1934-05-21

TARIFF BOARD FINDINGS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. EDGAR N. RHODES (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I desire to present findings of the tariff board with respect to references Nos. 6, 21, and 34.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house adjourns on Wednesday next it stand adjourned until Friday the 25th instant.
That is as I intimated when the house rose on Friday last.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, owing to the continued illness of Mr. Pettit, who is still confined to the hospital, I beg to move:
That the name of Mr. Frank White (London) be substituted for the name of Mr. Pettit on the select standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. EULER:: 1.	Has the guarantee of the federal government to the banks on behalf of the Beau-harnois corporation been cancelled?
2.	If not, for what sum does the guarantee still hold?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say with respect to this question that the government of Canada is discharged from any liability as a guarantor of bonds of the Beauharnois Corporation, and further that when the bonds were being sold I asked the banks to add to the sale price sufficient money to enable this country to be reimbursed for sums expended on the investigation. I have received and handed to the receiver general of Canada a cheque for $43,536.35, which covers the entire sum paid to counsel and for printing and all other sums carried in the ledgers of the Department of Finance in connection with the Beauharnois investigations in the Senate and House of Commons.
^PUBLIC ARCHIVES-PURCHASE OF PAINTINGS


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the government purchased for the Public Archives of Canada in Ottawa, paintings from one Ward C. Pitfield of Montreal.
2.	If so, what are these paintings?
3.	What amount was paid for these paintings?	.	...
4.	Was the purchase price of the said paintings paid to Mr. Ward C. Pitfield himself or to somebody else for him?


Mr. CAHAN:: This question was answered
by documents laid on the table of the house on the 17th instant.


PENTECOTE RIVER DREDGING
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the government reconsidered requests
already made since the year 1930, with respect to dredging work to be undertaken at Pentecote River (Riverin River), on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river?	.
2.	If so, will the government comply with such requests this year?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, as
to this question and the others following on the order paper down to No. 42 inclusive, which are all of the same character, I would like to give the following oral answer:
The government receives from time to time reports in connection with the various works mentioned in these questions, and a decision as to the works to be undertaken will be disclosed by estimates when approved, and by further reports to be received from the engineering department.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Questions Nos. 12 to 42
inclusive answered.


PAYMENTS TO J. C. MCRUER, K.C.
Mr. BEAUBIER:: What moneys have been paid during each of the years 1922 to 1930, inclusive, to J. C. McRuer. K.C., of Toronto, by the government of Canada for professional services?
Unemployment Insurance


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A full return was made in
answer to a similar inquiry and tabled in the house on February 19 last.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-CHAIRMAN
Mr. LAFLEOHE:: 1.	Who is the chairman of the civil service commission ?
2.	What is his age?
3.	What amount does he receive for salary and expenses?
4.	Is he entitled to a pension?
5.	On what date was he appointed chairman of the said commission?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Hon. W. J. Roche, M.D.
2.	Seventy-four years.
3.	$7,000, less 10 per cent.
4.	No.
5.	October 15, 1917.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DUGUAY:: 1. What sums were expended on and for the 4benakis reservation at Adonak, county of Yamaska, in the years 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, and 1929, in connection with medical care, hospital charges, relief, and other outlays?
_ 2. What amounts were granted to the municipality of the village of Pierreville in 1930 and' 1931 under the terms of the Direct Relief Act?
3.	Who benefited 'by such relief measures, and what amount was expended in each case?
4.	What merchants filled relief orders, and what did such relief orders aggregate in the case of each merchant?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.



PAYMENTS TO RAILWAYS FOR MAILS AND OTHER SERVICES

Mr. McPHEE:: AVhat amount of money has been paid by the government of Canada for carrying of mails, express, freight, and other railway services for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1934, to: (a) the Canadian National Railways; (b) the Canadian Pacific Railway?



CANADIAN CREDITS AND LOANS ABROAD

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What were the total loans or credits made by Canada to other nations?
2.	What are the names of said nations, the amount in each case of said loans or guarantees, and the dates upon which they were made?
3.	What repayments, if any, were received from said nations, and the dates in each case?
4.	What was the outstanding amount due from each nation on January 1, 1934?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DUFF (for Mr. Marcil):: For a statement showing works authorized by the Department of Public Works out of the general fund for public works in Bona-venture county since January 1, 1934, to date.



ST-ADELAIDE DE PABOS, QUE., WHARF

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all vouchers covering expenditures for stone, iron, wood and other building materials used in connection with the wharf of St-Adelaide de Pabos, county of Gaspe, from August 1, 1930, to date.



HAVRE AUX MAISONS, QUE.-PUBLIC WORKS

Maurice Brasset: For a copy of all vouchers covering expenditures made since August 1, 1930, to date, at Havre aux Maisons, Magdalen Islands, including work done in the channel at Havre aux Maisons, Elie Point and Basse Point, Dame du Sud and Grand Barachois.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I notice by the papers that Premier Henry of Ontario has recently made a statement that the Prime Minister has intimated to him that it is the intention to introduce contributory unemployment insurance legislation. I wish to ask the Prime Minister if such an assurance has been given by him to Premier Henry, and if so, is it his intention to introduce such legislation this session?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot 'be responsible for what is said in the newspapers in any sense. I doubt very much whether the report accurately states what was said by Premier Henry. In common with other premiers he has discussed with me the question of unemployment insurance and it will be within the memory of the house that I made a statement as to what the result of the discussion was. Since that time the government has been engaged in endeavoring to ascertain to what extent, in view of the differences of opinion with respect to jurisdiction that existed, we could submit legislation to this house,. Whether or not it will be done at this session, I am not in position to state with any degree of absolute certainty. It may or may not and with respect to that I cannot say at the moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in using the word "that" was referring to my

Construction Camps
remarks as an interpretation of Premier Henry's statement or to the fact that Premier Henry had made a different statement. I should like to quote the dispatch itself, as follows:
"Mr. Bennett repeatedly has told me that contributory unemployment insurance is definitely coming," Mr. Henry declared. "He said he opposed non-contributory insurance, but he always suggested contributory unemployment insurance was inevitable."
The first part of the dispatch reads:
Canadian Press dispatch, Toronto, May 18.- Unemployment insurance on a contributory basis will be introduced by Premier R. B. Bennett in the near future, Premier George S. Henry of Ontario to-day told a delegation of women representing the Toronto and District Women's Unemployment Conference who asked the government for a provincial law as well as increased food and clothing relief allowances.
That is the exact wording of the dispatch to which I referred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my answer covered the question asked by the right hon. gentleman. What I desired to make clear was that not only had it been discussed with Premier Henry but it had been discussed with the representatives of the provinces. There was a very full discussion and there is no doubt that I said to Mr. Henry what I said in this house and to the others, that I believed it was inevitable that some form of unemployment insurance would be enacted and that it should be on a contributory basis. There was some uncertainty as to the extent to which we might proceed to overcome the difficulties with respect to the provisions of the British North America Act and, as I say, I am not in position to-day to state definitely whether or not I shall endeavour to resolve those difficulties in a way which I think might be reasonable at this session.



CONSTRUCTION CAMPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Could the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) advise the house what regulations have been issued by his department with respect to the holding of political meetings in construction camps. No doubt the minister has seen the report that General McNaughton has issued instructions that no political meetings are to be held in any construction camp. Before a debate on the merits of this matter takes place, could the minister kindly advise the house as to what instructions have been issued.


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: I was away over the week end but I saw the report this morning. If the right hon. gentleman will allow his question to stand as a notice I shall be very glad to give an answer to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going to suggest that if there is any truth in the report, perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) would agree to adjourn the house in order' that there may be a debate on the merits of the question. I think this is an urgent question in view of the present elections in Saskatchewan and Ontario and with the possibility of federal elections coming on before very many months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is quite obvious that the views of hon. members cannot be expressed when this question is answered because it is not debatable but I think I can provide a method without adjourning the house by which opportunity will be afforded within a few days to have a complete discussion. This can be done on one of the supply items.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As long as it is an early opportunity.



SILVER COVERAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: In view of the fact that the United States is to use a coverage of twenty-five per cent silver for currency, which action will greatly increase the market price of silver, I should like to inquire of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) if the government is contemplating taking similar action.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: I am indebted to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) for his courtesy in advising me that he proposed to submit this question. The opinion of the government, either with respect to this or any other matter, can be made known only as and when the proposal is brought before the house.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in ex-
Marketing Act
[Stage Direction]
port trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith-Mr. Weir (Melfort)- Mr. Morand in the chair.
On subsection 4.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: On Friday I made the suggestion that the government should consolidate the original bill and the proposed amendments. There may- be some rule to prevent this being done, but if it could be done it would be of tremendous convenience to those of us who are ordinary laymen and do not pretend to be lawyers. The minister has indicated that there are to be more amendments and if there is no rule to prevent this being done, I think it should be done. I am sdre it would expedite the passing of the bill.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: At the request of the committee the amendments proposed were printed and they have been before the committee for over a week. I do not agree that there is any difficulty in following the bill and the suggested amendments. The bill will be reprinted before it comes up for third reading.


William Richard Motherwell: That will be all right but it will not help us much now. What is before the committee?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand):: Apparently all of section 4 was not passed. Shall section 4 as amended carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Have the
amendments been discussed? I do not think they have.


William Richard Motherwell: If any of these disjointed amendments slip through without our knowing it I think we should reserve the right to revert to them. It is something like a game of whist where you have more cards than you know what to do with, it is not like euchre. I think the chairman should have consideration for the committee in this respect. We have to keep the bill and the amendments before us and keep jumping from one to the other to see where we are. I have a proposal to make in connection with section 5 but I am afraid I will not know when we get to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What are the amendments to subsection 4? My recollection is that we had renumbered the paragraphs and were discussing the addition of what would be, according to the new amendment, subsection 4.


Mr. DUPRE:: A new section.
fMr. Rhodes.)


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I do not think that had passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the committee
rose I was speaking. .


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was not
carried.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the subsection
carry now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister was discussing at the time the question of jurisdiction as between the dominion and the provinces, and I had asked whether he thought that the powers granted by the British North America Act to the dominion could be in any way conferred by the dominion upon the provinces. I understood his reply to be that they could not but that the provinces might be made to act as agent for the dominion-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might agree to act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes-I beg my right hon. friend's pardon; might agree to act. May I reverse the question and ask the Prime Minister whether in his opinion a power conferred upon the provincial legislature under the British North America Act could, by the provincial legislatures, be delegated to the dominion in the first place or, secondly, would the provincial governments have power to ask the dominion to act as their agent with respect to the powers given them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt as to
the right of the province to agree with the dominion that the dominion shall act as its agent or instrument to accomplish a purely provincial purpose. I am equally clear that the province would have no power to delegate part of its exclusive jurisdiction to the federal power. For instance, no one will question that the province might arrange by appropriate agreement that, we will say, a trust company should act to do certain work for it in connection with the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction. If the dominion government were so minded it could agree to discharge these agency functions for the province at the request of the province, and there would be no doubt in my judgment as to the legality of such an arrangement. This bill contemplates that the cooperation between the federal power and the provincial power will be manifest wherever it is desirable, the federal power acting with the provincial power to accomplish a given end; and if it be necessary for the provincial power to act in cooperation with the dominion, the dominion may exercise to the full

its power. It does not propose to compel the province to do it, nor does it propose to compel the dominion, but it contemplates that as an instrumentality of government the province may agree to work with the dominion to accomplish a given end, and equally that the dominion may agree to cooperate with the province-the provincial authorities; I use the word province as covering all- for the same purpose. That is my understanding of the situation, and I think such power would be exercised in a perfectly legal manner.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can understand that if the dominion had enacted a law with respect to some matter and under that law wished the province to act as its agent in some particular it might have the power which the Prime Minister suggests. Might I ask whether the Prime Minister would go so far as to say that the dominion, having been given power to legislate exclusively on a particular question, could confer any of that power by legislation on the province as its agent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the courts have
decided, and the Department of Justice would advise, that it is not competent for this parliament to derogate from the power conferred by the British North America Act on the provinces, nor can this parliament divest itself of its responsibility and confer constitutionally upon a provincial legislature powers which under the constitution are conferred solely upon the dominion parliament.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It has been suggested that in subsection 5 it might be well to add the words "and disburse" in the third line, so that it would then read:
... the board may authorize such local board to act as its agent to collect and disburse the charges or tolls imposed.


Robert Weir: We have not yet
reached subsection 5.
Subsection 4 agreed to.
On subsection 5-Board may authorize local board to exercise powers.


Maurice Dupré: I move to add the following as subsection 5:
Whenever a local board has been authorized to exercise any of the powers of the board, the board may authorize such local board to act as its agent to collect and disburse the charges or tolls imposed.
The difference between the amendment and what I have read is that wq have added in the third line the words "and disburse."


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
r
Marketing Act
On subsection 6-Board may require full information.
Maurice Dupré: I move the following as subsection 6:
Whenever the board or a local board cooperates or acts conjointly with any marketing board or agency established under the law of any province, the board may similarly impose charges or tolls in respect of the marketing of the whole or any part of the product marketed by or under the direction of the provincial marketing board or agency and may authorize such marketing board or agency to act as the agent of the board in collecting and' disbursing such charges or tolls.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is "provincial marketing board" anywhere defined?


Robert Weir: It is not defined
here because that depends on the interpretation which the provincial authorities may give it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is the board authorized under the authority of the province concerned?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Mr. HEAPS:: How will these funds be collected?


Robert Weir: The scheme will
indicate the manner in which they will be collected. This is perhaps the most difficult part of the bill, and that is why these amendments have been put in.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Difficulties may arise in
different parts of the country. In some parts too much may be raised by levy while in other parts there may not be sufficient. Will there be a supervising body anywhere in control to ensure that the amounts levied on a particular industry shall be fair and reasonable?


Robert Weir: The dominion board is the supervising body with respect to all such levies.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will they act in such a way as to ensure that no particular locality is hampered?


Robert Weir: That is why this
change has been made, so that it will be centred in the dominion board.


Maurice Dupré: I move that we add the following as subsection 7:
(7) The board may utilize the fund created by the charges or tolls in connection with the exercise by it or by a local board of any of its powers or for the pooling of returns, the creation of reserves, and any necessary operat-
Marketing Act

ing or capital expenditure, and in the case of charges or tolls imposed in respect of the marketing of any product under the direction of a provincial marketing board or agency, the board may direct that the charges or tolls be utilized by and' for the purposes of such provincial board or agency.


Mr. NEILL:: Is this the only reference in the bill or in the amendments to the powers proposed to be given regarding pooling of returns? If so it is very dangerous.


Robert Weir: No, there is provision for that in a further amendment under the heading of "marketing schemes."


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister mind indicating where the pooling powers are given?


Robert Weir: Clause 5, subclause 5 of the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, that says:
Every scheme as approved shall state-
Is that all?


Robert Weir: It is covered by amendments under that when we come to them.


Alan Webster Neill: If it is covered later on, we will deal with it when we come to it.


William Richard Motherwell: I am glad that somebody as astute as is the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) is a little muddled, on this as well as I am. I would be afraid there was something wrong with my training had nobody but myself failed to see the significance of this word "pooling." To make sure that I was right in considering it as still very vague, I submitted it to a gentleman who has some knowledge of drafting legislation as he has been engaged in that work for many years. I asked him what he thought it referred to and he said that he thought it referred to tolls; that if too much was collected in the way of tolls, they would take out of it what was wanted and turn the rest back on a pooling basis. To make the matter quite clear, why not insert "commodity" before the word "returns," and then we would know that the provision did not refer to toll returns? The minister is strong on clarification. Would he mind clarifying it by putting that in to meet the situation, because if pooling is not referred to anywhere else, it is still about as vague as it was except that the one word "pooling," is there giving us an idea as to what is meant. But it is not plain that the provision refers to commodity returns or toll returns or whatever they may be. Why be so sparing of the English language as not to insert another word there and say "the pooling of commodity returns"? I think that is what

the growers want. I did not think it referred to anything else until the gentleman to whom I referred said that it meant the pooling of tolls; that when too much was collected the portion not needed was returned to the growers on a pool basis. That is not my statement, but the fact that this gentleman put that construction on the provision shows that it is not clear what is meant. I would suggest that the word "commodity" be inserted before the word "returns." That is the least possible insertion that can be made; it is the addition of only one word and it might improve matters. Does the minister think that would hurt it?


Robert Weir: So far as the meaning goes, there is no objection, but it would necessitate a new definition of "commodity," it not having been defined before, and I do not see any gain. These subclauses have been gone over very carefully with the intention of ensuring that pooling shall be taken care of.


William Richard Motherwell: I know that.


Alan Webster Neill: I must be very stupid but
I cannot find in the bill anything about pooling except in the place I have just mentioned, under subclause 7 of clause 4. The minister says that we shall find a reference under clause 5, subclause 5, but that subclause deals with polling not with pooling.


Robert Weir: The scheme itself
will set out the manner in which they want their goods regulated and the method of pooling if pooling is asked for under the scheme. Subclause 7 will enable the collection of funds to make this possible, in addition to funds for other charges.


Alan Webster Neill: If this does not out-Herod
Herod! Hon. members know I voted for the second reading of this bill with the idea that a principle was involved in it, but I am beginning to think it is only a theory. I conscientiously voted for the second reading, hoping that my vote would be justified in committee, but the more we dive into the bill the more difficult it is to believe it will ever be made workable. The committee has heard what the minister said. I say that the only reference to authorizing pooling is found in these words and the minister confirms my statement by saying that it can be found in the scheme if they put one in and the government approves it. The subclause under discussion states:
The board may utilize the fund created by the charges or tolls


Robert Weir: My understanding
was that in the scheme submitted in the first draft of the bill one of the things that might be asked for, no doubt would be in some cases, was that the provisions as to the marketing of the product would include the principle of pooling. Because certain members did not read it that way an effort has been made here to clarify it still further. With the consent of the committee, since there still seems difficulty, I would ask that subsections 7 and 8 of section 4 be allowed to stand until this matter has been given further consideration.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I have been reading this amending section 7, and like many other parts of the bill it is very abstruse. In the second line you have the coordinate conjunction "or" thrown into juxtaposition with the preposition "for," thus disarranging the sense of the entire amendment. This is the worst drafted bill I think I ever read since I came into parliament. I do not think the minister had much to do with drafting it. I believe it must have grown up too hastily as it were and without giving deliberate thought to the suggestions of parties who approached the minister and the department. The minister surely did not have time to let his intellect play on the mechanism of this bill and clarify it before it got into the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you say intellect?
Marketing Act


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, I was considering that there was intellectual ability on the other side of the house.
Subsections 7 and 8 stand.
On section 5, subsection 1-Petition to approve scheme.


Alan Webster Neill: I have an amendment to
move:
That in lines 2-3 the words "or marketing" be taken out.
The subsection will then read:
A representative number of persons engaged in the production and marketing or the production of a natural product may petition ...
As it reads now a scheme may be put up by people who are engaged in marketing alone. That is highly undesirable. I am willing to go the length of including producers and marketers in one scheme, but the scheme should include producers. Under the present warding it may be put forward by marketers alone, and the producers will thereafter be coerced by a scheme formulated, put forward and boosted by marketers alone. Let us look at the British act; they never contemplated any such drastic thing. They do not even go the length of putting the producers and the marketers together. Here is what they say, "a scheme regulating the marketing of a product by the producers thereof." Nothing about. marketers alone. Then in section 3, "every scheme except a substitution scheme shall require a poll of the registered producers." The marketers cannot be registered, it is only producers. Then another place; when the poll is taken it must show two-thirds of the total number of registered producers. Nothing about marketers.


Robert Weir: Does not the "producer" there mean the person engaged in the curing of bacon and the making of cheese as well as the raising of hogs or production of milk?


Alan Webster Neill: It may mean a producer of bacon.


Robert Weir: That is, what we
know as the packing plants?


Alan Webster Neill: That may be so, but I want to get away from the idea that two or three commission agents or brokers may get control of an industry'. You will achieve that end if you insist on the producers being in the deal. "No person shall be entitled to vote on the poll unless he is registered." He can only be registered if he is a producer. I think that goes to the very crux of the matter. I think such a provision will do away with 
a good 'deal of the objection that has arisen in connection with fish, for example. Two or three exporters could get control of the fishing industry. I suggest this for the consideration of the minister. I am meeting him more than half way. The British act says the producers alone, I am willing to put the marketers in along with the producers, but not to leave it to the marketers alone.


William Richard Motherwell: I think we have to give the minister credit for explaining this act as including the marketers. Since the bill came down he has made it plain all through that it is not entirely a producers' bill, it is a trade or marketers' bill also. I never saw exactly how it could be worked, I admit, but that was the explanation given by the minister, he evidently meant it to be just as it is. But I would support the suggestion just made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that it is not desirable to pretend to have a producers' marketing scheme and then have others in it in addition, as might occur as the bill stands. You will be just where you were before. I do not want it too exclusive, but I can imagine conditions such that if you let the regular trade in you will have the Old Nick to pay. I do not see how they could get along together at all. I do not think that was meant by the government at the outset, nor do I think it was meant by those who asked the government for this legislation. The producers in British Columbia and Ontario and the prairies certainly had the idea that it was a producers' marketing bill. Now as indicated it may be a marketers' marketing bill, or a bill for joint marketers and producers. We are on delicate ground here and I think we should be very careful, because if you are going unequally to yoke together two classes in a marketing scheme it will be like getting a bunch of Kilkenny cats to work together. The minister would do well to look into it further and see if he can explain what the government means. I think the bill is just now the way he has explained it, but I do not think it will work.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The
amendment moved by Mr. Neill is:
That the words "or marketing" in lines two and three of subsection one of section 5 be struck out.


Robert Weir: In drafting the bill we have endeavoured to keep it flexible so far as possible, especially for the first year of its operation. There was one difficulty that came to our notice during the past two years and which led to this section being drafted as it is. Some two years ago a large number of

Marketing Act
representatives of creameries met with me in ;his connection; some of them were cooperative and some were not. I believe at that time all the larger ones were in agreement with the exception of one firm. If all the creameries in Canada were cooperative they would come under the classification of producing and marketing and this would not be necessary, but since there are some creameries that are not cooperative, without these words it would be impossible for them all to get together and submit a scheme for the regulation of the marketing of dairy products. That is just one instance that comes to my mind. I believe this paragraph was arranged in this way in connection with creameries especially, but it might apply in the case of canneries and so on as well.


Mr. TOTZKE:: The creameries are producers, are they not?


Mr. VALLANCE:: I really cannot agree with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) or my good friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I can see the possibility of a situation arising in connection with an organization which is peculiarly a marketing organization. We will take the hog producers. They may band themselves together to sell their hogs to a second individual or group engaged in packing. My hon. friend from Humboldt reminds me that they also produce bacon, and the question arises as to just when a hog becomes bacon. The answer is when it is cured, but I think it is to overcome that difficulty that marketers are included in this section.


Alan Webster Neill: In that case you would simply have two boards, one for the hog producers and one for the bacon producers. They are both producers.


Mr VALLANCE:: This may be superfluous if you are going to designate a packer as a producer. He is only a processor in the creation of bacon or ham, and I can see that otherwise you might exclude certain individuals who are engaged in legitimate business from creating the very thing that all producers desire to create. To-day we have producers and marketers in one organization, known as the wheat producers. We both produce and market. There are others outside that pool of producers and marketers who are only producers of wheat. Under this bill they may, if they choose, band themselves together as producers, but then you may have someone-a miller, if you like-come along and take my entire production. He produces flour, and he also markets flour. Are you going to argue that the whole question of marketing is unnecessary and should be eliminated?


Alan Webster Neill: No, the millers can have a board for the producing and marketing of flour.


John Vallance: Someone reminds me of the grain exchange, who buy and export wheat. I do not think there is another organization engaged in the marketing of a commodity in quite the same position as the grain exchange. The other groups are engaged in processing or marketing the pooled product of some other group, and by that very act they become producers.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the hon. member say the grain exchange processes wheat?


John Vallance: No, I say they are the outstanding example of a group not being processors of anything; they are only marketers, so this would allow that portion of the crop which is not pooled to be created into a pool through the grain exchange, if they so desired.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member has proved my case; he has suggested the possibility that the grain exchange may get control of the wheat producers.


John Vallance: No, they cannot do
that. In the old pool we had over fifty per cent of the producers, and I think they would be willing to enter into another pool. That portion that did not come into the producers' pool might come in under the grain exchange, if they desired. They may be compelled to do so, but first you must have a vote. If over forty per cent stayed out of a voluntary pool surely my hon. friend would not suggest that they would vote themselves into a compulsory pool, so probably you would have a certain percentage of the wheat producers who would not come under any scheme.


Alan Webster Neill: They would have to do so; the minority of the wheat producers would have to come under the scheme if the majority asked for it.


John Vallance: Then let me ask a question. My hon. friend says we are all going to be forced in. How large will the unit be? Does he suggest that the province of Saskatchewan, because it has a large production, can force Alberta and Manitoba into such a pool without those provinces having any thing to say about it?


Mr. BROWN:: We have not come to that point yet.


John Vallance: That is a question I
should like to put to my hon. friend.

Marketing Act


Alan Webster Neill: There is a saying that you
cannot serve 'God and mammon; you cannot be a producer and serve the marketing end alone. I should think my hon. friends from the prairies would be only too glad to get away from the control of the grain exchange.


John Vallance: I am not arguing in
favour of the grain exchange at all.


Alan Webster Neill: Is that not the inference,
that you will allow them to come in?


John Vallance: By your very act you
are forbidding over forty per cent, under the voluntary pool, from having any say as to whether they can be pooled under some other system than that which you say they should have.
Amendment negatived on division.


Mr. COOTE:: Just for information I should like to ask the minister a question in regard to the creameries, which he mentioned. If a number of the creameries that are not cooperative in any sense of the word but are simply private creameries got together and set up a scheme, might they be formed under a provincial board so that the scheme would snly include private agencies engaged in marketing dairy products, without reference to any of them being producers in any sense?


Robert Weir: Yes, I should say
that would be possible within a certain area, if the vote included seventy-five per cent of the production.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I think more consideration should be given this section; I am fully in accord with the contention of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. This act was introduced primarily to improve the methods and practices of marketing, but that was only to benefit the primary producers and not necessarily those interested only in marketing. I do not think the primary producer will be in any better position if those who are primarily interested in marketing are going to be allowed to invoke this act in their own particular interest. I think the minister should give a little more consideration to this point. It may be difficult for me to see the implications of what is involved here at once, but I think the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is a very pertinent one and should receive more consideration.
Subsection 1 of section 5 agreed to.
On section 5, subsection 2-Reference to board.


William Richard Motherwell: 
Robert Weir: That would come
under subsection 3.


William Richard Motherwell: 
Robert Weir: That will be discussed on subsection 3 when subsection 2 is passed.
Subsection 2 of section 5 agreed to.
On section 5, subsection 3-minister may recommend approval.


Maurice Dupré: I beg to move, Mr. Chairman, to strike out subsection 3 of this section and substitute the following therefor:
(3) Upon receipt of a report from the hoard recommending the approval of the scheme as submitted or as amended by the board, the minister may recommend the approval thereof, or may require that a poll be taken and state the necessary percentage of voters favouring the scheme to warrant its further consideration; upon the recommendation of approval by the minister, the governor in council may approve the scheme and fix the date when the same shall become effective.


Alan Webster Neill: Will you read the amendment, Mr. Chairman?


Maurice Dupré: It is the printed amendment.


Alan Webster Neill: I have an amendment to offer to that amendment, if you are not going to read it, Mr. Chairman. I propose to strike out in the third line the words "or may" and to substitute therefor the words "but shall." It would then read like this:
Upon receipt of a report from the board recommending the approval of the scheme as submitted .... the minister may recommend the approval thereof but shall require that a poll be taken.
The object is to make compulsory that there shall be a poll. What is the use of talking about a thing which' may or may not be done, leaving it to somebody else to decide. The whole act teems with evasions or vague possibilities of that kind. We cannot risk our whole scheme of a livelihood on the decisions that may or may not be given by a board under this act.
I shall not take time to read all the references to the sections of the British act which state that a poll shall be taken and which contain most positive and definite provisions for taking the poll. For instance, the minister has to advertise it, secure a list of the producers, and the poll "must" be taken. There are even references to carrying out the poll with the same care and finality as regards corruption as is taken under the Elections Act. That shows you how seriously they regard it.
But let us come a little nearer home, to British Columbia. We have heard references to how much British Columbia wants this legislation. I have had some correspondence with the secretary of one of the organizations out there, and I shall quote a few words.' from my letter to him dated October 25:
Of the general principle involved I am in favour. I understand that the Hon. Mr. Weir has had this matter under consideration for years. Why not ask him to formulate and introduce a bill into the house early next session? It could be read a first time, which commits no one to it. and sent to the agricultural committee. They could hear witnesses of various bodies and interests. If deemed necessary, they could bring in a report to the house recommending that it be stood over for that session and meantime circulated throughout the dominion and, on the representations made, the government could prepare another or revised bill to bring down in the next session with a much better prospect of passing it as non-contentious legislation.
Does not that sound like the voice of prophecy, considering that it was written last October? Here is what one of these men who is authorized to deal with the minister and who was in personal touch with the minister wrote me in reply:
First the intention is to secure legislation from the federal house.
A little further on he says:
If an act is passed similar to the British Marketing Act-
I wonder if this act is similar:
-we will then have legislation which will allow of any scheme which has been submitted to the dominion and provincial governments and received their approval or the ministers of agriculture of those governments, and after the scheme has been printed and sent out to all registered producers a poll will be taken conforming with the regulations of the act and by means of this poll an expression of opinion secured from all registered producers of the commodity involved.
Those are the men who have been cited again and again as interested in this act. The man who signs that letter is the secretary of the British Columbia subcommittee of the Canadian Horticultural Council, and I have heard it quoted in the house that the Horticultural Council was intensely pleased with this bill and endorsed it. But when I looked the matter up I found that they said, "with modifications." Let me call attention to the men who did this agitating. They had a convention at Regina, and they met the minister there. Who are these men? They were representatives of the dairy, fruit and vegetable industries; also Mr. Millikin of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. He seems to have been very prominent in it. It says:
Marketing Act

Mr. Millikin, who is solicitor for the Saskatchewan wheat pool, recently conferred with Mr. Bennett and Mr. Weir at Regina and at the expressed wish of Mr. Weir is, I believe at the present moment, in Ottawa for the purpose of discussing the whole matter with the federal Minister of Agriculture with the idea of completing the draft of the act ...
I wonder if this Mr. Millikin is the villain
in the piece, the man who drew this abortion of a bill.
The point I was going to make is that the representations come wholly from the primary agricultural industries. Do they say anything about fish or lumber? Not a thing. But I am getting away from my point. My point is this. These men from British Columbia did contemplate having a very definite and precisely worded bill, and they were prepared to sink or swim by such a bill. But here on this very important question of holding a poll this bill says that the minister "may" require that a poll be taken. There again is [DOT] all of that vicious element. It makes it possible under the amendment that was wrongly passed a few minutes ago to put the whole thing into the hands of a few marketers, commission agents, it may be. Do you think they will want to take a poll? Not on your life. Do you think their scheme will suggest the taking of a poll? That is the last thing they will want to do when there is any suggestion of getting control. The hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Maclnnis) said very truly that the poll was intended for the primary producer but before we finish up with this the control will be put back just where it is at, the present time.


William Richard Motherwell: The proviso which
I suggested should really be added to subsection 2 but that subsection has been passed.
As I understand it, a proviso is not numbered, it is a sort of leanto to the main section or subsection. The words "provided however" should be added to number 2. I hope this subsection will stand as there is a lot in what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) says. Referring to the complaint of Mr. Millikin I claim that the largest organization of producers of which I know in Canada, the wheat pool, should have had representation at either the Regina or Toronto meetings or any other in which they are interested, but I suppose that is neither here nor there. I think it is unfortunate to have no percentage mentioned in the bill. The minister will not have a moment's peace from one end of the year to the other if he has to be the only one to decide the percentages. Then we should decide how the poll shall be taken, by referendum, plebiscite

or other means. Perhaps I should not be so much concerned in reducing the responsibility of the minister. However, if there was a range within which the minister would have a choice perhaps some hope would be given to those who are sensitive about the compulsion feature that they would come in under the higher range while the easy ones could come in under the lower, or vice versa. There would be a range which would be in harmony with the difference which must exist between the schemes proposed.


John Vallance: I should like to ask
the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) a question. When you refer to placing them between 65 and 85, are you referring to growers or to quantity of production? Let me give an illustration. You may have a man with 50 acres of wheat, he is a producer; you may have another one with 2,000 acres, he is a producer. As it is now, being left in the hands of the minister, some recognition may be given to the volume as well as to the number of individuals.


William Richard Motherwell: I think that ought to be left to the minister and I would rather he do it than I. Someone would have to specify a franchise with ballot boxes, scrutineers and all that sort of thing. I am quite willing to leave the methods and the qualifications of the voters to the minister, but better still to the provinces. You would have to have a regular franchise and qualification for voters and all the paraphernalia, but the provinces can determine that.


John Vallance: You would have to
have qualification anyway.


William Richard Motherwell: They would have
the term eligible, registered producer. The government are changing this bill very much and I should like to have a little of the original bill left for identification purposes.


John Vallance: Do you want to justify your first vote ?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, but I also
have some mercy on the government.


Albert Joseph Brown: What is the object in setting 85 per cent when the object to be achieved can be achieved just as well by setting a minimum of say 66 and two-thirds per cent.


Robert Weir: Might I suggest
that the amendment to the amendment does not deal with this and it would be better for the committee to deal first with the amendment to the amendment.

Marketing Act


William Richard Motherwell: In reply to the
hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) I might state that when the minister was reading off the list of the various groups of producers in Queensland in nearly every case they were above 85 per cent.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Could
we deal with this subamendment?


William Richard Motherwell: I am trying to
deal with it. I am not supposed to be questioned by another hon. member, but I am trying to reply. Nearly all the votes in Queensland were above 85, so that that would not be an unreasonably high figure. Some of them go as high as 99.


Robert Weir: The point now
under discussion does not come up under the amendment to the amendment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Just how is this poll to be
taken?


Alan Webster Neill: If any.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment to the amendment clearly has to do with that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Might I have an answer to
my question as to how this poll is to be held.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Will the committee just deal with this first?


Abraham Albert Heaps: This arises out of the
amendment, the one says "shall" and the other says " may."


Raymond Ducharme Morand: An
amendment is moved by Mr. Neill that the words "or may" in section 5, subsection 3, line 4, be struck out and the words "but shall" be substituted therefor.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That amendment has to do with the way in which a poll is to be taken of those who are to have the say as to what regulations are to be recommended to the minister.


Robert Weir: I would say that the amendment to the amendment does not discuss how the poll shall be taken or the percentage of the vote, but that there shall be a poll. The only question before the committee is whether or not there shall be a compulsory poll, the question is not as to how the poll shall be held.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under the subamendment I should say it would be quite proper to discuss anything that affects the particular recommendations that are to be made to the minister. If there is a poll, they will be made subject to that poll; if there is no poll, the regulations will be made in another way. It all comes back to the question of regulations. Before we proceed further it would be well for the committee to consider just where we are going in the matter of this proposed legislation. I should like to give the minister certain reasons why I think this and some other sections ought to be held over for further consideration before the committee is asked to support them. The regulations that are to be drafted and that are to become the law are to be made exclusively within the ambit of interested producers and the governor in council. Parliament does not enter into the picture at all. That is the first feature that I wish to make clear with respect to what this parliament is being asked to do. It is being asked to authorize certain interested groups combined with the governor in council to make what hereafter are to be the laws of the land. I say that that is an entirely wrong departure, that it amounts to what I have referred to before as a political revolution in the manner in which laws are hereafter to be made in this country. I do not think we ought to countenance such a step unless we are fully aware of where it is taking us in the matter of legislation.
The effort to get away from parliament is not new as other countries and other governments have been faced with similar difficulties. The parliament of Great Britain has to deal with a much larger number of subjects than this parliament, it has to deal with all the subjects which under our constitution are assigned to the provinces as well as to the dominion. That parliament has found it necessary to do a certain amount of delegating with respect to matters of legislation but in delegating powers to local bodies the parliament of Westminster very soon discovered that unless they were to depart entirely from the British constitution, to get away from the rule of law and the sovereignty of parliament it was necessary that some very clearly defined rules should be laid down within which it would be permissible for the minister to approve or disapprove of regulations, or for local bodies to be permitted to make regulations without the full approval of parliament with respect thereto. The Prime Minister of to-day has frequently directed the attention of this house to a volume which has been mentioned in the course of this debate- a work by the chief justice of Great Britain, Lord Hewart of Bury. The volume is entitled "The New Despotism." I doubt if hon. members have realized that this volume written by the Lord Chief Justice of Great Britain was written as a protest against the sort of thing we are here being asked to do at the present time, a protest so strong that the

Marketing Act
British parliament found it desirable to appoint a royal commission to report upon the whole question of delegated powers. I intend to read an extract or two from this work, and a paragraph or two from the report of the commission which submitted its findings to the British parliament, so that we may see how immediately those findings bear upon what is before this committee at the moment.
The situation as it presented itself to the Lord Chief Justice of England has been expressed by him in a paragraph in the introduction to this volume, under the title "The Nature of the Question." The author says:
The paradox which is in course of being accomplished is, indeed, rather elaborate. Writers on the constitution have for a long time taught that its two leading features are the sovereignty of parliament and the rule of law. To tamper with either of them was, it might be thought, a sufficiently serious undertaking. But how far more attractive to the ingenious and adventurous mind to employ the one to defeat the other, and to establish a despotism on the ruins of both! It is manifestly easy to point a superficial contrast between what was done or attempted in the days of our worst kings, and what is being done or attempted to-day. In those days the method was to defy parliament-and it failed. In these days the method is to cajole, to coerce, and to use parliament-and it is strangely successful. The old despotism, which was defeated, offered parliament a challenge. The new despotism, which is not yet defeated, gives parliament an anaesthetic. The strategy is different, but the goal is the same. It is to subordinate parliament, to evade the courts, and to render the will, or the caprice of the executive unfettered and supreme.
The foregoing appears at page 10. I contend that every line of that paragraph is borne out by what has been happening in this committee since the introduction of this measure. It is perfectly clear that the tendency of this legislation is to get away from the supremacy of parliament in the making of laws, to get away from the rule of law as determining the rights of subjects throughout the entire dominion. Perhaps I had better refer to an earlier page in this volume where Lord Hewart says:
The citizens of a state may indeed believe or boast that, at a given moment, they enjoy, or at any rate possess, a system of representative institutions, and that the ordinary law of the land, interpreted and administered by the regular courts, is comprehensive enough and strong enough for all its proper purposes. But their belief will stand in need of revision if, in truth and in fact, an organized and diligent minority, equipped with convenient drafts, and employing after a fashion part of the machinery of representative institutions, is steadily increasing the range and the power of departmental authority and -withdrawing its operations more and more from the jurisdiction of the courts.
i.Mi. Mackenzie King.'
That is exactly what is proposed by this very section; it is to take away from parliament first of all the making of the law, to put the laws governing the regulation and marketing of products into the hands of occupational groups in local areas who, in order to have their regulations become law, shall be subj ect only to the approval of the governor in council. And such regulations are to be given their widest scope in some instances subject only to the approval of the minister. It begins and ends outside of the ambit of parliament altogether.
Now I say that legislation of the kind should not be countenanced by this parliament for one moment. It is not necessary to get away from the authority of parliament, it is not necessary to do away with the making of laws in accordance with the practice and procedure of this House of Commons, in order to give the farmers of this country or any other class what is needed in full to safeguard their interests and to improve their condition where that is possible.
I have referred to the action of the British parliament in appointing a royal commission to study the whole question of the delegation of powers. I have in my hand the report of that commission on ministers' powers. Report Presented by the Lord High Chancellor to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, April 1932. The report states that the committee was appointed:
to consider the powers evercised by or under the direction of (or by persons or bodies appointed specially by) ministers of the crown by way of (a) delegated legislation and (b) judicial or quasi-judicial decision, and to report what safeguards are desirable or necessary to secure the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament and the supremacy of the law.
That was the purpose for which the commission was appointed. Now what does this commission say as to the essentially subordinate character of delegated legislation? I would suggest to hon. members that they read carefully the entire report, but this one section bears immediately on the legislation which is before us at the moment-this section with regard to the essentially subordinate character of delegated legislation. All this legislation that is left to the local boards to be approved of by the governor in council is delegated legislation, and with respect to delegated legislation this royal commission has reported that certain safeguards should be thrown around such legislation, safeguards wholly lacking in this measure. In that regard may I read one paragraph which appears at page 20:

Marketing Act
The power to legislate, when delegated by parliament, differs from parliament's own power to legislate. Parliament is supreme and its power to legislate is therefore unlimited. It can do the greatest things; it can do the smallest. It can make general laws for a vast empire; it can make a particular exception out of them in favour of a particular individual. It can provide-and has in fact provided-for the payment of old age pensions to all who fulfil the statutory conditions: it can also provide-and has in fact provided

for boiling the Bishop of Rochester's cook to death. But any power delegated by parliament is necessarily a subordinate power, because it is limited by the terms of the enactment whereby it is delegated.
It is a princijjle of our constitution that whatever laws are passed by parliament are binding, as the law of the land, on everybody. But it is also a principle of our constitution that no one may be deprived of his liberty or of his rights except in due course of law-i.e., unless he has done something which the law says specifically shall have that effect. In the absence of a common law or a statutory authority, "A" cannot be deprived of rights by an executive act of a minister; and if the minister claims to have made a regulation entitling him to interfere with "A's" rights, the courts will interfere to stop the minister unless he can show by what authority, statutory or otherwise, he has made the regulation in question.
It follows, therefore, that to safeguard the second of the two principles just mentioned the precise limits of the law-making power, which parliament intends to confer on a minister, should always be defined in clear language by the statute which confers it.
There is nothing here in the nature of statutory law, nothing that may be cited as law, to which all persons in the country will be subject. The very essence of this proposed legislation is that there shall be one law for one locality and another law for another, that the producers in one province may have one scheme and the producers in some other province another. These schemes, not if they receive the approval of parliament, not if they find existence in a statute or a resolution approved by parliament, but simply if sanctioned by the governor in council, are to become the law of the land. That is a very serious departure from anything that has been done or attempted in this parliament heretofore and I hope the minister, before he asks the House of Commons to commit hara-kiri so far as its functions are concerned and, with respect to marketing legislation, to turn over the whole business to occupational groups to be subject only to the approval of himself and his colleagues in council, will consider where that tendency, that particular step, is going to land this country in the matter of its legislative enactments.
The other day I was pointing out that in other parts of the world certain tendencies
are at work which are wholly subversive of political institutions, for instance, the tendency in Russia where parliaments are ignored and the matter of legislation left to the regulations of occupational groups to determine according to their self interest, regardless of the people as a whole who may nevertheless be vitally affected by much of the regulatory legislation there enacted. There is the further tendency in Italy, Austria and Germany where one individual or a group that has authority for the moment may take advantage of that authority to say what the regulations are that are to govern. Both of those tendencies are wholly subversive of all that British parliamentary institutions stand for, and yet by this legislation we are being asked to endorse each of these two tendencies. We are being asked first of all to allow the making of certain laws to be left in the hands of self interested class groups and to leave to an interested minister to say whether or not their particular scheme is to be approved. If I wished to take up the time I could quote from this volume paragraphs which state that in any case where any matter of a judicial or quasi-judicial character is left to a minister for approval, care should be taken to see that the minister to whom the matter is left is not a minister of the crown who may by any chance be interested in the particular subject that is being brought before him. But this bill provides that the Minister of Agriculture shall be the one to settle whether a scheme affecting certain occupational groups, namely, for the most part those having to do with agricultural matters, shall be approved.


Robert Weir: Not to settle that entirely. That is subject to the approval of the governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know that, and it is a very nice way of evading the point.


Robert Weir: That was a straight statement. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman cannot appreciate one. I was not evading anything.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I meant nothing offensive. The minister is a little sensitive.


Robert Weir: Not at all, except as to the use of the word "evading."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me explain what I was going on to say. Last week when we were discussing this matter an effort was made on this side to find out who was to be the minister in charge of the administration
Marketing Act

of the act, we were then told by a member of the cabinet that it was almost a certainty it would be the Minister of Agriculture. Now, when I say that the minister who is interested should not be the one to be determining the question whether a scheme shall be approved, my hon. friend says that the question of who the minister shall be is not yet determined. I say that that is evading the point. If the word is offensive, I am quite prepared to withdraw it, for I did not intend it as such.


Robert Weir: From what the right hon. gentleman said last, I do not think he and I are discussing the same problem. What I stated was this: I said that the question whether a scheme was acceptable or not was not settled by the minister administering the bill but was subject to the approval of the governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite prepared to accept what the minister says as to the scheme being subject to the approval of the governor in council, but the scheme has to be proposed to a certain minister, the minister administering the legislation, and it is he who makes the recommendation for its approval to the governor in council. If one were to follow the directions of the royal commission which has been accepted by the British government as governing in matters of this kind, it would be regarded as an erroneous course of procedure, to leave the determination in the first instance of matters affecting all classes to a minister who was interested more particularly in the concern of the one class which has in its hands the drafting of the scheme.
May I point out again that this scheme so-called, and all that goes with it, everything that is set forth as a regulation, is to be what we term the law of the land; it is the law that is to govern, and those who run counter to its provisions will be subject to penalties in the nature of either fines or imprisonment. How is that law to be made? Is it to be made as the ordinary laws of this country are by members chosen under some elections act with all the safeguards of the franchise and other machinery of an elections act to ensure that those appointed will represent all classes in the community? Or is it to be framed to ensure that only one class will have the say as to what the law is to be? To realize the situation you have to read only this clause: it is simply the interested class who are to make the law; no other class is to have a look-in.
What is the amendment before us at the moment? We have to decide whether there is to be a poll not of the entire producers
lMr. Mackenzie King.]
in a community or of all classes in the community but of one interested class. In supporting or opposing the amendment the choice is to lie between whether we will countenance the making of a law with a poll rather than without a poll of an interested occupational class, namely those of the particular rather than of the general interest involved. That is something this house should not be asked to countenance. The other day reference was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) to what he thought was a parallel case. He spoke of the practice followed with respect to local option and asked me whether with regard to local option the same kind of thing did not take place. I pointed out to him that under local option everyone in the area, whether he was a teetotaller or the opposite, had a vote with respect to whether the provisions of a particular act should apply in the locality concerned. The very essence of all our legislation is to see not merely that an interested group but that all citizens have a say with regard to what is to be the law. Would we leave legislation in respect to temperance exclusively to members of the women's Christian temperance unions? Assume for a moment that this parliament were to be asked to turn over to the Knights of Columbus organizations the making of laws with respect to some question which was a subject of controversy in religion. Would this house countenance that for a minute? Assume that the house were asked that a similar procedure should be adopted with respect to some religious problem only, the power to be given to the Orange lodges of this country which represent other religious groups; would we countenance anything of the kind for a moment? Let me ask the same question with regard to the Manufacturers' Association. If we were asked that only members of the Manufacturers' Association should have the right to frame what was to be the law of the land-


Abraham Albert Heaps: They do it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If they do it, they have to do it by way of getting a ministry responsible for their actions to come to parliament and present their entire proposal to the house for discussion. What I wish to point out is that there need be no discussion of a public character anywhere of the matters with which these local groups will be concerned. These occupational groups- that is the correct term to use; representation by occupation in the making of laws, not representation by population, if we in-

Marketing Act
elude in population all classes in the community-are to frame the schemes and turn them over to the governor in council for approval; if the governor in council approves them, then, they become part of the law of the land.


Mr. SPEAK MAN:: Might I ask the right
hon. gentleman a question just on that point? I think I see his point although I cannot agree with its application. I quite agree, as he has said, the bringing in of the scheme and therefore the question of passing regulations is being confined to one class, but is it not true that the regulations will be imposed only upon that same one class and will not affect the general community as a general law would do?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You cannot
impose regulations on one class without their affecting all classes. My hon. friend has been long enough in parliament to know we are all members one of another in any community so far as anything of vital importance is concerned.


Angus MacInnis: In just the same way as the tobacco .manufacturers and growers were members one of another.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend feels so keenly why does he not bring in a bill?


Angus MacInnis: My right hon. friend would not vote for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is he going to leave it to the tobacco growers to settle for themselves what the law is to be?


Angus MacInnis: It was left to them for nine years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was not left to them for nine years. That special legislation may not have been introduced in this parliament to deal with that specific occupation may be true, but it does not signify that parliament was not free at any session, or that my hon. friend was not free at any session, to introduce any bill he wished and have it discussed. What we are proposing now is to do away altogether with discussion in parliament, to say that parliament shall have no voice in the matter. That is the point. Those who are supporting this measure are supporting a proposal that what is to be the law of the land, so termed, shall be something framed by interested occupational groups, and only subject to the approval of
the governor in council; not subject in any way to _the approval of parliament. I am not going over the ground further, but I submit that hon. members cannot, consistently with their duties as representatives of all classes in the community, subscribe to legislation which goes that far in depriving parliament of its sovereignty, and in doing away with what is rightly understood as the law of the land.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: For some weeks now we have heard this general discussion regarding the manner in which the functions of parliament will be abrogated if we pass this legislation delegating the authority of parliament to some organization outside of parliament to do something that parliament wants to have done. The whole question comes back to this: Do we or do we not desire to provide means by which the primary producers in this country may get together to work out methods by which they shall get the ultimate value of the product they produce? My right hon. friend has read at length from the report of a royal commission presented I understand to the British parliament in 1932. He states that the British government has accepted the principle laid down in the report as the basis upon which future legislation might be enacted. I have before me the act finally passed by the parliament of Westminster on the 18th of July, 1933, dealing in the main with the very question that this house is now dealing with or has been trying to deal with, that is to say the marketing of agricultural produce. It is different in this sense, that in the main this act deals with importations, because of necessity the United Kingdom is largely an importer of such produce, but it also deals with the production of agricultural products of every description and the sale of these products in the United Kingdom. It provides:
Subject to the provisions of this section, the board of trade, after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and with the Secretaries of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, may make an order regulating the importation into the United Kingdom of any such agricultural product as may be specified in the order, if it appears to the board, after such consultation as aforesaid,-
Now all the difference between the principle laid down in this preamble and the principle of this bill is that the board of trade acts instead of the marketing board. The minister remains the same, namely the Minister of Agriculture, with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. What follows.
Marketing Act

(a)	that there have been, or are being, taken all such steps as are practicable and necessary for the efficient reorganization, by means of agricultural marketing schemes or schemes under this act, of those branches of the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom in whose interests the order is made; and
(b)	that without an order under this section the effective organization and development of the said branches of the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom under such schemes as aforesaid cannot be brought about or cannot be maintained;
Now who is it that puts these schemes into effect? Is it the parliament of Westminster? Do the. House of Commons and the House of Lords sit and work out these schemes in detail, or are they delegated to some other authority?
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by the foregoing subsection, an order under this section may regulate the importation into the United Kingdom of the agricultural product to which the order relates, by determining for any such period as may be specified in the order-
(a)	the quantity of the product, or of any description thereof, which may be imported;
(b)	the descriptions of the product which may be imported.
Let us pass on-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before leaving that, my hon. friend is reading what I am pointing out is lacking in this measure, namely that there are certain statutory limitations by parliament as to what the particular board to which he is referring can do. The board is confined by parliament in the manner which is there set forth. You do not find anything in this act which sets out in a broad way within what limits the governor in council and these boards have to act.
Mr. NICHOLSON; The authority is vested absolutely in the board of trade and the minister. Now the board of trade is not parliament. It is true that the secretary of the board of trade is a member of the cabinet, as is the Minister of Agriculture, and to that degree the secretary of the board of trade and the Minister of Agriculture are the heads of these two organizations. But let me repeat what I said at the beginning; the board of trade stands in the place of the marketing board so far as this country is concerned. We have no institution comparable with the British board of trade. Read through this act from beginning to end-I am not going to weary the house by attempting to do so-and it will be seen that the powers set out in the marketing act before us, Bill No. 51 with these amendments are virtually, so far as pro-

duction and sale are concerned, identical with the powers in this act passed by the British parliament on July 18, 1933.
At this point let me say that this act of the United Kingdom gives power to limit the class and kind and quantity of every description of agricultural produce that may be imported into that country, and the marketing of agricultural produce of Canada so far as export to the United Kingdom is concerned is impossible without some enabling legislation of this character. But may I go on:
(4) Any expenses incurred under this section by the board of trade for the purpose of regulating the importation of an agricultural product into the United Kingdom shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament.
You notice that any expenses incurred by the board of trade-not parliament-for the regulating of importations shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament. The importation of agricultural produce into the United Kingdom is regulated by orders enforced under the foregoing sections.
Then it provides for the descriptions of the product which may be sold and the quantity. Let me come to another provision.
3 (1) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretaries of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, acting in conjunction, . . . shall appoint a committee for the United Kingdom, which shall be called, and is in this act referred to as, "the market supply committee."
(2) It shall be the duty of the market supply committee

Not the board of trade or the minister, but the committee appointed by these two, to do what?
-to review generally the circumstances affecting the supply of agricultural products in the United Kingdom and to make recommendations to the said minister and secretaries of state as to any steps which ought, in the opinion of the committee, to be taken for regulating that supply, and, in particular, to give to the said minister and secretaries of state advice and assistance in connection with the discharge of their functions under this part of this act and to report to them on the operation of any order in force under this part of this act and of any arrangements made for controlling the importation of an agricultural product into the United Kingdom.
What we are trying to do, or at least what I conceive this bill is trying to do, is to provide a means by which the exporter, the man who produces and sells his products in this country, will be given the same machinery to protect himself that the importer has in the United Kingdom. I continue reading:
The appointing authority-

And that again is the president of the board of trade-
-may pay such remuneration to the chairman and other members, and to the secretary, officers, agents and servants, of the market supply committee, and such other expenses of the committee, as the appointing authority, with the approval of the treasury, may determine.
A great deal has been said with regard to parliament delegating power to an outside authority with regard to penalties. There are penalties all through this act, not imposed by parliament itself but provided for the violation of regulations made by the board of trade, the minister, the market supply committee or any other agent. Let me read just one:
Every person who produces any article in contravention of the provisions of a development scheme made in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section-
Subsection 1 is simply the provision by which schemes may be worked out by the committees or boards appointed by the minister.


Alan Webster Neill: What section is the hon.
gentleman quoting?


George Brecken Nicholson: I am quoting from
section 5 of the British Marketing Act, at page 483:
Every person who produces any article in contravention of the provisions of a development scheme made in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds and an additional fine not exceeding the value of the said article, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to both such imprisonment and fines, and every person who obstructs a person in the exercise of any powers conferred on him by virtue of paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of this section shall, for each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the hon. member allow me to point out that he is dealing with development schemes for organizing the secondary product? It has nothing to do with the act before us.


George Brecken Nicholson: I heard my hon. friend make that statement before. In relation to this act both the primary and the secondary product deal with the same thing; the secondary product is merely the processing of a primary product, and every particle of the powers involved in connection with primary products is extended to the secondary products.


Alan Webster Neill: That is part 2 of the act, a separate part.
Marketing Act


George Brecken Nicholson: I understand that
perfectly. Frankly I have not been able to give sufficient time to this bill to know whether it is part 1 or part 2, but whether the bill is divided into several parts or is in only one part the principle involved is the same. The principle laid down in the act is simply that parliament delegates to an authority outside of parliament the power to do those things parliament wants done. Today the question for us to decide-I am not going to read further from this act-is whether or not parliament desires to make it possible for the primary producers in this country to get into a position they have not been in previously, by which they may market their products and receive something like a real return for them. That is the question. As you go out through the country and see what is happening, the need for something like this is driven home to you.
It has been said that parliament is divesting itself of every vestige of its authority in passing an act of this kind, which sets up some organization to do the work parliament wants done. I take it that parliament will assemble here again; the constitution compels parliament to assemble once a year, and parliament can undo anything that should not have been done. Parliament can amend this act; new regulations and provisions can be introduced when parliament meets again. All this talk of violating the constitution, tearing up the Magna Charta and all that sort of thing is simply drawing a red herring across the trail. It just comes back to this, if I may repeat: does parliament desire-as for my part I desire-to put into somebody's hands power that will make it possible for the primary producers to market their goods in an orderly fashion in order to get the best they can out of those goods? If we make a mistake in some clause or paragraph this session we can change it next session.
Let me say this, Mr. Chairman: If it is necessary to change the constitution of this country; if it is necessary to write a new Magna Charta in order that the primary producer may be protected to some degree at least, let us get busy and do it. But I do not believe it is necessary. I do not believe that any of the consequences that have been predicted are going to come about; in my judgment they have been suggested merely as a means of casting doubt and suspicion on the honesty of the minister in presenting this bill.
Marketing Act


Mr. TURNBULL :: A few evenings ago, in answer to this very same argument by the right hon. leader of the opposition, I quoted to the committee some of the sections of the wheat board bill of 1922. The answer of the right hon. gentleman was that even if those sections were in that act, two wrongs did not make one right, and he argued that even though such provisions were in some other bill that did not make them right in this bill. I will quite agree with him in that if he will agree that what he did in 1922 was wrong, but if he agrees that what he did then was wrong he will have to make his protest against 125 other acts on the statute books of this country.
I do not want to go back over the wheat board bill again, but if I understand the argument of the right hon. gentleman he says the difficulty is that parliament is not making these regulations, that they are being made by an interested class, and that other classes in the community may not be sufficiently protected.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend that my point is that there is a difference between statutes and regulations. Regulations are wholly secondary things, but by this act they are being elevated to the position of statutes, and that is what I am taking exception to. You cannot make the law of the land in that way.


Franklin White Turnbull: If my right hon. friend will read the Combines Act, which he quotes so frequently and in connection with which he takes such credit to himself-and rightly so-and if he will turn to section 40 of that act he will find that this section provides for regulations, not made by parliament but to be published in the Canada Gazette, which regulations shall have the same force as if they formed part of the act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but in
accordance with some provision of the statute. In this case the regulations are not to be in accordance with certain provisions that definitely set out the lines along which these local bodies are to regulate. They may do anything.


Franklin White Turnbull: All regulations must be in conformity with statutory law. You cannot have regulations that supersede a statute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend read the provisions of this act which set forth what the regulations may or may not contain?


Franklin White Turnbull: You never saw any
section of any act setting forth what the regulations might or might not contain. It is the regulations themselves that set forth what they may contain. This act speaks generally; the regulations are for the purpose of arranging for a scheme of marketing certain primary products. They must contain regulations in that regard but no regulations ever set out in an act the details that they must contain. Parliament gives authority to certain bodies to prepare regulations which under certain circumstances become the law of the land. You have that in the Combines Act You have that in the Seeds Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
has referred to the Combines Act. Is there any clause in the Combines Act where any local body may make regulations to govern only in a local district rather than a regulation that will apply to the whole of Canada and be applicable to every citizen of Canada?


Franklin White Turnbull: There is no clause in the Combines Act where local bodies can make regulations applying to local districts. Neither is there in this act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes.
That is the essence of this act.


Franklin White Turnbull: Will my hon. friend
content himself for a moment or two? There is nothing in this act that provides that a local body can make regulations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is provided for in the very section that we are now discussing.


Franklin White Turnbull: It is not the local body at all that makes the regulation, and that is where my right hon. friend is going astray. What the local body does is to prepare and recommend regulations. That is all. And after they have prepared and recommended the regulations, if they are approved by the minister and the governor in council, they will become the regulations not because a local body prepared them but because the governor in council approved them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
my hon. friend this question? Do these regulations become applicable to all parts of Canada when approved by the governor in council or apply only to the locality named in the scheme that is presented?


Franklin White Turnbull: They apply only to the locality named in the scheme that is described in the regulations. If the regulations say that they apply only to Saskatchewan, they apply only to Saskatchewan, just as my hon. friend's

Marketing Act
regulations in the Seeds Act so provided. In the Seeds Act it was provided that certain classes of seeds could not be sold unless the people who sold the seeds were licensed by some licensing body, and under regulations not made by parliament but by somebody else. The Seeds Act also provided that certain seeds could not be imported. There was a restriction on the importation of seeds from one geographical area to another in this country. The Seeds Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1923, chapter 185 of 1927, provides by section 3:
The minister may appoint an advisory board which may at his request prepare and recommend to him such regulations as it is of opinion should be established under this act and may make regulations prescribing
(e) the geographical areas which for the purposes of this act shall be designated as Northern, Central, or Southern, to indicate zone of production for those kinds of seeds described by regulation.
Parliament is not going to make these regulations. They are going to be made by the minister himself, and he did not have to submit them to the governor in council, and he might have been a farmer at that. The Minister of Agriculture, as a matter of fact was a farmer, a self-interested farmer, as my right hon. friend suggests of the present minister, and he was going to make regulations with respect to seeds and the people who were planting seeds and growing them. There is no difference between the two. I do not say it was wrong because the minister of that day happened to be a farmer, and my right hon. friend went a long piece when he talked about the minister making regulations in a matter in which he was personally interested.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is not being fair. I took good care to say that I was quoting from the report of the royal commission which considered that feature and stated that a minister of the crown who belonged to a particular interest should be very careful not to be the one entrusted with any discretionary power in regard to matters of decision under an act specifically related thereto. I was not reflecting on the present minister in any shape or form. I have just as high regard for him as my hon. friend has. I was simply stating a general principle which appeals to the common sense of every member.


Mr. SHAVER:: Will my right hon. friend permit a question? Does he think it would be better to have a lawyer administer this act rather than a farmer?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The parallel would be this. If the matter were one affecting the legal profession I would say that it would be quite wrong to have a lawyer given the discretionary say in the matter at issue as against other classes of the community.


Franklin White Turnbull: I would like to know if my right hon. friend when he was quoting this statement from the royal commission report that a self-interested minister should not administer the act, was quoting it with approval or disapproval. If with disapproval why quote it at all?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was quoting it with approval, certainly.


Franklin White Turnbull: Now we have it. If he was quoting it with approval, then the Minister of Agriculture, if he happens to have a farm and is therefore self-interested, should have no connection in an administrative way with anything connected with the farming business. There is no escape from the logic of that, and a labour man should not administer the Labour department, as one of my colleagues suggests.
The Seeds Act provided geographical areas and zones, and the regulations were made by an advisoiy board. Parliament did not know what the regulations were going to be or who the advisory board was going to be. Parliament did not know who the minister was going to be for more than so long at a time. Yet nevertheless my right hon. friend's own government put the bill through in exactly the same terms that he is condemning now with such heat and such violence. What has happened since 1923 to make the change?
When we talk about restrictions on importation under this act I would ask hon. gentlemen to look at section 13 of the Seeds Act, which provides:
No person shall import into Canada for the purpose of selling or offering for sale for the purpose of seeding any seeds which are below the minimum percentages of germination prescribed by regulation for seed of the kind, or which in any other way do not conform to the standards under which seeds or plants of the kind may be sold for seeding purposes in Canada under the provisions of this act.
It goes further and provides penalties for the breach of that sort of thing. Parliament did not know what the regulations were going to be. Parliament did not know who were going to be penalized for breaking the regulations. It was content to leave all that in the hands of the advisory board and have it O.K'd by the minister.
But in this bill we have gone further. We say that people who know a particular branch
Marketing Act

of trade they are dealing with may prepare and recommend regulations, and when these regulations are prepared they are then submitted to the minister, and if with the assistance of the officials of his department he finds that they are workable he approves of them. Then they go to the governor in council, and the governor in council speaking for the other classes of the community, representing all classes in Canada, considers those regulations that have been prepared by a class and approved by the minister, changed or unchanged as in his discretion he thinks they ought to be, and the governor in council representing the people of the whole country and the interests of all the other classes of the community approves the regulations if deemed fit. They must be approved by the governor in council before the licences are issued.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: May I ask my hon. friend if it is provided in the Seeds Act that a poll shall be taken of the interested growers before the regulations shall apply?


Franklin White Turnbull: Certainly not, but there is a provision for licensing, and a provision that no person shall:
sell, offer, advertise, expose or have in possession for sale for the purpose of seeding or planting in Canada, any agricultural or garden vegetable seeds or plants described as a new kind or variety of such seeds or plants with a name that was not in general use for such purpose in Canada between the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, and the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, unless such person has first obtained a licence so to do from the minister.
That applies to the farmer who wants to sell these things too. He must be licensed, and his trade is restricted under the provisions of that act.
Going back to the Combines Investigation Act, there is power in that act-I am not quarrelling with it-practically to destroy a man's business upon the report of an investigating officer. It provides that when it appears from the result of an investigation made under the provisions of the act or from a number of other sources mentioned to the satisfaction of the governor in council, that as regards any article there is a combine, and if it appears further with regard to that article that the combine is assisted in any way by any tariff duty that may be in existence, the governor in council may wipe out the tariff duty altogether even though the effect might be to destroy the man's business. They took that power and it is perfectly right to have it, and they might not only destroy the business of the individual engaged in the combine, but

if they took off the tariff on certain lines of goods they might destroy the business of every other man engaged in the production of those goods and who might be lawfully carrying on his business. And nobody suggested at that time that the business of parliament was being improperly taken from it or that Magna Charta was being violated or that the Bill of Rights was being overthrown or that anything was being done which parliament should not approve because the governor in council was doing it. These things must be done by this parliament if business is to be done in this country. There is no possibility of passing all kinds of bills which have the effect of regulating trade and commerce unless there is provision in those bills for regulation, and provision in those bills for regulations to be made after the bill is passed, and provision for the publication of those regulations and provision for the regulations having the force of law, although not passed by parliament but drawn up by various bodies and approved by the minister or the governor in council and then becoming the law of the land. I do not know what is the reason for all this opposition to a bill of this particular kind. This bill follows the same policy, the same practice and the same rules which have been followed in this parliament for very many years. I know hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to find a soft place into which they can fall on the third reading of the bill. They are spending their time trying to make the people believe that they are putting up a great fight to get a bill which will operate. The other day the hon. member for South Batt.leford (Mr. Vallance) said that he knew there was an emergency but he wanted to make this bill as good a bill as he could to meet the emergency. That was not what he said when he got up and declared that he was paired and had he voted, he would have voted against there being any bill at all. That is not a vote for the best bill for an emergency, it is a vote against having a bill of any kind. What has changed the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite this last week or two? Possibly the letters they have received from home; or possibly they saw the Ontario Grower with its headline "Magna Charta or forty cent butter fat." This change may be due to the statements in that paper which reported that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his two hour tirade, said a great deal about liberty, the rights of parliament, and the Magna Charta. I am not quoting his exact words, but that was their meaning. He did not give a single instance of what

Marketing Act
might or what might not be done by this parliament to benefit the agriculturist and help the primary producer; they were all forgotten. But during this last week or two, strong opposition to this bill has been put up for the purpose of making the people believe that our hon. friends opposite are curing the defects of the bill and are making it workable. Let us forget all this sort of stuff; let us forget this political stuff and let us take into consideration the fact that the primary producer has not had a show for a great many years. Let us give him a break. Let us put through this bill and see if we cannot get the prices of primary products somewhere into line with the prices of secondary products. If we can reestablish the relationship between the prices of primary and secondary products we shall have gone further to end this depression than we could by doing anything else I know of. Why not get down to business and do this?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In order that my hon. friend may not misrepresent what I said or what was in my mind at the time I spoke on the question of matters of judicial or quasi-judicial decisions which are made where ministers are involved, I shall read from page 115 of the report of the royal commission to which I have referred. They make the following specific recommendations with regard to judicial or quasi-judicial decisions such as would have to be made where a scheme was accepted and where all the parties to a scheme may have a voice:
We, therefore, make the following specific recommendations:-
I.	Judicial, as distinct from quasi-judicial, functions should normally be entrusted to the ordinary courts of law, and their assignment by parliament to a minister or ministerial tribunal should be regarded as exceptional and requiring justification in each case.
II.	Where parliament considers it necessary to depart from the normal course, it should entrust the judicial functions involved in the legislation to a ministerial tribunal rather than to the minister personally. The appointment of such a tribunal may be left to the minister, but the tribunal should be independent of him in the exercise of their functions. In regard to the more important jurisdictions so set up, the Lord Chancellor should be consulted before appointments are made.
Assignment to a ministerial tribunal rather than to the minister would clearly be right in any case where it appears likely that the minister (in which word we include any officer of the department acting under his orders) would be likely to be precluded from acting as a judge by the kind of departmental "interest" described in paragraph 3.
Judicial functions should not be entrusted to the minister personally unless there is some
very special and exceptional reason for that course and even in that event not where there is "interest" of the kind last mentioned.
III.	Quasi-judicial decisions fall naturally to ministers themselves and not to courts of law or ministerial tribunals. But in any exceptional case in which it appears probable that a minister may be disqualified by an "interest" of the kind last mentioned from discharging impartially the judicial functions involved in the quasi-judicial decision, parliament should consider the desirability of dividing the decision and entrusting the judicial functions to a ministerial tribunal whose adjudication would be binding on the minister when in his discretion he completes the quasi-judicial decision by administrative action.
IV.	Before the decision is given, whether it be judicial or quasi-judicial, each of the parties to a dispute should be given the opportunity of stating his case (not necessarily orally) and also of knowing the case which he has to meet and of answering it if he can.
V.	Every minister exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function and every ministerial tribunal exercising a judicial function should give the decision in the form of a reasoned document.
This document should be available to the parties.
In making this quotation I am anticipating somewhat what is provided for in some of the other sections of this bill, but which very properly come in for consideration at this moment because they have to do with the power of making and determining offences. I am bringing up the matter at once because it relates immediately to giving certain legislative powers to local bodies and then subsequently judicial or quasi-judicial power to the minister and the governor in council. There is no provision made for the protection of the rights of persons who are not of the group of producers responsible for particular schemes. They may have their licences taken away if they do not abide by decisions with respect to regulations made, and there is no opportunity to appeal or even of being heard by way of protest. There is no reasoned argument given as to why one man should be treated in one way and another man in another; the whole matter is left to be dealt with in the arbitrary fashion to which reference already has been frequently made.


Mr. BURY:: To what exactly does the right hon. gentleman refer when he speaks of judicial or quasi-judicial powers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mean the
power to license and to subject a man to fine and imprisonment if he does not conform to these regulations.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is not done by the
minister or the board; it is done by a court.
Marketing Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Long before
a court can have any say in the matter, this law gives authority to a local group or to the board or the Minister or their agents to license or take away a licence. You bring a man to ruin when you take away his right to carry on his own occupation, and this is here being done before he is even accorded a right to be heard.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am just dealing with one
objection raised by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King). He states that this bill gives judicial or quasi-judicial powers to the minister, and I am asking where such powers are given. He answers that they ate given because fines and penalties can be imposed upon producers for breaches of the regulations, and I am pointing out that those fines and penalties are not imposed by the minister, and that in the imposition of them the minister does not exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial function. The judicial or quasi-judicial functions that are exercised are exercised by a proper court of law in the ordinary ways of legal procedure. If his reference is to the regulations, they are not judicial or quasi-judicial; they are legislative or in the nature of legislation. They are not judicial functions at all. As the right hon. gentleman knows very well, there has been a very clear cut and intentional distinction made between the legislative functions of government and the judicial functions which are entrusted to a separate body which is independent of the legislature. As far as regulations are concerned this whole country is filled with bodies having the power to make regulations over a limited area and to those regulations are attached the sanctions of imprisonment and fines when breaches occur. The whole country is filled with just such bodies as that. One of the right hon. gentleman's great Objections to this whole scheme of legislation is the fact that it is giving to local bodies the power to make legislation for the whole country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, my point was just the opposite, namely that the regulation was not made for the whole country, only for localities.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The point raised by the hon.
gentleman was that it was quite improper for fines and imprisonment to be attached to breaches of regulations which did not apply to the whole country. As I said a minute ago, this country is filled with bodies to which have been given the statutory power to make regulations. They are made without reference
[Mr. Bury.l
to any minister and there are attached to them as sanctions fines and imprisonment. Notwithstanding the passage which he read from Magna Charta, people are paying fines and going to prison for breaches of laws that were never made by this parliament and could not be made by this parliament, and of regulations, that weTe not even made by provincial legislatures.


Mr. GRAY:: Can the hon. member suggest any act passed by this parliament under which the regulations do not apply as a whole throughout the dominion?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I did not say any such thing. I said that the purpose of this legislation was to give the producers or marketers or the producers and marketers in certain localities the right to make regulations that shall govern themselves.


Ross Wilfred Gray: That is what my leader is pointing out.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: He said more than that. He said that it was a breach of the constitution that, to the breaches of these regulations, there should be attached fine and imprisonment, because there should be no fine or imprisonment attached to any law or regulation that was not universal over the whole of Canada; and I am pointing out the fact that there are statutory bodies all over the dominion which have the power of making regulations or by-laws to which by fines and imprisonment have been attached.


Franklin White Turnbull: With regard to the question raised a moment ago in connection with the Seeds Act, chapter 27 of 1923, I would point out that the regulations made by the minister thereunder are to apply in certain areas only.


Ross Wilfred Gray: But there is a uniform penalty in the area.


Mr. POULIOT:: I listened with interest to what my hon. friend from East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) said about the judicial and legislative powers of the board.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I did not say that the board had any judicial powers.


Jean-François Pouliot: Very well then. My hon. friend said that the board would have legislative powers to be approved by the governor in council. I will not discuss that any further because it is admitted by the hon. gentleman. On the other hand, he assumes that the board has no judicial powers. There are some regulations to be made by the board and they are submitted to the minister for

Marketing Act
approval; the minister approves them and they become the law of the land. These regulations are passed and approved with a view to being respected, and who will see that they are respected if it is not the board? The board will have legislative power subject to the approval of the governor in council, and at the same time it will have the judicial power of imposing fines by virtue of these regulations.


Maurice Dupré: The board does not impose fines.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The board has no power to impose fines, but it has the right, which any private citizen has, to lay a charge for the breach of regulations and the fine will be imposed precisely in the same way as it might be imposed following any charge brought for the breach of a city by-law.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is there any mention in the bill that the complaints will be laid before district magistrates or justices of the peace? There is no mention of that in the bill as it is mentioned in the criminal code.


Franklin White Turnbull: Yes; the offender can be fined on summary conviction, which brings the offence before a justice of the peace.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I would refer the hon. member to section 14 which reads:
Every person who fails to comply with any order or determination of the board' or of a local board or any regulation of the governor in council shall be guilty of an offence-
That is a statutory offence created by the act when it is passed.
-and punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not less than $25 and not more than $500, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank my hon. friend for his explanation. According to his view, the board has legislative power-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: It has no legislative power?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The board has the power of *suggesting regulations which are submitted ultimately to the governor in council, but they become law only through this act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does my hon. friend find some analogy between the regulations of this board and the regulations for example of a municipal council? It is entirely different and my hon. friend will understand why. The reason is that trade, everything appertaining to trade, comes within the purview of the parliament of Canada. The hon. gentleman knows that the provinces have nothing to do
with regard to the regulating of trade; this is a matter that belongs to the Canadian parliament. And there is a very good reason for that. That reason is that all regulations governing trade ought to be uniform throughout the country; they should be the same from one part of Canada to the other. There must therefore be uniformity in these regulations, and that is why trade comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal parliament. If it were under the jurisdiction of the provinces we might have nine different kinds of regulations or orders with regard to trade. It was therefore very wise on the part of the fathers of confederation when they decided that all matters relating to trade should be under the jurisdiction of this parliament. I hope my hon. friend will agree with me on that. I maintain that the government is giving away all the rights of this parliament with regard to trade. It is delegating these rights to outside bodies called boards. These boards, which by the law of the land must be under the jurisdiction of this parliament, will have these powers conferred upon them, and this I submit is absolutely ultra vires. The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and all the members of the cabinet realize this, and perhaps that is why we find in the last clause the provision that if one or two clauses are found to be ultra vires this shall not affect those provisions that are not ultra vires. This means that after the government submitted the bill to the law officers, they found a nigger in the woodpile; it is feared that some at least if not all the sections of this bill will not stand in the courts of the land. The government, realizing that the provisions of the bill are ultra vires, say, If we cannot have some of the sections maintained before the courts, then we hope the others will stand on crutches." Sir, this legislation is utterly wrong, because trade comes entirely within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. Parliament is supreme in that regard. The provinces have no right with lespect to trade, and when the government says that the federal board will deal with the provincial boards, it is absolutely ultra vires.
It is most dangerous because in this country there are many people who say: We do not care about the British North America Act; we shall attach no importance to it; we must change it. The Prime Minister has 'said to the house that we should change some sections of at. I have no objection to that provided that when he mentions the changes that are to take place, he at once states what sections he wishes to change. Otherwise people will entertain the view that the whole act must be changed; that one must pay no

Marketing Act


Alan Webster Neill: My modest amendment has rather been lost sight of in the wider range the debate has taken. We might as well return to it. The minister has not expressed his approval of it and I imagine in that case he will use his majority to vote it down. That of course is quite in order, but I am sure he is too courteous to do so without giving his reasons for not favourably considering the arguments I have advanced. We have the precedent of Great Britain persistently and definitely laid down that a poll shall be taken in all these matters. We have the precedent of New Zealand which says the same thing in very clear, drastic and pronounced language. Those, so far as I know, are the only two British countries to which we can look for a precedent in that regard and we might well do so. When I was speaking an hour ago I quoted a gentleman from British Columbia representing the fruit industry who had expressed himself as in favour of a poll being taken. Since then I have found a letter from another gentleman connected with the dairy industry in the Fraser valley, and this is what he says:
The British act provides for the setting up of marketing schemes either by the producers or by the government itself. Either scheme must be submitted to a vote of those affected.
So it is quite evident that people in British Columbia representing the fruit and dairy in-

Marketing Act
dustries, while not actually asking for a poll, are quite agreeable that a poll be taken of those interested in the scheme. Since then I have had some surprising evidence put into my hands. Many members especially those from British Columbia, well know that some years ago we experimented with an act of this kind under provincial legislation; it was passed on March 20, 1929, and by the way, under the auspices of a Conservative government.
Before I proceed with the question of polling, I find in this provincial act a matter that I would like to call to the attention of the leader of the opposition. I have had time to give it only a cursory inspection but in it is laid down the exact extent and limit of every power of the board. This would meet a number of the objections of the leader of the opposition.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the title of the act?


Alan Webster Neill: The Dairy Products Sale Adjustment Act. It is an act for the relief of dairy farmers. It worked well but it fell down because of being declared ultra vires on account of conflicting dominion jurisdiction, bo that they did not give legislative or quasijudicial powers to any of these boards; they could not go beyond the four corners of the act. Then they absolutely arrange for a poll, the poll is not exactly along the lines of the British requirement, but it does require sixty-six per cent of the persons interested. Very definitely and decidedly it requires a poll. So there you have Great Britain and New Zealand, the only two countries who have passed this legislation, though in a much simpler and more limited form, and British Columbia with their legislation, with which they were perfectly satisfied and which worked well, all arranging for a poll. I think the minister should in justice to himself and this committee tell us why he will not accept the amendment.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Is the committee ready for the question?


Alan Webster Neill: No, Mr. Chairman, we will stay here until summer if necessary. Surely the minister is not going to be so discourteous as not to reply to that question. Is there anything unreasonable in my request?


Maurice Dupré: We are now on the amendment to the amendment whereby the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) wants to replace the two words "or may'' by the two words "but shall."
74726-205J


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Shall the subamendment carry?


Alan Webster Neill: No, Mr. Chairman; wait a minute.


Robert Weir: I may say for the benefit of the committee that we have given a great deal of thought to this matter, and in our study in connection with the drafting of this bill have traversed the points that have been raised this afternoon. To compare this bill with that of Great Britain or New Zealand is not fair. The position here is different. The factor of the various provincial jurisdictions has created perhaps the most difficult problem.


Alan Webster Neill: It is like British Columbia.


Robert Weir: 
Cameron Ross McIntosh: Under the section as we have it now it remains with the minister to say whether or not a poll shall be taken, does it not? It is not left to the producers to decide. I asked this question last week and if I remember correctly the minister made the statement that he would not object but would leave it to the producers. He left the impression with the committee that the producers were against the poll. I argued that the producers are in favour of a poll. If the producers want a poll will he refuse it?

Marketing Act


Robert Weir: I regret if I gave the hon. member the impression that I felt they were not in favour of a poll. I feel that the bill as prepared, even without this amendment, left the producers free under the scheme submitted to state whether they wish the poll or not.


Alan Webster Neill: May I interrupt to ask how it can be ascertained whether the producers want a poll or not unless they are given a poll?
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Smith,	Cumberland) : All in favour of the subamendment will
say "aye."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Smith,	Cumberland) : Contrary will say "no."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Smith,	Cumberland) :	The subamendment is lost.


Alan Webster Neill: The ayes have it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Before the amendment is carried: earlier in the afternoon I asked who would be entitled to vote if a vote were decided upon. I recognize the difficulty of the situation that may arise when a certain group or industry wishes to come under the provisions of the act. There is nothing in the bill to define who is entitled to vote when a vote is decided upon. In the fourth line of the amendment it says: "or may require that a poll be taken." Taken by whom, of whom? There can be so many different kinds of polls and so many methods of having a vote that I think parliament has a right to know the method the minister has in mind when he decides that a vote is to be taken. For instance, it may be only the producers in the industry that will be in favour of a vote. As a concrete example take, the tobacco growers: supposing .they petition the government to come under some scheme, who among the tobacco growers will vote? I cannot imagine that anyone outside those interested in the industry will be entitled to vote. I believe that under the bill now before us we are setting up a form of economic councils within industries. When the tobacco industry is being considered I do not expect the apple growers to vote. Therefore in spite of the objections that have been taken I still feel that it is proper that a particular economic group shall have the say as" to the form of organization and the future course that the industry shall take.
.Then will the vote be limited to Canadian citizens? In an industry you may have half a 
dozen different nationalities. We have no indication from the government as to that. Will companies be entitled to vote, or will it be determined, for instance, by quantity of production? In a given industry in which 500 people may be engaged, perhaps ten out of the 500 may have more than 50 per cent of the production; will those ten have more say than the rest? I think these points ought to be clarified, otherwise I would prefer to see the clause stand until something is put in to determine who shall have the right to vote when a vote is decided upon.


Robert Weir: In the beginning of his remarks the hon. member touched upon the difficulty when he said that these schemes will have to be set up under so many different conditions. The basis of the whole bill as far as these schemes are concerned is to give the producers themselves the fullest possible opportunity to set out what they think is in their best interests. They will be able to suggest the beat and simplest way of taking a poll, also who will be entitled to vote, and who will be exempt. In a scheme for the dairy industry, for example, a man with only one or two cows might be exempt from its operation. I have every sympathy with hon. members in the difficulties they see here, because as I said we have experienced the same difficulties, and it is to meet these conditions that we have left the bill as flexible and open as possible.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I realize that in a country
so vast as Canada and with so many different conditions appertaining, a certain amount of flexibility is essential in a bill of this nature, but I think we are stretching the point a little too far when we say we cannot determine here and now who will be entitled to vote and who shall come under the scheme.
Mr. LOU'CKS:	The producers themselves.


Abraham Albert Heaps: You cannot have the producers in each locality determine to what extent they are going to come under the scheme; that would be almost impossible. The regulations should be set up by parliament as a guiding principle; they should be defined here by the minister so that we may know how the thing will start. If there is no guiding principle as to how an industry shall come under the act I can see more difficulties being created for the department that administers the act than would arise if the act was changed. So I think it would be advisable to lay down in the bill certain guiding principles stating who shall be entitled to vote and so on.

Marketing Act


Alan Webster Neill: I would suggest that we
change the word "scheme" to "sub-legislature," because these people are going to be given power to make all the laws they like.


Alfred Speakman: There is just one point which has not been mentioned in regard to the amendment proposed by the minister. As the minister has said, it will be largely left to the producers themselves in their submitted schemes to say whether or not a vote shall be taken and how that vote shall be carried out. This goes a little further, however; upon receipt of a report from the board recommending the approval of a scheme as constituted or amended by the board, the minister may recommend approval thereof; or in lieu of recommending approval, if he is not satisfied that those applying are representative of the industry, for example, or if the scheme does not suggest a vote, the minister may provide that a vote shall be taken. Then it is no longer a matter of the producers having said whether or not a vote shall be taken; if the minister is not satisfied that those who present the scheme are truly representative he, not the board or the producers, may state that a vote shall be taken, and he may lay down the conditions under which that vote shall be taken.
It seems to me that this clause providing for a vote is supplementary to the presentation of the scheme, so as to provide that if the scheme does not ask for a vote the minister may have a vote taken to satisfy himself that the applicants are representative of the commodity produced. In that case it might be well if some conditions were laid down as to the number of voters required, the percentage needed and so on.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I should like to say just
a word with regard to who should vote. The question whether or not that is supplementary does not help at all to solve the question who should vote if there is to be a vote.


Mr McINTOSH:: We may not have a vote.


John Campbell Elliott: No, there might not be a vote, but the answer given by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Speak-man) that this is supplementary, apparently, to his mind, seemed to do away with the necessity for defining who should vote. I want to submit to the minister that surely he and his staff, the government and this house, can decide better than a number of growers in a district as to who should vote, and I think that should be done before this bill goes through. That is my submission. It may be that we are facing great difficulties, but surely it is easier for us to solve those
difficulties than it is for the people in the locality to do so when they are confronted with all the difficulties and differences that may and I think are bound to arise in an attempt to work out a scheme such as this.
I just want to refer the minister to the fact that in other cases of local control we have votes. For instance, in regard to whether or not a drainage scheme shall be installed in a certain locality, a vote is taken. The legislature that gave the authority to take that vote says who shall vote. If a local assessment such as a sidewalk is to be constructed, surely no legislature would think of omitting to define who shall vote on the question of whether or not that local improvement shall be proceeded with. I think that is absolutely a parallel case. Then take the matter of building restrictions; the local legislature defines who shall vote on a question of that kind, and the same thing applies to the way the affairs of a school section are run. Do you suppose any legislature in the land ever left it open to the people who came to the meeting to decide who should or should not be the electors? There can be no question about it; if you propose to have a vote at all you must define who are to be allowed to vote. You are simply creating uncertainty and difficulty otherwise, and increasing the opportunities for friction. It may take a little time and labour, but surely this is the tribunal to decide that matter, and I think it should be decided before this bill is passed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have supported this bill all the way through and intend to vote for the third reading, but I do want to see a workable bill presented by this parliament to the people of Canada. I feel that if we adopt this clause as it reads now we will simply shelve the responsibility and put it upon some local community.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: We are on section 5, subsection 3.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Just prior to the adjournment we were discussing the question who would be entitled to vote in the creation of these boards for those, who wish to come under the scheme. So far the minister has not been able to give to the committee very much information on that point. I regard the administration of the act as of the utmost importance. I desire to see that this measure once it is adopted by
Marketing Act

parliament shall become really effective and be of value and benefit to those whom it is intended to serve. But if the provisions respecting the administration of the act are too loosely drawn up; if the law is not placed on a proper basis, I have grave fears as to the outcome of the legislation itself. I regard the administration of the act as almost of more importance than the act itself, because the benefits the producers may derive from it depend entirely upon how the act is administered. One of the important features of the aot is the creation of these boards, and naturally some importance must be attached to the question who is entitled to vote on these schemes that are to be proposed to the central authorities.
I can understand the position of the minister when he says that a certain amount of flexibility is required in the drawing up of this measure on account of its experimental nature, but undoubtedly the minister has given considerable time and study to how the act is likely to be administered and the way in which the boards are to be created, and he has not yet given the committee the benefit of his continuous research into the provisions of this measure.
Just prior to six o'clock I pointed out how many different angles there are to the question of who is entitled to vote. There is no definition in the bill itself of what constitutes a poll; at least I have not been able to discover it. Perhaps it may be done by a show of hands, perhaps by secret ballot, perhaps by mail or some other means. Up to now we have had no information from the minister as to what he regards a proper definition of the term poll.
If this clause is to operate on the basis of the method suggested by the minister it is quite possible that a meeting will be called. How that meeting is to be called I cannot say; who will be authorized to call a meeting I do not know. Let us assume for a moment that a meeting is called in a schoolhouse in some agricultural community and that seventy-five or a hundred people attend the meeting. You might well have seventy-five different opinions as to who is entitled to vote on the scheme. Somewhere a guiding principle should be laid down so that the people who come to the meeting will know for what purpose it is called; otherwise you might have a large number of men and women attending the meeting and desiring to come under the act, and then, after considerable discussion and deliberation, going away without anything definite being done. I think there should be something definite in the act in regard to those who are entitled to vote and the methods of
* fMr. Heaps. 1
holding a poll in certain given districts. It would improve the act considerably and would allow those whom the act is intended to benefit to meet with some knowledge beforehand of what they intend to discuss.


Robert Weir: In that respect this act is the same as the British act, and evidently to a certain extent for the same reason. The hon. member asks why we do not state in the bill who shall vote and who shall not. It is the producers who submit a scheme after giving it careful consideration who are in the best position to recommend who shall be exempted from the scheme, and those who are exempt would not necessarily have a vote. Outside of that, every producer within the area defined would have a vote. What the hon. member is asking us to do is this: He wants us to decide in this committee who shall be exempt from the operation of a scheme proposed, let us say, by the tobacco growers of Ontario, or in connection with the dairy industry; whether a man should be exempt if he had two milk cows, or three or four; and the same thing in connection with the lumbering industry. It might also apply to the fish industry. I am sure the hon. member is sufficient of a business man to realize that it is impossible for us to take up the time of the house in this committee in an attempt to do that. This matter has been given very careful consideration and I think it will appeal to the good judgment and common sense of everyone that it would be impossible for us in this committee to go into all these matters in detail. The British act, realizing the same difficulty, deals with the matter in a similar way. The scheme submitted might deal just with export or interprovincial trade.
If it will be of any assistance to the hon. member I would say that in my judgment when the producers submit their scheme they will state in it who are to be exempt and the conditions upon which producers will be exempt. Then after full consideration they ask for a poll, and if the majority vote is in favour of the scheme, the whole scheme will be published and everything in connection with it will be known. So that the difficulty my hon. friend feels might arise in a meeting in a schoolhouse would be avoided because what they were coming to discuss would be known to everyone attending.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What would the minister
call a majority?


Robert Weir: As I stated before,
my opinion is not worth any more than my hon. friend's at the present time. That is

Marketing Act
a matter that would be submitted to the governor in council and dt would depend to a certain extent upon circumstances. But I would say this, that the more substantial the majority, depending upon the conditions that are to be met, the more likely the scheme would be to proceed without difficulty. What I have had in my mind since starting work on this bill is that there should be at least seventy-five per cent of the producers and) controlling seventy-five per cent of the production. As a matter of fact we have had representations by certain producers advocating eighty per cent, and they feel they would have no difficulty in getting eighty per cent to sign in favour of a certain scheme. That is one of the reasons why I decided to drop the question of percentages. , If we stated sixty-six and two-thirds per cent as a minimum there would be a tendency on the part of producers who submitted schemes to say: " Why try to get any more because this is the minimum you set?" If we set the limit from sixty-six and two-thirds per cent to eighty-five per cent, those who did not want to enter the scheme would say: "Why did you set eighty-five per cent if you did not mean it?" That would make it possible for the fifteen per cent to defeat the purpose of a scheme. After full consideration of this matter my own opinion is that there would be no danger in leaving this clause as it is. We are not committed to accepting what they recommend, but in each case-the conditions are different-we will have the benefit of their judgment. As I stated before, I feel it is better to leave it open and deal with each case on its own merits.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would every producer in
a locality have to come in on a scheme?


Robert Weir: He would have to
come in.


Mr. YOUNG:: He would have no option.


Robert Weir: Under this arrangement.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: If a geographical area is laid out and seventy-five per cent of the residents engaged in production in that area sign or vote for the setting up of a scheme, then the other twenty-five per cent would be forced to come in and would be subject to all the provisions. Am I right in that deduction?


Robert Weir: Yes, if the scheme is approved.


Charles A. Stewart: That is a
beautiful scheme. I just want to see you put it into effect once.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On subsection 4-Conditions.
Edward James Young: Will this mean that a scheme will not operate where the whole product is sold within a province?


Robert Weir: Subject to provincial legislation.


Thomas Reid: That would not interfere with a natural product which was being marketed fifty per cent within a province and fifty per cent without a province?


Robert Weir: No.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection S-Particulars.
Maurice Dupré: I move that the words "as approved" in the first line of this subsection be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
On paragraph (b).
Maurice Dupré: I move that this paragraph be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
(b) the proposed scheme in sufficient detail, including arrangements for a poll, if one is proposed, and for organization and administration under the supervision of the board to enable consideration of the expediency thereof.


Edward James Young: Explain.


Maurice Dupré: It is in the printed amendments.


Robert Weir: This is to conform with an amendment to a preceding subsection.


Edward James Young: Who is proposing the poll, those who are going forward with the scheme?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Edward James Young: They will decide whether there is to be a poll held.


Robert Weir: They may propose it but they will not decide it.


Edward James Young: If they propose a poll they will also outline who is to vote in the poll?


Robert Weir: That will be submitted in the scheme.


Edward James Young: The scheme will outline who is to have a vote and who is and is not to be brought under the scheme; is that correct?
Marketing Act


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Who will decide finally whether the producers are to have a vote?
Mr. WiEIR (Melfort): The governor in council.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not like this; I think it is ridiculous. If you are going to force twenty-five per cent of any population to come in under a scheme proposed by seventy-five per cent, then for heaven's sake have a poll. I propose that you strike out the words "if one is proposed" in the second line of the amendment. There would then be a poll, whether or not the minister decides to have one. Surely minorities are entitled to some protection, and I am sure they will need protection if this thing goes into effect.


Edward James Young: I cannot see the use in having a poll if those who want a scheme are going to decide who is to vote. They would certainly disfranchise those whom they did not want in.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: My impression is that if it were decided definitely that the producers must have a poll, the danger of having a minority would be minimized. There would be a possibility that the producers would all come in. If you are going to eliminate a poll or have the governor in council say whether or not there is to be one, you will be bound to have minorities and you will be bound to have trouble.


Edward James Young: I should like to know what the minister thinks of the idea of letting those who want a scheme decide who shall or shall not be allowed to vote.


Robert Weir: Because of the disturbance I could not hear everything the hon. member said. The producers will submit a scheme with reference to a poll, and this scheme may or may not be approved. If they wish a poll, they will set out in the scheme how that poll shall be conducted.


Edward James Young: It seems to me under this bill the producers could submit a scheme and decide that if a poll were taken those engaged in marketing could not vote. On the other hand, those engaged in marketing could submit a scheme and provide that if a poll were taken, the producers could not vote.


Robert Weir: There is no compulsion to accept any scheme that is proposed.
Mr. YOUNG- There is no compulsion to reject it.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Would the minority of producers opposed to a scheme be entitled to a vote?


Robert Weir: I do not think there would be any necessity for that, because no scheme would be put into effect if there was any doubt about the majority wishing it.


Alan Webster Neill: How do you find out?


Robert Weir: Each case would be dealt with on its merits. For example, if a scheme were made known and the signatories were of such a number as to leave practically no doubt that it was unanimous, there would be no necessity for a poll.
Subamendment negatived.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I say this in conclusion-I have said it on more than one occasion, but it is so important that I will repeat it. The producers are in favour of a poll; there is no question at all about that. Now, if it is undisputed that they are in favour of a poll, then it follows that there must be opposition from the department or on the part of the governor in council, and I wish to know just why such opposition has been pressed to the point where a poll is refused. For instance, the producers made it perfectly clear to the minister himself, I understand, that they wanted a board voted into existence by the growers. In face of that declaration why are they not to be allowed to vote the board into effect?


Robert Weir: More than one
opinion has been expressed and no one is in a position to say what the general view of all the producers is with regard to all the different commodities. If the submission were made in the scheme that there should be a poll, there is no doubt about it that the poll would be granted.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In other words, the minister's argument is that he is not sure whether .they want the poll or not.


Robert Weir: It might not be necessary to go to the expense of having a poll if we could satisfy ourselves that one was not necessary.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: The minister can approve of the scheme without asking for a poll-under this legislation.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraph (c) agreed to.
On paragraph (d).


John Vallance: This paragraph has to do with the geographical limits. Who is to define those limits?

Marketing Act


Robert Weir: The producers in submitting a scheme will define the limits, as in the British act.


John Vallance: Suppose the wheat
growers of Saskatchewan ask for a poll to set up a board. Can they go beyond the confines of that province and include Alberta and Manitoba?


Robert Weir: I understand the question to be this-that if a sufficient number of wheat producers submitted a scheme and wished to do so, they might include in the area both Alberta and Manitoba. That would be submitted to the provincial governments because they are the only ones, I understand, who have authority over property and civil rights.


John Vallance: So that they could not go beyond the confines of the province.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The other day the Minister of Justice made the opposite statement. He said that anything that was interprovincial or international came under the jurisdiction of the federal authority.


Robert Weir: Moving between provinces after the local board is set up.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Take the supposition put -forward by the hon. member for South Battle-ford. Suppose Saskatchewan decided to submit a wheat scheme; could that scheme take in Manitoba and Alberta? Could they do it without the authority of the other two provinces?


Robert Weir: The scheme to be submitted only by the Saskatchewan wheat growers?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Yes. Could they under this act force the wheat growers of Manitoba and Alberta to come under it?


Robert Weir: I would say not.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Minister of Justice the other day said that if the marketing of the commodity were interprovincial or international it came solely under the jurisdiction of the federal authority. Could the growers of Saskatchewan come here, in the absence of any legislation by the other provinces, and force them into the scheme?


Robert Weir: Not into a scheme
for Saskatchewan.


Edward James Young: Suppose Saskatchewan came forward with a scheme for all Canada. Suppose some farmer in that province devised a scheme and brought it here to [DOT] take in the marketing of wheat all over Canada.


Robert Weir: A petition like that would not be entertained.


Albert Joseph Brown: A day or two ago I asked
the minister whether under this bill it would be possible for a group to define a certain area around a city like Winnipeg, say, in the marketing of milk, and exclude all others from that territory. The minister answered no. Now this paragraph declares that if the scheme is to relate only to the product of a part of Canada, the geographical limits shall be defined. That would make it perfectly possible for those dealing in milk in a territory around a city-what has been called a milk shed-to exclude all others from that market.


Robert Weir: There is no provision for those outside the area in which the scheme has been proposed to be shut out of the market in Toronto or Montreal, for instance. If a scheme is submitted and the geographical limits are defined, the people within that area must have combined to regulate the marketing of their products; but there is nothing in this act to give them power to prevent anyone outside that limit from marketing his product in the same market.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Can the geographical
limits go beyond the boundaries of any one province?


Robert Weir: A subsequent subsection deals with that point. If in Ontario an apple board were set up, and in Nova Scotia and Quebec similar boards were set up, the three might for further organization submit a scheme whereby the area could be extended to include the three provinces in one.


Edward James Young: Then every scheme must in the first instance be confined to the province in which it originates.


Robert Weir: No.


Edward James Young: What then? The minister said a minute ago that if different schemes originated and were put into effect in different provinces, they could be amalgamated later.


Robert Weir: Yes.


Edward James Young: If that is so, then Saskatchewan would have to work out a wheat marketing scheme, Manitoba would work out another and Alberta another and then they could combine later. Is that the idea?
Marketing Act


Robert Weir: In practice I would say that what would happen would be this: instead of each of the three provinces working out a scheme, they would combine and submit the one scheme which would be uniform.


Edward James Young: Would that apply to the whole dominion?


Robert Weir: Not necessarily.


Mr. MITCHELL:: If you had three distinct organizations in different provinces, how would they market, let us say wheat? Would they market as individual organizations, independent units, or through the dominion board ?


Robert Weir: Even if they
marketed as independent organizations they would all be under the supervision of the dominion board, and in such a case I would say that the three would find it to their interest to combine; in fact, their interest would suggest that.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The
scheme in each case would originate within the provincial jurisdiction. There might be three provincial organizations marketing the same product. They would apply to the board for authority to amalgamate the three bodies for the marketing of that product. Is that correct?


Robert Weir: Correct.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs (e) to (g) inclusive agreed to.
On paragraph (h):
Edward James Young: This paragraph states that the scheme shall name the chief executive officers. Does that mean that they are to appoint the men who are to do the work?


Robert Weir: That is the position.


Edward James Young: It is some position. I would like to have one.


Albert Joseph Brown: The officers are to be nominated and elected before the scheme is approved by the governor in council?


Robert Weir: No; the scheme is to state whether there is to be a chairman, or what the position is under it.


Edward James Young: The words are that the scheme shall name the chief executive officers.


Humphrey Mitchell: Is it the idea that appointments to the dominion board shall be political appointments?


Robert Weir: I appreciate the hon. member's asking the question. I think he fully realizes that because the matter is put into the hands of the producers themselves, they should be more interested in their product than in any political appointment.


Humphrey Mitchell: I understand as to the local board, but I was speaking of the dominion board.


Robert Weir: In the naming of the dominion board it is needless to say that entire consideration would be given to those best fitted to serve the interest of the primary producers.


Albert Joseph Brown: Under the civil service commission.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph (i) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6, subsection 1-Notice of approval of scheme.
Alan Webster Neill: I suggest that the word
"forthwith" be inserted. I have known these matters to be kept back for six weeks and they ought not to be. I will not press this to a vote. If the minister cannot see the appropriateness of it, I have nothing more to say. Surely it is wise that notice of approval should be made public forthwith.


Robert Weir: The purpose of the bill is to introduce these schemes and to facilitate in every way the wishes of the producers who submit them. I do not see the necessity of the word "forthwith" because the whole purpose is to expedite putting the scheme before the people who are *to vote on it.


Alan Webster Neill: The people who are to vote on it?


Robert Weir: I mean the people who are interested in it.


Alan Webster Neill: Some of the people who are interested in a product will get up a scheme and apply to the governor in council for approval. There is no vote taken. It is a hole-in-corner process from beginning to end. Then notice of approval is to be put into the Canada Gazette and the minister objects that it be put in immediately.


Robert Weir: I see no objection to putting in the word.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I will move that the
clause read:
The minister shall give public notice forthwith-

Marketing Act


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Shall forthwith give public notice.


Alan Webster Neill: I want the notice put into
the gazette forthwith. I move that the word " forthwith " be inserted after the word "shall" in subclause 1 of clause 6.
Amendment negatived.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On subsection 2-Scheme to have force of law.


John Campbell Elliott: Why is the main marketing board "a body corporate" and the local board " a body politic and corporate"? What is the distinction ?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that there is much distinction in the meaning.


John Campbell Elliott: Why should they not be
made the same?


Hugh Guthrie: There is no reason why
they should not. What is the other clause that declares the dominion board a body corporate?


John Campbell Elliott: Section 3, subsection 6, describing the board-which is the main board, the dominion board-provides that:
The board shall be a body corporate and shall have power for the purposes of this act to acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property.


Hugh Guthrie: I suggest that we strike out the words "politic and" in section 6.


John Campbell Elliott: That is my suggestion.


Maurice Dupré: To make it clearer I move:
That the words "politic and" in the last line of subsection 2 of section 6 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the object of making them a body corporate?


Hugh Guthrie: In order that they may have legal entity as a corporation and the usual corporate rights.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does that include the right of making by-laws and enforcing them by penalties?


Hugh Guthrie: I would say it does unless it is restricted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In other words what we are doing with the producer is to make him subject first to the laws of this parliament; second, to laws passed by the governor in council; third, to regulations and laws passed by the central board; fourth, to
the regulations of the local boards, which are to be laws, and in addition to all that he is still further to be subject to the by-laws which this body corporate is going to pass. He is going to be very free 1


Hugh Guthrie: The local boards will be able to pass regulations, but subject ultimately to the approval of the governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will be interesting to the producer to discover where he is going to be in advance in regard to his knowledge of the law and his rights under it.


Charles A. Stewart: A man who refuses to go into this scheme will be in a very happy position, subject to all the laws of the seventy-five per cent and liable to be sent to gaol if he infringes them, although he is opposed to the whole business.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, that is the principle of the measure.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On section 7, subsection 1.-Board to continue to have authority.


Maurice Dupré: I move:
That subsection (1) of section 7 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
Every local board established hereunder shall continue to have authority to exercise its powers for a period of two years and for such further time as the governor in council may authorize.


Mr. ELI  IOTT@: Before that is passed may I call attention to subsection 5 of section 4.
Whenever a local board has been authorized to exercise any of the powers of the board, the board may authorize such local board to act as its agent to collect the charges or tolls imposed;
Then:
Every local board established hereunder shall continue to have authority to exercise its powers until such time as the governor in council withdraws such authority.
In a former part of the act it is provided that they shall have power to exercise their authority until the governor in council cancels it. There is a conflict between the two.


Hugh Guthrie: This is only providing a limitation of two years. Previously there was no limitation.


Edward James Young: It says a minimum of two years.


Maurice Dupré: Yes, and for such further time as the governor in council may authorize.


Edward James Young: Suppose it falls down on the job and does not function the second year; what is going to happen then?
Marketing Act


Maurice Dupré: It disappears. When it is gone it is gone.


Charles A. Stewart: They stay in the scheme.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Speaking of this suggested amendment, do I understand that a local board may be the provincial marketing board, constituted under provincial authority?


Robert Weir: Not necessarily. It might be so constituted and named as a local board.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Suppose such a board, constituted under the provincial authority, is named by the governor in council as a local board I understand that such authority continues for at least two years. But if they are dismissed, or their powers are revoked by the provincial authority, what will happen then? Will they continue to function as a local board recognized by the dominion authority, although at the same time they have no standing under the local marketing act?


Robert Weir: I would say no.


Edward James Young: That is not what the act says.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is an important point. Is there any provision in the bill for such a contingency? Suppose the provincial marketing board's authority is repealed by the local house, how does the federal authority propose to meet that situation?


Robert Weir: We have no power.


Edward James Young: You will wait until the two years are up?


Hugh Guthrie: If it disappears it disappears.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It remains in suspended animation.


Edward James Young: Meantime what will happen to the crop?


Charles A. Stewart: This is
rather remarkable in view of the fact that you do not require a poll before setting up a scheme, but before it can be revoked you have to have a poll.


Robert Weir: Only if there is a poll when it is set up.


Charles A. Stewart: As you have if in the amendment a poll is compulsory be-fort revocation can take place.


Robert Weir: Only when it is created under a poll.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I suggest that the point raised by the hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska (Mr. Michaud) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) is one of the most vital points raised to-night. I think the amendment proposed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) should be seriously considered before the committee passes it.
. Mr. WEIR (Melfort): The purpose of the amendment was to give stability, and because it was felt that a board, especially one set up after a poll, would require two years' operation-or at any rate it would be an advantage for it to have two years-to become stable. If hon. members feel that the amendment does not add anything or is not essential, it will not be pressed.


Grote Stirling: Shall the amendment to subsection 1 carry?


Hugh Guthrie: Unless there is some very good reason for the amendment personally I would prefer the clause as originally drawn. I think we may be involved in difficulties hereafter if we are not careful. I prefer subsection 1 of section 7 as originally drawn, unless there is some very good reason of which I have no knowledge for changing it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
amendment to the amendment submitted now is wholly inoperative.


Maurice Dupré: It may be preferable to withdraw the amendment; I withdraw it.
Amendment withdrawn.


John Campbell Elliott: While this is still under consideration may I direct the attention of the minister to the fact that under subsection 1 of section 7 every local board established continues to have authority to exercise its powers until such authority is withdrawn by the governor in council. Apparently that is a positive statement. The board continues to operate until the governor in council withdraws its authority. That does not agree with subsection 5 of section 4, which states:
Whenever a scheme for regulation by a local board has been approved, the board may authorize the local board to exercise such of the powers of the board as are necessary for the proper enforcement of the scheme of regulation-


Maurice Dupré: That has been amended.


John Campbell Elliott: What is the extent of the amendment?


Hugh Guthrie: That is now subsection 2 of section 4.

Marketing Act


John Campbell Elliott: But it remains unchanged.


Robert Weir: The change there takes away from the dominion board the power to withdraw all the powers given a local board.


John Campbell Elliott: Then the two sections
clearly contradict one another. By old subsection 5 of section 4, now subsection 2, the board may authorize the local board to exercise certain powers, and at any time may withdraw from the local board the authority to exercise any or all of those powers. That wipes it off the slate. Under the section now being considered we have something quite contradictory:
Every local board established hereunder shall continue to	have	authority	to	exercise	its
powers until such time as the governor in council withdraws such authority.
If it is intended to retain the provision in subsection 2 of section 4 giving the board the power at any time to withdraw from the local board	the	authority	to	exercise	its
powers, then it should make that exception in this subsection.


Hugh Guthrie: How would it be to include the words, "subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of section 4"?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But subsection 2 of section 4 gives the dominion board authority to delegate certain powers to the local board, while subsection 1 of section 7 tries to give	the	powers to	the	local board.I think the	same	objection	we	took to	the
amendment moved by the Solicitor General applies to the section as it appears now in the bill. The section reads:
Every local board established hereunder shall continue to have authority to exercise its powers until such time as the governor in council withdraws such authority.
Obviously that could only apply to that authority conferred upon the local board by the dominion board or by the governor in council.


Maurice Dupré: I think that is correct.


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid the hon.
member for Vancouver Centre does not get the point I am making. Under subsection 1 of section 7 it is perfectly clear that the only power to withdraw authority from the local board is in the governor in council, but under subsection 2 of section 4 there is a similar power vested in the dominion board.


Hugh Guthrie: It is not a similar power. Mr. ELLIOTT: The board may withdraw any or all powers from the local board.


Hugh Guthrie: For certain purposes.


John Campbell Elliott: That is right. Now I
submit that unless the amendment suggested by the Minister of Justice is included, you have a conflict between the two sections.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should
like to revert to the point raised by my hon. friend. Subsection 2 of section 4 is the section which delegates a certain amount of federal authority to the local board, and therefore there is a positive assertion which refers only to the powers conferred by the dominion board upon the local board. Then subsection 1 of section 7 states that the local board shall continue to have that authority, which is being given to it by the dominion board, until such time as it is withdrawn by the governor in council. To my mind one is the authority creating the agency while the other is the authority asserting the actual power of the local board.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Under subsection 2 of section 4 the powers that can be withdrawn from the local board are not the powers mentioned in that subsection but any or all of its powers.


John Campbell Elliott: No, it makes it perfectly
clear that what my hon. friend has suggested is not the intention. The section states:
*-the board may authorize the local board to exercise such of the powers of the board
That is the local board.
-as may be necessary for the proper enforcement of the scheme of regulation, and may at any time withdraw from the local board authority to exercise any of its powers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under the interpretation section the board is the dominion board.


John Campbell Elliott: No; read it.
*-and may at any time withdraw from the local board-
So there need be no inference as to what is intended.
-authority to exercise any of its powers.
When it withdraws from the local board authority to exercise all of its powers that local board is stripped of power as completely as it is possible to be. Then under section 7 power can be taken away only by the governor in council.


Mr. STANLEY:: I may point out that the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) is not reading subsection 2 of section 4 as it has been amended. It reads:
Whenever a scheme for regulation by a local board has been approved, the board may authorize the local board to exercise such of
Marketing Act

the powers of the board as are outlined in this section and as may be necessary for the proper enforcement of the scheme of regulation, and may at any time withdraw from the local board authority to exercise any of its powers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Before the subsection is carried I want to object on another ground, Mr. Chairman. I raised my objection some time ago. It now reads:
Every local board established hereunder shall continue to have authority to exercise its powers until such time as the governor in council withdraws such authority.
The local board is obviously possessed of ' other authority which we in this parliament have not the right to take away from them. I submit that it should read:
Every local board established hereunder shall continue to have authority to exercise, subject to the provisions of this act, such powers as are expressly conferred by this legislation until such time as the governor in council withdraws such authority.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There might be some local boards constituted under this act which received no authority whatever from provincial boards. Evidently this would refer only to such boards because they would be the only boards over which this parliament would have authority. Notwithstanding the fact that it does not say so in the section, apparently these are the boards which this section claims to control.
Subsection 1 of section 7 agreed to.
On section 7, subsection 2-Petition to revoke a scheme.


Ross Wilfred Gray: What is a representative
number, Mr. Chairman?


Robert Weir: To be determined in the same manner as taking the poll.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Where is there anything relating to the number required to take a poll?


Robert Weir: I said to be determined in the same manner as taking a poll.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsection 3 agreed to.
On section 7, subsection 4-Revocation or approval.
Maurice Dupré: I beg to move, Mr. Chairman, to amend this section by inserting the following as subsection 4 and renumbering the present subsection 4 as subsection 5.
(4) If a poll was taken in connection with the establishment of the scheme, a poll shall

be taken before the scheme is revoked and the minister shall state the necessary percentage of votes favouring revocation to warrant further consideration of the petition.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection 4 as amended agreed to.
On subsection 5-Revocation or approval.
Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Do I understand that before a scheme can be revoked there must be a poll taken, and yet no poll need be taken to set up a scheme?


Robert Weir: Only in case a poll has been taken to establish it.
Subsection 5 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Approval of proposals for extension, amalgamation, and new local boards.
John Campbell Elliott: This section reads: Whenever the governor in council is satisfied, on the recommendation of the minister, that a majority of the persons engaged in the production or marketing of a natural product so require, he may approve of a proposal-
Why "a majority" in section 8 and "a representative number" in section 7? Why not, for exactness, use somewhat similar language in both sections?


Robert Weir: These people are
now organized.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I doubt if the committee has caught the full significance of this clause. Up to now it has been the majority of the producers who have had to say whether a particular scheme was to be imposed on the minority, but this clause gives the minister power to impose a scheme on the majority without the majority having any say whatever. It says:
Whenever the governor in council is satisfied, on the recommendation of the minister, that a majority of the persons engaged in the production or marketing of a natural product so require, he may approve of a proposal for,-
In other words, the minister simply says to the governor in council that he is of opinion that the majority require that these boards should be extended and the scope of operation widened, and any regulation thus widened or extended becomes the law by order in council without the majority even having to approve the minister's action. Is not that correct?


Robert Weir: It is the same in
that respect as the previous one. The minister administering the act would have to be satisfied that there was a majority.

Marketing Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This just says, when the minister believes that "a majority of the persons engaged in the production or marketing of a natural product so require." The minister, not the majority, settles what the requirements of the majority are. In other words, the whole purpose is gradually to slip away from the authority of the majority through local boards and give the sole direction to the minister over a majority in a large area.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Surely the words "so require" mean that positive action has been taken by the majority. It is not merely stating the minister's mind, but when the minister is satisfied that a requisition has come in from a body of people whom he believes to be a majority-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
what it says.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is what it does say. It says: when the minister is satisfied that a majority require, and "require" means that they have put in a requisition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does
it say that?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It says so in the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read it.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I will read it, but I thought
the right hon. gentleman had read it himself:
Whenever the governor in council is satisfied, on the recommendation of the minister, that a majority of the persons engaged in the production or marketing of a natural product, so require-
I take that to mean, have so requisitioned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then let us
say it that way.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: They cannot require without
asking.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move, Mr. Chairman, to substitute the words "have so requisitioned" for the words "so require."


Mr. MacLEAN:: Why not make it seventy-five per cent of a majority?


Hugh Guthrie: How would it do to say
"have required in writing"?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all
right.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Why not give them the vote and they will soon settle it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest that
for the words "so require" in the fourth line the words "have so requisitioned" be substituted. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has suggested that we should use the words "if required in writing" and that is equally acceptable if the minister prefers that his amendment should go through.


Hugh Guthrie: I withdraw my amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Otherwise we
would have " have so requisitioned " for " so require."


Hugh Guthrie: I withdraw my amendment because I think " so require " is just as effective as " have so requisitioned."
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King) negatived.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The difficulty I see is to
determine the area within which is this majority. It does not clearly mean the majority of persons subject to an existing scheme. It may possibly mean the majority of persons engaged in the production or marketing of a natural product in Canada. I should like to ask the minister what this means, the majority of what persons and in what area?


Robert Weir: In any proposed
area.


John Campbell Elliott: Why use the word
"majority" in section 8 and the words "representative number" in section 7? Why not use the same terms in both sections?


Robert Weir: These are organized bodies representing different areas and the minister must be satisfied that the majority are in favour.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That means clearly a mere
estimate of the minister, because he proposes to take in any area. That area may be the rest of Canada outside of the area under an existing scheme and he must proceed then only upon the requisition of the majority of the persons engaged in the production or marketing of a natural product in that area. How is he going to determine whether or not the majority in that- area is in favour? The answer the minister gave a while ago was that these people are now organized, but it is quite apparent that they are not organized. The majority may not be organized and there may not be any provision for having a poll.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister explain
under what circumstances it might be necessary to invoke paragraph (d) which reads:
the creation of a new local board to regulate the marketing of a product already subject to regulation by one or more existing local boards,-
Marketing Act

We have a product which is now regulated and two local boards are being set up. It goes on:
-provided that the existing local 'board or boards approve and that the powers of the new local board can be exercised consistently with the exercise of the powers of any existing local board or boards.
We are to have two boards operating side by side and then the minister comes in and creates a new local board, not to take the place of the other two but to support and coexist along with them and regulate them. Then we have the provincial marketing board and the dominion marketing board. What circumstances has the minister in mind to require the need of that subsection?


Robert Weir: May I illustrate?
If there is already a regulated product, say apples, in Nova Scotia, there may be a local board there and similar boards in Ontario and British Columbia. If the three boards submit a scheme and it is considered sufficiently representative of the producers, then a local board can be set up by choosing say one representative from each of the local boards already in existence. This local board would cooperate as one body, in this case perhaps for the work of export.


Alan Webster Neill: Would not that be the jurisdiction of the dominion board?


Robert Weir: Not necessarily.


Alan Webster Neill: That board deals with exports.


Edward James Young: Could there be two local
boards operating in the same territory?


Alan Webster Neill: Three.


Edward James Young: Could there be several local boards operating in the same territory in connection with the same product?


Robert Weir: No.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Suppose these three
local boards could not come to an agreement, what would happen then?


Robert Weir: That would depend upon the circumstances and it might not be thought advisable to set up one board to amalgamate the three.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Minister may propose a scheme.


Maurice Dupré: I move to strike out this
section and substitute the following therefor:
9. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act the minister may, if he is satisfied 
that the trade and commerce in a natural product is injuriously affected by marketing conditions through the lack of a local board, at any time propose a scheme for the marketing or the regulation of the marketing pursuant to section four of this act of such product in inteprovincial and/or export trade, and the governor in council may approve of such scheme and authorize the board to administer such scheme directly or in cooperation with local boards, or through any agency which it may establish. Such scheme shall continue in force until terminated by the governor in council.


Grote Stirling: I have
an amendment moved by Mr. Stewart (West Edmonton) that section 9 be struck out of the bill. However, the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) has moved an amendment which should be considered first, as a direct negative is not an amendment to an amendement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment which has just been moved helps to emphasize what I wish to say about this particular clause. It seems to me that this so called marketing bill is in reality two separate measures welded into one. One measure is based on some theory of economic nationalism while the other is based on some theory of economic imperialism. The one dealing with economic nationalism undertakes to bring into being a number of local boards which will have the approval of the governor in council to regulate marketing within the dominion. As we have just seen by the clause last passed, the process is to start with a local board, have it make certain regulations and then enlarge the scope of those regulations by allowing the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister to make regulations just as wide as possible We come now to a new departure. If no local board has moved in the matter and the governor in council has not taken any steps as a consequence of any local action, the governor in council may be moved into action from some other source or direction. It is this other source or direction which I think needs to be considered in connection with this section and section number 12. Section 12 gives the governor in council the power to prohibit altogether certain importations into Canada and certain exportations from Canada. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of clause 9 is that it is designed to further not a Canadian marketing scheme but an empire marketing scheme. It is the means whereby under an arrangement that has been come to among certain gentlemen in different parts of the empire we are hereafter to have the products of the empire regulated by some central authority in London which will be either visible or in-

Marketing Act
visible. The reason I feel quite so sure of my ground as I do is this. I have in my hand at the moment a marketing scheme from the imperial point of view as set forth by no less prominent an organ of the empire than the London Times. It all relates to this bill before the house and explains its imperial significance. Several editorials on the subject have in fact appeared in the Times, the first of which was published on April 3 of this year. It is entitled "Planned Empire Markets." It explains how this present bill which is before this parliament and which it says is likely to be the one to create most discussion in this house, is to fit into an empire marketing scheme whereby an arrangement for complementary production and trade is to be carried out within the empire. The editorial of April 3 was followed by another of considerable length on "The Empire and the British market." This appeared in the Times of April 25. There is another one relating to this same subject in the Times of March 14, under the title "The Empire Group", and still another editorial on May 3 entitled "Mr. Bruce's mission."
As we know, the Right Hon. Mr. Bruce is to be here next week, and I have been wondering whether one of the reasons we are not sitting on Thursday of this week, as the house has sometimes done before, and why the business of the house is being protracted as it is, is to enable Mr. Bruce and the Prime Minister of Canada and others to see what further action if any can be taken in regard to empire marketing before the question is finally determined. Let me read a paragraph or two from the Times editorial of April 3: entitled "Planned Empire Markets."
The Natural Products Marketing bill which the Canadian government has introduced into the federal parliament seems likely to become the principal issue in dominion polities.
It is significant that the London Times had that view before the bill was discussed in this house, because it was well after April 3 before we began the consideration of the measure here. The measure itself was introduced only on the eve of the Easter recess and not given second reading till some time after. The editorial goes on to say how the bill is likely to be received. I quote:
It provides the framework within which they can organize their own marketing scheme, the success of which will depend upon their capacity for effective cooperation. The wide sweep of the measure has come as a surprise in Canada, and has caused some alarm among business men, especially among those engaged in buying and selling commodities. On the other hand, it is welcomed by the farmers, 74726-206
who are principally concerned, and it appears that most of the provincial governments are ready to cooperate by passing the necessary supplementary legislation. Canada depends upon her primary production, and most of her farmers, like those of Great Britain, seem to have become convinced by recent experience that unlimited competition is incompatible with security.
Then it says that this bill is avowedly modelled on the British measure, though there may be certain features taken from the American experiment in economic planning. It then proceeds:
If it becomes law and is put into effective operation, Canadian farmers will be organized on the same lines as the British, and the discussion of common problems and the arrangement of satisfactory conditions for mutual aid will be proportionately easier. A similar development seems likely in Australia. Mr. Bruce's experience in London has convinced him more than ever that the economic salvation of the commonwealth, and indeed of all the British countries, depends on the pursuit by the governments of the empire of a concerted policy in trade and production, and not by the governments alone, but also by the leaders of agriculture, industry, commerce, and finance. If however, these leaders are to conclude effective agreements with one another, it can only be as the responsible spokesmen of organized bodies representing the different sections of the national economy.
There you will find the real reason for this bill. It is not the local marketing features that will be really significant as this measure begins to be operative, but the extent to which the production and trade of this country are to be made subject to some enonomie empire planning scheme of which so far as Canada is concerned no one but the governor in council himself will have precise knowledge. Under this section parliament is asked to leave in the hands of the governor in council, without discussion in this house, the scheme which is to govern in regard to production and trade in Canada, a scheme which through the agency of empire government is to form part of a concerted policy in trade and production. It is time that we considered carefully what this government may do with respect to imperial marketing schemes before allowing the government to have the authority given it by this proposal.
I could quote from the other editorials I have mentioned to show that the whole matter is one that has been carefully thought out in London and is undoubtedly worked out in different parts of the empire through the cooperation of interested parties. What I wish to take exception to is not that the ministry should have a plan of empire marketing, if that is what they deem to be desirable, but

Marketing Act

that they do not come forward and state frankly that such is their policy. I take exception to the fact that under the guise of a bill which purports to regulate production and trade in the interests of the farmers of Canada, the farmers may find themselves eventually in the position where they must discover that unwittingly they have been supporting some thing which gives the governor in council in Canada the power to prevent altogether the exportation of some of their products and equally the power to prevent altogether the importation into Canada of commodities which they may find it very much in their interest to have imported. That is the really serious aspect of the bill, and I submit it is a consideration of which this house should take very full account before it sanctions the passing of section 9.


Robert Weir: I must congratulate the right hon. gentleman on his very vivid imagination. I have read the section twice since he began speaking to see whether it was really the clause he had in mind, the clause we drafted in this bill. Behind the drafting of this clause there was certainly not the idea which the right hon. gentleman suggests. I stated, when speaking on the second reading of the bill, that the purpose of this provision was to deal with any emergency, if such were considered to exist, in the marketing of any agricultural products, or to deal with a product that could not be regulated as readily as others-for instance, live stock, which, because of the great range of the country over which it is scattered, creates a difficult situation, with which the dominion board or local board could not deal as it could with other commodities. If we had had last fall the power granted under this section, I believe that to a very considerable degree the difficulty that was experienced in the marketing of cattle would have been met at perhaps no cost whatever to the government.


Edward James Young: How?


Robert Weir: Some 38,000 head of cattle, many of them not finished for the market, were thrown upon the market with the result that the price of cattle that were suitable for the market was forced down, although no one got any gain thereby, neither the farmer who sold the cattle, because they were not fit for sale, nor the packer, because they were not fit to be slaughtered for food. It might have been easily arranged to have these cattle, by means of a system of credit or by some arrangement in conjunction with the provinces, moved to districts where there fMr. Mackenzie King.1
was sufficient feed. The farmers in those districts might not have enough money, but if they had been given assistance in the purchase, in the form of credit, they could have marketed their product to much better advantage than they did.
Another instance in which this might be used to a greater extent is illustrated by the experiment we carried out this past fall in the shipping of feeder lambs and ewes from ranges in the west to the farmers of Ontario. It has worked out very satisfactorily. Under present arrangements these ranchers will ship the lambs to the stockyards and pay local freight. Then there are additional charges, handling charges in the stockyard and also the losses that come from keeping stock like that for a number of days in conditions to which they are not accustomed. Then they are bought, loaded and shipped to Ontario, as in this case they might have been, and another local freight is charged. They are shipped to Toronto and left there where further charges are made upon them. Then there is another local freight charge to the farmers in Ontario. I believe that would not happen if that particular industry were organized, but until it is, that is one instance in which I think the marketing board would take the lambs from the ranchers in this way and as we did take them, with one local freight to the farmers in Ontario who wish lambs for feeding, not only saving the farmer a great deal of actual outlay but bringing the lambs to them in better shape. The same thing might be done by the dominion board being the connecting link, if that were necessary, between the provincial marketing board in Alberta or Saskatchewan and the one in Ontario.
Similarly as regards our cattle, it would have saved many dollars to the Ontario people and also to the western people if the cattle had been contracted for under supervision and with a guarantee of quality and grade to the Ontario farmers, and shipped directly rather than through the stockyards, w'here, no matter what care is taken, farmers have in many cases experienced losses from haemorrhagic septicaemia.
Also with regard to coarse grains a great deal of regulatory work could be done until the industry had an opportunity to organize. At the same time a case like this might arise: In 1930 or 1931, when we were forced to ship our cattle to the United Kingdom and it was necessary, in doing so, to put before the old country farmers the best type of cattle we had to export, there did not seem to be any action

Marketing Act
taken by private individuals to make such shipments and I was able personally by calling in five or six of the largest ranchers in the west to persuade them even to take a loss, if that were necessary, to fit up certain boat loads of cattle of that type to ship to the feeding farmers in the old land. The ranchers felt at the time that they were going to lose a good deal on this shipment, but as the matter turned out their cattle met with such approval in the old land they netted back to the ranchers in Calgary and Moose Jaw considerably more than they were offered before the cattle were shipped. In that case it was possible to carry that out by making that arrangement. I believe it would have been better if we could have continued to make such trial shipments to the old country, and especially if we have reason to believe they wish live stock of a certain type-and I will take live stock because I have been dealing with it-this board could make points of contact in this way more advantageously than could be done by a great deal of advertising such as is being carried on by other countries.
The same procedure might be carried out in regard to other countries where we felt that we could establish new channels of trade. In that connection I might, say that there is and has been for the past two or three years quite a good possibility of this, but no advantage seems to have been taken of it because no person has before him the picture as a whole. I have reference to the demand that could be created in the United Kingdom for malting barley, barley of the malting type. We put on an exhibition there and our barley met with the highest approval by the old country maltsters. They made inquiries but found that no uniform supply was coming forward. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and northern Alberta are particularly well adapted for the production of this kind of barley. I use this simply for an illustration. If we could follow up this exhibition that has been put on from year to year for at least four years-because it had been put on before I took over the portfolio I hold-we could assist very much and perhaps start a new trade to be handed ov^r, if the industry itself did not become organized, to private interests. I can assure the committee that in drafting this bill nothing could have been further from my mind than the suggestions thrown out by the leader of the opposition.


Alfred Speakman: To my mind clause 9
particularly as amended is one of the most important clauses in the bill and the only clause through which a certain phase of the 74726-206 J
farmers' marketing difficulties can be met. I much prefer the amendment brought down to the clause as printed in the original bill. In the first place the scheme as suggested under the new clause 9, confined as it is to interprovincial and export matters, as brought forward by the minister himself or by order in council will not come into conflict with the regular local or provincial boards. That, in my opinion, will avoid a good deal of confusion, but there is one phase which is dealt with under the amendment and which I believe is one of the most important in the whole picture. We have referred in the house before to those small exportable surpluses of so many types of farm products which, although small, are able to smash and disorganize the entire domestic price. It is sometimes impossible for the average exporter to get rid of this surplus by exporting it, because he could do so only at a loss, and because the prices in outside markets during certain periods of the year are lower than the Canadian price. The result is that those surpluses remain here and disorganize and bring to chaos the domestic price, even though they amount to perhaps only five per cent of the whole. Where such a situation exists, not only is the minister empowered through order in council to bring into effect a scheme to take care of export matters, but the dominion board is, under this amendment, empowered to act as that exporting agency or to appoint an exporting agency. In other words, it provides the machinery through which this small exportable surplus, be it cattle, hogs, dairy products, eggs or what not, may be taken off the domestic market, thus stabilizing it; and if and when losses are involved by export it will provide that the entire trade may contribute to make up those small losses. That to my mind is very important; without it the bill would fail of at least half its purpose. I heartily approve the amendment as brought down.


Charles A. Stewart: I regret that I have to disagree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) with regard to the amendment. I think there is ample provision in the bill for the board to handle all the matters that were outlined by the minister in his short statement in connection with the original draft and the amendment. I cannot conceive why the minister wants to interfere with the board to which he has given such powers and why he wants powers beyond those of the board, if that were possible, and I do not believe it is. In my opinion the board has ample powers to do every mortal
Marketing Act

thing suggested by the minister. Why have dual jurisdiction? Under the bill the board is given power to do anything. In the eighth section the board itself provides that it may extend the geographical limits of any territory to take in, if necessary, even the whole of Canada. Then the minister comes along with clause 9 and suggests that in addition to all these powers the minister shall have power over all the matters he has outlined to the committee.


Robert Weir: May I make one suggestion? Clause 8 is entirely different from clause 9. In clause 8 organizations have already been set up and the product has been regulated. Section 9 deals with the products that have not been regulated in that way. So we could not extend the area under section 8 to include that of a product that is not already regulated.


Charles A. Stewart: Section 8 extends the geographical limits.


Robert Weir: There would be no geographical limits in that case.


Charles A. Stewart: Assume it is a regulated product. Now the minister wants power to go beyond that. The board have power, or power can be delegated to the dominion board, to do any of the things suggested in section 9. That is why I am moving for the striking out of the section. All these powers can be exercised by the board. But the minister rather adroitly suggests in the amendment that it shall be not interprovincial but export and import trade. I take very strong exception to sections 9 and 12. I do not see that they are required. What I object to in this bill is the compulsory features of the whole thing. You are going to force twenty-five per cent of the producers in a given area, if seventy-five per cent of them agree or think they agree-


Robert Weir: Not by section 9.


Charles A. Stewart: I am speaking of the prior sections.


Robert Weir: I thought we were discussing section 9.


Charles A. Stewart: So we are; I am referring to them in connection with section 9. Twenty-five per cent of the producers are liable to be forced into a scheme no matter how much they object, if one is set up; they are going to be subjected to all the provisions of this bill. I do not know anything that will cause more friction in a community than an attempt to do that kind of thing amongst neighbours. I have lived in a rural community all my life and I know how

far it will go. But when you follow that up and say, no matter how you may sugar coat the pill, that you are going to take complete control, no matter how laudable the object may be, even if it be to save a delicate situation such as was mentioned by the minister in connection with live stock, he will find that whoever is in charge will land in a very sorry position. I am quite in accord with all the assistance the government can give to the marketing of live stock, but I am utterly opposed to compulsion of any sort, and here we have it in its worst form. For that reason I move that section 9 be struck out.


Robert Weir: Compulsion in section 9?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Robert Weir: I would ask the hon. member to state where there is any compulsion in section 9.


Charles A. Stewart: If the minister will read the section as it is proposed to amend it:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this act the minister may, if he is satisfied that the trade and commerce in a natural product is injuriously affected by marketing conditions through the lack of a local board, at any time propose a scheme for the marketing or the regulation of the marketing ...
Take that in connection with section 4.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister kindly
explain why in the revised section 9 it says "propose a scheme for the marketing or the regulation of the marketing," whereas in section 4 it is confined to regulating the marketing. Does it convey the possibility for instance of buying wheat? It is certainly different from section 4.


Robert Weir: In the short statement I made as to what was intended in this particular section I said the words "for the marketing" were put in for that reason, because power would be required here other than that of regulating the marketing. The word "marketing" was added to give power to the dominion board in cases such as this to buy and sell if necessary.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister considers that
this section gives him power to buy and sell? Then I suggest that we do not need any of the other sections.


Robert Weir: I do not think it
necessary to answer that statement of the hon. member. The cases are altogether different. If the producers wish to organize themselves for the regulation of the marketing of their products, the rest of the bill gives

Marketing Act
them power to do so. This section gives to the dominion board power to deal with emergencies in such cases as I mentioned and many others before the product is regulated or comes under a scheme.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect
to what the minister may have had in his own mind in the drafting of the bill I naturally accept entirely what he says. But that is not the important matter for this House of Commons to consider in enacting this particular clause. Others may see in it quite a different purpose and possibility. What I want to make clear to the minister and the committee is that under this clause it is quite possible for the governor in council on recommendations of the minister to put into operation any scheme that they please, and any scheme for the marketing of any product, according to the definition of the marketing bill, as it is, includes buying and selling shipping for sale or storage and offering for sale. And in connection with natural products we must take the definition given in the bill, which is, any product of agriculture or of the forest, sea, lake or river, and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product; and so on as further amended in committee. It simply means that if for example there were in London an empire marketing board, and that board wished to regulate trade within the empire in such a way that all of a certain product should be bought from one part of the empire rather than any other country, or that the products of Canada should be sold to certain countries rather than others, the minister would under this section have it entirely within his power to recommend such a scheme to the governor in council and the governor in council to set the scheme in force.


Robert Weir: I do not think the right hon. gentleman wishes to give the interpretation that I took from what he said. Section 9 does not give power to the dominion board to do that with reference to any product, but only products that are not regulated as set forth in the act previously. For example if the Nova Scotia fruit growers organized an export board of their own under this bill, then the dominion government would not have authority to act under section 9.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad the minister has drawn the attention of the committee to that fact. All that is needed in connection with a regulated product to do what I have said, is the power given under section 8 which with respect to any regulated product enables the governor in council to
make regulations as widely applicable as he pleases. Then if it were desired to work out some inter-empire marketing scheme, where a regulated product did not happen to come before the board, the minister himself might deal with products not regulated, and draw up his own scheme and make it apply. It is quite apparent that the two sections are to be read together, and together they will give the minister power to regulate all products of this country. That is a power which should not exist in any board.
Amendment carried on division.


Grote Stirling: There is a motion by Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) that section 9 be struck out of the bill. That I must declare out of order, because it is a direct negative.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-Provincial marketing board.


Maurice Dupré: I move to strike out this section and substitute the following therefor:
Whenever a scheme or regulation relates to an area of production which is confined within the limits of a province, the governor in council may authorize any marketing board or agency established under the law of the said province to be and to exercise the functions of a local board with reference to the said' scheme.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I presume that the provisions of section 10 relate to the powers conferred on the board by section 9. For the sake of clarity and uniformity throughout the act would it not be preferable to use the words "whenever a scheme of marketing or regulated marketing" instead of "whenever a scheme of regulation"? Unless this has a different meaning from what it appears to have I should like to make that suggestion.


Robert Weir: The purpose of this section is to make it possible to cooperate with provincial boards set up under the jurisdiction of a province. It has nothing to do with section 9.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Throughout the act the words " marketing " and " regulated marketing" have been used, but in this section the word " marketing " is omitted. Is that for a particular purpose or do the words " scheme of regulation" apply to a different matter?


Frederick George Sanderson: I want to ask the
minister the meaning of the words, " the governor in council may authorize any marketing board or agency established under the law." What is meant by " agency established under the law"?
Marketing Act


Robert Weir: In Ontario they have a marketing board already established. There might be a local board set up in Ontario or Nova Scotia under a scheme similar to this, and the governor in council might name that board as its agency. This section is solely for the purpose of making it possible to have the greatest possible cooperation between the provinces and the dominion marketing board.


Frederick George Sanderson: Does the minister
mean that some agency might take the place of the local board?


Robert Weir: No.


Mr. GEARY:: Look at section 4 (j).


Frederick George Sanderson: I am not asking the
hon. member for Toronto South.


Robert Weir: I thought I had
explained that the term " agency " used here might be taken in a broad sense to include provincial schemes of marketing that would fit into the whole picture of the regulation of marketing, and we might name that provincial body as our agent. As I said before the whole purpose of this section is to provide for the fullest cooperation between the dominion and the provinces.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Is it the intention of
this section to enable the dominion board to cooperate with the provincial boards with regard to marketing only?


Robert Weir: No, the regulation
of marketing.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: To cooperate in the
regulation of marketing? That is what I am trying to have inserted in the act, because those words have been used in conjunction with each other all through the act, and it may lead to ambiguity if the same phraseology is not maintained.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-Board may act under provincial legislation.
Maurice Dupré: I move that this section be stricken out and the following substituted therefor:
11. The board may exercise any power conferred upon it by or pursuant to provincial legislation with reference to the marketing of a natural product and may authorize a local board to exercise any such power.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
[Mr. Sanderson.!
On section 12, subsection 1-power to restrict importation.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think this is the worst section of the whole act; the others have been pretty bad, but this section gives the governor in council power to do what it pleases with the trade and commerce of the country, and incidentally therefore with the production of the country. Certainly this is a usurpation of the rights of parliament, as complete as anything could be. Let me read the section:
12 (1) The governor in council may, by order or regulation published in the Canada Gazette, restrict the importation into Canada of any natural product which enters Canada in competition with a regulated product, and the governor in council shall have power to make regulations to provide for the licensing by the minister of importers, or otherwise to enforce any order made hereunder.
(2) The governor in council may, by order or regulation published in the Canada Gazette,-
(a)	provide that any natural product shall not be exported from Canada without a licence;
(b)	prescribe the forms of such licences, the terms and conditions thereof and the persons who shall have authority to issue the same;
(c)	impose penalties for breach of any such order or regulation or of any licence issued thereunder, and, generally, make such provision or authorize the doing of such acts or things as may in his discretion be deemed necessary or expedient for giving full effect to any orders, regulations or licences made or issued hereunder.
In a word, Mr. Chairman, if that section began with the words "the parliament of Canada" I would have no exception to take to it. Then we would have power in this parliament to say whether or not any, and if any, what restriction of trade should take place; whether or not the imports of this country should be restricted and, equally, the exports. I do submit that the constitution of this country, the British North America Act, gives no such power to the governor in council, and it cannot be construed that because exclusive power is given the federal parliament to legislate on matters of trade and commerce this parliament can take those powers in their entirety and transfer them to the governor in council. Let me read section 91 of the British North America Act:
It shall be lawful for the Queen-
Not the governor in council.
[DOT]-by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the fore-

Marketing Act
going terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the clases of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,-
2. The regulation of trade and commerce.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is only
this parliament that can pass laws for the regulation of trade and commerce to the extent of restricting exports and imports, and under the constitution parliament has not the power to delegate that right of legislation to the governor in council. Much less has it the right to interfere in matters that come exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces. The provinces have exclusive jurisdiction. to legislate with respect to property and civil rights; surely they have some say with regard to the licensing of the citizens within the provinces who are carrying on their ordinary vocations and occupations. This section states that at the instance of the governor in council any producer in Canada may be obliged to take out a licence before he can sell a product or offer it for sale. That comes to the same thing as not being allowed to produce, because if a man is not permitted to sell or offer for sale the things he produces very soon he will cease to produce without a licence. A producer becomes liable under this section to a penalty of fine or imprisonment at the instance of the governor in council for pursuing what up to that moment has been his only source of livelihood, his only occupation.
Surely it is not necessary to go further than that in order for hon. members of the committee to see why they should vote against this clause. I have pointed out wherein I believe it is wholly unconstitutional, and with respect to this section, I should like to repeat what I said with regard to section 9, namely that I believe one of its purposes is to enable the governor in council to regulate the trade and commerce of this country in a way that will serve, if its policy is one of inter-imperial trade rather than world trade, to force the trade of the country into inter-imperial lines and to restrict world trade in other directions if necessary to accomplish that end. A policy of that kind up to the present has resulted in the trade of this country being diminished in very considerable proportions; to carry it further would destroy altogether what little trade still remains.


Hugh Guthrie: I should like to say just a word in regard to the constitutional question urged by my right hon. friend in the remarks he has just made. Surely section 91
of the British North America Act, which he has read in full to the committee, is in itself a complete answer to his constitutional objection. By that section the parliament of Canada is given exclusive jurisdiction to legislate in regard to the regulation of trade and commerce. This bill proposes to regulate in some respects the trade and commerce of this country, and in particular the export and import trade. In all constitutional discussions that have taken place since confederation, since the British North America Act was passed it has never been questioned that matters of export and import trade which constitute our dealing with foreign countries are specially within the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament.
Parliament proposes in the bill now before the house to regulate the export and import trade and commerce of this country as defined in the bill. Parliament is the power which is legislating in this matter. If this bill is passed parliament merely enacts that the imports and the exports of the dominion may be regulated as provided in section 12 of this act. There is no attempt to take away, to alter, or to limit the power of parliament. The whole bill is drawn with the idea of utilizing the legislative jurisdiction which this parliament undoubtedly possesses under section 91 of the British North America Act which my right hon. friend has just read to the house. I cannot see anything in his argument. I think this measure is strictly in conformity with the constitution. If my right hon. friend's argument is sound our whole bill falls to the ground.	'
I think that anyone who appreciates section 91 and considers this bill in the light of it must absolutely conclude that this particular section number 12, is .within the jurisdiction of this parliament.
The questions of jurisdiction which have caused some difficulty in regard to this measure are not in regard to the regulation of trade and commerce as it pertains to exports from and imports into Canada, but I will grant you that it has not been the easiest thing to draw a line of demarcation as between dominion and provincial jurisdiction in the preparation of this bill. We have realized at all times that we were steering between Scylla and Charybdis, Scylla being the federal jurisdiction and Charybdis the provincial jurisdiction. But we believe we have been able to steer a course which does not infringe upon provincial jurisdiction on the one hand, or upon federal jurisdiction on the other. But in regard to exports and imports the question of
Marketing Act

provincial jurisdiction does not arise. I think that is perhaps the clearest thing in the bill, and it lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With all due
respect I submit that the Minister of Justice has not answered the point that I made. Let me give an illustration. Would the Minister of Justice say that if to-morrow the governor in council were to decide to prohibit the importation into Canada of any article that may be regulated under this act, no matter what the article may be, and no matter what the volume of it may be, the governor in council would have the power to do that constitutionally?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, if this act passes.
Section 12 gives us the constitutional right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then what we are doing in this act is to divest parliament altogether of any further say as to what is to be prohibited in the way of importations into Canada and as to what is to be prohibited in the way of exportation from Canada, and turn that power over entirely to the governor in council?


Hugh Guthrie: We are not divesting
parliament of any right. Parliament is conferring upon its own creature, the executive of this House of Commons, special powers with regard to export and import trade.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is turning the whole position wrong side foremost. The executive is intended to be subject to parliament, not parliament to the executive. This is making parliament subject to the executive. It is reversing the whole system of responsible government. It is seeking to take away from parliament the right it now has to regulate trade and commerce and invest its creature, as the Minister of Justice says, the executive, with this right. The minister assents; he says, yes. I say that that is contrary to all parliamentary practice, and contrary even to the pretence of responsible government, and no one knows that better than the Minister of Justice. If the intention had been to allow the executive to do as it pleases with the trade and commerce of the country and with taxation, the constitution would have been so drafted; but the constitution was expressly framed to give certain rights to the House of Commons, the Senate, and the representatives of the crown combined, which were to be exercised by them exclusively, and in contradistinction to the executive or any other

body. Those three constituent elements of parliament were to participate in any exclusive power which is given this parliament under the constitution.


Hugh Guthrie: They are participating now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are not doing anything of the kind, with all due respect to the minister. What the argument of the Minister of Justice amounts to is this, that all this parliament needs to do to free itself of its obligation to legislate is to say by an act that we are assigning to the governor in council power to make the laws set forth in the British North America Act and exclusively assigned to the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the same reasoning. What is the difference? The Minister of Justice says it can be done with respect to all legislation respecting trade and commerce. Then why not with respect to all legislation respecting public debt and property? Why not with respect to the raising of money by any system of taxation? Why not with respect to borrowing money on public credit?


Hugh Guthrie: We do that now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One sees in
a moment to what an absurdity the whole constitution of the country is brought when the government asserts a power of that kind. It is a device to take away completely all the control of the executive by parliament, to take it away in regard to the regulation of trade and commerce, and if in connection with trade and commerce with regard then also to taxation, because no fiscal policy could be kept within the control of parliament if the governor in council is to be free to do what it pleases with respect to legislation on these subjects.
The Minister of Finance brings in his budget. He has a certain tariff policy imposing certain duties with respect to commodities coming into this country. What is the sense of parliament going to the trouble of enacting what the duties are to be and expressing its opinion thereon if the day after parliament prorogues the governor in council is to have power to prohibit the importation entirely of these commodities into Canada? And that is the power that is being given here.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that there could not conceivably be a more complete reversal of

Marketing Act
the whole relationship of the executive and parliament or a more complete subversion of the rights of parliament and its control of trade and commerce and its control of taxation than is to be found in this section.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not qualified to deal
with the constitutional issues involved, but I appreciate what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) says with regard to difficulties between dominion and provincial jurisdiction. He compared it very aptly to holding a course between Scylla and Charybdis. I only hope he will not find that instead of choosing a course between them he has countenanced a bigamous relation with both, which would be disastrous.
I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to bring forward a matter that has not been given the consideration it should have received in this house. Under this section the question of contracts and treaties arises. I hope the Minister of Justice will give me his ear for a moment. I dealt with the matter the other day at page 3121 of Hansard. I pointed out how impossible it is to conduct business to-day anywhere to any extent worth appreciating without making contracts and engagements ahead over a long period of time, for months and in some cases years ahead. Men may want their goods delivered at some far distant portion of the world and will ask: "Will you deliver such and such"- it may be telegraph poles, for instance, which have to be wintered or summered six months -"eighteen months from now?" Or a man may want fish or paper delivered in a certain place at a certain time and he often wants to make a contract for a long period ahead. A hundred instances might be given of these contracts arising to facilitate any form of marketing. But when this bill is passed they would hesitate to involve themselves in contracts because of the many penalties that may be involved. For instance, a ship pays a heavy demurrage each day that it is detained, and when men do not know under what obligations they may be under to some board when the particular time arrives, they will hesitate to make a contract. Take the case of a contract for flour to be shipped perhaps eighteen months or more ahead. ' The only answer the minister gave to my remarks the other day was this. He said:
I feel that all local boards will be anxious to facilitate all contracts rather than to break them.
But it is not a question of local boards wanting to facilitate contracts. Here are contracts in existence. When the boards come into existence, are they going to take no notice whatever of those contracts?
Let me show what they did in Britain. This is a parallel case because, of course, the same situation exists there. I refer hon. gentlemen to page 263 of the British Marketing Act, 1930-31, containing eight separate subsections. I cannot read them all, but section 8 provides carefully and clearly how all these contracts are to be taken care of. A man is not to be liable to a penalty for contravention of a scheme if what he does is in pursuance of a contract. I quite accord to the minister a desire to promote trade and commerce in Canada but I cannot understand how he can leave out such an obvious thing as that.
Again, no man knows better than the Minister of Justice how involved this is with the question of treaties. We certainly have over a score of treaties with other countries. Here is what the British act says. Section 3, which appears on page 475 of the 1933 act reads:
In deciding whether to make an order under this section-
That is the section where you have regulated importations of agricultural products-
-and in settling the terms of any such order, the boat'd of trade shall, among other considerations, have regard to the interests of consumers of the product to which the order relates (including persons who purchase that product for the purpose of subjecting it to any treatment or process of manufacture) -
We have taken no notice of that.
-and to the effect which the regulation of the importation of that product into the United Kingdom is likely to have upon commercial relations between the United Kingdom and other countries; and the board shall not make such an order unless they are satisfied that it is not at variance with any treaty, convention or agreement for the time being in force between His Majesty and any foreign power or between His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom and the government of any other country.
Obviously that includes any other British country. When we consider our trade relations with 'Great Britain under what we call the empire agreements and our trade relations with Africa, Australia and so on we should have regard to this matter. However, we seem to be going at this bill, so to speak, wide open. It is just like a horse that has run away with its rider; it takes everything in its course until it comes a smash. There is no regard or provision for these two important questions, treaties and contracts. The minister is reported as saying that in drawing up this bill he had in mind that it should be sound, simple and practicable. I leave it
32GS
Marketing Act

to the committee and I think we can leave it to the country as well to decide as to whether this bill is sound, simple or practicable.


Hugh Guthrie: My right hon. friend has
stated that this measure is a negation of parliamentary practice and likewise of the principles of responsible government. As far as responsible government and parliamentary practice is concerned I think the outstanding model for this parliament is the practice of the parliament of the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. friend realize that chapter 31 of the Regulation Act passed in 1933 by the British House of Commons provides:
Subject to the provisions of this section, the Board of Trade, after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and with the secretaries of state concerned with agriculture in Scotland and northern Ireland respectively, may make an order regulating the importation into the United Kingdom of any such agricultural product as may be specified in the order, if it appears to the board after such consultation as aforesaid-
That so and so has happened. What about the power of parliament in regard to trade as practised in the British parliament? What about the negation of the principles of responsible government? Our British model has done likewise. What about the charge of infringement upon the right of taxation by interfering with imports upon which taxes are raised? The parliament of the United Kingdom has passed an act authorizing the Board of Trade to do the very thing which we propose under section 12 of this bill. It will be said that the powers of the British parliament are plenary while in Canada our powers are governed by the provision of the British North America Act. I submit that under that act this proposal is constitutional in every respect, but so far as the charge that we are abrogating the principles of responsible government is concerned, I say we are following the British model adopted by the British parliament in 1933. So far as the criticism that we are infringing on the right of the House of Commons and the Senate in regard to taxation on imports is concerned, I say that the parliament of Great Britain is doing the same thing. It has authorized the Board of Trade to do what ordinarily would be done by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The British act has been our model in preparing this legislation, but we cannot go as far as the British act goes in every respect. We have followed the example of the British parliament so far as parliamentary
[Mr. Neill.)
practice and so far as the principles of responsible government are concerned, and we have kept within our constitutional rights under the British North America Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) read the section but he carefully avoided saying anything about its main provision which is that what is therein set forth shall be subject to the provisions of that act. If the Minister of Justice will read the provisions of the act he will find that the parliament of Great Britain has taken good care to protect its rights in many particulars.


Hugh Guthrie: I fail to find it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No such clause can be found as this section.


Hugh Guthrie: To what clause does my right hon. friend refer?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To section 12. It does not say "subject to the provisions of this act," it reads as follows:
(1)	The governor in council may, by order or regulation published in the Canada Gazette, restrict the importation into Canada of any natural product which enters Canada in competition with a regulated product, and the governor in council shall have power to make regulations to provide for the licensing by the minister of importers, or otherwise to enforce any order made hereunder.
(2)	The governor in council may, by order or regulation published in the Canada Gazette,-
(a)	provide that any natural product shall not be exported from Canada without a licence;
(b)	prescribe the forms of such licences, the terms and conditions thereof and the persons who shall have authority to issue the same;
(c)	impose penalities for breach of any such order or regulation or of any licence issued thereunder, and generally, make such provisions or authorize the doing of such acts or things as may in his discretion be deemed necessary or expedient for giving full effect to any orders, regulations or licences made or issued hereunder.
That is all that is to be found in that section. There is no qualifying or limiting of the conditions. Absolute power is given to the governor in council, and it is power in no way subject to any provisions elsewhere in the act or to any provisions of any other act. This parliament simply declares that the governor in council is to have the power to restrict trade, both import and export. More than that, the governor in council is to have the power to issue licenses and to tell any man, whether he be an importer or an exporter, that he cannot carry on his occupation without a licence issued in accordance with

Marketing Act
the terms laid down by the governor in council. I say that you cannot find a parallel to that in any legislation in any part of the world, except in those countries which have abandoned parliamentary institutions altogether and have gone in for dictatorships, whereby ah authority which corresponds to that which the governor in council in this country is rapidly becoming makes the law and everybody is obliged to follow it without representatives of the people having any say one way or the other. That is the position to which we are being reduced in this parliament, and the Minister of Justice cannot deny that. I say that this parliament has no right to enact and it ought to decline completely to countenance any measure which will remove from parliament and transfer to the governor in council, local boards, general boards or any other body the control over trade and commerce and all matters relating to tariffs and the taxation incidental thereto. That is what we are doing under this section as it stands. This section does not follow any model deserving of imitation, it is laying down a procedure which would not be countenanced for one minute in the British House of Commons.


Hugh Guthrie: The British act does not say "subject to the provisions of this act."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend read it.


Hugh Guthrie: Pardon me, I did not. What I said was "subject to the provisions of this section," that is, section 1. There is no provision in that section which refers in any way to the powers of parliament or gives parliament any power or control. That section places the whole control with regard to regulated imports in the hands of the Board of Trade.


Alan Webster Neill: After reference to the agriculture supply committee and two ministers.


Hugh Guthrie: The Board of Trade is not parliament, and I am talking about the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The British act divests absolutely the House of Commons and the House of Lords of any control and places the control with regard to certain imports in the hands of the Board of Trade.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certain imports-what imports?


Hugh Guthrie: Certain regulated imports. Under this act we have placed the power in the hands of the governor in council on the advice of the minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In connection with any and all imports and exports.


Charles A. Stewart: The objection I take to the section is along another line than that suggested by my leader. This is just the finish of a number of acts of this government by which they have usurped the power of parliament. It is probably the most flagrant attempted yet, but they are improving. They started in first of all, under the guise of an effort to meet the serious conditions in the country, by taking authority under "peace, order and good government" to spend the public money without designating any particular sum. I have never heard of the British House of Commons doing that; in that respect this government excels the British parliament. This government has led the way. Now I do not know why hon. gentlemen opposite require this section. The Minister of National Revenue has the power, wrested from this parliament, to impose almost any taxation he sees fit in restricting imports. He cannot do much with exports, so that may explain section 12. He can however interfere in a very definite way with imports. I do not see why you need any reference to imports here at all. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has raised the question as to what will be done with the treaties. I was wondering when the minister was discussing this section what he would do about Australian wool, which is more or less under an agreement. It is a natural product that comes into Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: We will respect our treaty obligations.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, you will. I should not think it would be necessary.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps not for you, but for us it is. '


Charles A. Stewart: If the Minister of Justice will look at some of the orders put through he will find that the government does not respect its treaty obligations.


Mr. POWER:: What about the tariff board?


Charles A. Stewart: They have no treaty with the tariff board. The minister, I say, may impose any duty he sees fit under the regulations and provisions which he will enforce, so I do not think you need to be alarmed about imports. It may be true that they want to do something about exports and will regulate the entire trade of the country, under the control of this government. However, I am not very much alarmed about
Marketing Act

it because I think the time is coming rapidly when the government will not be regulating anything, and I do not think it can come too quickly. Before the country is absolutely ruined I hope that something will happen to regulate this government to the place where they belong-I should not care to say where, because I do not wish them any warm reception. I do say however that if section 9 might be required-and I cannot conceive under what circumstances it will be required-section 12 is an abortion; it is not required at all, and you can operate without it. All that is required is simply to delegate the matter to that minister who is already doing his best to prevent imports from coming into the country. And as to exports, they will take care of themselves; no one will buy from us because we do not buy from them. That is the unhappy position in which Canada finds herself. I am not going into that now, but I will take half an hour some day and try to put on Hansard a record of some of the things that have happened to us under this department in connection with our trade. So far as I am concerned I propose to vote against this particular section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to place on record the position to which the trade of this country has fallen under the restrictions already imposed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wonder that hon. gentlemen opposite groan because they know only too well what is coming. With regard to total imports and exports, under the liberal administration the total import and export trade of Canada in 1928-29, the year before we went out of office, amounted to $2,360,000,000. Under the present government, in the last fiscal year, 1933-34, the total trade had fallen to $886,000,000, or a fall of 60 per cent.


Mr. SULLIVAN:: What about the total world trade?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend may give that. It will be found that so far as Canada is concerned world trade has been sacrificed to trade within the empire, and that without a considerable increase in empire trade. That is why I deem it necessary to protest as strongly as possible at this time, when it is known that the policy of the present administration is one of furthering inter-imperial trade at the expense of world trade. I must protest strongly against giving this administration further power to restrict the world trade of this country as is here

proposed by giving the governor in council if they so desire, the power to oblige every importer and exporter to secure a licence before he may import or export, or failing so to do, to be subject to a penalty.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has at hand the information I have requested in regard to the decrease in home consumption.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the settlers who have been suffering in these hard times that hon. gentlemen opposite merely laugh when I speak of the miseiy of the people. I will tell the farmers of this country everywhere- everywhere I speak, in any province-that when I mentioned the decrease in home consumption of farm products many hon. members on the government side sneered at me. I will tell them that every time we plead their cause in the House of Commons there are gentlemen on the other side, supporters of this government, who laugh at us.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why don't you ask
Taschereau?


An hon. MEMBER:: Or Eddie Cantor.
Mr. POULIOT-:	Rubinoff. May I ask the
minister whether he has those figures?


Robert Weir: I regret very much that we have not that information completed. We are particularly anxious to go into it in detail so that the hon. gentleman will have the advantage of all possible information in connection with the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister has no excuse for an answer of that sort. I wonder whether it is because, when I rose on a former occasion to ask that very question, the Prime Minister told him not to give it. Is that why he has not already given me that information? The hon. gentleman has no excuse for not having that information. If he has it there is no reason why it should not be given to the house. I ask for it not for myself but on behalf of the farmers of the country. They are entitled to the information and I hope the minister will get it. If he does not produce it it means that he pleads guilty in answer to the figures that have already been put on record in this house and which will be used on every occasion. I do not wish to be unpleasant to the hon. gentleman; I am as lenient as anyone can be. But I have a right as a member to have complete information from the minister on these important matters. Why have we a staff in the department if they are all dumb and cannot

Marketing Act
answer questions which the minister asks them on behalf of the member for Temiscouata? He asked those questions on behalf of his electors, on behalf of the farmers throughout his constituency. We have a right to know why there has been such a decrease in the home consumption of farm products. How did this happen? How is it that the Canadian people are eating less than formerly? Is it because they have no money to buy anything? Is it because they have less purchasing power on account of the decline in exports due to the tariff walls that the government have erected around this country? It is most important for us to have that information and to have it now. If we do not have it now, it is because the minister refuses to inform the committee as to the terrific consequences of the policies of the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: If any more members
make jokes like that when I am speaking about the distress of the farmer, it will be my duty, although it is repugnant to me, to name them in order that it may be on record that this and that member on the government side have laughed at the misery of the farmers who are at present unable to sell their products.
May I ask this question of the Minister of Agriculture, for the last time and in all earnestness, on behalf of those whom he represents in the cabinet, on behalf of the humble farmer who lives far out in the wilderness, on behalf of that formerly prosperous farmer who has also become humble and poor on account of the policies put into force by the government, and also on behalf of the poor unemployed who may live in Halifax or other cities and who have no money with which to buy apples, cheese, wheat flour, honey or any other delicacies? Why do they have less money? Why are they unemployed? For the full information of the committee and in order to bring back confidence from the comer where she has been hiding herself for such a long time, may I ask the minister kindly to tell us what steps the government have taken in order to put a stop to the decrease in the home consumption of farm products? The minister is apparently in a good mood to-day. The bill has advanced; we are now at clause 12 and we are nearing the end of our study of the bill. The committee will be rising in a few minutes; these are the last clauses. If the figures for which I have been asking are given to the committee, it will be possible for me to ask additional questions to complete the small amount of information which will be given to me by the minister. May I for the last time ask him in all fairness, in all sincerity, in all kindliness, to reconsider his decision and to show that he will be able to administer the legislation. At the head of such an organization is needed a man of ability, of decision, a man who knows his business and who is prepared to have his orders respected, not a man who tolerates that his staff shall answer him when it pleases them. The man who is needed is one who has authority as 'head of his department, a man who is listened' to and obeyed. Therefore I ask the Minister of Agriculture, who is surely endowed with all those qualities: Why does he not show now that he is that able man; that he has authority in his department; that 'his staff listen to him and when he wants information, he gets it immediately? I am sure he has it; if he does not have it in his coat pocket, he has it in his vest pocket. Let him be kind enough to give that information to the committee for the benefit of the farmer, for the -benefit of the unemployed and for the information of the whole country.


Robert Weir: I wish again to assure the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) that there has been no desire to withhold this information from him. I am sure, if he appreciates the amount of work entailed by the questions he has put on Hansard and also the work the staff has to do apart from that, he will believe we have made every effort to bring down this information. By the middle of last week I thought we should have had it by last Friday but there were still some points it was difficult to clear up. Our whole desire has been to submit to him the best statement in answer to the questions he has put. So far as withholding the information until this, bill is passed, is concerned, the information has, so far as I can see, no bearing on the bill because this legislation has to deal with the regulation of marketing. It is not necessary for me to refer to his suggestion, which I think was almost entirely out of order, that the Prime Minister had suggested we should withhold the information from him. I am sure every hon. member realizes that the Prime Minister has too much work to do to be concerned about such matters as that.
I regret that the leader of the opposition, when he was making his statement in regard to restricted trade since 1930, did not take a little time to make the picture more complete and accurate and -to point out that in one
Marketing Act

year alone, 1929-30, while the right hon. gentleman and his party were in power, by just one act the United States restricted our exports to them to the extent of 250,000 head of cattle. That was the extent of our exports to that country in 1928-29, and by the tariff they placed against our cattle it was impossible to send any there in 1929-30.
Similarly with reference to our trade in milk, cream and butter going to the United States from the eastern part of Canada, during the right hon. gentleman's tenure of office through action taken by the United States our trade was restricted in one year to the extent of sufficient milk, cream and butter to be the equivalent of 52,000,000 pounds of cheese. That was the restriction of trade that took place before this party came into power. One could deal at length with restrictions in trade caused by action taken by other countries in regard to our wheat, but I feel that the facts have been put on record so often it would be a waste of time to deal longer with them.
One more point. There are some twenty-five or more countries at the present time that restrict their trade on the basis of quotas. We are living in a real world, and have to act accordingly. If, for example, the United Kingdom should decide to-morrow that we should not ship there in one year more than 20.000 head of cattle, how are we to deal with such a situation unless we have powers? That would be beyond the control of this government. The same thing might take place with any one of the twenty-five or more countries that have placed restrictions on imports. Everything would be haphazard if we had not power to restrict exports in dealing with countries that have imposed quotas. If the restriction that I have suggested were imposed by the British government as to live stock, what would be the effect? Every cattle exporter would try to ship every head of cattle he could at the earliest possible time, thereby tending to lower the price, and the result would certainly be injurious to our live stock industry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Should the
governor in council decide to require licences of importers and exporters of certain commodities under this section, would any importer or exporter who carried on business without a licence be liable to fine or imprisonment?


Robert Weir: If that were one of the regulations he certainly would be liable to penalties under the act, otherwise it would be ineffective.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there any provision in the bill which would give importers in those circumstances a right of appeal to any body, to show cause why they should be granted a licence where one was refused them? I can see none in the bill. As it appears to me, what the government does is to say who are to get licences. They are evidently to appoint an army of officials to distribute licences, but there is no provision made for appeal by a man who may feel that his livelihood is being taken from him simply for having no licence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I want to hear from the minister on that.


Robert Weir: I feel that no answer to that is necessary. Any importer could appeal to the governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister says that no answer is necessary. There is no answer possible that I can see in defence of that. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been taking refuge behind the assertion that there is to be due process of law before a man is put into gaol or fined for violation of the act. I am drawing attention to the fact that a man may 'be ruined in his business before any question of law comes up for consideration, simply because he knows he will be liable to fine or imprisonment unless he has a licence. Yet there is no provision in the act for appeal by any importer or exporter who has been denied such licence. I say that simply exposes a man to the risk of complete ruin at the instance of an arbitrary ministry. The ministry has arbitrary power to grant these licences, which can be done only through the creation of a bureaucracy which will operate through the power of fine and imprisonment. Surely that kind of thing is not going to help orderly marketing in this hitherto free dominion so far as production and trade are concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Before it carries-I assume it is going to carry-I should like to ask the minister what he has particularly in mind in connection with this section. He did mention something about the cattle industry. I have in mind the beet sugar industry. Only fourteen per cent of the raw material used is grown in Canada. Would that be the kind of import he has in mind in connection with this section? I know that great expectations have been aroused on the part of many interested. What had he in mind in that regard?

Marketing Act


Robert Weir: That might be dealt with under this section if sugar were a regulated product.


Mr. RINFRET:: Before this clause carries- and personally I hope it will not-I wish again to register my protest against this bill. I choose this clause as the occasion for my observations because I think it is one of the worst features of the bill. When we were dealing with the short title we expressed the hope that the government might bring down amendments that would improve this measure. They have brought down a series of amendments which may have improved it in certain particulars, but I think the sections we have been considering to-night, especially 9 and 10 and this one, are very bad indeed. A short time ago there was an interesting but perhaps too short debate on the constitutional aspect of this question. It has been contended that the regulation of trade and commerce belongs to parliament and that by this section there is an abandonment of that regulation. To, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) replied that if parliament has this power it has also the right to delegate it. I shall not discuss the technical point involved, but whether that is right technically or not it is certainly against the very spirit of the pact of confederation so to do.
Let us see how that will apply to another matter. Suppose when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget, instead of saying: We shall reduce the tariff on this item and increase it on another, and have special taxation of so much per cent, he should instead merely do as is done in this bill and say: We claim from the house the power to increase or reduce the taxes on any item we please during the year, without specifying the government's intention in the matter; that would certainly be contrary to the principles of confederation and responsible government. But what is not being done in the budget because it would arouse the whole country is to be done by this bill.
I know many importers in Montreal who are exceedingly disquieted by this bill. This section says that the governor in council may, by order or regulation, restrict the importation into Canada of any natural product. We saw a few evenings ago that natural products as dealt with in this bill mean practically everything produced in the country. The bill provides that the governor in council may make regulations for the licensing by the minister of importers. Now here is a man who has established a business in Montreal
or elsewhere-perhaps it has been in existence for many years, having been handed on from father to son-dealing with the importation of goods into this country. Import trade has met with great difficulties during recent years, as everyone knows. There have been wide fluctuations in the exchange values of moneys between different countries, and changes in the customs law which have been exceedingly complex and sometimes different between one office and another. By this bill an importer is threatened with the possibility that one day he may find in his mail a letter informing him that the governor in council, which means the government confronting us now, has decided that he is no longer to carry on his business, for some reason concerning regulation of marketing of the product, but that his competitor is to be given a licence to continue. Mind you, if he does not at once accept that impossible situation he is liable to be gaoled. A moment ago there was a discussion as to whether this act is similar to the one that has been passed in Great Britain. I think this difference has been made clear, that in Great Britain there is no pact of confederation, and that the Board of Trade is practically part of the government. But I will go further and say that if this has been done in Great Britain it is just as wrong as it is in Canada; that is my point of view. This government has not the right to inform an importer that because a board wants to market a product in a certain way he may not carry on his business. The government has not the right to do that, and parliament should not give the government that right.
I may express the hope now that this clause will not carry. This is one section that should have been amended. Here we have a long list of amendments; it has become the practice of this government to present a bill and then, a few days later, to present another in the form of amendments entirely changing the original measure. That has made very difficult the discussion by members of the opposition of any measure that has been brought down by this government. The principle is clear in this case, however; no amendment has been proposed. Here we have section 12, by which the government claims the right to restrict importations and to inform any importer that he must shut up his business. If he does not do so he may be put in gaol. I protest very strongly; I repeat that whether this is done in England, in Russia, in Germany or in Italy, it is wrong, and representing in a Canadian parliament a part of the Canadian people who
Marketing Act

are anxious to enjoy freedom of trade I do protest as vigorously as possible against the adoption of any such section by this parliament.


Mr. RALSTON:: If this clause has any
virtue at all, Mr. Chairman, its only virtue is the effrontery and brazenness with which it puts on record the fact that parliament is going to surrender its power over trade and commerce in this country. I submit to you, sir, that the more one reads the section the more one is convinced that the government cannot have considered its effect before bringing down this measure.
In the first place, imports are restricted so far as they interfere with the marketing of regulated products, but the power to restrict exports is not limited to products which are regulated; lit is confined only to natural products. That is to say, the export of any product in this country, whether or not it is the subject of a scheme, can be regulated by the governor in council by means of a licence. I submit, as has been submitted by others, that this is not ,the sort of legislation to which this parliament should readily assent. I recall that under section 3 (e) of the N.R.A. in the United States provision is made for certain restrictions by the president with regard to the importation of products which are the subject of codes under that act, but even there the president is not given power to limit the importation of the products which are the subject of codes unless there has been first a reference to and hearing by the tariff commission with opportunity given those who are importers to present their case. As I recall it, there is provision for thirty days' notice as well. Where is the tariff board in this country? Two years ago the government passed the Tariff Board Act, and I understood that act was passed for the purpose of giving importers-and I suppose under this act it might apply to exporters as well-an opportunity of appearing and presenting their case, showing how the proposed regulations might affect them. The tariff board has been constituted, but there is no provision whatever here for any appearance 'before the tariff board by anyone interested. The governor in council may sit in the east block and make a regulation limiting the export, and may put an embargo on the importation, of any product which is the subject of a scheme. On the other hand they may sit there and require a licence for the export of any natural product, whether or not it is the subject of a scheme.
I submit that one cannot protest too vigorously in the name of the importers and exfMr. Rinfret.l
porters of this country, and those interested in international trade, against this wide and, as I said before, brazen attempt to withdraw from parliament and from the representatives of the people the right to regulate trade and commerce.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is not carried, and I may as well tell hon. gentlemen opposite that with but five minutes to adjournment it is not going to be carried tonight. If the minister wishes to move that the committee rise and report progress, well and good, but this section is not going to be adopted, without further discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing added to the discussion by describing statutes as brazen, nor is anything added by threats. It is nothing new to limit exports.


Edward James Young: We did that in the fall of 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For years the customs act has provided that there may be an embargo against human food under certain contingencies, but the power of delegation was settled by the privy council in the Apollo Candle Company vs. Powell case, in which the power to exercise a discretion by the equivalent of a minister of customs in Australia met with the very same argument that this house has listened to for hours to-night. It was said that this was delegating to somebody else power which the statute conferred upon parliament, and the privy council said-as one would expect, and as has been accepted ever since-* that it is competent for parliament to delegate its power to any official that may be named for the purpose of giving effect to the will of parliament, whatever it may be.


James Layton Ralston: That is a question of policy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a question of policy; it is a question of law, as to whether the power can be legally delegated. The question of policy is as to the product to which it shall apply. The question of law is whether, under the constitution, it did or did not apply, and the courts held that the power was there, that it was inherent in tho exercise of the functions of government. The long argument that has taken place to-night about substituting somebody for parliament has been

Construction Camps
long since abandoned and forgotten. It is so old that I am surprised at its being dragged out here at this time.
That principle has been acted upon by governments in this country; it was acted upon by the government of the right hon. leader of the opposition. The question of the principle is not measured by the size of the commodity with which it deals. I have not interposed in this debate; I do not desire to do so, but the other evening I listened to a very long and tedious argument with regard to the question of taking money out of the unappropriated consolidated fund. Just for the amusement of it I looked at section 7 of the Old Age Pensions Act, and that section provides that all the money this country pays for old age pensions shall be paid out of the unappropriated consolidated fund. That act was passed by the government of my right hon. friend. So, you see, the question of a principle is not measured by the number of commodities that it affects or the extent of its application; the question is whether or not the principle is legal and sound, and all the extravagant language that has been used does not detract from the fact that every principle contained in this bill has run the gamut of the courts and has been established by decisions of the court of last resort in this empire, the privy council.


James Layton Ralston: The courts have not
decided it to be good policy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of the
application of the principle has been decided. Whether or not that principle should be applied to given commodities is a matter for the government of the day to submit to the house, and the government of the day has submitted it. The principle is settled. I say once more to this committee that from the first paragraph of this bill to the last there is not a single principle that has not run the gamut of the courts and been determined by the court of last resort to be a valid exercise of the federal power.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Has parliament nothing to say about it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly; the question of the commodities to which it refers; the question of the submission by the government of its policy within those principles is covered by the statute submitted.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 22, 1934