheme is to become law or not. If, after a scheme of the kind is presented and it is found to be full of compulsory or other features, it will before becoming the law of the land be open to parliament at least to debate the merits of the scheme. As this measure is drawn up, however, parliament is not given even the opportunity to debate the question, or the issues that may be involved.
3708	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
The whole matter is settled apart from parliament altogether. Surely we do not wish to
begin with that class of legislation in this House of Commons. If we start to-day doing so nominally for one group of producers, I suppose that to-morrow we shall be asked to do the same thing nominally for groups in some other trades or occupations, and then be asked to do the same thing for industry and the like, permitting the manufacturers, for example, to frame their own scheme and give the governor in council power to approve their scheme, which, once it is approved, shall become a part of the law of the land.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I believe, and this is a phase to which I wish to draw attention before I conclude, that the whole purpose of certain provisions of this legislation is to lead up to just where that kind of thing will be possible, where the governor in council will be able, with respect to the whole production of the country, and the whole industrial life of the country, to have the say as to the directions along which the production and the trade of the country are to proceed.
May I point out another feature that relates immediately to what I have just been saying, namely that it is the duty of every member of parliament to have regard for the interests, not of one class only but of all classes. Surely with respect to any legislation that affects prices, any legislation that has to do with the supply of articles of consumption, legislation that touches all the natural products of the country with the exception of those of the mines, there is every reason why the interests of consumers should be considered by this House of Commons in any legislation that is enacted. Where will you find from the beginning to the end of this bill a single clause that safeguards the interests of consumers? There is not one mention of the word "consumer" that I have been able to discover in this whole bill anywhere, nor any provision which safeguards the consumer. How different in that particular is the British legislation! I have in my hand a copy of the British enactment, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. Several pages of that act are taken up in seeing that the interests of consumers are specially cared for in any legislation that has to do with marketing. Let me read only one section, section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931, being chapter 42, 21 and 22 George 5:
The minister shall appoint two committees (hereinafter in this act referred to as "a consumers' committee" and "a committee of investigation") for Great Britain, England and Scotland respectively.

2. A consumers' committee shall-
(a)	consist of a chairman and of not less than six other members, who shall be such persons as appear to the minister, after consultation with the board of trade, and, as to one member, with the Cooperative Union, to represent the interests of the consumers of all the products the marketing of which is for the time being regulated by schemes approved by the minister; and
(b)	be charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the minister on-
(i)	the effect of any scheme approved by the minister, which is for the time being in force, on consumers of the regulated product; and
(ii)	any complaints made to the committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of the regulated product.
It sets forth, the powers of the committee of investigation and provides that;
If a committee of investigation reports to the minister that_ any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board administering a scheme is contrary to the interest of consumers of the regulated product, or is contrary to the interest of any persons affected by the scheme and is not in the public interest, the minister, if he thinks fit so to do after considering the report and consulting the board of trade-
(a)	may by order make such amendments in the scheme as he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter;
(b)	may by order revoke the scheme.
Et cetera, et cetera.
There are numerous other provisions scattered throughout the act all of which are to safeguard the interests of consumers. But here we are in this parliament representative of all classes of the community, representative of the consumers of Canada as a whole, and we are being asked by the government in this legislation to allow all matters relating to the regulating of marketing and questions that affect the prices and supply of commodities and the like to be dealt with by these interested occupational groups, and without a single safeguard being provided to protect the interests of the consumers. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is a feature of this legislation that I do not think will commend itself to anyone in the country. The producers in any particular occupation are not so shortsighted as to fail to see that, if a particular group of producers are to get rights only on condition that the interests of consumers generally shall not be considered, it will not be very long before they themselves are going to be vitally affected as consumers of the products of other groups of producers. In theory and practice alike this bill- leaves out of account the responsibility of members of parliament to all classes in the country, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that in presenting

Soldier Settlement Act
it in this form the government has been neglectful or forgetful of the first obligation of a member of parliament.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that it is eleven o'clock. I know the house is anxious to take a vote, and, if it is agreeable, I might conclude if there are not other speakers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We cannot take the
vote to-night, because there are other members to speak.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, June 6, 1934